Personal Manifesto (Part One)

I feel compelled to write. My Windows Media Player is on random and Albinoni, of all options, just began to gently resonate. I have a Venti Sumatra from Starbucks and there is slight rumbling thunder outside my fraternity house. The scene seems perfectly developed for the incessant slamming of keys as one types madly. I have this 18^th century mental image of a prolific classical writer, rambunctiously applying ink to paper; his big wig of gray/white perm hair dominating the illustration. His quill pen is topped by a sagging, light white feather.

But I canvassed the deepest corners of my mind and temporarily found no worthy topic of such a momentous setting. While I *admittedly* watched much of the Senate’s 24-hour filibuster debacle a few days back, I prohibit myself from commenting any further because of the complete futility of the entire act. All other current issues seem tirelessly beaten to the ground. This moment is simply too special to waste in an endeavor convincing you why we must finish our mission in Iraq, for example. Frankly, I am going to continue that enterprise tomorrow and the day after, and probably many following days after that as well. Something larger beckons tonight…

After much internal struggle, I am left with a single recourse. While I believe that I may have attempted something similar before, tonight I am going to begin my “manifesto” of sorts. While the contents may be a bit abstract and sporadic, bear with this style as it is my chosen technique. There will be an overriding point, however; to express what exactly it is that I am trying to accomplish via the publication of this blog and, further, what I expect out of life as pertains to topics at hand here at Educated Soldier. I foresee this work to be decidedly broad, encompassing much more length then can be swallowed during a single post. So, tonight is the beginning; the beginning of something that I hope to be personally special.

One day I will be the person in the classical image, furiously delivering thought from mind to computer by feverishly pounding on the keyboard. And, hopefully, this manifesto will go a long way towards the explanation of the rationale of a man who foresees himself in a position much more grand then opposite a screen, constantly analyzing the actions of those in the positions of power.

I’ll begin my elucidation by explaining the motivation that spawns Educated Soldier. Hopefully this will also depict strong reason as to why you should be interested. I will be careful to be absolutely honest.

The only issue that could easily become hidden behind deceit is the original motivation for Educated Soldier. It would be effortless and noble to claim that I began the blog merely for the purpose of engaging in interesting political and military discourse with like-minded individuals. While this reason was certainly core to my decision to begin publishing, it is also akin to dropping ice cream in a mug and declaring that you have a float. The root beer here, in fact, is that I perceived an opportunity to gain a foot into the political field via writing- a habit that I genuinely enjoy.

I have bought into the many stories that I have heard of various bloggers who, through steady publication, found their way into higher circles. While I have not yet achieved such success, it is nonetheless a motivating factor for me. At the very least, it would be particularly fortunate for my writing to become a boon to my continuing path of higher education. This is to say that it is my opinion that, by amassing quality work here, I may potentially use such as part of a larger application package to present to a university of my choice, thus increasing the likelihood of my acceptance.

That’s where it began.

But why Educated Soldier?

I honestly feel that I am in a unique situation birthed by the diversity of my experiences. I took part first-hand in the overriding event of our current times, the War in Iraq. I have a perspective into the situation in the Middle East, born of numerous hours and ferocious violence, which the majority of Americans do not. I feel that the people who most notably lack in this area where I excel, are those that most often “armchair quarterback” the situation. It is nearly no less then a duty for me to write because of this unique viewpoint.

While the majority of citizens do not have this experience, I recognize that there are many that do. So why is my outlook any different then the numerous others who have shed blood, sweat and tears in the Middle East? One reason: I have since left the service and turned my attention to further understanding of the Middle Eastern dynamic through university education. This is to say that I am currently developing a mindset of sorts that is honed not by focused concentration but rather by a broadened field of view. Again, I feel that my knowledge is unique in the sense that I can compare book knowledge to experience that can be gained only by having “been there and done that.” In both cases, I feel that my knowledge is limited. However, the sum of the parts creates an approach greater then the individual components.

Furthermore, I am genuinely interested in the topics that I discuss here. I look for every available method of diversifying my education. I frequent websites such as PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, SOCNET and SHADOW SPEAR that emphasize the direct word-of-mouth experiences of warriors much more practiced then me. On the other hand, at any given time, I can be found watching CSPAN or conversing intellectually with university friends with similar interests. Some of these friends share my ideals of what is right for this country. The majority of them do not. I dearly want my political, domestic and international knowledge to be a sword sharpened via any number of different tools.

Finally, and this is very important to me, I feel that my opinion is one that is shared by many of my fellow soldiers. However, I feel that this opinion is easily glossed over by a populace that simply doesn’t recognize that they do not know the whole story. This manifesto is not the forum for expressing endlessly the disservice that modern media has been doing for its readership. However, I truly feel that too many of America’s citizens are taking news for being ground truth. I want it to be effectively known that it is not. While I may never be absolutely correct in my judgments, I can assure you that nearly every piece of information delivered via major media is bent to nourish someone’s agenda; whether that someone represents Republican or Democratic Party thought is not important. What is important is that the whole story is rarely being published. I, of course, can not single-handedly remedy this dilemma. I can, however, bring it to attention to the best of my ability. And I can do so while encouraging all readers to truly make informed decisions whether it is at the polls or while leisurely discussing current events. Read beyond the headlines. Explore what isn’t being told. Endeavor to find out why certain events occur as they do. The drive to promote such reader participation is a forthright goal of Educated Soldier.

These are the reasons why Educated Soldier exists. I think that I am going to halt the development of my manifesto for the night. Next time I tackle this project, I would like to explain why my ideology leans so admittedly to the Right. As a taste of this part of the project, I will divulge a sample of the reasons now.

It should be declared that my leaning has less to do with the war in Iraq then what might be expected. Instead, it has much more to do with my continuing fascination with economics especially at the macro level. My conservative philosophy is very much rooted in the economical teachings imparted by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Furthermore, while being religiously agnostic myself, I recognize that values rooted in Christian belief lay the groundwork for the successful establishment of morals as those that make the United States of America such a wonderful place to live.

However, the explanation of my personal values will come in the next continuation of my “manifesto.”

Thanks for your time.

The Boy Who Cried "Wolf"

I can’t say that I put a great deal of thought into the following descriptions, but something just occurred to me in a Mitt Romney-style epiphany. While I have been convinced for a while that the Democratic Party has little chance of winning next year’s presidential voting and I have been sure since last year’s elections that the Democratic take-over of Congress was only an anomaly, it was only tonight that I put my finger on why exactly these phenomena prove true.

You see, I am becoming convinced that the Democratic Party, as it stands today, is a flash-in-the-pan party of impulsive, wannabe-revolutionary ideals.

And this type of stature stands weakly against the Republican Party as I now perceive it.

Here is what I mean. And, as a note, when describing the “current” Democratic Party, I am referring to the Left as it has been organized since about the time that Howard Dean has become prominent.

This current incarnation of the Democratic Party seems to rely on continuous rallying around singular hot-button issues. They take a sole issue and attempt to use it is as a release point to begin a revolution. And, in some aspects, they are successful. However, it is not a strategy that will allow them to continue long term victories.

For example, the rallying issue for the Democrats during last year’s elections was simple: the Republicans are bad. They took this single issue and incorporated entire campaigns on its foundation. This year, the cry for revolution is about the same, but maybe twofold: the Iraq War situation and “global warming.” They hope that these topics will be enough to fire up their constituency.

The Republican Party seems to take the opposite strategy. We depend on individuals who stoically pound on the same principles that have represented the Party for years: lower taxes, national security, and strong morals (derived from, but not dependent upon Christian beliefs).

To me, the Republicans represent the "establishment." The Democrats, on the other hand, are the "movement kids." They want to be revolutionaries. Their failure is that revolution depends on several dynamics to be successful and they are lacking in these areas. Revolutions require monumentally strong leaders. And while there are some Democrats that have been successful, I see none that are able be so on such a grandiose level. Furthermore, revolution also depends on the constituency being decidedly unhappy with the status quo. And while the Left would argue otherwise, I see this unhappiness lacking.

Sure, there are plenty of Americans that want to see the war in Iraq ended. They want to see change in certain areas. But overall, I genuinely feel that the typical American is much too satisfied with his current lot to begin rioting in the streets any time soon.

And herein lays the dilemma for the Democratic Party. Do they truly believe that Americans will rally against the establishment because of the method in which Republicans deal with “global warming?” The Democrats want American citizens to perceive the nation in dire straits. They want to convince citizens that our nation is teetering on crisis. Our healthcare system is beyond repair in its current state, they claim. However, they are patently wrong and I truly think that common sense Americans will see through these deceptions before they hand over any further ground to the revolutionary fatalists that now constitute the Democratic Party.

There will always be groups of Americans who get fired up by these ideals of drastic change. Drastic change, however, is not currently needed. The Republicans have the luxury of depending on staple American principles without having to descend to petty discussion-of-the-moment antics to build their campaigns. Democrats know that on the whole, Conservative principles have done this country well. They only hope that their sideshow tactics will cause enough dissent for people to be duped into voting them into office.

The Left’s stances on abortion, gun laws, taxes, national defense, et al are wrong. So they will attempt to circumvent these shortcomings concerning issues that have always been important in the hope that you will vote for them because of their stances on issues much more impulsive. To their dismay, they will find that the American people are much too intelligent to fall for such weak devices.

In other news, I have an update to my last BLOG concerning Second Life. As mentioned before, there is a Republican “Headquarters” in this virtual world. At this Republican Headquarters, there has been polling stations available to weigh support for the current Republican Presidential hopefuls. Yesterday, I received an email updating the current results of these polls. Users were asked to choose which candidate they would most like to see represent the Republican Party in 2008. While Fred Thompson was not an available candidate (thus leaving me to choose John McCain), it seems that the net-savvy Conservatives really dig Ron Paul.

Here are the current standings as of July 14^th, 2007:

Ron Paul - 57
Rudy Giuliani - 37
Mitt Romney - 20
John McCain - 17
Duncan Hunter - 10
Mike Huckabee - 9
Sam Brownback - 5
Jim Gilmore - 5
Tom Tancredo - 4
Tommy Thompson – 3

Maybe not a terribly important development, but interesting nonetheless. Take it for what its worth.

Thanks.

An Effective Second Life for Fred Thompson

If you have a minute, I would like to politics with you.

More specifically, I would like very much for you to join me in conversation on the already-heated race for the Presidential nominations.

Let’s wax poetic on the issues of immigration, the war in Iraq, and the current American health care system.

Let’s debate the positive and negative aspects of our favorite nominee hopefuls. Tell me why Senator Clinton’s universal health care proposal makes sense and I’ll describe why Conservatives consistently insist that the highest quality medical care exists only on a freely open market.

So let’s talk…

I’ll meet you on Second Life in an hour---

Hold up? What?

Second Life. I will stop short of calling it an internet revolution but it is an application that is making waves. It is also a program that, to me, shows what very well could be the advanced internet of the future. Indeed, Second Life could potentially become the chosen method of high quality, multi-faceted communication in the years to come.

I was introduced to the program probably six months ago. I tinkered around with it then and, ultimately, lost interest. About a week ago, I gave it another shot. While I have not become an addict yet, I have had just enough good experiences in my Second Life during this past week to see its valuable assets.

First of all, let me note that I have zero association with Linden Labs, the company that is responsible for directing Second Life. Nor do I have any financial incentive for encouraging your interest in the program. However, if you are reading this because of your attention to politics, you may see how Second Life could be a very valuable tool; very valuable indeed for a presidential hopeful like former Senator Fred Thompson.

Nor am I going to sit here and describe to you in detail what Second Life is. In general, it is an application that presents the user with a virtual world, ala the Sims, that allows users to create and develop characters, interact with others, buy and sell virtual land, and market items via the system’s cyber economy. If you want to know more, visit here. It’s a free download, although advanced features cost a subscription fee.

The point is this: currently, the Second Life server shows upwards of 40,000 online users. It also states that over 8 million individual accounts have been registered since the inception of the application. Maybe most notably, in the last 24 hours nearly two million real U.S. dollars were transacted via Second Life. While many of these numbers are inflated by inactive members and duplicate accounts, the monetary values are nothing to scoff at.

What’s particularly interesting to the political enthusiast is that several presidential hopefuls have vested “land” in the virtual world dedicated to their campaigns. Whether officially endorsed by the politicians or not, these campaign sites could be a future boon to the politicians’ presidential chances. After a quick search of the Second Life map, I have found advanced campaign areas for John Edwards, Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, and Mike Gravel. There is also a group dedicated to Republicans of which I am a member.

It was this G.O.P-oriented group that held a discussion last night that proved particularly interesting. Several of our Second Life characters met at the group headquarters and participated in a discussion that lasted over an hour and produced quality arguments that are becoming less commonly found in our First (Real) Lives. Each participant came across as educated and eloquent. Most sides were represented and yet the debate rarely fell victim to mudslinging traps. It was an outstanding discussion. Names like Adam Smith, George Washington, Ayn Rand, and David Ricardo were used as precedent for advanced arguments. There was no junior high conversation but serious intellectual stuff.

And, at its best, this is what Second Life offers. Interested individuals have an area to have such intelligent discourses. Candidates have a place were they can effectively advance their campaign through the program’s plethora of integrated media: video, scripted programs, audio, etc. I, for one, would absolutely love to see Fred Thompson officially endorse and develop a campaign site via this platform.

Senator Thompson has expressed repeatedly his desire to attack his campaign via many different methods, including “old school” grass-root operations and cutting-edge tactics. Second Life offers the latter. By utilizing this program, Thompson would be at the most advanced point of current technology. His charm and charisma would be given yet another podium to shine through and be recognized. This is a great opportunity for such a talented statesmen and I surely hope he seizes the chance to jump on such a valuable tool.

And when he does, my Second Life character, Morrison Huldschinsky, will be there traversing the cyber world, proselytizing his cause.

Sad Times for McCain, Sad Times for the GOP

To your great relief (of this I am sure), I have returned.

I haven’t updated this blog for quite a few weeks now. The hiatus was originally scheduled and began with my vacation to Washington D.C. It just so happens that the break in blogging became a bit more extended then originally anticipated. This was for various reasons, none of which I'm going to get in to right now because, frankly, all responsible reasons are fairly mundane. Before we continue, however, I want to direct you to the photo tour that I threw together using pictures that I took while in the Nation’s Capital.

The D.C. Photo Tour as developed by “DCRunningMan,” as I thought was an appropriate self-title, can be accessed HERE. I really encourage you to check it out. Despite the dire predictions forecasted that I would despise my time spent amongst D.C.’s population of America-haters, I had – admittedly – a great time. For that reason, if none other, I would really appreciate you checking out the Photo Tour. Thanks.

Moving on…

For a lesser man, the dilemma that I currently face would cause an insurmountable obstacle for tonight’s writing: I have no necessary topic in mind. But, alas, it takes a lot more then a lack of focus to prohibit me from writing effectively (although that description may surely be in question). I must admit, though, that I did just complete an epic text that I posted on my personal blog hosted on MySpace. Because of the writing fatigue from that endeavor, I can’t promise the continuity of this blog.

But I’ll try.

One thing that is floating through my head however: I sustain a deeply ingrained sinking feeling whenever I read news concerning Senator John McCain’s failing campaign. I must remind everyone that before learning of Fred Thompson’s presidential desires, Senator McCain was, far and away, my choice for Republican candidate for President. And I still believe that he is an excellent choice for Republicans. He just is not as good a choice as Fred Thompson.

I heard a Democrat pollster on Fox News last night try to attribute McCain’s recent failures to his continued support for the Iraq War. I feel that this is simply incorrect. Republicans have turned from Senator McCain because of the twisted piece of legislation that he presented as solution to our country’s illegal immigration issue that stems from our southern border. This single issue has been “hot-button” in recent times and most Republicans have a very decided idea of, at least, what they do not want to see happen. Much like nearly all Republicans are against abortion, nearly all Republicans are against amnesty for illegal immigrants. And, in the legislation presented by McCain, it sure seemed like he was sitting opposite this view point. It was this issue, and most certainly not the war, that has killed his campaign. This issue also caused Senator McCain to step into a bed occupied by Republican arch-enemy Ted Kennedy. The proposed legislation and the strange bedfellow has been a one-two punch combo strong enough to knock out the most resilient of campaigns.

And that is exactly what happened in this case.

But I argue this: the immigration issue is not a paramount conservative topic. How can I justify this statement? Before justification, let me go a step further: had this topic become hotly debated at any time other then such a pivotal one for presidential hopefuls, I highly doubt it would have such significant prominence.

I know that a lot of people that read here share my conservative beliefs. And because of these conservative values, I am sure a lot of you are probably thinking that I am going mad. But consider this: off the top of my head, there are only a few stabilizing pillars that I believe are absolutely vital for one to build a Republican structure:

• Strong National Defense
• Lower Taxes (or, at least, no raising of existing taxes)
• Pro-Life
• The Right to Bare Arms

In my assessment, one can not claim to be a Conservative or, at least a Republican, without upholding these core values. This list would have been seen as absolutely asinine as little as ten years ago because of the omission of this formerly needed value:

• Limited Bureaucratic Growth

However, the Republican Party has changed. It has reacted to the needs of a nation that is currently being lethally threatened. This has caused the need to develop additional government agencies that I feel can do some good for this country if given the proper opportunities. Certain personal freedoms (and I don’t like putting it this way) may have succumb to the needs of National Defense at the hands of the Republican Party. But this is not exactly the Republican Party of old. It is one that has matured and realized that needed governmental growth can effectively occur. The Party that respects all the freedoms of all of its citizens has been the one most responsible for “intruding” on some of these freedoms recently. But these intrusions have come because of the foremost needs of national security; the first tenant of the Party as it currently stands in my assessment.

In no list, as described now, or as would have been written ten years ago, is illegal immigration an issue that dictates your affiliation as either Left or Right. At the very least, it is far from the top of any list of this kind that it may reach. This issue is simply so powerfully affecting campaigns today because of its timing. And this, in my assessment, is really unfortunate for Senator McCain and really unfortunate for the Republican Party.

Because, after all, Senator McCain is awfully strong and influential on the following issues:

• Strong National Defense
• Lower Taxes (or, at least, no raising of existing taxes)
• Pro-Life
• The Right to Bare Arms

Again, I feel that Fred Thompson is the better choice for the current needs of our Party as the situation stands today. But, really, Senator McCain is not far behind him. And, surely, he is a much better second choice then Giuliani or Romney. Giuliani doesn’t support the Right to Bare Arms (in fact, he has gone out of his way to oppose such a right) and he is admittedly Pro-Choice. And, given Romney’s unscheduled “epiphanies,” it is difficult to gauge where he stands on any of these issues. But I wouldn’t bet the house on the Conservative values of an individual that governed the same state that produces Kennedys.

So, to Mr. Thompson, I say “Run, Fred, Run.” But to the Republican Party, I say “Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket.” There is a lot of campaigning left to do. I would rather see a battle between two vetted Conservatives – McCain and Thompson – that produces a candidate most qualified then I would want a battle between two individuals that most Conservatives are adverse to – Giuliani and Romney – that produces a candidate that is simply the lesser of two evils.

Anyway…

Did I say something about lacking focus tonight? I retract that statement. Thanks for your time.

Into the Dark..

Today’s post may be constituted by a more “rambling” style of touching on many topics more briefly then normal. Then again, it just may not. My reason for such a suggestion, however, is because I have been short on updates lately due to the busyness of my schedule away from the computer. Therefore, I have all these topics in my head that I had intended to delve into during the past week but had not had the opportunity.

The first piece of business is wholly personal but relates in many ways to our normal topics at hand. This week, I get the opportunity to travel to the wretched heart of the evil beast. What does this mean?

On Thursday, I fly to Washington D.C.

Of course, I can’t be completely negative. Despite the lack of common sense and foresight that I attribute to much of the population of D.C. (and I am sorry if the shoe doesn’t fit in particular cases, but it sure seems that D.C. is always ready to surrender to ultra Liberal doctrines regardless of the obviousness of the stupidity of these doctrines to those of us outside of the capitol city’s confines), I am really looking forward to my vacation. In fact, I love D.C. For a student with political interests such as mine, there isn’t a locale more suited for my tastes and desires then D.C. Yet, I often feel that my political leanings make me a minority while visiting.

Yet, I will not allow this to be an obstacle for me. In fact, part of my trip will be dedicated to solidifying my opportunity to transfer to American University. Not only am I willing to submit to an occasional visit to the heart of the Democratic Party’s base (or, at least the base this side of the San Andreas fault), I am also explicitly attempting to move there permanently. Call it my attempt to effectively slay the beast from its most vulnerable area: the inside.

Moving on.

The first topic that I want to comment on, outside of my own personal adventures noted above, is some anecdotes spoken by Bill O’Reilly. I typically agree with much the man says. However, I also recognize his bias despite his claims to be “fair and balanced.” The statements that he made that I am about to reference were uttered about a week ago, so I am not going to attempt to find an exact quote. However, to paraphrase, he made light of Fred Thompson’s pending run for the Republican presidential nomination. One comment that he made in particular struck me as short-sighted.

He suggested that Senator Thompson’s quick accession in the polls is attributed solely to his television celebrity status. He also suggested that those of us who support the Senator do so because of this celebrity status and not because of his political stature.

I, of course, disagree.

What I will concede is that Senator Thompson’s television popularity has brought “automatic” attention to his nomination attempt. To say that his supporters rely solely on this status as our faith of his competency is… well… hogwash.

Senator Thompson’s status only shifted the focus of light from the current candidates to one that many of us feel more wholly represents what we want in the person leading our political party. I don’t support Senator Thompson because he acted well on Law and Order. Instead, I support him because he continually showed support for Conservative ideals while in the political field.

His celebrity status only made me aware of a well-suited candidate whom I might not have considered otherwise. I am thankful for his status, but not ashamed. Nor am I am using this status as a tenant for support.

So, Mr. O’Reilly, I am sorry but your assessment was wrong. Senator Thompson’s candidacy is genuine. The current field of representatives has, in so many ways, already violated my own core of conservative values. While Senator Thompson is not without fault in this regard, I truly feel that in every position that has found himself politically, had I been in his shoes, I would have made the same choices. In the end, for me, there is no better metric for assessing a candidate.

P.S. If you are a Republican and you are running for President, there are certain principles that you can not violate. One of the most important of these principles is that represented by the second amendment. Another principle that, in this day and age unfortunately, precludes you from being my chosen presidential nominee is having the title of former governor of the socialist state of Massachusetts.

So it becomes McCain versus Thompson for me. And as much as I value McCain’s lifelong service to our country, I feel that Senator Thompson is simply a better choice for president.

Okay, so I have more issues in mind.

For example, I wanted to touch on this rumor that some element of the Defense Department was considering research into a so-called “Gay Bomb.” I am surprised that this “news” hasn’t been suggested to be little more than Fark. Did anyone actually read the report? How much money was actually forwarded towards the development of this project? If, very little (I.E. NONE), then why the commotion? Is this news? But, like I said, I wanted to touch on this subject, among other things. However, I have gone on long enough for tonight. I hope to return tomorrow and then, I am sure, there will be another brief hiatus as I travel to D.C.

Thanks for your attention.

The Vet's University Experience

You know, more often than not, I write these blogs out of a sense of duty. That is to say that I write them because I feel I have to write them. Lately, it has become rare that I write about an issue that is being written simply out of my own desire. It is not often that a time comes when an issue so compels me that I feel the urge to simply spew forth words…

Tonight’s blog is one of those peculiar, emotionally charged examples.

I have been witness to two illustrations today that relate to the same phenomenon. Without letting the subject of this blog totally “out of the bag” yet, allow me to give you some source material to whet your appetites. The following are links to outside sources:

Samuel Huntington's The Hispanic Challenge (PDF)

CNN.COM: Suicide Risk Double Among Male U.S. Veterans

The Huntington article is from the journal Foreign Policy. It is a well-cited work and quite the source of controversy. Huntington, for all his faults, is Yale AND Harvard educated. He is a noted political scientist and, whether found agreeable or otherwise, his work drives entire movements within the fields of sociology and political science.

The second link is to an article that was presented today on CNN’s website. The article cites research completed that may show a correlation between white, college-educated military veterans and the acts of suicide. While the researchers in the article, themselves, claim that their arguments are inconclusive at best, the suggestion that is made is warrant enough for me to discuss what I currently have residing in my mind.

The Huntington text is noteworthy because it was presented in one of my university classes today. This class is a required course for my particular International Studies major here at the University of South Florida. The professor of this class has been hereunto exceptional. For lack of a better term, I have found minute portions of his lectures to be “quirky.” However, I found nothing too alarming. Today’s class may have changed that. The format in which the Huntington text was presented was, for me, appalling.

Before we get to today’s event, though, let me state my thesis. I suggest that the research completed on the CNN link is correct. I believe that it is highly probable that veterans commit suicide at a higher percentage rate then non-military civilians. I am going to go farther, however, and suggest that this high rate of suicide is caused by university’s continued teaching of material in manners that is so completely out of touch and alien to the military-hardened individual. Today’s class was exactly an example of one that could cause a veteran to go crazy.

This particular Huntington text is highly controversial. It’s very title, The Hispanic Challenge, invokes thoughts of racism. However, the points that the author delivers are not only grounded in empirical fact, but they are made with the intention of making a populace aware of a problem that, in Huntington’s eyes, is very real and very dangerous. And for many of us that have served in the military, the ideal of America is something outside of what the everyday citizen understands. And, for this reason among others, the Huntington text proves very much noteworthy.

So, with all this being said, I was very excited to see on my syllabus that the professor had intended on sharing this text with the class today. And he did. What occurred afterwards was disturbing. He allowed the class to critique the text in oral discussion. This is something that the professor had yet to do after citing any previous material. Of course, the class response was as expected: Huntington is wrong, Huntington is a bigot, the current argument of Huntington’s is the same argument that was made many times in the past concerning previous waves of immigration, etc. Basically, the professor allowed the class to conduct a chorus of material-bashing.

All things being equal, I want to again clear the professor of extended wrong-doing. He tried to stay outside of the discussion and present dissenting opinions. However, I do feel that the response he elicited from the class was premeditated. He knew what the students would say and they said it; Huntington is bad. And, worse, students failed to critically analyze the subject because it was so much easier to suggest that such an extreme opinion was simply a bigoted one and a wrong one.

However, I am not on my soapbox tonight to suggest solely the culpability of my professor. I am here, instead, to show the implications that such methods of teaching can have on the returning soldier. Today’s class, for me, was tough. While I should have spoken up and pointed out the shortsighted nature of my class peers in not considering Huntington’s opinion, I chose not to. I can confidently assume that I would have been outnumbered 49 to 1 in my concern for giving the noted political scientist his due. And, while I am not easily swayed from a rhetorical battle, I knew that this was one that would fall on deaf ears.

However, we can’t assume that every returning soldier has the same grip on life’s dirty realities as I do. As egotistical as that sounds, I have to be honest: there are young men, returning from service, who are entering universities intent on turning the entire world-view that they rely on upside down. My honesty outweighs my humility; I suggest that I can handle a situation such as today's better than many of my military counterparts. And I am completely sympathetic, however, to the pain that they are suffering.

The solder’s world is one of necessary moral and values. The ideal of America, as I referred to above, may be abstract but it is something that the soldier relies on daily as motivation to continue grueling through tasks that the average citizen would fail to complete. This is especially true for those of us that have been asked to risk our lives in this cause’s defense. If the soldier’s perspective of America is one that may be considered by others to be shaded by bigotry and racist overtones, then so be it. Soldiers do not discriminate against blacks, whites, or otherwise. Soldiers serve next to, and fight for, their brothers of all races. However, the concept of America is all the soldier has to rely on. And this concept of America is exactly what Huntington perceives as being under attack. To see such an argument so intensely harassed could surely be traumatizing for many a soldier.

Now, all of this was solely my experience. My experience in Tampa, Florida. My experience in a university that has been less “liberal” in its expressions then I have expected. I can only imagine the university experience being had by veterans in the Boulder, Colorado’s or the Ann Arbor, Michigan’s of our country. If my assumptions are correct about the experiences being had in those areas, then I can see how the findings of the CNN.COM report could easily prove true.

That’s it for tonight. Thank you.

Are We Rome? Tell Me: What If We Are.

You know, there are so many issues that are worthy of discussion tonight: the Republican debate that I have yet to analyze, on-going situations in Iraq or the National Geographic documentary Inside the Green Berets which I have finally gotten the opportunity to watch. And there are those issues that have already received more attention then they deserve and Miss Hilton, I am referring to you. So, for the sake of keeping my digesting dinner heading downward and not keyboard-bound, we are going to skip all the above-mentioned and focus on something just a little more obscure.


I want to discuss Stephen Colbert’s guest last night on his Colbert Report.



And that guest was a gentleman named Cullen Murphy. Mr. Murphy has penned a book titled Are We Rome. From what I understand and, admittedly, I am only going to thumb though his book after writing this, Mr. Murphy presents evidence that America is quite similar to ancient Rome. From what I saw during the interview with Stephen Colbert, the author found this to be troublesome. This thesis is not what caused me concern. If my education serves me correctly, between the Roman Republic and its Empire, there existed on this Earth a Roman state of superior authority for about 1,000 years. If only our United States could be so lucky. However, what bothered me was a single anecdotal comment voiced by Cullen Murphy.


Mr. Murphy claimed that one of the downfalls of the Roman Republic was the privatization of the market place. Equating “downfall” with negativity, I immediately disagreed with the author’s assessment. While it may be true that the privatized marketplace led to the end for Rome, it does not necessarily mean the same for the United States.


Let me remind the author that the world has attempted the alternative method. This was called “socialism.” In all its forms, no matter how large scale or small, the name remains the same. And sometimes, Mr. Murphy, socialism wasn’t exactly "in your face" in its manifestation. Sometimes it hid behind the words of leading economists. Sometimes, it was being led by peaceful-seeming fellows like John Maynard Keynes. Sometimes, it seemed innocent when not being professed by hell-bent government dictators. Ask Europeans, they surely remember the days of state-owned industry. Ask them about the quality of life that such a marketplace ultimately brought upon them.


Let me tell you, Mr. Murphy, your negativity is misdirected. The privatization of the market is the key to capitalism’s very success. And capitalism’s success is vital to the world’s monetary survival. And, alas, I am not an authority on this issue. In fact, maybe you have my number because, after all, you have written a book- I have only a handful of blogs under my belt. But I am pretty sure that Milton Friedman would have agreed with my assessment. And those that award the Nobel Prize seemed to think pretty highly of Mr. Friedman’s economic knowledge. You know who else might have had beef with your analysis, Mr. Murphy? Try Friedrich Hayek. His influence might have been even stronger then Friedman’s. After all, both President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher thought enough of his opinions that they used them as basis to their financial policies: policies that rejuvenated markets. And, in this case, the markets being rejuvenated were global in scope.


So Mr. Murphy, I hope your book sells well. In fact, I am sure that you present many valid arguments that are worth reading and considering. However, don’t assume that you can go on a show such as the Colbert Report and hope that its tongue-in-cheek nature will save your comments from the wrath of the public. There are watchdogs out there, buddy, and you will not trample on my free-market, capital-driven, democratic happiness.


Thank you.



In other news, I would love to assess Fred Thompson’s interview on Hannity and Colmes the other night. I would also like to speak of a very gracious note that I received a few days ago concerning one of my blogs. However, I think I just blew off enough literary steam for one night. Thanks for sticking around. More to come tomorrow.

On Bin Laden and Political Debates

So, the news is spreading that Osama Bin Laden is alive- or so says Haji Mansour Dadullah. You can read the news report concerning the confirmation of OBL’s current livelihood HERE.

The news report talks of a letter that was sent from Bin Laden to this Taliban commander. While in the gym this morning, I saw this story being discussed on the campus news network. While I couldn’t hear the dialogue, I could read the ticker that was scrolling along the bottom of the screen. It said something that read roughly like this:

“Is Osama Bin Laden Alive?”

Upon considering this question, I came to my own question in opposition:

“Why should I care?”

Honestly.

This, ironically, is also the question that I use in reply to those naysayers that claim that the American effort in Afghanistan is completely lost because we have not yet located Bin Laden. I don’t even want to address in any sort of length just how short-sighted such a comment is. I am sure, with any critical thinking, you can see how a stable Afghanistan with a toppled and abandoned Taliban government is successful despite the fact that Bin Laden remains at large.

None of that, however, answers my original query about why I should care. Let’s go back to the news report as linked in the opening paragraph of this text. In the report, this Dadullah character explains in a very telling fashion exactly why Bin Laden remains hidden. These are his words, according to Al Jazeera:

"(Osama Bin Laden) prefers not to appear because if he appeared in the media or met people he might face danger.”

Exactly. Dadullah continues to claim that Bin Laden continues to order directives from his hidden lair, so to speak. I am calling Dadullah’s bluff on this one. However, he was correct in his assessment that any sort of publicity for Bin Laden would most certainly endanger him.

And that’s just the thing. Bin Laden is hand-tied. He may not be dead and we may not have captured him. It seems unlikely that we ever will given the landscape and human network that he has in the Afghani / Pakistani border region. But, again, I highly doubt that he is causing much harm. Bin Laden knows that showing his face would increase the morale of those that follow his cause greatly. But he can’t. In fact, there isn’t much that he can do.

So, again, I ask you, concerning Bin Laden’s well-being:

Why should I care?

And this brings me to my second topic: tonight’s debate amongst Republican presidential hopefuls.

I am pretty excited to see how it plays out. Well, I am as excited as one can be for such things. I expect it to be awfully predictable. I watched about half of the Democrats’ debate; I was nearly sickened by the constant back-patting that was passed between candidates. I say, “Be a Man- Go for the Throat!” I assume that any of these candidates would throw any of the others “under the rug” in private, yet they feel the need to show some sort of showmanship class in public. Oh well.

I have seen these debates broken down in various media outlets with a pretty tried and true method that I am going to follow below. I am presenting myself with a few questions about what I expect to see tonight. Enjoy my predictions and feel free to add your own.

Who has the most to lose?

I am going to have to go with Senator McCain on this one. I dearly love the guy and, for a long time, he was my choice for the Republican nominee. However, he is going to be walking into the lions’ den tonight. Nearly all the opposing candidates will likely gang up on his decision to sponsor the recent immigration bill that has angered much of McCain’s conservative base. I really don’t see how he can respond to a mob attack concerning this issue without alienating a large portion of his followers.

Who has the most to gain?

Mitt Romney and here is why: Given the number of debate participants, it seems unlikely that enough time will be focused on Governor Romney’s record to really expose his short comings. An example of a glaring shortcoming: His false story about being an avid lifetime hunter and his follow-up explanation that he meant “hunting” in the sense of chasing and killing small rodents. This detail may arise but I doubt these types of issues will gain any focus. Instead, Romney will be able to express his conservative agenda that he apparently has. He’s a smooth speaker and looks presentable on television. This debate should do little but help his chances.

What question do I most want to see posed?

I would love to hear each candidate explain how their campaigns would be altered by the presence of a running Fred Thompson. I fear this question because it presents an opportunity for the candidates to summarily bash an opponent while he’s not present. However, I think that any avenue that gets Thompson’s name into public light is ultimately a positive boon to his candidacy. Additionally, I genuinely want to know how the current hopefuls perceive Senator Thompson’s chances.

And that does it for today. I hope everyone enjoyed the lengthy update. I’ll be back soon!

Mercenary???

So I can’t exactly pinpoint where today’s anger is stemming from. In fact, I don’t even know what got this subject on my mind. However, there is something – an ideology I guess you could call it – brewing from the Left that is really building a nasty taste in my mouth.

I simply can not tolerate the word “mercenary” being used to describe American corporate contractors currently working in Iraq.

Oh, brother, this really makes me hot.

I would say that the forthcoming rant is based on paging through the book, Blackwater, The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. However, that would not be true. While I did thumb through the novel a few weeks back, it did not leave enough of an impression to warrant commenting. In fact, the brief skimming that I completed of Jeremy Scahill’s work read more like a farce then any sort of informative effort concerning the Blackwater company. I am open to opinion differing from mine. However, it took deep digging into this book to even find mention of Blackwater-related events. It seemed that, instead, the author was more content to go on his opinionated rants throughout the text instead of focusing on the solid facts of the case that he was ineffectively attempting to build.

But, oh well... I wasted more time on that book already then it was worth. Back to the subject at hand.

Mercenary: The Free Dictionary (source linked) describes the term thusly: One who serves or works merely for monetary gain.

To those who would call members of entities such as Blackwater or Triple Canopy “mercenaries,” I ask you this: what have you done for your country? Let’s look back at the accepted definition above. I want to focus on the word, merely, because it is key to unlocking the deeper understanding of what drives these honorable individuals. Nearly every member of any reputable defense security contractor company has past military or law enforcement experience on their side. They have proven their desire to defend land and country. To those that have labeled them with the negatively implicated “mercenary,” I ask again: what have you done for your country?

Most of these individuals have proven themselves exemplary. Many are former members of special operation units such as the Army’s Special Forces or the Navy’s Seals. They have completed some of the most grueling training that our country offers for military types. They have deployed before and risked life and limb. Now, they are out there, lives on the line, doing it again. Many have retired from their respective services, having completed over twenty grueling years of duty. Again, what have you done for your country? Don’t hang a flag or place a sticker on your bumper, call yourself a patriot, and degrade these men. You don’t have the right.

So are these men working merely for money? I doubt it. Is money a motivating factor? Of course. But money is a motivating factor to those that reenlist in the Army’s infantry. Does the desire to secure your children’s futures make you a mercenary? I hardly think so.

Please quit attempting to degrade individuals that you simply do not understand. You don’t have the mind of a warrior and you, probably, don’t understand what it is like to be one of a few individuals between a highly valued target and a country chock-full of evil-intended types that want nothing more then to kill him. These men have honor and they have courage. They would gladly step in front of the bullet intended for the individuals that they protect. If you want to compare these men to groups from the past, they hardly seem like mercenaries but, rather, Spartan warriors who thrive on their chosen lifestyles. I doubt you would understand.

And, finally, curb your unabated desire to begin unneeded controversy. These men are not running around rabidly, killing foreigners aimlessly. In fact, most Blackwater or Triple Canopy operators are hardly killing anyone. And they like it that way. They have a mission to protect those they are assigned and to return themselves to their waiting families. Do you really think that they traveled across the globe to destroy a lifetime of honorable service by recklessly acting out in aggression? You obviously don’t understand what drives these men.

The next time that you claim to “support our troops,” remember that there are more then service members that are willing to lay their lives out for yours. There are hard men working in hard places, earning their pay, but still willing to do what you are not.

I am happy I got that off my chest.

In closing, I want to remind everyone that tonight, at 9PM, on the National Geographic channel, there will be a special called Inside the Green Berets. I’ll be catching it on Tivo at the end of the week and hope to discuss it then.

Praise Be Upon... the V.A.??

Today’s intentions: to keep this brief (we’ll see).

While there are plenty of worthy issues to speak of today, I have something a bit particular to mention. It is a story from a viewpoint that is not typically heard. The positive sentiment towards this particular organization is also growing rarer. While my experience may be the exception, it is well worth noting nonetheless.

With that being said, I want to heap unrestricted praise upon the Veterans’ Administration today.

I have been having some medical problems lately, although – thankfully- they have been of little seriousness. However, as a lowly university student, I am without outside medical insurance. So I rely on the service of the James Haley Veterans’ Medical Hospital across from my University of South Florida campus to treat all my health concerns.

You probably don’t hear this positive sentiment often but their service has been absolutely top notch. In the face of scandalous reports emerging from the Walter Reed Medical Center in the past year, my experience proved to be nothing reminiscent of the horror stories that I have been fed. I have been offered co-pay free medical service for two years after my completion of military service because of my Operation Iraqi Freedom contributions. Despite the cost-free nature of my service, I was always examined thoroughly and professionally and received results and follow-ups promptly. I was assigned a case manager who has been receptive to all my phone calls and office visits without the necessitation of appointment. The staff has given me all the reason in the world to believe in their total competence; surely on par with the university’s more costly medical clinic across the street.

My Veterans’ Administration medical experience has been of the utmost comfort and completed with total ease. For an organization that often takes a public bashing, I sure had a differing experience. Hopefully my praise can navigate through the incessant scrutiny directed towards the V.A. and into public light.

Iraq Developments

First, I added my first links today. They are going to be permanently offered to the left of the main body of text as you can currently see. However, for today, I want to bring special attention to these websites:

The Fred Thompson Blog Network

America for Fred Thompson

Florida for Fred Thompson

I am sure that you can easily deduce what the subject matter is for each of these sites. Please note that I do actually frequent and enjoy these sites. Their association to my blog isn’t only for publicity value (which, of course, is a contributing factor to exchanging links) but to, more importantly, spread their wisdom and entertainment to everyone that follows here. Surely, if you enjoy what is offered at Educated Soldier, you will find these related websites equally enthralling.

Moving on…

A story was related to me a few days ago that absolutely needs to be passed on. I wish I had the entire American populace by the ears for this one, but I will have to hope that my limited audience presses this encouraging news forward.

I recently “spoke” with an old Army buddy via internet messaging. Certain details of his story will be omitted for the sake of operational security. However, I don’t feel that the missing details will curtail the moral of the story.

My buddy’s light infantry battalion (to which I was formally assigned) is back in Iraq. They are stationed at the same exact location as they were during a previous tour (which I participated in). They are now, like they were in the past, living in Ar Ramadi, Iraq.

Let me tell you what I remember about Ramadi: While I was there, there was a rumor that a prominent news source had named it the most dangerous city in the world. Journalists rarely traveled to our location. In fact, there were a couple of Coalition military camps deemed relatively safe within the city but our little piece of earth for the year was not so positively looked upon. We faced death and destruction daily. While we made progress in cleaning up our operational portion of the city, it remained a pretty stark place. One of the main lines of transportation in the city was a haven for violence. This road was so viciously and often rocked that we, as the United States Army, did everything possible to avoid it.

That was 2005.

My Army buddy messaged me to inform me about his current situation in the country. I was surprised to hear that the same unit would be sent to the same location. While it seemed like a logical maneuver because of the unit’s local experience, it seemed to me to be a decision that would surely trouble war-weary soldiers of this unit. But this isn’t the case…

My buddy reports that the city is an absolute testament to the successful completion of American goals within Iraq. No longer do Americans (at least this battalion that I have knowledge) need to patrol endlessly, as the city is policing itself. No longer are former associates being killed and injured. This year’s tour has a different dilemma presented for soldiers: boredom.

And that dangerous road mentioned above? My buddy reports that it is accessible and safe for all.

What an encouraging story. What interests me is that this story is entering the mainstream media. Reporters have spoken of local militias and organizations protecting their own civil interests in Anbar Province. However, the stories are tough to come by. They have not been ignored but they also have not been showcased as they should. What can’t success sell newspapers…Or drive hits to a website?

Let’s hope that success in Ramadi is an example of positive developments to come and not a singular exception.

More on Mr. Thompson

Today: Fred Thompson…


Two anecdotes (neither too terribly important) but the first even less noteworthy then the second. As this is a weekend home from campus, I caught a rare glimpse of Law and Order with my parents today. The episode was taped, so I can’t date it. I can say this, however: it originally aired within the last month or so.

Here’s the point, and excuse me if I don’t recite character names as I am not a fan of the show (or fictional television, for that matter):

The conclusion of the show occurred in Fred Thompson’s office. Apparently, his character is the district attorney. He offers one of his prosecutors the possibility of being his future predecessor with this comment:

“Some day this chair may be empty.”

(Which, of course, it will be when he is too busy campaigning to continue acting in that role.) And, in a nod to real-life current events, his prosecutor responds:

“Oh no… I’m no politician.”

Of course, Fred Thompson chuckles and replies…

“No politician? That’s what everyone says.”

Or something like that; I didn’t transcribe the episode. But as much as it can be, I really think that this short piece of dialogue was reflective of Mr. Thompson’s political desires. Or maybe it was just a satirical comment by a fictional character concerning real-world events. I just hope it’s the former. I absolutely want to see Mr. Thompson run- which brings me to my second point.


Last night, I was flipping through the book, “The Reagan Diaries.” While I lived through Ronald Reagan’s presidency, my young age limits my memory of it. However, as a budding Republican weaving life through political science, government and international studies courses, I see much of his work in retrospect. And I truly look back fondly on his presidency.

While I am a huge supporter of our current President, he lacks something that Mr. Reagan never seemed to be without: a genuine smile. It sounds lame and a rather simplistic method of looking back on a Presidency, but Reagan’s seemingly constant upbeat attitude had to be reflective of the nature that he used to tackle the challenges that faced him. Reading his own words in “Diaries” only restated my assumption that Reagan was genuinely a good guy with our best interests in mind.

So I am flipping through “The Reagan Diaries” and fondly reflecting back on the Reagan administration when I realize that Fred Thompson could be that same person. I can see why, in retrospect, Ronald Reagan holds all of our respect. His true conservatism saved the world not only from the Red Scare but from a Kayne-inspired, social market epidemic that was sweeping quietly across the globe. His guidance, based on his optimism, truly revitalized the free world. I see that same positive attitude in Fred Thompson. Reagan and Thompson have more then similar pre-political thespian careers in common; they have similar spirit and beliefs.

I look to past leaders fondly. However, on the same note, I look at the possibility of Thompson as a future leader excitedly.

The Abortion Issue...

Today I want to discuss a broad topic. I guess you could almost consider this a mini-manifesto or a developing platform of sorts. The idea for such a text was spawned by a conversation that I had with a more Liberal-leaning buddy of mine over the subject of abortion. I, of course, am staunchly Pro-Life.

Allow me to explain.

War and its illustrations of massive loss have left me numb towards the feeling of empathy over the deaths of people that I do not know. So, when it comes to a fetus being aborted, on a certain level, I really don’t care. This, for me, is not an issue of religion or ethics.

To me, it is a question of morals.

More specifically, abortion is just another of those social vulnerabilities that lead to American moral decay. I am against any program whose social welfare goals allow immature people to make incessant irresponsible decisions. Do I see times when abortion is inevitable? Of course; rape is an example of such a situation. However, easily accessible abortions inevitably cause people to make decisions that lead to abortions. I know the subject is more complex then the following syllogism, however- at its crux- it all boils down to this: less accessible abortion procedures equal less abortion opportunities. I truly believe that.

I am a Republican and I am a conservative. I am not on the “Religious Right.” I make mistakes and I live as a young man in a progressive world. However, even I can see certain moral fibers unraveling in this country. It is not television and rap music that is causing this disturbing dynamic. Instead, I believe it is the over-reliance that irresponsible citizens have on the social welfare state. I feel that less government intervention in most issues means that more people have to live up to their decisions: “Daddy” (government intervention) shouldn’t be the crutch to always lean on. If one is not willing to invest preliminary time into developing a wise decision, what proof is there that one would be willing to invest the required time post-decision living with their actions?

This is just something that I have been mulling over; just to give you an idea where your author is coming from. More discussion of current events coming soon…

Continuing on Islam and New Discussion of Illegal Immgration

I had a discussion concerning the topic of the historical relation of Islam and violence (as written about in yesterday’s blog, available HERE) with a scholarly friend of mine. This friend, unlike the more military orientated buddy that initiated this entire topic, had a different point of view. He is Cornell educated and a current graduate student here at my university. His academic endeavor is Religious Studies and he is a peer whose knowledge I respect highly. He is also Muslim. More importantly, he is absolutely open-minded and was willing to discuss the topic broadly with me. For privacy’s sake, I didn’t “interview” my friend. However, he brought aspects to my attention that I felt needed to be reproduced here.

First of all, he has a much deeper working knowledge of Qur’anic scripture then I do. I admitted yesterday that I was weak in this particular topic. On the other hand, I find myself to have an able handle on the history of the development of the religion. He pointed out that it is terribly easy to find flaw in the Qur’an because of the style that was used to write it.

Here is what is meant. Unlike the Old Testament or books of most other faiths, the Qur’an is not written as a narrative. No story is really being told. Instead, a recitation of God's word is occurring. Furthermore, the recitation is not occurring at once, but over time. When the words of Mohammad were converted from the oral teachings to the written ones, they were documented not in chronological order, but in order of length.

What does this mean? It seems to indicate that certain teachings made apparent to Mohammad at one point in time may not have applied later during the prophet’s life. So the new teachings, in many ways, overrule old ones. This is to say that one may find verses that sound inherently violent only to find them contradicted at a different point in the scripture. The interpretation of which of these verses are the ones to be followed, as explained by my friend, is where the division occurs between those that find the Qur’an to be condoning violence and those that take heart in its more modest teachings.

It is also important to note the history as pertains to Mohammad while receiving his teachings from Allah through the Angel Gabriel. These teachings occurred during periods in the prophet’s life where he was at different points; either gathering a religious following or at other times, trying to work as, basically, a statesman in Medina. Prophecies that were appropriate for certain times during the religion’s development were not so congruent to other periods. As such, they were, for lack of a better word, amended. While some can find this to be an example of hypocrisy, others find it to be a needed fluidity.

My friend also explained many of the reasons that people of his Muslim faith depend on to reaffirm their faith. An example of one of these reasons is the beauty of the Arabic language which was only developed as it was originally recorded in the Quar’an with the birth of the document. Exciting and interesting stuff, however, not necessarily related to the discussion at hand. Worth pointing out; however, I rather stick to the discussion of why people would or would not consider this a religion of peace. That issue is more directly related to the on-going situation in Iraq.

I absolutely enjoy these on-going discussions. I hope that you do as well. I also hope that you tackle these “debates,” as I am attempting to do, with an open mind.

My education continues… Thanks.

A quick note on a different subject.

I foresee writing much more thoroughly on this topic but I want to point out briefly that I am 100% against the newly presented immigration bill. I am a huge supporter of our President. However, I realize that he does make mistakes. His support of this bill, as I understand it, is one of those mistakes. I, like many others, see this as little more then amnesty for immigrants residing in our country illegally. I also see it as a slap in the face for those that are working hard to enter our country legally.

The illegal immigration problem is serious. To me, it is an issue of essential national security. However, the answer doesn’t seem to be one warranting further legislation but, rather, enforcement of current laws. While this issue is developing, I highly doubt my positive assessment of it will follow suit…