THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON IRAQ

I've been a consistent supporter of staying in Iraq as long as we possibly can. It isn't that I've been that sure we can win, it's that I want to be sure we gave the innocent people in Iraq every opportunity to have a stable country. Unlike my Democrat counterparts (I consider myself an Independent.) I'm not ready yet to say that all is lost. But I will say it's starting to look pointless to continue fighting for people who won't, or can't, decide who's side they're on. I decided months ago to give General David Petraeus, the senior officer in Iraq, the time he asked for to implement his plan (The Surge) and see if it's working. September 15 is when he said he would know and I'm going to wait till then to decide what to do next. However, the clock is now ticking on my patience and it saddens me.

For over a year now I've been reading a blog called "Iraq the Model" written by two Iraqi men, Mohammed and Omar. Through out that year I've learned a lot about both of them; their love for cigars and patio barbecuing. And most importantly, their never-ending optimism that they will one day see a free and stable Iraq. Every time the conversation turned to the war, I couldn't help but feel their presence. Often I would wonder how they felt about some of the attacks near their home of Baghdad, or how they viewed the Americans after a blunder. Then, In tag-team style, they would explain in their blog their emotions, their fears, and their hopes. One day I noticed a strange thing would happen as I waited for their next posting. I would find myself being worried that something may have happened to them. Why weren't they posting? It's been days, what going on? Then a post would appear and I would breathe a sigh of relief. I am quite sure that because of them, I have a better understanding of what it's like to be an innocent person in Iraq watching the world outside trying to drag you in. And I guess I've come to view them as friends, even though they haven't a clue who I am.

I've tried to get some of my more Liberal friends to read their blog, or even one of the dozens that they link to. Yet as of now, I don't think one of them ever has. I've tried to rationalize why they wouldn't want to know what it's like from an Iraqi's prospective as opposed to some pre-chewed story. The closest I can get to an explanation is that it would be harder to walk away from someone, if you felt you knew them.

Which leads me to why it saddens me to have to say my patience is running out. I feel like I should have to say to both of them," I'm sorry Mohammed and Omar, but I'm running out of arguments when I'm so in the minority. I know that you fear that everything will erupt into violence far exceeding what you've seen so far if we leave. I know you fear for your family, yourself, and for Iraq, but we can't fight forever." To turn and walk away when you know it could hurt a friend seems so heartless, so self-absorbed, and frankly, that's just not me. The Iraqi people themselves did nothing to deserve the mess we've brought upon them, and to even think this isn't our fault is like denying slavery was our fault. My only hope is that somehow General Petraeus will save the day and his plan will work. Hopefully, the innocent Iraqi people will say enough is enough and join in his attempt. But with the war becoming increasingly unpopular, with elections coming in '08, with Democrats and now even some Republicans calling for withdraw, it's looking like the clock is ticking for Iraq. And also for my innocent friends, Mohammed and Omar. H.C.

P.S. I'm also posting a poem on my Myspace with sympathy to all the people in Iraq.

DEMOCRATS DISCOVER THE ONE EVIL NOT WORTH NEGOTIATING WITH

Democrats and Republicans very rarely come together to agree on anything. There's no new news there. But what's far less reported is the infighting that goes on within the parties on any given issue. From immigration to the War in Iraq, the positions taken by our presidential candidates on either side are all over the map. So it struck me as very strange that there is one issue that has completely galvanized the Democratic Party. That there is one Evil out there so great, so evil, such a threat to our country that they should not be negotiated with in any fashion or form. That threat to all humanity is Fox Broadcasting.

That's right, the people that brought you The Simpsons and American Idol are such a threat that all the Democrat Presidential contenders have agreed to boycott Fox. Now, normally I would just chalk this up to more partisan politics. But I couldn't help but laugh when I read this article. It seems that Fox CEO Roger Ailes made a comment about Barrack Obama that the Dems (who are always trying to find any hint of prejudice by any Republican so they can keep blacks faithfully on their side) took as offensive. Mr. Ailes claims it was a joke that took aim at Bush not Obama. The actual comment was; "And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?' " I don't get it, clearly it does seem a slap at Bush being unable to separate the two. So, seeing their chance to accentuate their point, the Dems one by one rushed out to the press announcing that they were pulling out of the Fox sponsored debates in Nevada. The important thing to remember here is; this is really about reminding blacks how prejudice Republicans are behind the scenes. Taking a shot at Fox and having an excuse for not appearing at a venue that might actually ask some tough questions is just icing on the cake.

The great irony is; these are the people (Dems) who are constantly wanting to deal with terrorist supporting regimes. They want us to meet with Iran. They want us to meet with North Korea. They want us to deal with the government of Sudan (which is systematically exterminating some of it's own people). I'm sure they would say we should sit down with Osama Bin Laden himself if the chance arose. In the Democratic world there is no problem so big that it can't be solved with negotiation and no dictator so evil that he can't be reasoned with. With one exception-Fox Broadcasting, the only evil empire that can't be dealt with.

The official reason the Democrats are giving for their boycott is that Fox is controlled by the right wing and has a right-wing bias. Then, just to prove that they won't stand for any bias, the Dems rescheduled their debates to the 365gay channel. Now there's a venue with absolutely no bias whatsoever. I swear, you couldn't even make stuff up this funny. You know, the Democrats would have a lot more credibility with me if they wouldn't continuously contradict their own positions. (Yes I know the Republicans do it too, it's the Dems turn on the fire.)

I guess I should just be happy that the Democrats have finally seen the light. They have finally admitted that there is evil out there that is just plain evil. And how much more evil can you get than the people who brought us Al Bundy.

Finally, If I had my way, these debates would be handled by only hostile moderators. I would put the Republicans on CNN with James Carville asking all the questions and the Democrats would have to deal with Shawn Hannity on Fox and all his snippy remarks. I would even have special moderators for specific candidates like Dick Morris for Hillary Clinton and Giulani's past wives for Rudy. At least then I wouldn't have to listen to soft ball questions predicated by compliments and maybe, just maybe, we would get a debate worth watching with real insight into our candidates. In the meantime, I predict our wonderful Dems will continue to demand that we deal with terrorists and dictators and will continue to refuse to deal with the real threat to America, Fox Broadcasting and Al Bundy. H.C.

"ONE NATION, UNDER GOD?"

O.K., everyone get ready for a shock. I think the words "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. That's right, Pro-American, flag wavin' H.C. thinks those words no longer belong in our oath. If you've read some of my relatively pro-Christian rants, you're probably thinking, (As a lot of people do.) that I'm being inconsistent in my thinking, or that I'm just trying to get a rise out of people. But let me assure you, I believe what I'm about to tell you and I absolutely think that the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed.

It's not that I don't recognize our Christian heritage, it's not that I don't understand the enormous contribution of Judeo-Christian philosophy to our laws or our morality, it's not that I believe in total Separation of Church and State, and not even that I've decided to turn sharply left and join my secular friends so somebody on this planet will finally agree with me 100% of the time. (As good as that sounds sometimes.) So, what is my reason for wanting to blackout the words "under God"? Nationalism, pride, and inclusion.

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance is not as long as you may think, in fact it's only been around for the second half of our nation's history. The Founding Fathers had no hand in it and as near as I could research, didn't even suggest it. It all started with a Baptist Minister named Francis Bellamy who liked the idea first suggested to him by his cousin Edward Bellamy of a pledge to help promote pride in the country. It was first published by Francis in "The Youth"s Companion", a well read magazine of the time, in September, 1891. But it wasn't until two years later when Bellamy introduced the Pledge to the American public during a celebration of Columbus Day in Boston that it started to take hold. Mr. Bellamy, as it turns out, was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association and incorporated his pledge into the public school system.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] Several changes were made to the original, replacing the word "my" with the word "the" and adding the words "of the United States of America" and finally "under God".

In 1954, a campaign by the Knights of Columbus to add the words "Under God" reached fruition. They had been campaigning hard for the last several years for the change based on the change they had made in their own reading of the Pledge at their meetings. President Eisenhower signed the change into law (Public Law relating to treatment of the flag) on Flag Day June 14, 1954, and our present-day Pledge of Allegiance was born.

So what's my problem? I have several.

First off, I believe that having a oath of allegiance to this country is a good idea and we should promote it. Unfortunately, over the past few decades I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashionable for people to trash this country. I'm fairly sure it started with the Vietnam protests and has continued to grow out of it. Add to that the rise in Liberalism and Secularism, both of which fundamentally dislike Capitalism and religion's role in the world, and you have the stage set for a great deal of our populace having no pride in the country they live in. Now, I know there are a lot of reasons, particularly in the past, that people feel our country has fallen far short of what we would have expected from our forefathers. But that is no reason not to have loyalty to the country in which you live in. In order to bring these people into the fold, we need to have a oath that they can say without reservation.

Second reason; the oath shouldn't be confused with a prayer. As much as I'm not a fan of removing Faith from any discussions, your asking people who do not believe in a God (over 8%) to swear allegiance to a country that exists "under God". Think of it this way Christians, would you swear allegiance to a country that had in it's oath "without God"? Of course not. Then there is the problem of incorporating it into our schools. With the present day arguments about Separation of Church and State, keeping those words makes the argument about church and State instead of pride and allegiance to your country where it should be. If you think it's a good idea to teach all of our children pride in this country so they will work hard to make it better, the words "under God" have to go.

Third reason; our country is becoming more and more diversified. We now have a significant portion of our country that believes in Buddhism, Confucianism, Atheism, Wicca, and many other religions that cannot affirm allegiance to a country which recognizes a Deity or even only one Deity. The words "under God" makes it hard for even the most patriotic among them to recite it.

What I'm talking about here is forming an oath that everyone can join in. If we are to survive as a country, we can not continue to find new ways to divide ourselves. You can, and should, have pride in the country you live in. I have heard many times from people who claim they will do nothing to support a country they have no pride in. I understand that pride, like respect, should be earned. But this country was born into the idea that it can change. Having no Nationalism makes our players weak and unmotivated to work toward betterment. I know it's a small part of the puzzle, but if our children at least start with the notion that they are committed to making this a better country, maybe more of them will work hard to make it so. If we continue to keep the words "under God" we may soon see a time when we have to remove the word "indivisible", and that would truly be a shame. H.C.

WHY NOT SOCIALISM?

"Socialism is a form of government that cannibalizes it's own assets."

I wish I could take credit for that quote, but the truth is; I heard it somewhere and can't remember where. Where ever it came from, I remembered it because I agreed with it. Socialism is not a revenue generating machine, but rather a way of redistributing wealth that already exists into the lower economic ranks where it will be consumed. Without the reintroduction of more wealth, it will simply slowly eat itself. Socialism is defined by Webster as; "A social system in which the producers (workers) possess both the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." I would expand on that a little to include the fact that Socialism is the expansion of government into the role of protector, there to take care of your basic needs such as education, employment, and health care for better or worse.

With the release of Michael Moore's new movie, "SICKO", many Americans are now taking a second look at our system of government and wondering if an infusion of socialistic ideas could help us better serve the needs of the people. In this piece I'm going to review the idea of a more socialist U.S. and let you know which parts I feel are worth considering, and which are not.

The idea of Socialism has been around for a very long time in various forms. Most all were based on the idea that a caste-type system, or any system that has people of various social standings, is fundamentally wrong. Christian Socialism, for example, bases it's socialist beliefs in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus saw all men and women as equals and therefore, they believe, any system that values or empowers one person over another is fundamentally un-Christian.

I remember my first thoughts about the inequity of social standing coming from my Dad. He was a committed Walter Reuther Socialist. He believed that the real power of our country was rooted in the working man, not in the elites that ran the corporations. I can still hear him lecturing me on the evils of allowing the powerful to forget who does the real work around here. He's probably the reason I find myself so often siding with Labor and Unions and why I like to view myself as a fighter for the average Joe.

Without a doubt, the socialist movement of the 50's and '60's is a big reason that so many people here in Michigan prospered through their Unions. The empowerment of the labor class helped people like my Dad to live better lives, get better retirement, better working conditions, and a larger slice of the pie. So why the quote at the top of the page? Because just like what eventually happened to the auto workers here in Michigan, socialism proved that it kills the goose that lays the golden egg.

Here's where Socialism goes wrong. Let's say we are all collective farmers. We are each given 40 acres to farm and a tractor with implements. I'm a hard working and responsible farmer who takes care of his land and tractor but I live next door to a farmer who is neither responsible nor hard working. Despite our differences in effort, we are both viewed the same and rewarded for our efforts the same. Soon I notice that my neighbor has a new tractor because he didn't take care of his old one, that his house is kept up by the government because he refuses to do the work. Basically I realize that in order for us to remain equal in our possessions the government is rewarding him for being lazy while doing nothing for me because I take care of myself. No system can work that elevates those that do the least. It sucks the ambition out of the rest of us. Why try hard if the results are the same? This is the fundamental flaw of Socialism.

Another problem with Socialism as I see it is that it is parasitic in nature. Most Socialist countries spend a small fraction of their GDP on defense. The reason? They count on someone else defending them, like the U.S. defends Canada. If all the Socialist Countries in the world had to provide their own security, they would either have to abandon most of their programs or would be overrun by some far more aggressive country. Socialism is also parasitic in medicine. They rely heavily on drugs and procedures invented by Capitalistic countries. Once the Research and Development is done and the patents expire, they start mass producing generics for far cheaper than the companies that invented them. Without incentive (profit) to do all that R&D, advances in medicine would be badly crippled.

But what of the other aspects of Socialism? Some of them have merit. First among them for me is the idea of equal education. Part of the problem with Capitalism as practiced here in the U.S. is that our education system doesn't promote the most capable among us, it just maintains the status quo. Wealthier people are more likely to go to good schools and to go to good Universities. We don't promote our best and brightest among all of us, just the best among the already privileged. At the very least, every child should know that he has an equal chance to become anything he is willing to work hard to become. It saddens me to think that we may lose the person who could cure Cancer simply because they could not afford College or came from a low-rated school.

Second is access to health care. I honestly believe that no one could watch a child die of a disease due to his parent's lack of coverage while the child in the next bed with the same problem lives and still think that our system is not broken. I see too many jars in Party Stores with little children's faces on them begging for a bone marrow transplant, I hear far too many sad stories to stand by and take it any longer. I will be an advocate for Universal Coverage for at least catastrophic illness until the day I die or until it finally happens. It doesn't have to be Socialized Medicine, in fact, I think that it shouldn't be, but the idea of covering everyone is an idea who's time has come.

As we look around the world for good examples of where we want to be in taking care of the least among us, let us be careful. America allows people to dream, to believe that one day they too can be successful. Let's not destroy that dream because our system is in need of repair. Hard work should be rewarded, ambition and talent nurtured. The only thing that our system needs is fairer opportunity to succeed and the security of knowing that one unfortunate health event won't ruin your life. What we don't need is equal distribution of wealth or privilege and the killing off of the spirit of doing your best. If we can stay focused, we can fix these things without turning our country inside out. Why not Socialism? Because when your the most prosperous country on Earth, with the ability to cure all your own problems, you don't start following less prosperous countries with bigger problems. H.C.