« Photos from Switzerland | Main | Training... »

November 01, 2004

Comments

Chuck Conway

Interesting piece. By its nature America is wrought with turmoil. Our nation is full of people with many different ethnic and belief backgrounds. I can hardly imagine anyone with any spiritual beliefs buying into this without bringing in their religious ideologies.

As I read farther, it gets interesting. Jeffersonian and Jacksonians.. Interesting. I will have to read up on them. I agree with the descriptions so far about fear.

It could have been a great opportunity for America to examine itself and its role and image in the world, to answer honestly deep questions like, "why do they hate us so much?"

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. It’s like we want war. We want hate and anger. After reading “Bonds That Make Us Free” (which by the way, you should pick up a copy. :) ) I realize how far we can get into our hate and anger. Before we know it we don’t even listen to reason. Only the hate anger simmering within us. I was trying to point that out about the Bin Laden video. He is telling the American people how to avoid another attack. He would not say this if he didn’t value life.

They are ashamed, alienated, angry, desperate men ready to die to destroy what they see as a threat to their culture and values.

Again it echo’s what I have been trying to say. They attacked us for a reason. We need to discover that reason. We could even ask them.

Nietzsche pointed out that "convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Well said.

He (Bush) knows what he believes and that what he believes is both right and best for everyone.

Now that is a scary thought.

His insistence that American-style democracy is the best form of government for all nations shows an ignorance of the social dynamics, complexities, and sensitivities in many of the world's societies, and his commitment to global empire is entirely America-centric, thus thwarting a wider process of global cooperation.

Again I have asked the same question. It is assumed our form of government is the best. I disagree. If it was it would work a whole hell of a lot better. Have we considered letting the Iraqi people come up with their own government?

Lacking a positive perspective to adversity, we can become self-pitying and bitter, feel victimized, or place the blame for our troubles on scapegoats. Americans have never dealt well with adversity, particularly that which has any tragic dimension

Wow! That is great! Were do I learn more about this?

In truth, bin Laden is the Jungian shadow of the Bush vision of America. They are two sides of the same coin, each locked into an exclusive perspective that necessitates conflict with the other

Ha, Ha. So true.

Thanks for the article. That was great. I can really connect with many of the things said.

My apologies for taking so long in getting back to you on this.

Thanks again,

Chuck

Tony


Interesting piece.

And to think that so much was accomplished by someone so out of step.

The last two that were so outlandish were, of course, Ronald Reagan (freeing eastern Europe) and Franklin Roosevelt(freeing western Europe and the Southeast Asia).

But, of course, W had disbanded Congress and completely ignored public opinion while he was being such a bore. The 2/3rds Congressional vote was actually a TV show produced in Crawford, Texas.

The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese all believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But, they were there feeding off the oil for food program and expected sanctions to dissolve entirely. Sweet. Love it when a plan comes together: just stand aside and let the money start rolling in.

And, France (, Incorporated) was offered a $100 Billion oil development deal for a security council veto (last resolution), took the deal, reniged on promise to Colin Powell, and served up the announcement while Powell was watching the news conference at the French ambassadorial residence in NYC.

To coin a well known phrase: its about the money, stupid.

Fast forward five years. France, Germany, Russia, and China are economically wed to Iraq and Hussein decides to settle the score with Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia... and mtake care of the Kurdish problem once and for all.

Now whachagonnado? Nuclear war, perhaps? How do you keep Israel from starting it?

Fast back a couple of years. John Kerry did not know what was going on. He and Edwards both missed over 70% of the open Senate Intelligence Committee meetings and so many of the top secret meetings that neither of them are willing to "fess up" and release the numbers.

Gotta take care business. That's what you're elected to do.

Sorry... that's just the way it is.

Too bad I didn't get a tape recording of the airplane on its way to the Pentagon... or the sound of the explosion when it hit.

In response to the previous comment, it is not hatred. Having lived in Europe for four years, I would call it resentment due to world power.

Consider, if you will, that the French economy is in such bad shape that it might only gain second class standing in the European Union.

Jon Strande

Chuck, my pleasure - glad you liked it! Thank you for the comment!!

Tony,

Of course he had public opinion on his side - HE LIED TO US (including congress). And, to make matters worse, he has not apologized. I don't think you'd find many people who wouldn't be able to forgive to some extent, in general, Americans are a forgiving bunch of folks. Aside from the lies about the WMD in Iraq, what about this promise to get "the evil doers who want to harm us"? Didn't he say in the third debate that he doesn't think about Osama bin Laden any more? Why not? Sadam Hussein didn't attack the pentagon. Right? Sadam had to go, no question, but what about getting the original job done first? Getting bin Laden. Actually, that is a job that Clinton should have done after the 1993 truck bombing... but he didn't. Of course Clinton lied to us as well... he did have sex with that woman, but his lie didn't get 1000 Americans killed, right?

Fast forward 5 years? Oh, so now our tax dollars are supposed to be spent to prevent something that might happen in 5 years?

Fast back a couple of years? What does Kerry have to do with it? Well, since you brought it up, how do you know how many meetings he attended or didn't? Bush accused him of missing a bunch of meetings, so you take that as the truth?

Resentment? I found a couple of definitions, which would you like to use?

1.) Indignation or ill will felt as a result of a real or imagined grievance

2.) a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will

3.) Resentment is anger exicted by a sense of personal injury. It is, etymologically, that reaction of the mind which we instinctively feel when we think ourselves wronged. Pride and selfishness are apt to aggravate this feeling until it changes into a criminal animosity; and this is now the more common signification of the term. Being founded in a sense of injury, this feeling is hard to be removed; and hence the expressions bitter or implacable resentment.

Well, since you seem to want to defend Bush, perhaps you can help me decide who to vote for. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I'm a registered repulican but I'm have some cognitive dissonance about who I should support - having voted for Bush in 2000. How do we go from a budget surplus under a liberal like Clinton to the biggest deficit in history under the conservative Bush? Do you have any questions about the Bush Administrations stewardship of the economy? Keep in mind that I don't blame Bush entirely for the economy. We go through normal booms and busts, this is a long bust cycle... but my goodness, look at the size of the deficit. Tax cuts during a war? By the way, is it the governments job to stimulate the economy?

The simple fact is - and this was a hard realization for me - that the party whom I most closely share a set of monetary beliefs with has turned out to be overun with hypocrites. They want smaller government, but the religous right - which Bush is a part of (whether you're willing to admit it or not) - want to tell other people how they should live, what they can or can't do with their bodies, and what scientists are allowed to do.

Here's the thing - I think you missed the whole point of the article. This is the "religous president", yet he doesn't seem to have any of the qualities that a good "christian" (protestant/methodist or whatever faith he's chosen recently) should have as outlined in this article. I think it goes beyond any particular ideology or theology, I think these are good human qualities. You mentioned in your email that these are arbitrarly high standards, but I don't think so. I think that these are standards which we should all try to live by - ESPECICALLY IF YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Am I asking too much on that one?

This is not an Election, this is a Selection (that quote is from Ralph Nader).

Michael A. DeWitt

Jon,

I know you to be a good man, and it pains me to see one good man impugn another good man - in this case George W. Bush. As a fellow fiscal conservative, I find plenty of fault with with his spendtrhift ways. But having read Bill Sammon's book "Fighting Back", and many other accounts of his thoughts and actions, anyone with an open mind would conclude that he is a thoughtful steward of spiritual capital in America.

In 1864, the mainstream media villified Abe Lincoln as a bumbler who lied to the nation about the cost of the war, and who made thousands of Southerners HATE him for emancipating Negro slaves. Did he ever wonder why they hated him? Should he have?

In 1864, the overwhelming support of Union soldiers tipped the electoral scale for President Lincoln. In 2004, 75% of our troops support President Bush. The individuals who stand to lose the most - their very lives - put their faith in him. These people valiantly and willing volunteer to help build a better place where only a short time ago people were being tossed into wood chippers. They're not protecting their own personal financial interest. They are sacrificing their safety and time away from their loved ones in the hope that this gift to people halfway around the world will blossom into freedom for all people.

Ask the women of Bamiyan, Afghanistan about the spiritual capital of the United States. Bamiyan was the site of giant carved statues of Buddha. That is until the Taliban took power in Afghanistan; then they destroyed the Buddhas in a show of sense of vocation and diversity. They also destroyed the entire town.

When the Afghan election of 2004 was drawing near, the Talibs threatened to slaughter the voting public. The women of Bamiyan awoke at 3:00am; dressed in preparation for being murdered, and bravely went to the polls. Where they voted. And weren't murdered.

We didn't conquer Afghanistan; we freed it. That puts spiritual capital in the bank. We're doing the same in Iraq. Read the blogs of Chief Wiggles and countless other Americans in Iraq, and contrast them with the pronouncements of Osama and countless other mullahs in Iran. Who is building spiritual capital and who is destroying it?

Ask not Why Do They Hate Us, ask Why Do They Hate?

Jon Strande

Mike,


Thank you! That means a lot to me coming from you, seriously.

First, to clear up any misconceptions: I support the troops and I agree that freedom is better than death. I think most people support the troops as well as agree that freedom is better than death.

But, is it our right or responsibility to spread freedom?

Speaking of spreading freedom, that is a nice little marketing tag-line, isn't it? But again, is it our right or our responsibility to do so? You should check out http://www.spinsanity.com/>SpinSanity.com - they have a nice blog going about the truth behing some of the messages that have been spread by the candidates.

What about Sudan? What about all the people trussed with chains and burned alive? What about the 1.2 million villagers in Darfur who have been terrorised into fleeing the embers of their huts? Why aren't we "spreading freedom" there?

I don't confess to undestand everything about this election, the history of the United States, or Foriegn Policy. I do however understand that I don't agree with Bush on too many things. Moreover, as I mentioned at the top of the post, I am able to seperate the political message from the rest of the piece. I assume that most people who read this blog also have the ability to apply critical thinking and I highly doubt that I would have the ability to sway anyones political leanings - nor would I ever want to.

Again Mike, thank you for the VERY thoughtful and well reasoned comment.

Jon

aleah sato

Jon, Jon, Jon - A very complex spiritual article to throw at us in this business forum. ;-)

Seriously, this is a FANTASTIC, thought provoking article and I appreciate your sending it my way.

To avoid the political debate, I have a few comments that sidestep the issue of "which candidate is more spiritually enlightened." I think the gist of the article is that America is entrenched in a paradox of longing.

On one hand, we need to believe in the intrepid spirit which "created" America, that of vigilante visionaries who sought out freedom as defined by personal and religious choice, the separation of church and state, and one's "God given" right to make a living and pursue a "better life." All good things to want, though negated by the innumerable crimes commited against Native Americans.

On the other, we preach the necessity of spiritual intelligence - the need to believe in something greater than our self. This sets us up for internal battle of Personal want versus altruism. Individual rights versus the good of the whole.

And in the struggle to establish these individual rights, our "Founding Fathers" (I believe the patriarchal institutions of ruling class have been building thru-out time and are not born out of one epoch - genocide and group subjugation has been occurring since Paleolithic time) pushed the concept of the "Individual" to an extreme.

No where else in the world is there such a fierce battle cry for "personal rights" as in America, and yet, some would say the U.S. is one of the spiritually poorest countries.

We aspire to be like financial icons, Donald Trump and Bill Gates, (in a love/hate sort of way) yet we applaud the selflessness of Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King. We are caught in a confused limbo where the need to gain is at war with the need to give. Neither one in excess works. Case in point, Republicans versus Democrats. No wonder their power is cyclical. We need the balance.

The truth is in our collective consciousness. The spiritual health of a nation can affect that of the individual. However, when these issues are brought to the forefront, and no longer just a discussion for the likes of academics, change can occur. I believe the author summarized this point nicely.

Awesome! ;-)

David St Lawrence

Jon,

Some beautifully written comments here.

Danah Zohar has drunk deeply from the founts of wisdom and learning but, unfortunately, has come up dry. Anyone who can write, "The terrorists do commit evil acts, but that does not make them evil men." with a straight face needs a reality check, as in a visit to Iraq. One wonders where he was on 9-11...

He is also quick to dismiss Bush as an example of Field Independence when it conflicts with his Left Wing viewpoint.

You ask, "But, is it our right or responsibility to spread freedom? You have to decide for yourself whather it is better to do that or support the insanity that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the Saddam regime.

If you have read blogs by Iraqis themselves, you might find that there is a growing pride in their ability to determine their own future, with the exception of Riverbend who seems to feel that things were better under Saddam.

People believe what they want to believe. In your case, you say, "...how do you know how many meetings he (Kerry) attended or didn't?" Rather than believe me or spinsanity.com, go to the source. John Kerry's voting record is a matter of public record as are all other senators. Kerry was not present for voting approximately 90% of the time. Take the time to look at: http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1

Men of good will can disagree on many things, perhaps even on the truth. But, in the long run, our ability to unearth the actual facts of a matter will resolve many of our differences, if we choose to look at them unflinching. No man is perfect, but no man who is in a position of leadership can afford to have things hidden which can leave him open to blackmail.

With the emergence of blogs as a major factor in the dissemination of information, there will be fewer dark places in which to hide unworthy deeds. Let us hope that this inspires more honorable behavior on the part of our elected leaders.

Jon Strande

Aleah, very well said. Thank you! What can I say? I'm with you!

David, wonderful comment. thank you! I always enjoy it when you stop by - you always help expand my thinking!!

This debate is healthy and I appreciate yours, as well as everyone elses, comments!!

That having been said...

I don't know where Danah was on 9-11, but again, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? It is as if anyone who holds an opinion other than that of the Bush administration is bad - let me state this one more time:

Freedom is better than death. I support our troops.

However, you, along with Tony & Mike, present Freedom/Death as a binary (yes/no) choice... when it isn't. If someone doesn't support the freedom of the Iraqi people they wish people would die? Come on... The suffering is horrendous and it offends me. But again, why Iraq and not Sudan?

The continued association of 9/11 & Iraq bothers me. Of course at the time "we" may have acted on the best intelligence we had. Of course freedom is better than death - but we've learned that Sadam didn't have WMD's, we've learned that there was no link to bin Laden, so why continue to hide behind that association?

As for Field Independence, how about the UN? Didn't they think we were wrong about going to Iraq? Didn't they want more time for the weapons inspectors? Why did they want that? If Sadam/Iraq were in the process of consituting a nuclear weapons program, couldn't we have waited 3, 6 or 9 months longer? No, the decision to go was made long before the case was presented to the American people.

Yes, based on what it shows on http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/membervotes.cgi?&lang=&member=MAJR&site=congressmerge&address=&city=&state=&zipcode=&plusfour=&fullvotes=1>CongressMerge it appears that Kerry missed/didn't vote about 90% of the time. Many of those were over the last 6 months, when he was on the campaign trail... but prior to that, why didn't he vote?

1.) Was he was not present? If so, why not?
2.) Maybe he knew that his vote wasn't needed
3.) What were the votes he missed about?
4.) Is his voting record that much different from other senators?

No human is perfect indeed. I'm certainly far from it - and I know that every day I learn a little more. As short as 12 months ago I would never have posted this article on my blog, in fact I would have probably made the same comment to whoever did post it that you made to me. But that is the great thing, we can grow and learn. As I am trying to do. I'm coming to understand that truth is not always black and white, there does exist shades of gray. Perception is reality - and that perception is colored by our beliefs. I know that I've got more questions than answers about the world - and I'm somewhat suspicious of anyone who doesn't.

You end your comment with great statement: "Let us hope that this inspires more honorable behavior on the part of our elected leaders." Here Here!!!

David & Aleah, thank you again! Wonderful, thought provoking comments!

fouro

Great article, Jon.

Intersesting to see Lieven's Jacksonian, Jeffersonian conundrum Danah puts forward.

Speaking as a half and half (UK/US), and in my somewhat travelled experience, the Jeffersonian view is the one the world buys into, hence the millions protesting on the streets of London, Paris, Bonn etc. They think we're acting "un-American." And it scares them. I tend to agree.They don't recognize, anymore, the creed "bring me your tired...", King's "dream," Kennedy's moonshot, etc. Those speak to idealism not fatalism, and no matter what they might tell you, idealism still floats their boat. Because they're people, dammit. They can't help it. This is the strength and weakness of Democrats, because the world wants to believe, but the world is also full of Jacksonians. I hadn't made the comparison in such a base way before, but that is what Saddam or the Shah of Iran or Machiavelli were: leveragers and livers of base instinct. They were Jacksonian in their willingness to subvert and shortcut spiritual ideals for ends. That pisses people off, butt in many cases, not enough to poke their heads out into the crossfire. (Life first, then liberty, then we get to worrying about happiness.) Jeffersonian ideals always beats them, but only when idealism, call it Muscular Liberalism, gets out of its own way and actually makes a case, and a decision of its own accord. It makes the ground safe for it's egalitarian intent.

Muscular Liberalism. That's not a joke, we have had it in the past. But right now, the only choice available is the Jacksonian one--Muscular Conservatism. And so, any port in a hailstorm of jets as missiles. If Democrats let Republicans amp up the fear beyond reasonable and statisitical merits for their own political gain, or eschew common sense protections in favor of collective rashness, well, it may be Republicans' fault, but it's a Democratic failure.

Democrats compound the weakness in confusing times with footnotes, often very sensible, but not much protection in that hailstorm. The facts are with them, but are cold comfort. In this way, their own innate faith, yes faith, that the future will be better--just because, come-what-may--leaves less exploration-minded Americans nervous. It leaves them feeling, comparatively speaking, well... conservative. A peceived choice: D says "all," R says "nothing." That's the thick of it, I'd say. In failing to answer why embrace of change, or "the other-outsider," is part of our collective character, in simple and resonant, character-based terms--using the oldest truth, spirituality, as leverage--they destroy the viability of the message of progress and action they "know" will serve many. Too bad. Bush's simple grasp of metaphor and his use, however clumsy, of shared meaning *feels* more like protection regardless of whether the "experts" say it's a mirage.

In their own way, political Democrats are faith-based, except their faith is in facts first, then feeling; spirituality as a thing apart, not a necessity. Until they reverse their method, the future is against them. Americans told them that, yesterday.

Whoa, pardon the wall of text. Thanks again for the provocation.

mark

Tom Asacker

Hey Jon,

Thanks. Both for typing and distributing the article, as well as for dealing compassionately with the inevitable push back. ;-)

I experienced similar impassioned sentiments - both positive and negative - when I published an article soon after 9/11 titled: Is the United States a Strong Global Brand?

I'll email a copy for your considered thoughts. And if you think others would like a copy, feel free to distribute it.

Best, and . . . stay passionate!

Tom

Jon Strande

Fouro,

Well said. I wish that I could offer something up as eloquent in return... how about a quote from Aristotle that my friend Julian sent me today:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

In tough times perhaps all we have as cover is what we percieve to be true. I recall your post -

http://www.alchemysite.com/blog/2004/04/how-individual-settles-into-new.html>How an individual settles into a new opinion

"The point I now urge you to observe particularly is the part played by the older truths . . . their influence is absolutely controlling. Loyalty to them is the first principle; for by far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that they would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions is to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness for them."


Thank you Mark!

Tom, my pleasure - I was hesitant to post it, but I'm glad I did and I'm very glad that people like you, Chuck, Aleah, and Mark enjoyed it as much as I did. I got your article - good stuff! If anyone would like to read it, let me know!

Jon

fouro

Why thanky, Jon.

The clarity of William James' now 100-years old insight into new opinions above still amazes.

Danah's article hangs with me as I try to assimilate events. A great find that caused me to blurt out the same thing I shouted at my TV as Kerry mangled his Stem Cell and abortion answers in debate # 2: "It's the metaphysics, stupid!"

Aleah

I found an interesting quote last night that seemed to resonate and tie in nicely with the topic (at least, I think so):

"And what of those people who cling so desperately to their narrow, defensive ego they have constructed in an attempt to defend themselves from annihilation in mass society? We can carefully demonstrate that identification with the wider circle does not mean we lose our individuation. All identification is relative. We maintain a relative ontological individuation while understanding our functional unity and relationship with the place in which we dwell. When my identity is interconnected with the identity of other beings then my experience and existence depends on theirs. Their interests are my interests."

~ Bill Devall

A powerful concept of "the source" of societal and environmental problems.

Jon Strande

Aleah, wow - powerful indeed. I'm floored. I love the final line: Their interests are my interests. Great!!

Thank you so much for sharing that!!

fouro

That is very nice, Aleah.

If you're groovin on that sentiment, I posted something that fits not only with Devall's comment, but also with some aspects of what Jon and I have been talking lots about offline: Connectivity, and the latent similarity of people's urges and ambitions--if, you know what you're looking for. As we keep telling each other, community is politics is business is city is family is brand. Same thing. All contain--the good ones, anyway--a positive spiritual element. You just need more hors d'oeurves for some get-togethers. Anyway, a snip of the post aimed at my fellow Democrats anguishing over "moral values voters":

Faith, hope--and that's that's all faith is: hope in the face of the uncertain--they matter. And, like it or not fellow Democrats, they are first principles, and they have a lexicon. It's a language we've grown uncomfortable with through its misuse by others, but it represents feelings 8 out of 10 of us admit to sharing. And you did not mind when Barack Obama pressed it into service of his ideas. You know the result when Bill Clinton pressed it into service of all our ideas. Or King. Or Kennedy. When you heard them speak, you know that hair on the back of your neck sometimes stood at attention. Do you know why? The force of compassion, collective conscience. A shared spiritual sense and moment. The ultimate power of polis. A bonded future.

aleah

Hi fouro,

I had the pleasure of checking out your site and commenting. Thanks!

fouro

Hiya back, Aleah

Thanks for stopping by. Commented on yer great comment. Your serve =)

David, I reread your comment and this stood out for me: You ask, "But, is it our right or responsibility to spread freedom?" You have to decide for yourself whather it is better to do that or support the insanity that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the Saddam regime.

You do realize that Lancet, the British medical journal, is studying Iraqi mortality, post-war, and has documented a startling jump overwhelmingly tilted toward women and children? They estimate we're at 100,000 civilian casualties, and not from bus accidents or insurgent attacks, but severe trauma associated with flying concrete, GBUs, fragmentation, and NATO-issue 7.62 mm rounds. That's after 18 or so months. That's with, conservatively, another 24 months to go, under circumstances headed in the opposite drection from "safe, secure and free."

You seem to conflate the righteous passion felt after 9-11 with the efforts undertaken in Iraq. Now, if those 100,000 and growing casualties wer suffered in Afghanistan, well, one might be able to argue them away under the "Just War" precept, however disproportionate to our 9-11 losses. But that's Afghanistan.

And you're talking about Iraq. Specifically, Anyone who can write, "The terrorists do commit evil acts, but that does not make them evil men." with a straight face needs a reality check, as in a visit to Iraq. One wonders where he was on 9-11...

David, would that visit include Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper, Al-Baghdadi, Heat Base, and Hubbania Camp in Ramadi? See, we're not exactly pure here. And that troubles me as a descendant of veterans from Vietnam to Valley Forge. Graner, England and other 800th MP Btn, 320th and assorted MI Brigades and contractor types spread across Iraq did some very evil things in our name. Depending on ones piety, they broke military, philosophical, humanitarian and theological taboos. Are they evil in their core? I don't know. I'd like to think not. They couldn't be. After all, they're Americans, right? I'd like to think they were victims of their circumstance and their confusion and pressure from incompetent commanders. And, if those commanders were politically pressured for info on troublingly absent WMDs, then, on insurgents, are they evil? Good question. And if those commanders were being pressured by the White House or the E-Ring at the Pentagon, are they evil too? And if we, as an electorate, endorse....

See, I'd rather not get into a debate about who has more shit on their boots or a shinier halo. I'd rather not discuss whether it is spiritually acceptable to promote the Flypaper Strategy: Draw and localize terrorists to Iraq--Better to have Iraqi citizens cowering in *their* homes as bombs burst overhead and civilian body parts fly, than to have that happen in say, Blomington and Boulder.

I'd much rather talk about the stamina, optimism and confidence in the face of uncertainty that we Americans are mythically known for, instead of the cloying, anxious, vengeful and plaintive "9-11 changed everything."

Implicit in that statement, and, perhaps in your comment, it also changed Us. Question is: For the better?


Chuck Conway

How did I miss this one? I must have been asleep.

I know you where on the fence on this one. I'm glad you posted it. It turned out to be a great discussion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Change Congress

  • Change Congress
    Change Congress

January 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31