A Matter of Honor (January 16, 2002)
Unemployment (April 15, 2002)
A Bit of Nostalgia (April 28, 2002)
Brilliant Legislators (April 29, 2002)
Rainbow Warrior (May 22, 2002)
Heavy Metal--Delectable, or Devilry? (June 6, 2002)
Pledge of Allegiance (June 26, 2002)
No Less Americans (June 29, 2002)
On Nationalism (July 3, 2002)
Star Trek Rant (December 13, 2002)
Security and Liberty (December 23, 2002)
Bill of Rights (January 8, 2003)
Blackout 2003 (August 20, 2003)
Cultural Differences (August 23, 2003)

"If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but I do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. For we know partially and we prophesy partially, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put away childish things. At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known. So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

I am a devout Roman Catholic. And I am in love with a Wiccan. I say this without shame, but not without some measure of fear. I have received many different reactions to my involvement in this relationship, from joy, to mild skepticism, to frowning disapproval, to outright hostility. The arguments for the latter opinions range from such mild remarks as "you met her on the Internet, it cannot be healthy," and "you are too different, it'll never work" to things like "Wiccans are evil" and "I can't believe you'd ever do something like this." It isn't merely my fellow Catholics who have shown their disapproval, for I know some Catholics as loyal as myself who show me nothing but love and understanding, and some people of little or no religious faith who look upon my relationship with only the harshest criticism. I have only one reaction to this, and several arguments to back up my own feelings. I love my girlfriend Jennifer. Yes, indeed, we are very different in our faiths; if I were to think otherwise I would be both a fool and a dishonorable disgrace of a man. I respect my girlfriend's beliefs utterly. How could I do anything less?

First of all, let me explain that my girlfriend is not a "witch," in the all too prevalent fairy-tale use of the term. She is not a worshipper of Satan, which is a conclusion that many people arrive at immediately upon hearing the term "Wiccan." She does not practice black magic, and nor does she cast "spells" on people to influence or harm them. Such things are real and do exist, and the practitioners of them are indeed evil. But one would not generally equate being a Buddhist with being a Satanist. It is no less a mistake to equate Wiccans with being Satanists.

I also know that there are many challenges that interfaith couples face. In acknowledging this, I can work as hard as is possible to overcome the difficulties that will arise for us. I must say, as well, that I genuinely do appreciate the concern for my well being.

And yet, knowing that it is inevitable that arguments and disapproval will arise, I am prepared to offer my own arguments. I am not by nature an argumentative man; indeed, I am a professed pacifist. Wars of any kind hold a particularly low place on the spectrum of activities that I consider worthwhile, and this includes warring with my fellow man over issues of faith. However, I am also an honorable man, and in claiming to be such I am bound to defend those whom I love, even at greatest cost to myself. And so shall follow my own arguments.

As a Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church, I am of course convinced entirely of the correctness of my own beliefs. There is one God and one God alone, the creator of all that is and all that ever was and ever shall be. The First Commandment states, "I, the Lord, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. You shall not have other gods beside me." (Exodus 20: 2-3) I will always be willing and happy to state unequivocally that this is what I believe. But this does not mean that I reject out of hand every other belief with which I am presented, and nor does it mean that I treat those whose beliefs differ from my own with any measure of hate.

Christ instructs us not to judge others, and yet we do. We do not even listen to the beliefs of others. How are we to witness what we believe to be Truth if we do not do so with respect and understanding? Kindness and gentleness have won more souls to Christ than the bloody swords of death. Love has shown more people the Truth than hate, peace more than war, creation more than destruction. When God sent His Son to perish at the hands of man like a slave, His hands and feet nailed brutally to a cross, how did He die? With sword in hand, striking out to slay his opponents before the final hour? With curses and condemnations, invoking God to send lightning and thunder against his infidel murderers? No, He did not. Christ died with love and a prayer on his lips, asking the Father to forgive those who crucified Him.

It does not involve the compromising of our own beliefs to be respectful of others. "Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you." (Matthew 7: 1-2) If Jesus died for the sins of all, to save humanity, did He not do this out of supreme love? And if so, what right do we have to give hate in return? For the ways in which we treat our neighbors are the ways in which we treat Christ. This does not mean we do not witness to the Truth. It does not mean that we do not share the Gospel which has been given us, or the love that God has showered upon us. It does not even mean that we do not without fear or shame state that our own beliefs are absolutely the one and whole of Truth.

Continuing that line of thought, there is support for having nothing but respect for the beliefs of others.

In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 28 § 1

In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together, and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the Church examines more closely he relationship to non- Christian religions. In her task of promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made the whole human race to live over the face of the earth. One also is their final goal, God. His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men, until that time when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light.

Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man? What is the meaning, the aim of our life? What is moral good, what sin? Whence suffering and what purpose does it serve? Which is the road to true happiness? What are death, judgment and retribution after death? What, finally, is that ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence: whence do we come, and where are we going?

From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

Second Vatican Council
Nostra Aetate
Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
October 28, 1965
Articles 1 and 2

...We may ask ourselves: what is the basis, the common platform for a meeting of Christians with followers of non-Christian religions? On what framework is the multiple relationship of dialogue built up, beyond the divergences of doctrine and religious practice? We can say simply: all that is human, authentically human, all that germinates from the soil of creation, fertilized by light and divine grace; all that the genius of peoples develop and in which the light of the Word is reflected: this is the subject of "dialogue", the basis of encounter, the objective bond of brotherhood. And since every value finds its measure in man, created in the image and likeness of God, it is natural for the Christian to take as the meeting-point man, and more exactly, to use an almost technical expression, homo religiosus.

His Eminence Paolo Cardinal Marella
Pontifical Urbanian University, Inaugural Lecture for the 1968-1969 Academic Year
Nature, Presuppositions, and Limits of the Dialogue With Non-Christians
Part II

In conclusion, let me say this: I love my girlfriend. I respect her, though she is different from me. I strive for understanding, without compromising my own convictions. I do not fight, I do not war, and I do not argue. Yet I defend.

Back to Top

I'm not angry at anyone in particular, this morning, I'm just mad at the world in general. Suffice it to say I woke up on the wrong side of the couch and that feeling hasn't quite made its way out of the system yet. It's just not a good morning. I am so bloody sick and tired of having to tell my friends and family here at home that I still don't have a job, another application came to nothing, I am still on unemployment. They all, almost to the last one, think I'm lazy and don't try hard enough. I'm so very weary of being seen that way.

I think it must be easy for people who have steady jobs and long histories of steady jobs to look at me and say "he's just lazy." At least it feels that way today. You know why I quit at Dillons? And yes I did bloody quit I wasn't laid off. Because unlike everyone else in the damned State of Kansas I did not learn to drive when I was 16 and therefore I rely on public transportation, which Dillons knew when they hired me. When we could no longer afford $480 a month for rent we had to move to the cheapest possible place...which just happened to be four miles away, and my Dillons was on the notoriuosly bad Rock Road Shuttle bus route. But still they scheduled me as if I could walk to work! Sometimes I'd have to come in at 6:30 in the morning, an hour before the first Rock Road bus started running, and sometimes I'd have to stay till midnight, six hours after the last one quit for the day. Three times in writing I requested the change in availability, but all to no avail. Maybe I should have stayed until I found another job, but I couldn't afford a cab at $8.00 per ride every day, sometimes both ways, sometimes one way, and I couldn't keep asking people for rides at odd hours of the day or night. On the good days when I could actually take the bus both ways I had to stand in the bloody 105+ degree heat of summer waiting for the damned busses because Rock Road runs at odd times compared with the routes that connect downtown, which wasn't good for the asthma.

And that's another thing, you know. Everyone likely thinks I had a grand old time in the hospital, strapped to a tank of oxygen. I'm sure they think the month I spent in recovery, when I could barely walk to the bathroom without getting winded, was just peachy too. I know as a fact my bloody manager thought that, with his "I have assistant managers with asthma and they do fine!" I was always just a lazy bastard in his eyes.

No matter that I worked as hard as I could. Do you think people liked staying until midnight? I did, one reason I was so apt to do it joyfully when I could still walk to work. I never complained about going to get carts, be it 110 degrees or -5. You know, I was never late once, despite the health issues and later transportation problems. I never got in trouble for goofing off and screwing around, as most of the teenage sackers did sooner or later. I know as a fact that the customers liked me. Because they told me so. There were many days I was sick enough to stay home that I went anyway...and several times on those days I ended up having to go home anyway because I couldn't breathe.

But all they saw was a lazy punk, and all my family and friends hear is the words "I quit my job."

I hate to think I sound bitter, but I realize that I probably do. I have a job interview to go to this morning (there's not a set time, I could go anytime today in fact) and I'm bloody scared to death. I'm tired of getting rejected, and I really don't care if that is a childish or immature attitude. If I took any 20-hour a week minimum wage job I'd be making more than I am on unemployment. If it wasn't for Meghan's federal student aid which has come, we'd have probably been evicted two months ago.

I'm trying. It's rather hard to find a job here at the moment when:

A.) There are at least 15,000 other people in this city who have been laid off in the last 6 months
B.) I have very little job experience
C.) My health is a neverending recurrent hassle
D.) I don't drive and probably never will now because of my eyes
E.) Businesses simply are not hiring. At least for things I am physically able to do.

But does anyone care? Oh sure, they encourage me to "keep trying" as if I won't without some sort of prodding. As if I like staying home all day like a lazy ass enslaved to the telephone, waiting to see if any job calls and wanting to go out looking. I've put six applications in over the past 5 days. We'll see if any turn out, starting today.

And about becoming a priest...I know some people think I consider it because it's "an easy way out." People have told me that to my face. Being a priest is many things, but I must say I've never heard any priest tell me it's easy. It's not like I'm choosing between working at McDonald's and Wendy's. This is a decision that, once made and fully acted upon, cannot be reversed. I've felt pulled in this direction since I was 13 years old. That's ten years, long before I ever thought about getting a job or going to college. Sure, sometimes it's in the very back of my mind lurking silently, and sometimes it blazes to the fore with mighty zeal. But it's always there. Through all my teen years, and starting college, and all the events of the past two years, and even (I must admit) through my first relationship with a girlfriend, it's there, whispering.

"No. You'll get married. Don't worry, it'll happen." Which always seems like I am supposed to feel that becoming a priest is wrong or unnatural, somehow, that I only think of it because I don't have a romantic relationship with anyone. Even Meghan says this, even her. No, it's definitely not the life for everyone. But chastity and the various professions that entail it are choices and lifestyles as honorable and rewarding as any other, and I'll fight to keep believing that until I draw my last breath.

People have said, "wait until you've seen more of life. Have a few more girlfriends first, go party, act wild a couple of times at least before you throw it all away. It's not for you, you'll get married and have children, oh Patrick you'll be a great daddy! Don't you want little ones?"

Yes. I do. I want to hold a son in my arms, and bounce a daughter on my knee. I want a wife I can love. I want a house that I actually own, and financial stability, and a college degree, and a steady boring job that I go to day in, day out, only to come home to my loving wonderful family. Cooking out on Saturday afternoons, and going to Mass on Sunday mornings, picnics with my wife's family, and my children's baseball games or piano recitals or whatever else they might like to do. That life has such appeal that I almost cannot express it in words.

I have dreams too, despite being a weak and sick lazy little bastard.

But I also want to be a priest. I've wanted it for ten years. And I don't just want it, I feel it, feel the pull and the call. Whatever has happened in my life over these past ten years, it's always there, it never goes away, and I cannot simply ignore it. That life also has appeal, different of course, but just as strong.

I'll just shut up now, and get in the shower

Back to Top

After a long and tiring yet fulfilling day helping my Knights of Columbus Council host a major degree initiation, getting home, looking at the time, realizing the clock in your ride's car wasn't merely several hours off and it really is 6:30pm and you'd been at church for ten and a half hours. I swear I thought it was like 2:00pm.

All told, registration, lunch, dinner, the three Degree ceremonies, and cleanup took over eight hours. Sheesh. When I took the major degree (and I did it in the same way) back in September it only took about 5 for everything, if I recall correctly. Fried chicken sure was good though! Luckily me and Paul (our council's Warden) are longtime members of Blessed Sacrament Parish (where it was held) and between us knew where everything was, which is helpful when you need, say, a pitcher for water or extra chairs. Of course, a large percentage of our Council is from Blessed Sacrament. I wonder where they all were today....

Anyway, on to the ramble. I just woke up from a long nap, so please forgive me if this turns out to be totally incoherent. We held our ceremonies in the old gymnasium at Blessed Sacrament School. I had not set foot in the school since I left (under admittedly rather bad circumstances) near the end of 4th grade. Many changes are happening at my parish, physically at least. You see, the school is going through a major expansion that, by fall (let's hope) will include a new and full-size gymnasium with all the assorted athletic facilities, a new block of classrooms and administration offices, a commons area connecting the new buildings to the old, and drastically increased parking. Which has been a problem since long before I was born, and a constant source of argument and dissention with St. James Episcopal Church across the street. They've torn down three houses, the old convent, and are preparing to knock down the old rectory as well, all for parking space.

And I applaud the changes, I really do! I can remember funeral Masses where there was quite literally no parking space left, in the icy dead of winter, where you had to park sometimes a couple of blocks away. The school and old gym are nearing their 75th years and simply cannot support the current student body with existing facilities. And yes, it's cost us a lot of money and hassle what with construction and all...but it's worth it, and we've paid for it ourselves.

And yet. And yet....

Why does it make me so sad, and even more after today? When I walked into that old gymnasium this morning, it was like coming home to something I'd known and long forgotten. A lot of things have remained unchanged since I was a kid. There's still the mere two rows of bleachers on either side, the clock behind a steel grill, the signs warning against black shoes on the gym floor, and, in huge red letters, the words Blessed Sacrament over the doors.

But those bleachers look so measly. They used to seem to stretch on forever, an endless stainless steel drum just waiting for eager little fists to pound. Those red letters used to seem ten feet tall! And the windows are gone. The new gym is adjacent to the north wall, and so they bricked up the windows on that side with gray concrete blocks, and later did the south wall windows to match. And the stage.... This is the stage where we held talent shows, and school plays, and my God it is so bloody small.

It used to seem huge, so long, so tall, with those red velvet curtains and stage lights, stairs and dressing rooms, it rose so high above the floor it was almost like looking down from a mountain!

It's maybe three feet above the gym floor.

Everything looks small. And I know that it's totally natural, because I've grown up now. But you know...when I left Blessed Sacrament School in 1990 I was in, shall we say, bad emotional shape. I had few friends, no compassion from teachers or staff, and I was just miserable. I had to leave, and I did. I went to Adams Elementary School, six blocks from my house, and the first place I ever felt I was truly "part of it."

But in remembering all these things from long ago, why is it that, as I walked out of that old gymnasium this afternoon I felt such a deep longing for it to be "then?" Looking back now it all doesn't seem so bad as it did when I was 11. Looking back now I think I tend to gloss over the bad things and emphasize the good. I can remember playing Red Rover and Man From Mars, volleyball and Ice Cream n' Lemonade, all on that old gym floor.... It was long and wondrously large, to a kid, it could hold anything! I remember once during a talent show when the priests put on a little skit supposedly showing what breakfast was like at the rectory. They poured fruit punch on corn flakes and actually ate it, to the collective "ewww!" of the assembled students. In the basement of the school is the cafeteria, and in the basement of the church is Bishop's Hall (a multi-purpose room with lots of additional little classrooms and offices). Now, Bishop's Hall certainly doesn't seem so small to me. But I'm quite used to it...I go there almost every week after Sunday Mass for coffee and doughnuts, and sometimes I'm helping out. I've been to funeral dinners, Conference and Men's Club meetings, and the assembly for my own Confirmation, all down there.... So its size seems right and proper.

Anyway, there is a tunnel connecting Bishop's Hall with the school cafeteria, dug into the ground lord only knows how many years ago. When I was a kid it was just about the most interesting place in the whole school. Sloping up, and then going straight, taking a corner, and sloping down again, the walls sheathed in steel, if you screamed it echoed forever and incurred the wrath of any adults who happened to be in the vicinity. That tunnel seems so narrow now...the upward slope precipitous, almost claustrophobic in the middle, where it corners northward, almost stifling in the heaviness you can feel there, the earth above and around you.

Everything is so small and so old. This year, in September, Blessed Sacrament Parish will celebrate it's 75th anniversary. It's not the oldest in Wichita, it's not the largest, or the wealthiest, or the most diverse. St. Anthony's was built around 1900; it and the Cathedral Parish, Holy Savior, and Our Lady of Perpetual Help are mostly Vietnamese and African-American and Hispanic. St. Francis of Assisi out west is simply gigantic and has a huge congregation. St. Thomas Aquinas is by far the most well-to-do.

Our school was built in 1927, our church finished in 1951. We have about 800 families I think, heavily Irish and Polish and German. We range from terribly wealthy to impoverished.

But my God, how can everything be so small? Tennyson's lines come to mind, when he writes:

Fresh as the first beam glittering on a sail,
That brings our friends up from the underworld,
Sad as the last which reddens over one
That sinks with all we love below the verge;
So sad, so fresh, the days that are no more.

O Death in Life, the days that are no more....

Back to Top

I heard a rather odd little story on the 6 o'clock news tonight. Hesston College, a private Mennonite liberal arts college in Hesston (a town of about 3,500 people 45 miles from Wichita, I have an aunt and uncle there), has not flown the American flag outside for 32 years. Now, since KAKE channel 10 news is not exactly known (at least in my circle of family and friends) for giving the most complete coverage of their little tidbit news items, they really didn't explain why the college hasn't.

But our wonderfully astute and financially brilliant State Legislature (/sarcasm) wanted to cancel state funding for the school because it isn't flying the Stars and Stripes. The measure was defeated, and the Legislature voted to give Hesston College $500 to repair their outdoor flagpole so they can fly the flag again. *cough* Um. Okay. Now why is it that I really don't believe a well-funded private religious college hasn't flown the American flag for over three decades because the flagpole is broken? And as a parting shot the legislature threatened that if the school doesn't fly the flag when the pole is fixed, state funding still might be cut.

Am I the only one who this this is utterly absurd? I mean, for pete's sake! Now everyone knows I am a very patriotic guy. But isn't requiring that the flag be flown just a little...overbearing? I'm not aware of any rules or laws that specify such a regulation, at least for private religious institutions! Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I may not agree with the college (I think all schools should fly the flag) but nor do I agree with the Legislature.

Our federal and state governments are already bloated and bursting with laws and rules and regulations that intrude into the private lives of citizens and have the terrible consequence of eventualy taking rights away. We sure as hell do not need anymore. This is the same State Legislature that has, by its policies and laws and ineptitude, brought the State of Kansas to a $700 million debt, and is threatening to make massive cuts to education, raise taxes, and slash social programs. Not that I am any fan of a Big Government welfare state, but funding cuts leading to the firing of upwards of 180 teachers and staff in the state's largest and arguably least-successful district (Wichita, of course, with 45,000 students) is really not the best way to improve education, eh?

But my point is...the Legislature has a full of plate of things it needs to take care of, like the budget disaster, and for more reasons than one it doesn't need to waste time, effort, and money to smite a tiny little private college for not flying a flag.

Bah.

Back to Top

I suppose that was a little inflammatory, wasn't it? I'm sorry for that.... When I'm reading the news, I have a tendency to get a little agitated. The Rainbow Warrior is blockading the river port at Le Harve, France, whilst "ground forces" are there as well, all attempting to Blockade the Exxon refinery there.

What my argument with Greenpaece basically comes down to is: I don't like extremists, of any bent, on all ends of the political and moral spectrum. And I rather do not like "protests" of such nature. I hated it when the Operation Rescue people came here to Wichita in the "Summer of Mercy," which was 1992, to protest at the abortion clinics. You couldn't get away from them...idiots chained themselves to fences, screamed and yelled like savages, and got arrested by the thousands. When some fool so-called "pro-life" wacko goes off the rocker and kills a doctor, I detest it. And you know, I'm as pro-life as can possibly be.

I see the same thing in Greenpeace, in Muslim and Christian fundamentalists, militant atheists (a la China and Vietnam), the nutty anti-government "militia" types here in the US. Right, Left, it doesn't matter to me.

I'm an "environmentalist" myself. In the sense that I support responsible use of the resources God gave us. But the supposition that man is somehow nature's greatest enemy is patently insulting, in my view. Man is neither superior nor inferior to nature; man is part of nature. Yes, we've screwed up many as time; the utter decimation of the bison herds, indiscriminate whaling, and ivory poaching are good examples. And even the ancients hunted the Persian lion to extinction and chopped down the North African citrus tree to the point where all we have left are a few bowls and table veneers.

But things like the Kyoto "global warming" treaty, which the whole world seems bent on worshipping (and thinking we Americans are barbaric for not supporting it!), the International Whaling Commission's foolish holding to its position even though the whale populations of some huntable species are very much viable now, the anti-nuclear nuts who'd love nothing better than to see every plant shut down and humanity return to fires made on cave floors for energy, and of course the animal rights people, who think every single little ameoba and worm are superior to humans and their need for survival.... These things well and truly grate on my nerves. I think the way we treat this wonderful, beautiful Earth is, sometimes, just bloody awful. All you have to do is drive out to western Kansas, where you can smell the hog feedlots from miles away. Wichita is one of the worst cities in the United States when it comes to air pollution, our river is an absolute mess, and we have the most astounding tendency to build housing extensions on either contaminated groundwater or 50-year floodplains.

Yes, I support cleanup. But not the total exclusion of all this technology that modern human civilization has developed. That technology came from war, and destruction, and nuclear testing, and evil experimentation...and it also allowed me to survive. Which is why I'm writing this, twenty three years later.

Back to Top

Iron Maiden is my favorite band. Now, some may wonder why a nice Catholic boy like me got into Maiden and heavy metal. I ask, why not? The assertion of some being, of course, that somehow Maiden and other metal bands are evil, or Satanic. Now, some bands and musicians very much are actual proponents of Satanism or other nefarious practices; I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot cattle prod. I tend to be picky and discriminating with the music I like. Note that I have a particular distaste for music with graphic sexuality or foul language, and that goes for any genre. Along with that goes a shunning of music advocating Satanic practices or worship of any sort. Would I, a devout, practicing, and orthodox Roman Catholic with aspirations to the clerical life really become interesed in Satanism and the Dark Arts for any other reason than to enact their destruction? No.

Yes, the lyrics of Iron Maiden and other metal bands can be very dark, having subjects dealing with war, hate, and destruction. But these lyrics are not aimed to advocate nihilism or violence; they are a reflection of the darkness that nobody can deny exists in our world. Some would say it is better to ignore such, and concentrate on the "good stuff." Well yes, we should all put a definite emphasis on goodness and rightness. And yet, if we forget that evil exists, where does that lead? It is said that the greatest victory Satan can win is to convince man he does not exist.

If, as some would probably suggest, latter-day music should be purged of the dark themes it can sometimes exhibit, my response is that, along with Iron Maiden and Metallica, you must also go and purge Shakespeare; or would anyone consider the subject matter of Hamlet or Macbeth to be light-hearted and whimsical? War, murder, treachery, and occult practices are all part and parcel of the Bard's great tragedies. How about ancient literature? Here we see Oedipus Rex, which includes not only patricide but incest, for goodness' sake. Not all in traditional Western folklore is cheery and bright, either.

Whereas no learned and right-thinking individual would ever want Macbeth removed from high-school reading assignments, a teenager who listens to Iron Maiden might well be assailed by some as a listener of "Devil Music;" the same mindset encompasses Dungeons and Dragons, computer games, and fantasy literature in general (witness the recent row over sorcery in Harry Potter).

The general consensus among many is that heavy metal music is somehow uncultured, and utterly incomparable to the "great" literature and music of the past. I disagree. And I am by no means some illiterate fop. I am a great lover of English Literature and especially poetry, particularly from the 18th Century and early Romantic period. I have a volume of Lord Byron's verse sitting on the coffee table next to an HTML reference book and my StarCraft strategy guide. I will admit, some present-day music (of any genre) is distasteful to any with a degree of discernment; It is this which gives any kind of heavy and dark music a bad name, so to speak.

But how many of these people have ever truly investigated the message behind Iron Maiden's music? Is all they hear the loud "noise" and the words "demon," "blood," and "death?" Do they know that Two Minutes to Midnight is a song about the horrors of war? Heavy metal fans of today can be just as much against war as their parents were in the 1960s. Have they understood the story within the album Seventh Son of a Seventh Son? And if they did, could they then explain how it is any different from tales of seers, evil witches, and demons in medieval European folklore?

In my personal opinion, music that imparts a message, that exhibits the truth of this world we live upon, no matter how dark it may be, is infinitely preferable to the mindless barrrage of cute tunes and sock-hop music that is so glorified by the many who recall it fondly from their teenage years; they might do well to remember that in those days many of their parents regarded the new rock n' roll as nothing less than the influence of Satan himself. Sound familiar? When Elvis Presley gyrated his hips, some recoiled in abject horror, terrified that their teenagers were watching and listening to the vilest garbage imaginable.

(And for the record, I'm not saying I dislike this music...I listen to the local Oldies radio station regularly and I enjoy it very much.)

I'm a conservative Republican, devout Roman Catholic, and rather prudish proponent of decency and temperance. And I love Iron Maiden. Live with it.

Back to Top

Bah. In my frank and honest opinion the court is full o' crap. Why do I think this? Allow me to explain. I am pretty passionate about this, actually.

"One Nation under God." Interesting phrase, isn't it? In this day and age, many people would love us to think that this nation is is no way, shape, or form, under any sort of God at all. We're a secular society. Religion has no place in public, they will tell us. Witness the recent and continuing rows over the placing of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. According to the ACLU and PAW, it's a "violation of the separation of Church and State." Think of the Ten Commandements themselves. For the moment I will just list Commandments 5 through 10. (this is the Catholic numbering, by the way, which can slightly different from other numberings)

5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness againt thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods.

Now, why would any law-abiding citizen of whatever political mien or religious affiliation object to any of those commandments? Don't kill, don't lie, don't steal.... Or perhaps it would be better to phrase it don't commit murder, don't commit perjury, don't commit larceny. Which, boiled down to a gross oversimplification, is what the whole criminal justice system is all about. So, how are these Ten Commandments any different?

They include the first three commandments, which state:

1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. 3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day.

All of which are, of course, expressly Jewish, and from the time of the early church on, also identifiably Christian. Of course the United States Government, or the government of any State, or any foreign nation or entity for that matter, should not legislate what anyone can believe religiously. Why, the Constitution says so itself, in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof."

And yet...if you look at the Ten Commandments sans the first three and possibly the fourth, you'll see a moral and ethical code which, in one way or another, is the basis for the legal systems on which all Western political entities rely. But the fact that this code also includes three very specific religious commands automatically invalidates all ten, to many people. "It's religion, we can't have it. It's against the First Amendment."

The general argument being that, by posting such in a government setting, people who are not Christians will feel left out, put upon, and begin to think they are seen as being second-class citizens. This is a general symptom in today's so-called "multicultural" society; now, I am not saying that I think certain religions are superior to others, far from it. Yet this culture seems to reject anything that is associated with traditional Western monotheism; all religions are equal except for Christianity, it seems. Children in schools are actively encouraged to learn about Kwanzaa, or Hannukah, or the Winter Solstice, but any mention of Christmas would be "forcing the beliefs of that group on these children." I hope it doesn't seem like I am digressing. I have a point to all this, I am just passionate about it.

We all learn about the Founding Fathers, about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the American Revolution, and the other events, peoples, and ideas that led to the founding of this nation. Nowadays, of course, we always hear how George Washington et al. Were slaveowning, misogynistic land-destroying capitalists. Well boo hoo. People from the "olden days" were no more perfect than we are today, and they operated in a different time and according to differing social mores. Without them, their ideas, and their work, quite possibly there would not be a world today where you can sit and write about how people two hundred years dead hated blacks. But one other thing about the Founding Fathers: they were religious men. Oh, sure, some were Deists, and some had even less religious belief. But read the words of Thomas Jefferson (who was by no means a Christian of traditional ilk) in that celebrated document that was signed on July 4, 1776:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But back to the matter at hand. The Pledge of Allegiance. I shall examine it line for line. But let us for the moment leave out the line that is causing anxiety, "Under God."

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America

Some nations pledge to a Crown or a Throne. Here we pledge to a Flag.

And to the Republic for which it stands

Nothing wrong with pledging to one's country, is there? I thought not.

One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now, now, no snide comments, good people. America hasn't always given liberty and justice to all. I'm a half-Irish half-Lebanese Catholic, I can attest to this. But our ideals do promise such, even if it's taken a long time to fully implement them. What if any other country beforehand was ever founded on the principle of liberty? Anyway, how could anyone object to the abovesaid lines, as a pledge? Why, any good citizen would want to promise such. But it's the two words that are also now a part of this pledge that is the clincher: Under God. Oh my. Can't have that, now can we? It implies a joining between Church and State, obviously. Or does it?

What child is being forced to take the pledge? When I was a freshman in high school, our districtadministration decided to allow schools to say the pledge if they so chose; my school decided to do so after the morning announcements, and anyone who wanted was encouraged to stand and say it as well. Key phrase being "anyone who wanted." And in case you are curious as to what happened...the parents were pleased. The news media was fascinated. Most of the students could have cared less. And the local "civil rights" groups were up in arms. They proclaimed that it was an act of government forcing the beliefs of some on others. To the blacks and Hispanics they said it was once again White America raising the stained banner of those old, dead, white slaveowner guys. To the Jews and Muslims they said it was once again oppressive intolerant Christianity trying to proselytize. It was of the most interesting times to read the local paper's op-ed pages.

Some believed that nonsense. As for we students...in my second-hour class for three years running (the hour during which they read the announcements) I was the only kid in class who stood during the pledge, placed my hand over my heart, and said it along with the announcer. Me and the teacher, alone. It sure felt lonely, but I didn't care. I had gone to Catholic school for five years, and we said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before our morning prayers. Both of which, yes, everyone was required to say. I had been a Cub Scout too, and the Pledge and the Flag were part of the experience. To me it was a duty, and an honorable one. Some of the kids laughed and poked fun at me; a few of these were "minorities" who had chosen to believe the arguments of the "civil rights" crowd, but most were of the anarchistic punk variety, known for scoffing at pretty much anything associated with 'authority."

And to finally offer a conclusion to this long-winded ramble, I will say this: When our schools were allowed to say the pledge again, (and, oh how the "allowed" part really rankled!), it was quite specifically said that anyone uncomfortable with the "One Nation Under God" part was totally free to refrain from saying that line; anyone uncomfortable with the whole thing was also quite free to just sit there and do whatever you wanted. I personally do not see a problem with either saying the Pledge of Allegiance or posting the Ten Commandments (which I think is a very closely related issue); if nobody is being forced to say it, what, indeed, is the problem? If children were being punished for not reciting them pledge, then yes, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. But is that happening? If it is, then surely something needs to be done. But taking something away from a majority because of the abuse of a (probably) small minority is tantamount to what totalitarian regimes have praticed the world over. Which, to me, is not very appealing.

Back to Top

The experience of being a self-proclaimed conservative in the present day can be, at times, interesting and frightening, especially when I am a self-proclaimed conservative one half of whose ancestral blood happens to have been Middle Eastern in origin. The very term Middle East has a certain image associated with it for most Americans. What do you think of, when you hear those words? Swarthy men wearing ghutrahs (or, for the uninitiated, the "Arab headdress") and veiled women traversing dusty streets? Quaint towns with open-air markets where merchants haggle with tourists for trinkets, while somewhere close by a muezzin calls from a minaret? A sun-drenched desert scene with nomads and camels? Or, perhaps, masked gunmen clutching AK-47s, chanting "Death to Israel," and plotting to kill Americans for the simple fact that we are part of the Great Satan? Or is it the Lesser Satan? I can't remember which is which, anymore. All of these are, of course, things that can actually be seen in the Middle East of today. But which, I ask, is the image most contemporary Americans conjure up immediately upon hearing that oft-said geographical term?

Let me first make clear that I am not a Muslim; I, my parents, my grandparents, my great-grandparents, my great-great grandparents (you get the idea) and numberless generations of my family going back ever further have been Christians from birth until death. This must seem odd, considering that many Americans are probably unaware that large numbers of Arabs happen to be Christian. And not by the efforts of latter-day missionaries to "heathen lands" either; there were Arab Christians long before the Western Roman Empire fell. Generations of Arab Christians had come and gone before the first Crusader wet his sword in the blood of Jerusalem. Centuries before a revitalized Europe began conquering (and converting) the New World, in Arab lands there were Christians raising their families in the faith. Interesting, isn't it, considering that to an American the name "Arab" might mean "Crazy Muslim" and not much else? The fact that "Middle East" might mean 'Arab" to most Americans is itself a slightly humorous (at least to me) testament to a widespread lack of education. In the Middle East there are Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Pakistanis, and Afghans of many flavors. (What's that you say, Pat? You mean that Afghans aren't Arabs?) Arab Muslims might constitute a huge population, but they are not all there is to the Middle East; Pakistanis, Turks, and Iranians together number nearly three hundred million souls. In a nation that has the potential to produce some of the most well-educated people in the world, the prevalence of ignorance can be astounding.

I do seem to be getting a little off-topic, don't I? What sparked this whole thing for me was an article I read a few days ago on a conservative website. Recall that I consider myself to be a conservative. This little gem of an article spoke of the "hidden enemy in America," Muslims. (The article has since been removed, I think, for I can find no trace of it now) It cited statistics asserting that the "vast majority" of American Muslims are now immigrants; that, in the nation's 2,100 mosques, the prayers leaders are one and all foreign-born; and that in American Muslim schools students are basically taught to be intolerant. This isn't all that unusual, I am sad to say; in many other conservative writings of today you will see the same, and hear that Islam is a "warlike" religion, that historically Muslims have conquered and killed those they consider to be unbelievers with vicious consistency. And, of course, these writings will at the same time blast the mainstream media and liberal political establishment when it calls them racist and prejudiced against Islam.

Historically The United States of America is a country that at one and the same time proclaimed the equality of all men and enslaved millions of them based upon race. Historically The United States of America has been a place where people other than male White Anglo-Saxon Protestants were denied equality in voting, property, education, and employment. Historically Alexander the Great's most favored male lover died from drinking too much water after crossing a desert. Historically I put gum in my sister's hair. Things that happened Historically are fascinating to read about, aren't they? It doesn't mean they necessarily have much weight in the present day, so I reject any argument that paints something bad because of the way it has acted Historically. Or you may as well send me to my room without dinner.

Moving on to the specific arguments now…. I must say, as a conservative, there are several points on which I disagree heartily with my compatriots. Capital punishment and the absolute supremacy of corporate capitalism, among others. And immigration. Now, I am against illegal immigration as much as anyone; in fact I, as a law-abiding and authority-respecting citizen, am pretty much against anything illegal. On another conservative website I read about how (according to the writer) Mexico was staging a reconquest of the territories we captured in the Mexican War, by sending us so many illegal immigrants who are now making parts of America into little pockets of Spanish-only land. Yes, I am quite sure that, back in the 1940s, the Mexican political leaders met in a secret cabal and planned Project Santa Ana: The Reconquest of New Mexico and California. (And no, good people, I am not meaning the modern-day States; read your history textbooks again if you're confused).

It is inane. Oh sure, there are many, many problems with present immigration, including but not limited to: lack of education and necessary assimilation into the mainstream, rampant poverty and crime in immigrant communities, and a left-inspired conviction among some immigrants that government is there to solve all their problems. One problem I quite honestly do not see with immigration to this great country (contrary to many of my fellow conservative's beliefs) is the specter of terrorism. Yes, it was non-Americans who destroyed the World Trade center and attacked the Pentagon. Yes, it is non-Americans who are manning the terrorist networks such as al-Quaida who seek further harm to our nation and populace. Oh, wait, I forgot, of course, that a few of these terrorists are actually Americans. It was Americans who bombed the Alfred P. Murray federal building in Oklahoma City. It was Americans who went into their schools armed to the teeth seeking to enact.death and destruction. Mailbox bombers? Americans. Anthrax-mailing killers? Probably Americans. And none of these, mind you, were naturalized citizens, or even the sons of immigrants. They were all natural-born American citizens, whose families were likewise natural-born American citizens. My point being that anyone can become a terrorist; it's not a matter of being an immigrant.

The fact that a majority of present American Islam may be immigrant is, in itself, not all that much of an indicator that American Muslims are somehow dangerous. Except that, Historically, The United States of America has been a little fishy in its treatment of immigrant religious minorities. I am Roman Catholic, and half Irish. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a majority of American Catholics were immigrants, from Ireland, Poland, Italy, Mexico, and other countries. At the same time, a majority of American Jews were immigrants, from such places as Russia, Poland, and Germany. And how, you may ask, were these immigrants of religious minority seen? As damaging to America. Why, their ethnic and religious peculiarities were by their very nature somehow dangerous to everything that The United States of America was, had been, and might one day become. Sound familiar?

So, in all of our mosques, the imams are immigrants? (The very use of the word "all" leads me to suspicion….) Considering that, as stated above, most American Muslims are themselves immigrants, should this be surprising in any way? Allow me to draw a Historical parallel. In the early part of the 20th Century, when most American Catholics were immigrants or the children of immigrants and generally lived in discrete ethnic communities, most American priests and bishops were Irishmen, and many of them were born citizens. An Irish-American citizen priest who spoke only English and Latin would be far removed from the life experience of a Polish immigrant, and would have had difficulty pastoring an immigrant Polish flock. The solution? Polish priests, of course. Once most of the Catholic immigrants and their children had been fully integrated into mainstream American life, these problems gradually faded away.

Why should we expect it to be any different for immigrant Muslims? An American Black Muslim imam from Chicago who only speaks English and maybe some Arabic would be far removed from the life experience of a Pakistani immigrant. It is only natural and logical to think that such immigrants would bring among themselves men and women charged with their spiritual care. Unless, of course, you're of the opinion that all Muslims somehow have it in for all Americans and, therefore, there is some insidious purpose behind immigrant clergy.

American Muslim schools teaching intolerance? Well, we can't have that, now can we? But wait…exactly what are they teaching that is intolerant? "Allah commands us all to take up arms against the Great [Lesser?] Satan and destroy the craven infidels who support Israel?" Maybe. Who knows? What are we going to do, have the FBI wiretap sixth-grade classrooms to discern whether or not young children are chanting anti-American slogans after math class? You know, at many prestigious American universities, opinions have been presented blasting the current war on terrorism, America's relationship with Israel, how supposedly "evil" we are to third-world countries, et cetera ad nasueam. I support the freedom of speech for everyone, but tell me this: how is that any different from what may or may not take place at Muslim schools? I'll wager that, at some American Christian schools, it is taught that Muslims are infidels, Mohammed is a false prophet, the Jews killed Christ, and non-Christians are going straight to Hell. I cannot be sure, because I don't think I've ever been to a Christian school that teaches such…. Oh. I wonder how many of the conservatives concerned about Muslim schools have ever actually been to one?

Racial profiling is also an issue. Many conservatives rail against the prevailing liberal notion that racial profiling is wrong; it is necessary, they say, to protect us from terrorists, no matter how uncomfortable it may make us feel. This has to be one of the most illogical things I have ever heard of. Yes, Middle Eastern Men did the deeds on September 11. So, naturally, innocent Middle Eastern Men had to suffer the humiliation of being removed from airplanes because the passengers were frightened of them. The response of many? "Too bad. It's all for national security!" So was Senator Joseph McCarthy. I am half Lebanese (therefore my ancestry is Middle Eastern). I have black hair, and sometimes I grow a beard. For this and this alone, should I be subjected to searches, profiling, and suspicion, all I the name of "National Security" and preventing future terrorist incidents? I must admit, it's rather insulting. I was born a citizen. My family has been born citizens all the way back to my great grandmother's first child, my Uncle Harry, who was born around 1900. I am proud to be an American. I am ready and willing to involve myself in any way I can to improve this nation and take part in its maintenance. I vote. (Which, I might add, is something tens of millions of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans with history going back 200 years or more singularly fail to do) Am I, by the sole measure of my blood, to be held as somehow possibly dangerous, and an object of suspicion? I resent that. I thought that this was the 21st century. I thought we had moved past the days of Ku Klux Klan lynchings, Japanese internment camps, and "Irish Need Not Apply."

Perhaps I was wrong.

Back to Top

Tomorrow is the Fourth of July, Independence Day for Americans, when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the formal start to our Revolution against British rule. It’s a day of baseball games and barbeques, patriotic music and, of course, fireworks. No other day is so eminently American. And especially after the terribly events of the past September, it’s a day when we should all count our blessings and be thankful to the Creator for living in this great nation.

And yet, this essay isn’t about what is right with this old and esteemed holiday. It’s about nationalism. I wonder how many Americans remember that three days before their Independence Day, our friendly neighbors to the north celebrate Canada Day? Or that, ten days after July Fourth, the French nation celebrates Bastille Day, which was the beginning of their own revolution? America, as great and wonderful as she is, is not the be all and end all of nations; suffice it to say, we ain't perfect, folks. And no amount of cheery patriotism is going to change that cold, hard fact.

Neither is Canada perfect, and nor is France. No nation on earth is perfect; none has ever been, and I don’t imagine that any shall ever be. Perfection is something that is the province of God alone. Nothing any human has ever created, be it an invention, an idea, or a nation-state, has been perfect; we are imperfect creations ourselves (by our own actions, no less, if you subscribe, as I do, to the Christian worldview). And yet, there is something about the idea of a nation that enthralls us. But, alas, I digress. Shall we move on to the meat of the matter?

Lately, I have been reading a lot about Muslims and the presence of Islam in America. And among my fellow conservatives one thing seems to be in consensus: that those Americans who happen to hold the Islamic faith are, for the most part, Muslims first and Americans second. Pardon me, fellow conservatives, but that is one of most singularly arrogant things I have ever encountered. I consider myself to be a patriotic man. And yet, I also consider myself a Catholic first and an American second. (This should not surprise some people; we’re the Papists who have been trying to overthrow American Protestantism for two and a quarter centuries, after all!) And I consider myself such for one simple reason: the United States of America is not God. I put nothing before God, not family, not work, certainly not country. Despite the somewhat ambiguous notion held among early Americans and continuing to this very day that the United States is a divinely inspired entity, she is something of this world. A great something, yes; but nothing in this world can ever be as great as the meanest thing in the next.

“Oh, but Patrick, Patrick, look at the founding fathers, whose deeply held moral and religious beliefs led to the founding of this nation, and to freedom and liberty!” The soldiers of Islam, who coincidentally also had deeply held moral and religious beliefs, in less than two hundred years from the death of their prophet carved out an empire stretching from Spain to Persia. An empire, you might note, that was more tolerant, civilized, and advanced than most anything to be seen in the Western Europe of the time. And where, you may ask, is that Arab Empire now? It crumbled into civil wars and later fell under the tide of the Ottomans, who were notably not tolerant, civilized, or advanced, leading directly and indirectly to much of the trouble that has befallen today’s Middle East. Men with deeply held moral and religious beliefs have been founding cities, nations, and empires from time immemorial, to both good and evil ends.

Yes, our Founding Fathers did this as well, and for good intentions. It does not mean that their creation has been perfect. It’s taken over two hundred years for the different races, sexes, and faiths of this nation to gain equality under the law and in practice. Although originally the leaders of this nation deplored the “imperialism” of the major European powers, it didn’t take much time for us to start catching up on that score; the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars are the preeminent examples. Racial slavery was a common practice here long after many European nations (those same who held colonial imperialism as a perfectly legitimate practice) had declared it barbaric and sought its end; even much-maligned Czarist Russia freed her serfs shortly before Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. America was, and is, a beautiful idea, and a wonderful dream. But she was founded and has always been led by imperfect men, and imperfect men create and maintain imperfect things.

Now, the United States is the world’s only Superpower. It’s been a long and hard-fought road from thirteen mainly agricultural English colonies to the world’s most visible and powerful economic and political force. We should be justly proud of that. And, opinions of much of the world aside, I believe we have done more good than harm.

But back to the issues of nationalism, and patriotism. In America of the present day, patriotism is almost held as some sort of litmus test, determining a person’s worthiness on the basis of their nationalistic fervor. It is, in many ways, quite understandable, taking into consideration the events of September 11 and its aftermath, when not only our people and our nation but our very beliefs and ideals came under assault by forces few would not be willing to characterize as evil. But now, it seems, an increasing number of people hold the belief that some are incapable of true patriotism because of their race or religious affiliation. People of Middle Eastern descent, regardless of their status as citizens, are now seen by many as somehow not being as American as the rest of the populace; the same is now said of Muslims. And while some have criticized this, among a large number of people (and by no means a majority…but they can be a very vocal minority) it is seen as being perfectly reasonable. The rationalization behind this is: because the men who carried out the terrorist acts (and who are still likely planning to do more, to say nothing of Taliban and Al-Quaeda forces we have fought in open battle) were to the last one Muslims from the Middle East, all people holding Middle Eastern blood and/or the Islamic faith are now justly suspect.

I wonder if the conservatives who believe that are aware of how dangerous it is. It’s not a new thing at all. Blacks were once not seen as being human beings at all; at various times many peoples of minority race and religion have been believed to be somehow “un-American” or at least not as American as the majority. The term “un-American” has also been oft-used to denote communists, pacifists, environmentalists, homosexuals, and atheists, not to mention being slung around in political rhetoric by all sides; to a liberal it might mean “old-fashioned racist and sexist white men who want to keep the status quo;” to a conservative it might mean “bleeding-heart socialists bent on establishing a world government and taking away our guns.” And here I thought this was the United States of America, where freedom of political thought and religious expression were constitutionally-protected rights, and where we believe “all men are created equal.” Two of the things we are supposed to be celebrating on Independance Day.

Go figure.

Back to Top

>

Star Trek: Nemesis opens in theatres today, the tenth movie in the Star Trek big-screen series, and I'm itching to go. The last time I saw any Trek in the theatre was for Star Trek VI back when I was a lad of twelve, in 1991...although I do have misgivings. I will be the first to admit, if I am a snob about anything, it's Star Trek. I'm a Non-Trekker 1980s Original Trekkie© whose first fond Trek memory is watching The Corbomite Maneuver with my father at the age of four; I was born the year The Motion Picture was released. I've seen all 79 original episodes, every episode of The Next Generation, Voyager, Enterprise and nearly all of Deep Space Nine (which is, by the way, my favorite of the series'), seen all the movies, beat the original NES game, own the Next Generation Technical Manual, Star Trek Memories and a whole slew of novels. I even dressed up as Mr. Spock for Halloween in fifth grade. So, no, I'm not by far the world's biggest Trekkie...but suffice it to say, if there was a convention close enough to attend, I'd don the pointy ears again and be first in line at the door.

Considering the fact that I thought Generations was barely adequate (oh, the beefs I have with that movie), First Contact was passing good, and Insurrection was just bloody awful, I am very much wondering how the newest film will hold up. I've read various critical reviews, but then, I don't hold much truck with critical reviews. But, to me, there is a very real difference between the "first" tier of Trek movies (Motion picture through VI) and the second (Generations through Insurrection)...I didn't even think V was all that bad, and it sure as the Pope is Polish beats Insurrection in my opinion. To me, after VI in the movies and after the third season of Voyager on the television, the quality of Trek has been slipping.

I personally trace this to the movie Generations; I regard V as a fluke, since The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine were both running long after that film, and in my opinion feature the best writing and acting seen in the post-original series Trek universe (not to mention that fact that I think VI is very good). The scene that did it for me was the destruction of the Enterprise D. Now, sad as I was to see the starship Enterprise blown to smithereens in Star Trek III, it never struck me as wrong; it struck me as plausible, something that was intimately tied in with and necessary towards the advancement of the story. Whereas in Generations the death of the ship seemed nothing more than a pretense to design a brand new bearer of the name for the next movie. Others will be bound to disagree with me there, but that's how it is for me. That scene was the beginning of the end of the true Trek glory, I think, the time when the Powers That Be first sacrificed creative effort and originality for the promise of longevity. Star Trek V, on the other hand, was merely a fairly mediocre movie.

Later came Voyager which, as all the series did to some extent, started out slow. But it had an excellent premise: a crew half of Starfleet and half of pseudo-terrorist misfits, thrown together and forced to rely on each other for survival in a distant and hostile region of the galaxy. They were totally out of contact with anyone from the Alpha Quadrant and seventy-five years from home. It started slow, got better...then crashed and burned when "they" ruined the concept by having the crew become able to contact home. Kes left, Seven of Nine strutted her stuff, the Doctor sang a fruitcake (but admittedly hilarious) butchering of La donne i mobile, Janeway and Paris evolved and had "children," and the writing devolved into fits and starts of Borg this, Borg that, Chakotay stand there and look pretty, Ed Begley, Jr. morph into Bill Gates, Captain Janeway morph into Sigourney Weaver, and SHAKE THAT THANG, Seven!

As far as eye candy goes, Seven is alright (although personally I've always thought Dr. Crusher was the best Trek lady), though she can't hold a candle to my girlfriend (Ha! I'm a Trekkie with a girlfriend! Better go rethink those statistical models), and her character did make for some very interesting plot moments. But the fact that she was there primarily as a walking talking visual effect is fairly obvious. I am not even going to comment about the clothing factor. All this, coupled with the ruined Borg (who were once the most compelling of Trek villains), stale plots, increasingly boring enemies (I'm sorry but Species 8472 just didn't do it for me), absolutely horrible Romulan uniforms, and a rather hurried and disappointing ending in my mind skewered what could have been among the best Trek of all and made it all barely average, at best.

Then came Star Trek: First Contact where Farmer Hoggit was somehow transplanted into a drunken genius who invents warp drive and gets to shake hands with Vulcans. The plot thickens! Insurrection arrived and provided the singular most awful storyline in all of Star Trek history, which no amount of special effects wizardry could dare hope to improve. And as a matter of fact, I thought the effects in Star Trek II were better used and much more evocative, and that was in 1983! I have nothing at all good to say about Insurrection except that I am thankful I didn't subject myself to it in the theatre. And then we come to the newest of the Trek TV incarnations, Enterprise.

Now, I will admit that I was quite skeptical at first. Somehow I just couldn't see Sam Beckett as a starship captain. I've become a regular viewer and I do consider myself a fan (and I now think Scott Bakula does quite well as Jonathan Archer)...but the way the writers and producers have flagrantly thrown a lot of Trek lore out the window is irritating at best, and at worst, almost sickening. We have post V'Ger-incident Klingons on Earth in the 22nd Century, in addition to cloaking-device equipped Romulans, Ferengi, and time travel, none of which should by rights exist within the time frame that is being presented. Faithfulness to established storylines has been sacrificed for visual effect and clever new plots, which is my mind is not the actions of responsible television-type people. I like the show, I really do, but it keeps striking me as wrong, somehow, and usually after I've resolved to myself to thinking that it's gotten better and learned from past mistakes.

And now, the new movie is out, and I wonder about many things. I'll see it, no doubt about that, if not in theatres than later on video or television. As a Trekkie, I simply must. And if it turns out that I hate it, well, I hardly think it'll be worse than Insurrection. For Pete's sake, Friday the 13th Part LVI: Jason Is Revived From Cryogenic Storage would be better than Insurrection. And if it turns out I love it, awesome, although I seriously doubt than any Trek movie will ever usurp II as my favorite. I just hope that the good folks at Paramount have redeemed themselves at least a little for the shoddy Trek of recent years.

Back to Top

Back to Top

To take away the right to collectively and individually keep and bear arms would be to discard the amendment. I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, and civics was never my best subject, so I don't really know anything about how certain parts of amendments could be modified. I do know that historically that seems to be a dangerous thing. These days we always tend to look for "the intent of the framers" to figure out what constitutional law actually is, instead of looking at merely the words themselves and what they say.

A good example is the "right to privacy" that is so very heavily bandied about these days. What does it mean, who does (or does not)it protect, etc. etc. But in the actual Constitution there is no mention of a Right to Privacy anywhere. Any reasonable person would not deny that the Right to Privacy is something the Founding Fathers took very seriously, and yet the actual phrase is never mentioned. This illustrates the problem.

Times change, and should the laws of nations change to reflect them? In the 1790s the United States was a very different place than today. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. And yet, were the rights in part or in whole available at that time to the entirety of the American populace? No. If you were not a white, male, Protestant, property-owning citizen they, for what it's worth, did not apply to you. Non-males did not really begin achieving equality until the 1920s, non-Protestants roughly the same, non-Whites until the 1950s. In theory the Bill of Rights covers every American. In practice it's taken a little time to get that way. Now, I'm going to list various amendments of the Bill of Rights, and list ways in which they have been modified and/or actually violated. But first, two amendments that seem totally out of date at first glance.

Look at the Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. $20, eh? Can anyone conceive that a latter-day common law suit could possibly concern an amount less than $20, which will not even buy a meal for five people anymore? And how many times have defendants brought to trail for murder, manslaughter, or negligent death been aquitted by a jury, and then successfully sued in civil court for "wrongful death" by the family of the victim? I'm no jurist, and maybe I'm mistaken, but does that not violate the idea of "no double jeopardy" as spelled out in the abovementioned Amendment? Look at the Third Amendment: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. When was the last time this was ever an issue? 1791, I imagine, or possibly the Civil War. This is a law that by itself seems to bear very little relevancy in the 21st Century. And yet, would you want soldiers quartered in your home without your permission? I don't think so.

Now, look at the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If asked I imagine most Americans would regard this amendment as the most important, and certainly the most relevant to their lives. But in these times when "first amendment rights" are almost a cliché, lets look at a few points.

The "free exercise of religion," is denied to Christian Scientists whose children have died because they do not believe in using modern medicine; various state and local governments have successfully prosecuted the parents for criminal negligence. The United States Supreme Court has upheld these actions, in at least one case I can recall offhand. I assume that the "free exercise of religion" would also be denied to a cult that practiced ritual human sacrifice (not that I am comparing Christian Scientists to murderous cults). This raises the question: does religious tolerance and freedom have a reasonable limit? Is the prosecution of religious sects for conduct or beliefs deemed dangerous to individuals or the country at large a natural modification of the First Amendment, or a clear violation of religious liberty? In the past various states enacted laws barring certain religious minorities (most notably Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Jews) from holding public office, operating religious schools, and practicing marriages that differed from the societal norm. Expanding on this, employers and educational institutions routinely denied places to members of religions (and races) which the authorities considered unsavory.

(I've done research on this...please bear with the following boring statistics)

Religious facts: Even today, there is prejudice along confessional lines, and sometimes it still pays to be a White Protestant. Note that, of 43 different United States Presidents, exactly one has been non-Protestant (and four Unitarians and two Quakers if one considers Quakers and Unitarians to be non-Protestant) and none have been non-Christian. Indeed, of the 16 major-party presidential nominees since the death of John F. Kennedy, only one has been non-Protestant (Michael Dukakis, who is Greek Orthodox). The times they are a changin' maybe.... In most cases. attitudes towards religious minorities have changed. In 1958 27% of Americans polled said they would not vote for a Catholic president, but in 1999 the same poll indicated that 4% would not. It's similar with the idea of a Jewish president. But 17% would not vote for a Mormon, and that hasn't changed in the past 40 years; today 51% would not vote for an atheist. A tangent perhaps, but I'm using this to illustrate my point that the liberties protected by the First Amendment have not been universally respected since Day One, and possibly never will be.

"Abridging the freedom of speech" happens quite a lot these days, as our national obsession with "political correctness" marches on in its insanity. College campuses and employers are increasingly adept at denying people the right to express their opinions, however nasty or stupid such opinions may be. It's amazing how many cases of using the word "niggardly" have incited firestorms of protest over supposedly racist language.

"The right of the people to peaceably assemble" has been violated by all manner of authorities, from segregationist Southern mayors and sheriffs against civil rights marchers, to various localities and college campuses in the 1960s against peace protests, to latter-day states disallowing pro-life rallies near abortion clinics. (And, no, I do not mean the shrieking idiots who chain themselves to fences and shout obscenities at doctors and patients. There have been cases where non-violent and non-disruptive protesters have been denied access to public property adjoining abortion clinics.) The Anacostia Flats fiasco is still the most glaring example of these violations, in my mind, excepting perhaps the terrible happenings in Birmingham.

As for "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances," I believe I once read that former Japanese citizens who had been imprisoned in internment camps during World War II were originally rejected when they asked the government to compensate them for lost property and assets.

Moving right along, let's look at the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In schools it's a common practice to search lockers believed to contain weapons and/or illegal drugs, with little or no warning and no such thing as "probable cause" taken into consideration. In this, and in our much-touted new mania for Homeland Security, "probable cause" has been replaced by the specious "reasonable suspicion," which in some cases has been ascribed to nothing more than giving a security guard a dirty look.

The Eight Amendment can be tricky: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. But, it's a running debate whether capital punishment is not, in fact, cruel and unusual punishment...similar arguments surround the use of prison chain gangs. Some say that these are fitting for certain crimes, others say they're abominations and inhumane practices. American jurisprudence has been a little wishy-washy on these matters, seeming to ride both sides of the fence at various times. And note that "fines" (or civil damages) have been imposed that summarily ruin the defendant's entire livelihood, but rare is the cry of "excessive fines!" to be heard.

The point of this whole thing is...can we modify existing liberties as enacted by the Bill of Rights, without in some way compromising the integrity of the entire concept? Or should we adapt them to specific times and places in respect to a changing world? At what point does "reasonable modification" become "intolerable violation," and is it possible at all to objectively reach that conclusion? For example...Ruth, I know you and I disagree on the issue of gun control. What you might think is a reasonable regulation, I might think is a gross intrusion on personal liberty. And what I might think is a practice wholly protected by the second amendment, you might think is an obvious danger and something that sorely needs corrected. But which of us would be right? We both cannot be...can we? And if we are not, who, then, has the authority to decide?

Anyway, it's nearly 4:30 am, and I need a little sleep. So cheerio, I hope I've asked a few good questions and/or made a few points worthy of consideration.... :)

Back to Top

First and foremost, I am not meaning to belittle the plight of those fifty million of my fellow Americans, and Canadian cousins, affected by this past week’s great blackout, because nobody knows better than a Midwesterner the havoc blackouts can wreak on lives. Multiplied over more than a day's time during the dead of summer, it must have been unpleasant indeed.

And yet, and yet. I suppose I've rather grown up to be somewhat suspicious of East Coasters (and West Coasters too, but that's a different story) in general and Northeasterners in particular. Here in Kansas, the stereotype of a Northeasterner is a snotty, pretentious, funny-accented Ivy League graduate who looks down on everyone between the eastern slope of the Appalachian Mountains and the West Coast as little more than filler between the bastions of "real civilization." We think that they think that, here in Flyover Country, we're all a lot of bucktoothed, overalls-clad, mud-stained farming bumpkins who wouldn't know culture if it bit us on our corn-fed posteriors.

Now, I admittedly have not met many genuine Northeasterners, but those I have do seem to fit this description, more or less. Even suggest that my hometown, a city with half a million people in its metropolitan area, is actually a “big city” and the mildest you might receive in response is a snort of derision. No matter that we face all the other problems of large urban areas, such as crime, gangs, rampant poverty, massive unemployment, and government corruption. You see, it’s not a “real city” unless it’s either two hundred or more years old or holds more than a million people. Anything else is just a small town.

I am sorry, but as my mother might have said, that just gets my goat. I have always hated the term “Flyover Country” with utmost zeal. I’ve always thought it a blatant insult, and a none-too-subtle indictment that anyone living within that selfsame zone are somehow second-class to the rest. People from New York and Southern California matter, you see, whereas folk from Iowa simply do not. This blackout and, more specifically, the media coverage of it, reflects that in the purest sense.

It was constantly stated that this blackout happened to “us.” “Us” not being the fifty million poor souls to whom it actually happened, but rather the news media covering it. Because they do not identify themselves with what is commonly termed Middle America. To them, the East and West Coasts are all that matter, with a few spots of civilization in between (such as Chicago). To say “this thing happened to us,” then, implicitly states that the news media doing such coverage were necessarily part of the Northeast, and consequently that they’re the only part of America that really matters, besides Southern California.

Things happen in the Midwest, the same things that happen in New York City or Los Angeles, however smaller the scale may or may not be. But unless events in this part of the country are the caliber of the Oklahoma City bombing, or a spate of killer tornadoes, news here doesn’t merit national interest. It’s “local,” of course. As I read in a letter written to the National Review Online by a reader in Tennessee, this year storms knocked out power in a swath covering parts of three states, power that was out, in some cases, for three weeks! Not a day, not even a week, three weeks. And this merited very little, if indeed any, national news coverage. So why did the big Northeastern blackout merit such, besides the fact that fifty million people involved were? I suppose they must think that people in rural Arkansas living without power for three weeks don’t matter as much as New Yorkers going without for merely one day. Or maybe that things in Middle America don’t merit national attention because they are “local” matters.

And yet, things which should properly be considered local matters in those Eastern and Western bastions of civilization are presented as being of truly national interest. Look at the California gubernatorial recall circus. I myself am keenly interested in it on political principle, but let’s be bluntly realistic here: this race has absolutely no impact whatsoever on anyone but Californians. Only Californians can vote in it. Only Californians will have to live with their decision. Only Californians are really going to be affected by a possible change of government and its policies. Now, granted, the star power of various of the candidates is naturally going to elicit interest, in this Hollywood-ridden culture we’re currently mired in. But it affects me, the Kansan, not in the least, in any aspect of my life. And I can say the exact same of the blackout. But it’s presented as if it does affect me, or else if it does not, then only people it does affect are important.

The causes of this are not difficult to see. Middle America, you see, and the South as well, for my Southern brethren are subjected to this same nonsense, is a land of uncultured barbarians. Here we are, for the most part, observant in our religions, which tend to be of conservative Judeo-Christian origins more often than not. Here, we are “traditional” in our family arrangements and social patterns. Here, we are conservative-leaning in our politics. And this makes the more “enlightened” denizens of the East and West cringe, for they are, for the most part, more secular, more involved in nontraditional social patterns (and I am not trying to say such are wrong, I am merely making a point), and almost overwhelmingly liberal. The media which is their tool is even more overwhelmingly liberal, openly hostile to conservative Christianity, and apt to paint people who follow a more traditional lifestyle as being closed-minded, misguided, or both, besides which being as I said uncultured barbarians.

Therefore, the media, and perhaps to a certain extent the Eastern and Western society it serves, do not identify with Middle America, with its people, its values, its culture, and certainly not its events. I am every bit as American as any New Yorker or Los Angeleno, but because I live in Flyover Country, I don’t matter, and naturally then to me things that occur in New York City must merit all the weight of my attention, because such things are important.

Back to Top

I am going to expand on my previous little rant, for a little while. In truth, I’ve wanted to get these thoughts down on paper for a long time, and now is my chance. More than anything else, this differing between regions of our great nation comes down to culture. Which is not to say that one or another region is better or worse than any other, merely that there are real differences. There has always been a dichotomy between the North, as older terms would have it, and the combined South and West, going back long before the American Revolution. The culture of the North now also includes, in my mind, the three states of our West Coast, and there is still a very real divergence in culture between this new “Northern” culture and the yet combined South and West, the latter of which would now be more accurately defined as the Midwest or Great Plains. And while now we live in an America that is both more and less homogeneous than ever before, distinctions persist, and perhaps they always shall.

In olden days, the North was industrial and urban, the South agrarian and rural. When the United States began expanding and settling in the years after the Revolution, the West was always more closely akin to the South than to the North, the issue of slavery being for this argument set aside. The North had the weight of population, and industry, whereas the West and South had the weight of land, and agriculture. And while industry is nowadays more evenly distributed throughout the lower 48 states, agriculture still predominates in many states of the Midwest, and these added to the rest of the South and West accounts for the vast majority of American agriculture, while still lagging ever behind in terms of population. Thus, the North and the South/West always have had and continue to sport distinct and obvious cultural differences.

The North is educated, progressive, fashionable, and almost completely urban in culture. The South and West, while still being educated, are much more conservative, much less urban (but note I do not explicitly say “rural”). But, to the Northerner, the Midwesterner or Southerner has not in truth been educated, unless he has done so through a Northern school, or at least an enlightened Northern teacher. This is how we Midwesterners see it, at least, being resentful of the scorn our flat and unpopulated states constantly receive at Northeastern hands. A good illustration of this is the current running battle of Creationist vs. Evolutionist. I’m neither a hard core Creationist nor an absolute believer in the merits of evolutionary theory, so I’ll leave my personal opinions out of this.

Now, in the liberal and secular Northeast, the idea that the theory of evolution is wrong simply because it goes against the literal interpretation of the Bible would be considered ludicrous folly. There, such an idea would be scorned as the hokey and superstitious mutterings of people beholden to a hopelessly outdated religion.

In Middle America, however, and especially in the South, there are a great many people who think of evolutionary theory as being the next thing to blasphemy, something that clearly goes against God's Truth, and something they do not want taught in public schools for that very reason. And each side believes the other to be so utterly wrongheaded and foolish, that little in the way of genuine debate occurs, and instead the airwaves are filled with loud and vitriolic dissension on the matter. Note, however, that normally the media is very one-sided in this, as in everything these days, and usually presents the anti-evolutionists as being superstitious and uneducated. It's easy to see which side they're on.

You could take any of the major issues of the present day and, more often than not, the peoples of the states comprising "Middle America" and the South are going to be taking one side, while the peoples of the East and West will be taking the other. Abortion, capital punishment, war, welfare reform, the environment, et cetera, all bear this out.

The major stereotypical and age-old perceptions can be boiled down to this: Northerners think Southerners and Westerners are unutterably old-fashioned and simple, whereas the latter two see Northerners as being idle and foolishly liberal. Southerners are stupid; Northerners are arrogant. More often than not, this can even be characterized as a religious difference, seeing as the majority of the people in the West, and even moreso the South, are conservative, Evangelical Protestant Christians, whereas the North is made up of more liberal Protestant bodies, Roman Catholics, and large numbers of Jews and people of other faiths. To put it more complexly:

All Northerners think all white Southerners are racist, redneck, good-ole-boy Christian fundamentalist types who like big trucks, big guns, and submissive womenfolk. They think Midwesterners are all farmers, ranchers, or cowboys, living in the unenlightened darkness of our flat, boring, and desolate land. And all Southerners think all Northerners are overeducated, lazy, arrogant atheists who are still bent on ruining the South some 150 years after the end of the Civil War. And the stereotypes persist, year after year, changing little with the passage of time.

Notice in the preceding paragraph the plethora of the world "all." That is, perhaps, the biggest problem when it comes to cultural differrences: we generalize. We assign labels and lump everyone different from us under certain catagories. Everyone does this, Northern, Southern, Midwestern, it does not matter. And while, as I have shown above, there are indeed real cultural differences between different parts of America, it is a sad thing to emphasize differences and persist in sectional prejudices, instead of engaging in realistic dialogue, and even more than that, looking at all the things we have in common as Americans first of all.

Back to Top