Everyone,

Our United States of America-

Are you pleased or displeased with your nation, The United States of America? Does it make any difference if we the people are pleased or not with our present situation? Does it matter of how the US obtained its stature in a troubled world? The questions forefront in the minds of many citizens today hinge upon the particular world viewpoint that each of us have, but the bottom line can only be found in your thoughts, in your knowledge of what transpired to get US where it is today. And in your thoughts are your personal ideas of what constitutes liberty, freedom and justice, which are your birthrights under what is perhaps the most profound document ever written by human hands, and conceived by the minds of a people who for whatever their reasons allowed a mixture of cultures to unite in a common cause, and form a nation, The Constitution of the United States of America.

Nearly everyone today is pointing a finger at someone else and playing the blame game for the perceived woes of our country, but is that a realistic stance to take? I think not, for the US is much larger than any one person for it was built on three principles, which allowed a diversity of cultures to become a new culture, one that had never been seen or used in the annals of recorded history. Some of you will think, Greece was the origin of Democracy, but the Constitution altered the form of Democracy to one of choice instead of chance. It is that change from chance to choice that allowed the US to become great, and proved to the world that a form of government based on choice is far superior to any other type. Pointing fingers and blaming someone else is not what the US is all about for it is our preference of choice, which seats those people willing to administer the affairs of the US, and we as citizens should never forget, we voluntarily elected them despite party affiliation based upon what each elected candidate portended to us as a collective whole.

I am not completely satisfied with the Bush Administration, yet Congress has backed him in nearly ever endeavor he has undertaken, but remember, we elected Representatives and Senators to be our voices in Congress, and those voices have authorized Bush and people of his administration to conduct the affairs of our country in the manner as has transpired. The present state of United States’ affairs is not just a Bush thing, it is a US thing, and it is as the people warranted it to be; this is our Republic, it belongs to US.

The United States is a great nation, but a difficult one, a nation that few in other nations on earth understand. The US is perceived by others as racist, sexist, bureaucratic, unjust, unprincipled, Imperialistic, Nationalistic, and even corrupt – that is until you compare the US to any other nation in the world, when you can easily discern, the problems here are significantly less than any other nation on earth. Show me a country that has fewer race related problems, and I can show you a more homogenous society that has not yet dealt with the complexity involved with having so many diverse cultures united under a single Banner. Being a federal government governing so many diverse peoples, that is a single challenge that no one person will successfully manage, so we elect people, send them to Washington D. C., and we blame them when we don’t like what is happening. America is a challenging country to be a citizen of. All too often, she will do something that you simply cannot stand. All too often, there will be some injustice done in your name, and when that happens, all too often you have no alternative but to stand there and take it. If you are concerned, you wake up the next morning, and then work doubly hard to insure that it does not happen again.

This is not “Bush’s” America. This is our United States of America. If you believe that President Bush has pushed the US too far in some areas (and I think he has), remember, that we the people gave him the Congress with which to do so. If Bush has questionable legitimacy due to election irregularities, remember, we elected the Congress to legitimize his presidency. While I do believe he has done some damage to our country in the area of foreign relations and diplomacy, he is our President, and this is our America. If we don’t claim that responsibility, we concede the country to him, and that would be unfortunate.

If the Department of Homeland Security seems scary to you, we’ve seen even worse bad times before. The House Committee on Un-American Activities destroyed many citizens, yet after a short while it fell, but the freedom of speech did not. The President may seem out of touch, and out of your reach; however, you must remember, you have control over Congress, and Congress has control over the Presidency. Ultimately, the Constitution is stronger than any President, just as it is stronger than any of US, for it is the US.

To be a Citizen of the United States of America is not easy, nor should it be. The US is not governed by individual loyalty to a tyrant or despot; we have no monarch or dictator to give us the continuity or a figurehead to make citizenship easy. The reality is, there are times when our citizenship puts US at odds with our head of state, who can only hold the position for a maximum of eight years under the Constitution, after which point, again the ultimate responsibility for our government falls back upon US, but we have the choice to change the people who represent US in Congress every two years. We also have the right to change the Presidency each four years, and if a President does not act to protect what is guaranteed to US by the Constitution, we have the authority to remove the President from office. Never forget this is our US, our nation, our homeland, and it is a part of a heritage granted to us through birthright as Citizens, or as naturalized Citizens that have managed to legally emigrate from other nations despite circumstance.

If you don’t like the news, go out and make some of your own. If you believe the media is too [insert political ideology here] to give you a fair shake, there is no doubt that will make your life more difficult, but if you don’t go about making changes, can that be the fault of anyone but yourself? This is still our country, our nation, and I will thank you to not concede that to any one man, for if you do, democracy will have failed. If you don’t condone what the Administration of this nation is doing, write or call your Congressional representatives; if that does not work, remember, you have the right to redress, and you have the right to present a petition before Congress. To my knowledge no other nation on earth has those same rights under their forms of government as we, the people of the United States have.

It is the privilege of the rights mentioned herein that have made the United States into what it is today, and it is those same rights that will make the US what it will become tomorrow. What the US ultimately becomes is up to US, for we the people of the US speak with one voice as a nation. In times like this, the world needs to hear our voice, for only we the people of the US can explain what it is that made our nation Great. The US become what it is because of our diversity, and the freedom to pursue liberty, which drives US to do what other nations often fail to do, protect the rights its people to make a choice without coercion or intimidation. It is the freedom of choice, which did engender the position the US now holds concerning nations that terrorize their own people, or any other nation such regimes elect to intimidate. It is because of the freedom of choice that we the people of the United States survived the Cold War, and the very reason that what was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic government fell, the people wanted a choice, a choice to self-government without intimidation or coercion. Slowly but surely, the US is leading the way to insure the world will know true peace someday, and we do so with the fortitude of resolve to achieve success.

J____

It's imperative that all sources of diplomacy have failed before any course of action such as the current war be implimented. I see the desecration of the artifacts in the Iraqi National Museum as a loss to all in the human race and put the blame for that on the shoulders of our government for not protecting it. Bush's short sided objectives overlooked the real assets of that counrty. Too bad for all of us.

Anonymous,

I think differently than you - the people of Iraq are of significantly more value than mere artifacts.

J____

In terms of International Law & Diplomacy, some very new challenging novel questions are presenting themselves, thanks to actions by the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq. Indeed, the U.N. Security Council did pass Resolution 1441, which recognized Iraqi non-compliance with the earlier weapons inspection protocols. The resolution also provided for enforcement consequences stemming from any 'material' breach,
whose scope could include concealments, failures to disclose, non-cooperation in any of many categories, etc. Here's my point. The U.N. Security Council's passage of Res. 1441 was a statement of MORAL AUTHORITY. That the U.N. is/was unable to aggregate sufficient focus to enforce compliance...Does this [conditional] in any way diminish the U.N.'s Moral Authority, as an international representative body? If he that issues moral edict cannot enforce such, is said edict [consequentially] void? Instead of taking so many political sides at this point re: Bush, the War, et al., my suggestion is that...perhaps it's now a great opportunity to explore and examine some very novel questions relative to Int. Law & Diplomacy, which can provide 21st Century precedent on how East, West...North, South...Islam can best deal with globalizing technologies and capital flows. Displocations ared unavoidable...many dating back to efforts of decolonialization...:) G-man

G-man,

In effect, because of the no-teeth stance by many UN member nations concerning Iraq, the UN is destined to be an authority without - authority. That should be apparent now since from the beginning, the UN makes promises without delivery. In 1948 – the UN made a promise to the Palestinian people they would have a homeland when Israel was first established. That promise was-is not worth the ink used to print it. That was the first grievous mistake made by the UN and member nations – the next grievous mistake occurred 1953 in Korea. Neither mistake has ever been corrected because of a no-teeth stance by many UN members. The UN as an “intervening body” is hamstrung by the very composition of the original Charter, and cannot point to one successfully completed “intervention in the name of peace” anywhere in the world since its inception.

The UN is a hierarchy of five dictatorships as now comprised – each dictatorship has the sole right to veto any proposal it rejects. That is not democracy at work, neither is it any other form of governing body ever before tried or seen in the annals of history. After 58 years of the UN – we have learned that UN Sanctions and Resolutions do not work. The only successes the UN can point to are all humanitarian issues–

J____

J___, G-man,

I have to agree with you, that the UN is ineffectual as a body to ensure our freedoms, as it now stands. And indeed the time is prime for redefining what is International Law, such that UN resolutions will have value above and beyond the paper it is written on. A very good point, that the hierarchy of five dictatorships makes the idea of UN Peace mandates suspect, since they come from the wrong place. The Palestinian-Israel debacle won't go away, for example, being a product of bad diplomacy and UN policy, and yet there is persistent desire to make UN work. Why is that? I suspect we see ourselves, all of us on the planet, as now one great global village that needs governing commensurate with the technology and travel capabilities of the times. Look at SARS as an example of how close we have become, where a disease spawned in China is now affecting the whole world, not to mention AIDS with possible roots in Africa. So we have to rise to the challenge of modern needs, and these need to be addressed by a world body without making it an Orwellian bargain where our individual human rights are bartered for world peace. We have to find a way to make world peace while at the same time not only insuring freedom for ourselves, but for all on the planet who desire it, for it is the most powerful engine of human development we had yet invented. I wish we had a Jefferson or Madison around the White House today who could do this...

Ivan

Ivan,

Jefferson or Madison would fail in the same sense the UN has failed. To cause world peace will take another Abraham Lincoln.

J____

ONE LINERS ON THE STATE OF THE WORLD:

IRAQ
Give the people of Iraq a chance to argue, to compete, to express themselves with free speech, framed within a democracy protecting their human rights from the oppressive coercive ideas of their divisive, fanatical religious leaders.

NORTH KOREA
Offer them financial and humanitarian aid in exchange for conditions where they relinquish their commerce and development of weapons of mass destruction, and still more importantly, the institution of rule of law with human rights.

FRANCE
Let them into the peace process, though they were obstructionist in the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's oppressive rule, and use their troops to help maintain the peace.

ISRAEL
Force them to the table with Palestinians, no matter how distasteful to both sides, and show them how much more benefit there will be for both to work together than against each other, and together to build a model of regional peace.

AL QAEDA AND BIN LADEN
Hunt them down, arrest them, and try them as the world class criminals they are.

SADDAM AND FAMILY
If they are not already dead, let them live under house arrest in Belorus, or any other country that will accept them, stripped of power and watched as criminals.

CUBA
Have the people of Little Havana raise the necessary funds to offer Fidel a comfortable exile for life on an island of his choice, giving the people of Cuba a chance to end their failed revolution and adopt a new constitution of human rights and democracy, for they deserve it.

CHINA
Build a big wall... seriously, they need medical help from the whole world, to save the world.

POWER OUT, Was it an act of God?

August 14, 2003, will live on in the American consciousness as the day where nearly a third of the nation went dark. We may yet remain this way for some months more, listening to news commentators and government spokespersons. No one seems to know why this happened, how a powergrid safeguarded from congenetive failure could crash over such a wide area, casting 50 million people into a world devoid of electricity, as well of water and other basic necessities of life.

People took it rather well, on balance, without regressing into violence and rioting or looting. This was most admirable of the American spirit, a kind of new spirit after 911, where people are now more willing to pull together during adversity, rather than preying on each other during conditions of weakness. Airlines gradually restored flights, the markets held, and there was no general panic. In fact, the calm was exemplary and prudence and helpfulness were the rule. The only disturbing aspect of this event is that it came without warning, and without credible explanation. We simply do not know how this happened.

If it had been terrorism, that would have defined the origin to this power failure, and we would have engaged our homeland security forces, both physical and cyber, to catch the culprits. But this event caught us on the stealth, so no tracks were found that would support this path of inquiry. Nor has anyone come forward to gloat and claim responsibility. Some have pointed to the coincidence that it happened on the day the President announced the capture of Hambali, a notorious Indonesian terrorist who was behind the Bali bombing, and other terrorism against the people of southeast Asia. If some group had come forward claiming success, this would have made it easier, but none did. Therefore, we are left with an eerie silence shrouding the event in doubt. Regretably, this could be by design.

The origin of the power failure is now moving more towards northern Ohio and Michigan. Lansing and Detroit are on the map, but no specific blame named. Canada was disqualified, since there were no lightning strike at Niagara Falls, as first reported. Nor had cyber tampering been detected, so hacking is not suspected either. There was no inordinate solar activity that day, and the grid was operating at only 75% capacity, so natural causes, such as unusually hot weather, are not at fault. What does that leave us? An act of God?

True, the US power grid infrastructure, in this post Enron, deregulation environment, needs upgrading, and so should the software to better protect it. However, these do not seem to be the main reasons, if only 75% capacity was utilized. Summer time demand for electricity may be erratic, especially at rush hour, but this does not fit the blame. Thus, if it was not an act of God, then it had to have been an act of man, but who? Could it be simply human error? This is the great unknown question. On a more sinister note, perhaps this was only a test, to see how our power system responded to crisis, and the real threat is yet to come. No possibilities should be ignored, not in an atmosphere of fear, but one of intelligent inquiry. Or perhaps not, and this was simply a failure, a random act of chaotic electrons oscillating back and forth until the power lines crashed. Generators were immediately taken off line, and the power grid shut down incrementally in a big way.

If it was terrorism, we will find out by and by, since they will be emboldened and try it again, even if they are silent for now. And if this is so, let us hope that we have great minds at work to make sure they do not succeed. All possibilities must be examined. But if it was an act of God, or chaos, then we are left in the dark, and may never know what happened. If there was a fire at one of the plants, or an uncontrolled power surge over the lines, then let us find out what it was that caused this. An engineering question should find a solution. We as a superpower cannot afford to live with a failing power grid, though having backup systems where they are critically needed would be smart. Such systems are used in all countries where electric supplies are unreliable. But if it was an act of man, then God help. We need to know the truth, and the truth will out.


Ivan

Ivan,

After reading your post last night, several thoughts immediately come to mind - but the one that won't go away is - scary. I hope I am wrong.

The Power Grid Failure of Friday 8-15-2003 is the result of ... corporate greed, employees that do not do the jobs being paid for, and a complacent people that forgo their right to freedom of speech by not voting.

I could continue on this theme for thousands of words, but nobody would read - for the almighty $$ has become more important to people than their freedom.

J____

Hi J____,

Corporate "terrorism" as conspiracy crossed my mind too, but decided that corporate "incompetence" as stupidity was more likely, so not worried. Enron gave us the proof.

I am sure we will solve why the grid went down, and it will no doubt be due to human error, slackfulness, cutbacks, and of course greed. Corporate executives can sometimes be unbelievably short sighted, for all they high pay, and neglectful, until they get a wake up call. By then it is usually too late, and the whole thing crashes, or goes chapter 11.

Ivan

HE'S NO ARABIAN "ROBIN HOOD"

Five days after the disastrous power failure through the eastern and upper midwest of the United States, bin Laden's Abu Hafs Brigades takes credit for this. That it comes rather late makes it laughable, more opportunistic than credible. For those who choose to view bin Laden as a modern day "Robin Hood", take note that there is absolutely no comparison. Whereas the Robin Hood of legend took from the rich and oppressive to distribute to the weak and needy, this gang of the Taleban and Al Qaeda take vengeance on the innocent. As the Osama's Nuclear Bomb article by David Dolan, Nov. 7, 2001, points out:

"Without wishing to add to the terrorist problem by further alarming any reader... I suggest that the Arabian "Robin Hood" may be waiting to unleash his nuclear genii until he can achieve the maximum emotional Islamic response to such a dastardly attack."

The reference to Sir Robin of Locksley is purely sarcastic, for the man who is behind today's terror network, and his band of criminals, is but a small and spiteful man, not the noble man of legends. Perhaps at this writing, the memory of bin Laden may be no more than a propped up corpse, meaning he is already dead, but his followers will no doubt take advantage of any opportunity they can for sowing terror in the hearts of men and women, and children. They prey on the misfortunes of others, rather than relieve them, as was so aptly demonstrated in their Medieval rule of Afghanistan through fear and oppression. Raping women in veil was not beyond their ability, nor cruel treatment of their victims. Certainly not an Arabian "Robin Hood" and his merry men of Sherwood Forest, rather cutthroats and killers of Deserta Arabia. Any comparison by well meaning apologists is truly misplaced.

What awaits the United States and the West? Will they unleash another wave of terror, or exploit any weaknesses they can find? Most likely the answer is: Yes. And we should be ready for this. Whether or not they have a suitcase nuclear device remains to be seen, and certainly the timing of the bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem coincide with an announcement that Saddam's vice-president was apprehended. The loss to relief efforts for the Iraqi people by UN sponsored programs, in particular the loss of Sergio Vieira de Mello, special UN representative in Iraq, a well respected gentle man, has merely toughened the resolve of that organization in its good works. We will not be cowed by cowardly acts in the name of a hijacked religion by bandits who have no respect for innocent human beings. The United Nations relief operations, and the formation of a democratic government in Iraq, will continue. The Iraqi people, who are good people, will be served. And in this, the true evil of the bandits around the corpse of bin Laden will be unmasked for what they really are, small and vicious men.

Editors, Humancafe.com

IN GOD WE TRUST?

Our US dollar bill says "In God We Trust". Should this too not be challenged in court, at the land's highest level of the Supreme Court, since it may offend some non-believers? Is this not an expression of religious belief? Or is it?

It now seems in retrospect as if ocurred some oversight by our nation's founding fathers, to base our constitutional democracy on a trust in God. Surely they were thinking the same when this sentiment was etched into our money. How is this different from the present challenge to the oath recited by school children, where in their pledge of allegiance to their nation, they proclaim "One nation 'under God', indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"?

Would it have been better if this pledge were instead rewritten to say:
"One nation under the presently politically correct ideology of a non sectarian, either belief or non-belief, in God, indivisible..."? Or if this is too wordy, perhaps: "One nation under whatever it is we wish to believe, indivisible..."? Somehow this fails to catch something of the original intent. Perhaps this would be better: "One nation under the universal 'Big Bang' in a finite universe, indivisible..."? No, this is too sectarian, so should not be used. Or better: "One nation under the sun and stars, indivisible..."? This, however, sounds too much like Akhenaten's religion, so fails the test. Why not: "One nation under .....(silence)...., indivisible..."? Well, this would be a way to silence those who oppose "under God", but it does not do justice to what the vocal principles of freedom and tolerance upon which the nation was founded, for certainly it was not silence.

Thinking of it this way, perhaps the pledge can say: "One nation under the equal human rights of all, indivisible..."? However, the problem here is why should equality and human rights be validated? Who said these are valid ideas for humankind, especially given that they had been violated fairly consistently throughout human history, so no good. Let us try instead: "One nation under the holistic view of mother Earth-Gaia and father sky for all their children, indivisible..."? Well, this is getting a little closer to what was meant by the nation's founding fathers, though they never thought of it in these vague modern terms. Furthermore, it is too restrictive in its ideology, though not exactly religious. No, it would seem that the best way to reconcile these differences in whose God we are to trust, whether a Christian or Muslim or Judaic or Hindu or Atheist or Marxist or Jain or Buddhist or Bahai or Animist or New Age 'God', is to reveal in writ that God is also a secular term and not exclusively the domain of religions. And if God is not only a religious word, then what does this secular word represent?

"God" is a term that encompasses all the dreams and ideals and hopes and goodness and future and universality of humankind, forever. If seen this way, "In God We Trust" simplifies in these four words all the aspirations of humanity throughout the ages, without having to believe in a specific religious ideology, or even mythology, of God. God is a code word for humanity, and all the things that we dream of collectively as a planet, made real when human beings are finally allowed the liberty to be Who they are as individuals under the laws of the land, as sanctioned by the nation's constitution and upheld by its highest, supreme court. "In God We Trust" is a trust embodied in our US Constitution that we have set up a nation built on principles of liberty and respect for its human beings of all races and creeds, and that this freedom to either believe or not believe in a God is but one more of our inalienable rights, not be forced on anyone, nor taken away. These words: "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," is a reminder that under a secular nation, without forcing any religious belief on anyone, all human beings are somehow special and sacred before the law.

So whether we believe in "God" or not should have nothing to do with "In God We Trust", or of having "under God" recited in a pledge of allegiance. This United States is a nation built on a secular principle of division between Church and State, and to interfere with how we wish to express some sentiment of our humanity that is greater than the collective ideology of what each one of us believes, but one which validates what each one believes, and we wish to call this "God" in a secular way; then any who would take that away from us is exercising a religious power over us that is not just. In God We Trust, is our trust of Who we are as an American nation.

In the end, is not removing a word from written text a form of censorship? Or as John Milton said so eloquently before the English Parliament in his "Areopagitica", 132 years before our nation was born: "Well knows he who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion. Truth is compared in the Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition. A man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy... We boast our light; but if we look not wisely on the sun itself, it smites us into darkness."

God is only a word on the way to these Truths we hold self evident. To strike this word from our text is to force all of us through a form of censorship into a stagnating conformity, without knowing reason. Would this too not violate our First Amendment?

Ivan D. Alexander

THIS IS POWERFUL AND MOVING!

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/email.htm

... as forwarded... pass it on.

What does it mean to be an "American"?

Tell us from your American point of view, or your non-American point of view. How do you see Americans?

A curious citizen of the world.

Anonymous,

What does it mean to be an American (US)...? I am not sure it can be explained to someone living elsewhere ... in other words, I know what is to be an American, but do not know what it is to be an Australian.

I see Americans for what we are ... and not from the perspective of others for I do not walk in someone else's shoes.

I know what we believe, what we do, and how we went about establishing the US of A as it is today, which can be best summed up with a few words ... United we stand, divided we fall, and the bond between US Americans is probably unlike the bond among most other nations excepting two ... Australia and Canada.

J____

THE ENERGY OF BEING AN AMERICAN

What is it about Americans that sets us apart from so many other peoples of the world? This was a question I asked myself recently while traveling the roads of New England, in what had been part of the former thirteen colonies of England where our history began. The Pilgrim fathers who first settled this new continent, surviving on the abandoned fields of the native Indians, and carving for themselves in the wilderness an existence in a harsh land, had an energy that I believe carried itself all through the history of the United States of America. We are a pioneer lot, not to continually conquer new lands like restless explorers, but more like men and women driven by some unattainable dream of who it is we are. It was a dream of freedom.

We are different, because for us the known and traditions of the old world were comforts we were willing to abandon in favor of the new. This is the energy that has driven us throughout our short history, an initial willingness to leave homes and friends and kin to travel to an unknown world. This was followed by believing in ourselves strongly enough to take on the challenges that lay ahead, not only in the clearing of the lands, the building of community, of worship in God as we willed, but also in the challenge of building a nation upon the new principles of the European Enlightenment. Initially they were Christians carrying the message of Jesus, but in time were joined by Jews and peoples from all religions and creeds, and races. This new nation in time gave way to a secular belief that all religions are valid, that none should rule over another, and that to worship God is a private gift which none can take away. Upon this belief was built Jefferson's vision of a government by the people and for the people, in their pursuit of happiness, whereupon he swore upon the altar of God to be the enemy of all tyranny. In his steps followed Thoreau, who said we may each in freedom march to the beat of a different drummer, and in Emerson's transcendental vision of human beings greater than they themselves had the ability to know. We are a people who embraced freedom, however imperfectly, and upon its strength had the courage to spread throughout a continent to make something new in the world. That new nation was the American dream of self fulfillment according to our ability, our intelligence, our willingness to try and fail, as well as to succeed, and to take on the new ideals of that dream. This energy released, though at times hidden behind a self proclaimed isolationism, nevertheless inspired a world with new visions. We were willing to try, to do things differently from before, and to test our limits in all our ideas, as well as our arts and modern achievements.

The willingness to try, I believe, is a mark of Americanism. From this uninhibited exploration of the unknowns, both physical and psychological, of ideas, of new freedoms, the American experience has yielded historic events. Benjamin Franklin experimented with electricity, a novel idea in his time, which today powers almost all of our existence. When we turn on a switch and a light comes on, the spirit of Thomas Edison is in that light; the Wright brothers gave us the spirit of jet travel spanning the globe for all peoples; radar, radio, television, computers, telephones, automobiles, if not directly invented by Americans were nevertheless embraced by them to make them everyday things. Medicinal procedures and cures, market exchange economies building wealth, skyscraping architectures towering over cities, the new sciences and technologies, had an American stamp on them as they spread out around the globe. Space became our new frontier, while at home on Earth we wrestled with the inequalities of race discrimination, of poverty, of gender inequalities, of experimentations in new forms of community, of understanding our psychological mysteries, even of finding new ways of worship. We challenged the old models of what is art, or literature, or theater, music, film, and opened up the world to new ways of seeing. All of these have immense energy behind them, of a people not afraid to try what had not been known, or sometimes not even knowable.

We may be criticized worldwide for our achievements, for our inherent capacity to try harder, to work harder, and to win. These are our faults for which we should never be apologetic, for they are the trademarks of a people not arrogant, but humbled before the greatness of what it is they dream. In this trial and error forward thrust that sometimes borders on arrogance, we are often misunderstood, because we are willing to disobey what had always been accepted. This is a path fraught with failure, so we are bound to make mistakes as we go. Our perceived imperialism, our commercial successes around the world, have also had their failures in recognizing the needs and wishes of others who had not seen the dream through our eyes. We are bold, but we must also submit to the fact that we are not all exactly the same, and must make for allowances of these differences. And yet, in our inherent tolerance of other cultures, we had demonstrated that we have the potential for being more than what we had been before. If we had been wrong in our earlier prejudices, we can also move beyond them, into equal human rights for all human beings. We are an evolving ideal, never perfect, but always willing to try, same as the government we had created for ourselves, a lawful constitutional democracy, is always in a state of evolving into a better image of who it is we are.

So who are we? What is this energy we had demonstrated over the past three centuries into becoming the people of the Americas? The southern hemispheres of the continent, though they took a different path in their development in the so-called New World, nevertheless displayed the same energy that made America. The environment the men and women in the New World, whether befriended or repelled by the native inhabitants, was a harsh world without guarantees of success, or even of survival. These people who conquered themselves became conquered by their new world, and in this they became something new. This new world had a vision, a thirst for freedoms, a willingness to try the untried, even a rebelliousness to known ideas. And from that willingness to try, to think differently, to apply effort when no results were known in advance, that willingness is the energy of what it is that makes us Americans. From Canada to Argentina, we have invented something new: In our will is who we are. And in that new identity of our Americanism is an energy that has electrified the world to stir itself from all the restrictions to human freedoms we had endured since time before history. Our Americanism is a historical event that has changed the world, maybe not always for the better, since trial and error has error innately built into it, but it has changed us to look forward without being afraid of change. How this change will manifest for us, whether we then become a slovenly and decadent people glued to our televisions and slavishly buying what we are told, or whether we become a great people dedicated to making a better world, one more intelligent, more free, more just and equal in opportunities for all peoples of all races and religions, for both sexes, and even willing to explore areas of society, of feelings, not yet imagined; these will be the mark in our future history of who it is we are. I have faith that our American energy will prevail over the historical horrors of what human beings can do to one another, our ineffable ability to do each other harm, and instead will arise a new consciousness of our global identity able to learn to live with all life on the planet, and with the support of this beautiful planet we have come to call home. The future will not go to those who are afraid, who self destruct, who kill, who spread hatred, they who are afraid to raise their visions to higher ideals; instead the future will go to those who have the energy to dare, and though plagued with failure will nevertheless succeed in creating a kinder and gentler world. Perhaps in this great experiment humanity will finally raise an energy where we will have the courage to love one another. To help, to heal, to build up, to make safer, to bring about a new consciousness of humanity, as one peacefilled world, where the air and water and land are clean; these I believe in the end will mark the greatness of the experiment we had begun as Americans.

I thought of these things as I traveled the old roads of Massachusetts, watching colonial milestones marking the distances from the Boston stone, remembering that in so many ways the American rebellious spirit of our history had begun here on the Atlantic coast. I saw a spirit that spread across a continent, from the northern forests to southern plantations, to the wild open spaces of the west, across the prairies, to the great Rocky Mountains, and out to the other shore on the Pacific. And in the end, if falteringly, we have become one people who welcomed other peoples from all the lands of the world, to come here and dare to embrace freedom. We are that people. In us is that adventurous entrepreneurial spirit that made us America. I have no apology for us being who we are, as this restless rebellious dream now spreads around the globe. I am proud of Who we are as Americans. May God help bring the very best in us to fruition.

Ivan D. Alexander

President Ronald Reagan is being laid to rest. His spirit now covers a nation, as his love for freedom and the people of America spreads over the nation and the world. He now joins all the other great men and women in council who had lent their strength to the progress of humanity, who fell in battle for freedom, and who in both life and death loved the world. He turned enemies into friends, and adversity into peace. Let us celebrate his spirit with gratitude in our hearts, with faith, and with kindness and love for all generations to come.

Let us raise our voices and hearts with joy to one another in memory of this great man. And let us extend our love to his wife Nancy and their family. A wonderful man in the world will be missed.

Go with God, Mister President. The love of a nation is with you.


Editors, Humancafe

ELECTIONS WORK, a day after.

Elections work because we all know what is good for the other guy, which of course means we all vote collectively for what is right for us, and the end result is the same. What happens, if done critically but non-confrontationally, and ultimately in reconciliation after the results, is that in a fashion we are all satisfied. So it works, by a kind of imperfect agreement, that in the end we shake hands and take care of our business as we saw it right for others. That is the beauty of America, or any democracy, the voters have spoken. And so it should be.

Ivan

ETHICS OF THE MORAL MAJORITY?

The recent American presidential election showed the emerging polarity between the so-called Liberal Left ideology and that of the Conservative Right, or what some would call the "Moral Majority". A glance at the electoral vote map makes this distinction obvious, where states on both coasts and the Great Lakes favored the Liberal cause, while the majority of the nation's interior including all of the South went to the Right. What was the message the American people were sending to their nation's top office?

History is replete with obvious wrongs done, where the future marches upon the wreckage of conflicts, wars, and social injustices. The Liberal causes were in part motivated by the injustices of past laws that favored capital interests over the rights of workers, racial segregation and prejudices obviating the intent of equal rights for all, endemic poverty, and brutality and punishment versus rehabilitation and education. These were all valid causes, and they continue to rightly marshall forces today. This, I believe, was what stood behind the Democratic candidate, and it was expressed with enough force and passion for some to even call for recounts in swing states. However, on the other end was concern for moral decay, social disintegration, educational failure of our youth, growth of drug use and crime, concern over the erosion of our Anglo-American heritage via influx of unassimilated cultures, illegal in-migration, religious values erosion; and 911. These too are very valid concerns driving how Americans vote. The message sent to the White House, and Congress, is that we as a nation are seeing our moral and cultural moorings slipping, which is now a graver concern than the injustices perceived by our more liberal views. Both views, I believe, prevail in our collective consciousness all the time, but it is a matter of degree that swings the vote one way or the other. Passions were felt on both sides, but also both were felt in each one of us as we faced the machines of the voting booths. The fact that we had a much larger than usual turnout proved their importance, both collectively and individually.

We cannot right the wrongs of the past, nor can we stem the human tides of history. That so many non-English speaking peoples should choose to come to our nation, often at great risk to themselves, is historical fact. Nor can we abolish poverty and all social injustices through legislation or mass movements at the grass roots. These social ills work out as we are as a people, so that individually given the opportunity to better ourselves, we will. However, if there is an erosion of that will to better ourselves, then we will not. And this is what was felt intuitively, I suspect, by the majority of voters: Are we regressing as a nation because of our regressing ethics? The foreign influences are not the root cause of this perceived regression, though argued otherwise; what causes our ethics to erode is a lack of understanding of where they come from, a lack of historical perspective. Most importantly, however, is that ethics erode when wrongs are righted with more wrongs. This, I also believe, was the great failing of the "Great Society" of the 1960s, where poverty was to be eradicated through social welfare reform, only to perpetuate the poverty through systemic supports for its continuation. The welfare state was not only too expensive, but it failed in motivating those below the poverty line from climbing above it. It was against this backdrop of history that Americans looked forward to their next leadership to not back slide into what was perceived as a Liberal continuation of old policies, while in the process not addressing the issues that had become more pressing since 911: We are a nation under attack because of what we believe.

If the enemy hates us for what we believe, then how do we address such an enemy? This in itself might have been the ground-zero of the election. Does the Homeland Security, which some perceived as eroding our personal rights to freedom, the right answer? Many feel more secure because of it, so perhaps it is the right way, but not without a check and balances against the rights we had worked so hard, and fought and died for in past wars, to be preserved as our natural heritage of freedom. We do not want to give into the enemy by becoming repressive like the enemy. On the other hand, we have to face the reality that terrorism respects no borders, and certainly no human rights, so that they can strike without warning and against the softest targets, including non-combatant civilians, to cause the most harm and fear. This is the enemy America, and much of the world in the future, will have to face successfully; it is an enemy who is confused as to his or her values, and sees a return to some idealized repressive past, where the dynamics of freedom cannot operate, as a preferred social order. Their ethics are to punish rather than to enlighten; and indeed enlightenment and education is to them their greatest fear, because it erodes their power base. How do we fight such an enemy who is horrified by our freedoms?

This question, how to fight such a terroristic enemy, may very well lie at the foundation of how America voted. We are a nation at war. The precedent is that during war we do not change administrations, and rather let the Commander in Chief carry on. If there is a conflict, or emergency, you do not suddenly change captains of leadership. This was the fundamental result of the vote, that the Republican leadership, who inherited this war as of 911, were retained in power, even to the point of tacitly endorsing the extension of that war into Afghanistan and Iraq. Rightly or wrongly, we endorsed the American-European Alliance's deposing of Saddam Hussein and his oppressive regime, as another front on the war on terror and their misguided hatred of our western values. It was our ethics that came under attack by the terrorists, and we fought back by sending a clear message, that though we too value our Liberal concerns, they became secondary to the first concern of preserving our free way of life. That is the voice of the so-called "moral majority", that we are an ethical based society which will not surrender its moral values to an external threat. The threat is primitive, a misguided and misinterpreted corrupt form of Islam, for its lack of understanding of our human rights, of democratic processes of government, and of the freedoms enjoyed by a people who act on principles of legal agreements rather than oppression. And in this message sent to Washington is also a clear ethical message to the terrorists: Know who you are fighting; we are a free people who will not cower before oppression.

The wrongs of the past cannot be righted with more oppression, and the future will require that we solve our social differences by not only resisting trespass and coercion from outside, but also by cementing social strengths from within. This calls upon a greater understanding and respect for the social agreements we forged through our nation's history. The fear that our Liberal Left had not focussed sufficiently on this important point may have been in part, even if only subliminally, why Americans voted, and sometimes reluctantly, for their Conservative Right. Even with a large influx of immigrants who had not yet come to full terms with what America is all about, there is nevertheless a forward thrust to define that principle of freedom, why so many come to our shores. They want to become Americans, and many non-English speaking voters went to the Right as a consequence, because they instinctively knew what freedom meant. It became more important to preserve that than the social welfare values promised, and thus the vote became a gut issue: Vote for what you believe in, before voting for what you want. And it is this sharp message, a brillian example of democracy at work, the voters sent to their White House.

Both parties will no doubt assess and decipher what had happened, but if they do not understand why the "moral majority" voted the way they did, on their ethics, then they will have missed a very important message sent to them. A new era dawns in American policy, where violence will be fought with violence both internally and externally, but only on the terms that this violence is to preserve our values as free human beings, to preserve our human rights. It is a very delicate balance, one which all sides will have to examine with intense scrutiny, because it is too easy to lose those rights, and too difficult to regain them once they are lost. Coercion must be stopped with coercion, of necessity, because society cannot tolerate internal or external predators; but at the same time, coercion may not be used to deprive us of our right to freely form agreements of our own free will. Only if these agreements are malformed to coerce others are they invalid; but free people are free to interact with one another as they best see fit, and as sanctioned by their constitutional laws. That is the first rule to overcome past injustices, and also the first rule to validate who we are as a people, and to give opportunity to those who wish to better themselves. The eradication of poverty, of social ills, of educational shortcomings, begins with each one of us. We have to choose to be better, or others will choose for us; and the choice offered by the Bin Laddens of the world is not a viable choice if we are to remain a free people. So our ethical dilemma, which the vote had effectively represented, is that we must be conscious of ourselves in all our choices, in how we deal with one another, how we resolve our differences, how we believe, and how we respect with tolerance the rights of all individuals. This is who we are. Whether we knew it or not, consciously or subliminally, this is how we voted as a nation. It is not to belittle those who voted for the Liberal Left, for their concerns are truly valid issues, but it shows that those values became secondary when faced with the challenge of aggression, because our American Ethics were under attack. I think it is this point the more Liberal media will have to focus on and address better; it is not business as usual. And the fact that we did vote with our ethics, rather than with our wants, is a very powerful message for our future as a nation: Here is our cultural heritage as freedom loving Americans based on 2000 years of history. Do not trespass us. Ethically strong, we know we will win.

That was the message.


Ivan D. Alexander

California, USA