The Decline of Civilized Society

It's not coming from anything political. It's not coming from any kind of supervirus. It's not even going to be related to "climate change".

It will come because our future generations of leaders have lives are so devoid of meaning that you end up with things like this.

I shake my head and fear for my future if this is who will be running things when I am old and grey."

Nike's Phil Knight on Tiger Woods

Despite what you may think about Tiger Woods right now, I think Phil Knight made a very honest statement yesterday. If only for the fact that this is what happens when things become hindsight. The crux of what Knight said came in these sentences:

"When his career is over, you'll look back on these indiscretions as a minor blip, but the media is making a big deal out of it right now."

While some will see it as a bigger blip than others, let's not kid ourselves. Unless these kinds of incidents continue to plague him throughout the rest of his career, and he's constantly getting into some kind of trouble from here on out, society as a whole will give him a pass when assessing his career 10 or 20 years from now. America is a pretty forgiving nation, so I believe Knight is absolutely correct in saying that.

Disgusting Case of Discrimination

Courtesy of Breitbart.com.

HOUMA, La. (AP) - A 6-foot-3, 265-pound man says a restaurant overcharged him for his trips to the buffet line, then banned him and a relative because they're hearty eaters. A spokesman for the restaurant denies the claim.

Ricky Labit, a disabled offshore worker, said he had been a regular for eight months at the Manchuria Restaurant in Houma, eating there as often as three times a week.

On his most recent visit, he said, a waitress gave him and his wife's cousin, 44-year-old Michael Borrelli, a bill for $46.40, roughly double the buffet price for two adults.

"She says, 'Y'all fat, and y'all eat too much,'" Labit said.

Labit and Borrelli said they felt discriminated against because of their size. "I was stunned, that somebody would say something like that. I ain't that fat, I only weigh 277," Borrelli said, adding that a waitress told him he looked like he a had a "baby in the belly."

Ok, it's hard to use the words "only", "weigh", and "277" in that order. However, to charge people double because they eat "all they can eat" at an "all you can eat" buffet is a bit ridiculous. It gets better.

Houma accountant Thomas Campo said the men were charged an extra $10 each on Dec. 21 because they made a habit of dining exclusively on the more expensive seafood dishes, including crab legs and frog legs.

"We have a lot of big people there," said Campo, who spoke for owner Li Shang, whose English is limited. "We don't discriminate."

Labit denied ever being told he would be asked to pay more than the standard adult price.

The argument grew heated, and police were called.

The police report states, "The incident was settled when the management advised that the bill was a mistake and, to appease Ricky, the meal was complimentary."

Labit said he insisted on paying but was told not to come back. He complained that when seafood on the buffet line runs out, the restaurant only grudgingly cooks more.

Campo said the proprietress tries to reduce waste of quality food, he said.

"Food is for eating, not toys for your child," reads a sign posted on a wall in typewritten text. A handwritten addition reads "Or 20% added."

Well, I don't see these men giving food as "toys for their children". Looks like they're simply eating what they want to eat. Even though the meal was complimentary, the guy insisted on paying (which is the honorable thing to do), and was rewarded for doing the honorable thing by being banned from the restaurant.

I don't think it is right for people to stuff and engorge themselves on food for the sake of doing so. However, it is also wrong to charge extra and discriminate against people for eating more than a normal person, especially when the extra charges were targeted at some "big guys".

I've seen rail thin men and women that can pack away 4-5 plates of greasy, fatty foods at a buffet...while I'm lucky to get past 1 salad and 1 plate of food, and I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination.

What got me were the comments at Breitbart regarding this article, tons of fat jokes and totally out-of-line commentary on "gross" and "disgusting fat slobs". I commented on my own, pointing out that this is, in fact, discrimination. I feel that it is more disgusting to hold such nasty views of the overweight than to be overeater who is overweight.

Podium Positions: Social Issues

My position on "social" issues.

Abortion
Two things need to happen. One...overturn Roe v. Wade, so we can go forward with the next step. That is step number two...place the legislative responsibility of this issue back in the hands of the states.

What this allows for is better representation of the people on such a bitterly divisive issue. For instance, a state like Massachusetts may allow abortion and provide funding for it and will have the support of the majority of the population. However, a state like Utah has a majority of anti-abortionists, so the will of the people in that state would be different and would probably lead to no practice of abortion within that state's borders. However, I would also not be opposed to allowing people to travel from a non-abortion state to a pro-abortion state to get an abortion if they so desire.

While I'm personally opposed to abortion, the only real federal actions I would approve of in this situation would be upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions, as that is infanticide, in my opinion.

Gay Marriage
Again, this is a state-to-state issue. What may play in socially liberal states will not play in socially conservative states. Represent the population, but as with the abortion laws, state governments must also pay attention to opinion changes and demographic shifts to keep laws up-to-date with the mood of the populous.

Socially moderate/conservative states may want to at least allow civil unions with marriage-style rights. Let the actual term "marriage" be determined by the churches, not the state.

I personally do not oppose gay marriage or civil unions, and I think that some relaxation and/or compromise in this area would be good for Republicans, who probably don't realize how much of the vote they are losing in this demographic due to their current positions, anyway. However, given the anti-homosexual opinions of many social conservatives within the party, I don't know if that will happen anytime soon.

I also believe that we have not come to a scientific consensus on whether or not homosexuality is a result of "nature" or "nurture" (I believe that both of those are roots of homosexuality, as I've seen scientific research that supports both theories), but either way we should not discriminate based on this. I don't believe it to be very Christian to do so, to be honest.

Civil Rights/Discrimination
Basically, we need to move towards putting everyone on an equal plane of treatment. It should not matter whether you are White ,Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, African, Male, Female, Transgendered, Straight, Gay, or Bisexual. "Hate Crimes" should cover crimes against any race/gender/orientation, with no extra or special punishment for crimes against certain groups.

In the workplace, we need to get to the point of hiring the best people for the job. We are in the 21st century, we do not need to place quotas based on race, gender, or orientation (though, I don't know of any place that says "you must hire X number of gays", but you get my point).

Understandably, this is not a goal that can be achieved overnight, but society needs to start moving in that direction, as it is not fair for someone to get special (or detrimental) treatment because of their race, gender, or orientation.

Overview
On a federal level, most of the social issues need to be deferred back to the states. Issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to their controversial and divisive manner, should have their legality and funding determined by the states. States whose populous support these issues can deem it legal in their state, and states whose populous do not support these issues do not have to make it legal.

We should also move anti-discrimination legislation to treat all people equally.

Handing social issues back to the states is a healthy, federalist approach to these issues that tend to be create bitterness and tension between people of different ideological standpoints. Also, it allows for smaller-scale experimentation with various types of legislation, which is a way for people to find out if certain legislative actions are feasible and functional before it gets introduced on a national level.

Rasmussen: Good News for Bush, Common Sense, War, and Society

- Bush's approval rating for the overall month of November was 37%, which is not great but is an improvement from the low-30's he was pulling several months ago. It's been a slow climb upward for the President.

- 54% of Americans believe that the individuals who borrowed more than they could afford are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis...only 25% blame Wall Street investors. This 54% includes 42% of Democrats (surprisingly, only 37% of Dems blame Wall Street), 52% of Independents, and 69% of Republicans. Interesting, since the mainstream news tends to place blame on Wall Street for this problem.

- 47% of Americans believe we are winning the War on Terror, the highest level of support in 35 months on Rasmussen and 4 points higher than a month ago. This is also up 13 points since early January.

- Here's an interesting one...62% of Americans would prefer a government that offers fewer services and lower taxes, only 25% say the opposite.

"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" Visits Virginia

I spent this past weekend down in Buckingham County, Virginia (just off Route 15 in New Canton, to be exact, less than 10 minutes north of Dillwyn and 45 minutes from Farmville). Our family was visiting my wife's father (my father-in-law), and we happened to visit some old friends of my father-in-law.

Turns out that one of the sons of this friend is in construction, and was part of a major project last week.

He and the rest of his company were part of the building of a new house for a National Guardsman from Rice, Virginia...only a few minutes south of Farmville. This new house was courtesy of the popular TV show "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition". The soldier is Spc. Michael Lucas. He, his wife, and his two children watched the bus driver "move that bus" yesterday, and have their new home revealed to them.

Lucas had been building a home for his family on a piece of land he acquired, but construction was stopped when he was mobilized. It also means a lot for the Lucas family, who not only had to deal with the struggles that come with having a mother or father in the military, but Lucas's younger son has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

This particular episode is set to air in late February/early March, which is during the next round of "sweeps", so expect heavy advertising for this episode amongst others in national ads.

It's very good to see people come together as part of a local community and work towards providing something for deserving members of society, an American soldier and his family.

Chris Graham Interviews Lou Dobbs

Check it out over at The New Dominion's website. It's an interesting read.

Excerpts from Romney's Speech Today and Thoughts

Read all the excerpts made available to the public here. Here's a few quotes from Romney's speech and my thoughts on them.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

This is the money quote of the whole speech, in my opinion, and the one that is most often quoted on the morning shows I listened to while making a drive from Strasburg to Woodstock to Winchester (don't ask, I do this once a week). He's telling the us all that as President, he would be beholden to the people of the United States, and not any one religion, including his own.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

Yes sir...this is correct. Romney is right on with his statement here.

"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter — on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people."

I've been preaching this for years, that despite our differences in religion, religious beliefs, place of religion in society...the vast majority of Americans share a common base of morality and moral beliefs. Romney is right in stating that our nation should focus on abiding by the common moral principles we share as Americans...not necessarily by religious principles. However, religious people share those moral principles with most non-religious people.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Again...another money quote. While we separate church and state, this nation was founded by people seeking religious freedom, and with deep religious conviction. To remove God from recognition by society would be to go against the beliefs of the founding fathers of our nation.

"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."

Again, we should focus on our shared morals as Americans, not our religious agreements and disagreements. We, as Americans, are not perfect...but we're generally good people.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

There you have it. Romney's separation of church and state. No questions about it.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."

Freedom of religion, and our ability to speak about our different beliefs in public without fear of imprisonment or punishment, is part of what makes this nation so great.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."

Embrace religous diversity and common morality. This is what Romney intends to do.

I think that, from these quotes and others, Romney really makes a positive leap forward. He acknowledges both the deep religious conviction that many have, and the near-universal sense of common morality amongst Americans. In fact, Romney also makes a leap forward in my own opinion of him. He's stating his beliefs, and he does it without making a plea to social and religious conservatives. In fact, he's making more of a case as to why religion is a base of his decision making, and not the sole source.

I can really respect that.

Study Finds That Democrats are the Party of the Rich

Of course, us conservatives knew that already.

Rich people vote for Democrats...it's common knowledge, now we have statistical proof.

According to study by the Heritage Foundation, more than half of the wealthiest households in America are concentrated in the 18 states where Dems hold both Senate seats. Also, out the wealthiest 1/3rd of Congressional districts, 58% of those seats are held by Democrats.

The measurement of wealth was determined by the number of individuals in each district or state that are earning over $100,000/year, and joint-filing married couples earning over $200,000/year.

This is definitely contrary to constant harping of Democrats that the GOP is the "party of the rich". This same study showed that the majority of Republicans in Congress come from areas or states that are largely middle-class.

The Libertarian in Me Coming Out

I love these people who get outraged due to the presence of an adult-themed store in their area.

Honestly..."Citizens Against Porn"...? I understand why SWACGirl and others were looking to place restrictions on the ability of adult-themed stores to be built in their community. However, I get the feeling that they would prefer that these businesses be banned outright.

This is where I split heavily with social conservatives. I can understand keeping an adult-themed store a certain distance away from schools, churches, and playgrounds...kids will find their own way to get pornography, we shouldn't make it easier or more enticing.

BUT, it's still a legitimate business. I don't see anything wrong with their existence. Many married couples use pornography to spice up their sex lives, too. Most of these businesses are discreet in their appearance (a good example of this would be either Pamela's Secrets or Hole In The Wall in Harrisonburg, you'd have to look two or three times to recognize what it is).

As I said, there's nothing wrong with keeping these businesses, and their adult themes, away from schools, churches, etc..., but to carry the opinion that they should all be banned and burned to the ground is a bit overboard.

For The Last Time...

I want every Democrat who considers the general stance of the GOP against illegal aliens as "immigrant bashing" to understand this.

If a person immigrates to this country illegally, they are an ILLEGAL ALIEN. They are not simply an "immigrant".

To label them as such is an insult to people like my mother and my grandparents, who did not break any laws when they came to this country. They came here legally from Brazil. If anyone knows the struggle of Latino immigrants coming to this country, I do...it's very much in my blood. Most of these bleeding hearts could never relate.

By giving legitimacy to these illegal aliens, you're basically pissing on my family's legacy. Excuse me for the language, but that's what you people are doing. I will not stand for it. It's one thing to attack my ideology, it's another to insult my family's history.

If you doubt me, ask my mother...she'll tell you that she's insulted that you people want to piss on her doing the right thing, learning the English language on her own...because it was the language of the country, and becoming part of American society. Now, you people want to throw it all away by giving legitimacy to those who took the easy, illegal way out.

I normally don't get worked up like this, but you people are going beyond simple punditry on this with me...you're hitting at the core of my being and attacking my blood.

Bono Shows A Bit of Sense

And he does it in the face of a Rolling Stone reporter trying to make him do otherwise.

Bono: When I'm arguing for increased aid to Africa, I always say, "Isn't it cheaper and smarter to make friends out of potential enemies than to defend yourself against them later?"

Reporter: We seem to be headed in exactly the opposite direction. Maybe it was possible to think that way right after 9/11, but that opportunity was squandered.

Bono: When the French have you on the cover of their most treasured newspaper with the headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, something has been stirred! [Laughs]

Reporter: But this administration destroyed that. I know that you have to deal with a lot of these people. . .

Bono: There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

Remember, Bono is revered by most for his music, and by the left for his political activism. After discussing his disagreement with the Iraq War, he says the following...

Bono: I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

He is right...national socialism was a serious threat, and it is becoming one here in America. Hence the reason why conservatives like me are against some of the socialist ideals put forth by many politicians, pundits, and college professors.

Read the full interview here.

(h/t blonde sagacity)

Obama's "Pizza" Metaphor

Courtesy of Extreme Mortman...

Barack Obama made this statement to a 5 year old, I guess to make socialism seem more appealing to youngsters.

“We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money,” Obama said. “If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”

While Mortman and a few others make some jokes about Obama promoting subsidized childhood obesity (which is really funny), I have my own response to this line of thinking.

Much like teaching a man to fish, you'd be better off teaching your friend how to make a pizza. In the end, though, I would give my friend a slice...but I would do it out of the goodness out of my heart, not because the federal government mandates that I do so. They already take enough slices of pizza from my hard-earned pie.

The Real Larry Sabato: His Heart is in the Right Place...

...but his head...well, I'm not so sure.

In his most recent "Crystal Ball" article, he outlines his idea of "Universal National Service" for all citizens between 18 and 26. This is one of his 23 ideas for a more perfect constitution, which goes along with his proposed "Bill of Responsibilities" to go with the Bill of Rights.

Sabato's "UNS" is drawn mostly from the energy that comes from youth, and born out of John F. Kennedy's famous phrase, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

While that is a great phrase to live by, and certainly an inspiring quote, Sabato takes this one step further. Basically, it makes 2 years of service (which can be done at any time) mandatory. This service is not just military, though. Sabato proposes that service can include time with the Peace Corps, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, and suggest we create new programs. His examples include a revived Civilian Conservation Corps and a "National Disaster Strike Force" to accompany FEMA to assist with recovery after incidents such as Hurricane Katrina.

I can really see the positive aspects of this, but...

Despite Sabato's claims that this idea is "less about governmental authority, and more about a renewal of personal citizenship through sustained individual commitment to improving the nation", the problem is that you do create an incredible amount of governmental authority in an area that should not have any governmental authority at all.

Nobody should be "forced" to volunteer their time and services to help others unless absolutely necessary. It should be recommended, encouraged, but not made mandatory as a requirement of citizenship. First of all, it takes away the genuine feeling of "I'm doing some good" and replaces it with the feeling of "Uncle Sam is making me do this".

I feel that if you're going to do public service such as this, one should make a choice in the matter. That's part of what makes our nation so great, the freedom to choose. Another thing that makes our nation so great is the voluntary goodwill of it's citizens to help those around them. How can something be considered to be " done out of your own goodwill towards others" if it is mandatory?

We eliminated the military draft so people had the right to choose whether or not they wanted to serve their country. Now, we're essentially removing that right to choose. When you start making such mandates, you run into very dangerous territory in terms of how the government chooses to use (or abuse) this service.

I understand that Sabato is trying to capture the energy of our college-aged citizens and turn it into positive actions. I also understand that he endorses such a program because it is good for everyone to do something for the greater good of their fellow citizens. However, despite how good it is...I'm not sure if that's something that needs to be government mandated.

Griffin Gets The Hook

Eddie Griffin, a comedian known for playing in not-so-big hits but is a mildly funny guy nonetheless, had his act cut short at an event hosted by Black Enterprise magazine due to apparently excessive use of "the n-word". When Black Enterprise publisher Earl Graves announced Griffin being pulled, the crowd apparently gave a standing ovation.

Al Sharpton has praised Graves and Black Enterprise for trying to eliminate the use of the word.

After seeing Don Imus and Michael Richards get lambasted by Al Sharpton over their use of the word, it's nice to see that (finally) the anger and ahborration of this word is being pointed at anyone who uses it, not just those of a different race.

"The Speech" - 1964

This speech is widely regarded as the origins of the Reagan Revolution. Listen, learn, reflect, and enjoy.

This link is courtesy of "Cliff-" at AR-15 Forums.

Poll: Americans Want Stronger Immigration Enforcement

In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, it appears that the majority of Americans want stronger enforcement of immigration laws, as well as tougher restrictions on employers that hire illegal aliens and landlords that rent to illegal aliens. The results of the poll concluded that...

- 79% of Americans favor legislation that would require employers to fire employees that falsify identity documents. Only 9% were opposed, 12% were not sure.
- 74% of Americans believe that if a person wants to rent an apartment they should be required to show documentation that they are in the country legally. Only 17% opposed this. 9% were not sure.
- 68% of Americans believe that Very Important to improve border enforcement and reduce illegal immigration. To show the bipartisan support behind this...this view is held by 80% of Republicans, 62% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents.

Those are strong numbers. Not to mention that when the Senate attempted to railroad the Immigration Bill through earlier this year, another Rasmussen poll found that only 28% of Americans thought it was Very Important to legalize the status of illegal aliens...and that also included support from only 36% of Democrats.

These numbers have shown that the majority of Americans DON'T want illegal aliens to be legalized, and that they want the flow of illegal immigrants coming into this country to be reduced.

Throw Some D's On That B****...

...cause someone just bought a Cadillac. (Most of you won't get the reference in the title, but oh well)

Namely, someone on welfare. As Dave Briggman reports on Republitarian, he saw a woman drive up in a brand-new Cadillac (with 30 day tags) at his local 7-11, purchase some soda and chips, and pay for it with a Virginia Cardinal card...which, if you didn't know, is the EBT card that is given to people who are on welfare, so they don't have to deal with food stamps.

While Briggman had some questions about how you can buy food with no nutritional value with a welfare card...I didn't particularly care about that part.

My question is: how does one get a brand-new Cadillac while on welfare??? Just like the title...another hip-hop song comes to mind when reading this story...

"Can't pay my rent, cause all my money's spent/But that's okay, cause I'm still fly"

Is there someone who can actually justify this? Or can we agree that this is obviously blatant abuse of the welfare program.

Code Pinko Starving Themselves...Again

So now we've got another "Code Pink Hunger Strike" going on. They're starting at Dianne Feinstein's home, then moving on to Nancy Pelosi's office. The point of these hunger strikes is to end the war.

Personally, I think it's a good thing. Our food would be better spent nourishing our soldiers than a bunch of aimless protesters who think not eating will accomplish anything. In fact, can anyone thing of a hunger strike that has accomplished anything of significance since Gandhi?

They're so excited to have 8 people who will starve themselves for this hunger strike. 8 people? This is supposed to be a "big" event for Code Pink...and the got all of 8 people to go through with this?

Those will be the same 8 people that actually vote for Cindy Sheehan over Nancy Pelosi next year.

Do We Need Another 9/11???

Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Daily News believes we need another 9/11 to heal the wounds of divisive politics. Another terrorist attack, in his opinion, would at least bring some unity to our country. He opens his article with this...

"ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.

What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children."

However, Bykofsky's next statement says a lot about America...

"Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and division is weakness.

Most Americans today believe Iraq was a mistake. Why?

Not because Americans are "anti-war."
Americans have turned their backs because the war has dragged on too long and we don't have the patience for a long slog. We've been in Iraq for four years, but to some it seems like a century. In contrast, Britain just pulled its soldiers out of Northern Ireland where they had been, often being shot at, almost 40 years.

That's not the American way.

In Iraq, we don't believe our military is being beaten on the battleground. It's more that there is no formal "battleground." There is the drip of daily casualties and victory is not around the corner. Americans are impatient. We like fast food and fast war.

Americans loved the 1991 Gulf War. It raged for just 100 hours when George H.W. Bush ended it with a declaration of victory. He sent a half-million troops into harm's way and we suffered fewer than 300 deaths.

America likes wars shorter than the World Series."

I will agree with this to the extent that our society is very oriented towards instant gratification. Of course, it wasn't long before we won the actual Iraq War. What we're dealing with now is a long, drawn out occupation.

Bykofsky makes another point about what's gone wrong since 9/11...

"Because we have mislaid 9/11, we have endless sideshow squabbles about whether the surge is working, if we are "safer" now, whether the FBI should listen in on foreign phone calls, whether cops should detain odd-acting "flying imams," whether those plotting alleged attacks on Fort Dix or Kennedy airport are serious threats or amateur bumblers. We bicker over the trees while the forest is ablaze. "

However, I do think that his final comments below, while true, are a bit reckless and almost seems to be asking for another 9/11...which, honestly, it would be the last thing anyone wants.

"America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.

Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again?

If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail.

The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever.

The first 9/11 proved that."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think we should focus on the singular task of PREVENTING these types of attacks from happening, instead of waiting for another one attack (and who knows how many deaths) to create that focus?

I see his point, I really do...I just think that wanting another 9/11-type of attack to reunite the nation is not the line of thinking we need to have as a society. However, I do agree that our society is too geared towards instant gratification when it comes to these matters, and that we need to focus on the big picture and the important things first.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)