The Fresh Prince of Thin Air: WORLD TOUR

We dare say, we could review it no better than this by Gerard Baker, United States Editor and an Assistant Editor of The Times (UK).

He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.

And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.”

- Gerard Baker

Amen.

Cheers,

Charlie

Chasing Churchill's Parrot?

We have received numerous enquiries as to whether or not we will be appearing in the current PBS series Chasing Churchill:In Search of My Grandfather. We regret to inform you that to the best of our knowledge we are not. (It is PBS after all!). However, we were prominently featured on Lady Sandy's original Chasing Churchill book, dressed - as you can see - in finest Cockateel.

Cheers,

Charlie

Mr. Sarkozy? Meet Mr. Ganley

"He was an Irish patriot, true and fearless. When in future times the Irish Free
State is not only prosperous and happy, but an active and annealing force...
regard will be paid by widening circles to his life …”

Sir Winston wrote those words in his epic "World Crisis" of one Michael Collins, commander of the Irish Republican Army in the Irish War of Independence against Great Britain. Today he might well have written the same of one Declan J. Ganley – the Irishman who led his nation in their defeat of the so-called Lisbon Treaty last month.

We highly recommend you view Mr. Ganley’s July 15 presentation at the Heritage Foundation. In it Mr. Ganley – not a politician but a businessman and father of four – details in articulate and passionate voice why and how he led the charge against this latest affront to the sensibilities of free men everywhere – the Lisbon Treaty.

Monday, July 21, Mr. Ganley is meeting French President Nicholas Sarkozy who is visiting Ireland. Currently serving as President of the European Council, Mr. Sarkozy seems to believe those silly Irish got it wrong on June 13 when they killed the Lisbon treaty with a loud and clear vote of NO. It is evidently Sarkozy’s job, as Executive Boob of the Euro-Elite, to convince these backward and unenlightened people that they did not know what they were doing and must therefore do it again, so that this time they might vote CORRECTLY.

“The Lisbon Treaty is dead,” writes Ganley on the homepage of his organization Libertas. “Libertas will not participate in any debate on the Lisbon treaty on Monday - that debate ended when the people of Ireland voted no".

Sarkozy’s people insist that with his visit Mr. Sarkozy intends only to “listen” to the Irish people in hopes of “better understanding” their concerns. That the bone-snapping irony of an allegedly democratic body of government – the European Council – simply not accepting the clear and unequivocal voice of the people is lost on these elitists pinheads is in truth all the glimpse one needs of the utterly undemocratic soul which motivates it.

The Irish people share no such lack of appreciation for irony. Sarkozy deserves to be laughed out of Ireland as was the Lisbon Treaty, for the betterment of Ireland, Europe, and the cause of Human Liberty.

Thank you Mr. Ganley!

Cheers,

Charlie

Re-Dependence Day

On our most recent sortie through Sir Winston’s old papers and notes, we came across an item of interest, particularly in light of the philosophical divide that is the subtext of the current United States presidential contest.

It is an early draft of The Atlantic Charter , the 1941 statement composed by United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill outlining their vision for the post-World War II world. The historical value of the Atlantic Charter is the subject of another post. In this instance, we shall focus on a key edit Sir Winston made to that charter which ought to have changed the course of history. It did not.

In the draft pictured, Mr. Roosevelt had incorporated the third of his “Four Freedoms” – “Freedom from Want” - rather prominently in the Charter’s fifth statement regarding the future global economic field. As you will note (click image to enlarge), Sir Winston struck through this statement and attached it as mere afterthought to the far more vague and aspirational sixth statement.

This is not an insignificant edit. Mr. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms introduced in his January 1941 State of the Union Address just months before issuance of the Atlantic Charter, were all the rage at this time.
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression
2. Freedom of Religion
3. Freedom from Want
4. Freedom from Fear

The first two of Mr. Roosevelt’s freedoms had, of course, been brilliantly articulated and secured a century and a half prior by the American Founders, the culmination of some 600 years of English Common Law. It is the second two “freedoms” which demonstrate FDR’s contribution, if you will, to the American ethos. They have since become central tenets of modern American liberalism, i.e. Leftism, and, we shall argue, will prove the undoing of the free world if not stuck through once and for all.

Freedom from want and freedom from fear. Want and fear are subjective states of mind. To be free from them is something only the “wanter” or “fearer” can achieve for themselves.

Consider want. One may want with equal desperation for the basic necessities of life as for a weekend bang-fest in Vegas with Spitzer-vintage whores. Regulating either the degree or the object of another man’s want is not only impossible but generally necessitates extraordinary levels of brutality in the attempt. History is replete with examples. What can be regulated are the actions men take in their efforts to gratify – and thus free themselves of – their wants. This is already done. It is called “The Rule of Law.” You cannot kill. You cannot rape. You cannot steal. In other words, you cannot take what is not yours without the consent of its owner, no matter how severe your want.

Within legal parameters, citizens in free market economies are otherwise free to seek to gratify their wants till the cows come home. If these citizens find they, nonetheless, “Can’t Get No Satisfaction,” we recommend they seek the counsel of their local priest, rabbi, or swami, for this is a personal spiritual dilemma. This is not the purview of government. Only those entertaining sadomasochistic fantasies of Orwellian behavioral modification techniques could seriously suggest it ought to be.

Ditto for fear.

Surely FDR had none of this in mind when penning his Four Freedoms speech. He merely sought a catchy slogan for declaring his earnest desire that no one ought be poor and no one ought live their lives in fear. We applaud politely at Mr. Roosevelt’s kind sentiment but disagree profoundly with the suggestion that these wishes constitute rights, particularly rights equal to those of freedom of speech and religion which government is obliged and able to honor.

One here notes the careful wording in America’s founding documents concerning these matters. The Declaration of Independence specifies the pursuit of happiness as an unalienable right, not happiness itself. The Constitution ascribes to government the responsibility of promoting the general welfare, while it must provide for the common defense. The choice of verbs is no accident and the distinction is not insignificant.

To have declared that their new government, or any government, were capable of protecting its constituents from want and fear would have struck the Founders as hilarious, and that it sought to do so as terrifying. For only a government assuming for itself the authority of an all-powerful, over-protective, over-bearing mother could wish to achieve such a thing. Behold the Nanny-State.

Sadly, in 1948, Lady Roosevelt saw to it that her husband’s grotesque add-ons to the Founder’s genius were prominently incorporated within the preamble of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Sir Winston had little say in the matter.

In the sixty years since, the free world has dutifully supplanted civic and historical education with nanny-state nonsense adorned in the raiment of “human rights” and “social justice.” Is it any wonder that today a formidable number of free persons seek to relinquish their freedom, running like sobbing toddlers into the open, all-powerful arms of government, promising to protect them not only from foreign and domestic molestation, but hospital bills, mortgage payments, and second hand smoke as well?

These central tenets of American liberalism are dangerous lies. There is no such thing as freedom from want and freedom from fear. There is only self-control. The consent of free men ought be given only to those governments which require and honor self-control. That would be the essence of self-government i.e. the very object of the American experiment.

In 1941, Sir Winston – the British Prime Minister (though half American by birth) - said all this and more with the stroke of his pen. Unfortunately, sixty-plus years of cultural devolution have eroded his mark.

“It is better to perish than live as slaves,” he once said, echoing the conviction of liberty’s champions before and since. At one time it was understood as essential that this conviction be cherished in the hearts and minds of all free men in order for them to remain truly free. Today, it is smirked off as so much draconian melodrama as we hand over our personal sovereignty piece by piece. Liberty is not enough. We want total freedom: freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom from responsibility, freedom from choice, freedom from ourselves.

“You shall have it,” promises the Left, like The Pied Piper of Hamelin leading generations to the second childhood they’ve been cultivated to covet. “All you need to do is listen to the music … and follow.”

Cheers,

Charlie

In the news?

In the off chance you missed this one: Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada . It's enough to make American Lefties change their tune on Iraq. Oh wait, they are!

Cheers,

Charlie

The Face of Socialized Health Care

British dentistry gets even worse, as if such a thing were possible. Smile America. All the wonders of socialized health care may soon be yours!

Cheers,

Charlie

A Declaration for One and All

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.”

- Sir Winston Churchill - March 5, 1946

If you remember nothing else, remember this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Happy birthday America!

Cheers,

Charlie

Sweet Nothings

“Imagine there’s no countries/it isn’t hard to do/nothing to kill or die for/and no religion too/imagine all the people/living life in peace.”
- John Lennon, Imagine

With the American Democratic Party’s formal consummation of its dalliance with the Fresh Prince of Thin Air, we had anticipated at least some airing of the lamentations of regret typically following such ill-advised intercourse. Hearing little to none, we are compelled to re-examine the cultural circumstances which make it possible for a farce such as this to come to pass.

Though much discussed, the Obama ascendancy still baffles: the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy has turned the keys over to a very junior Senator whose scant voting record is the furthest left of any in the Senate. Really? It has been called “the audacity of hope.” We call it merely, audacity; that strain of defiant, reckless, irresponsible audacity one expects from a sixteen year old, not from a national institution that – at one time anyway – was of significant weight and consequence.

We ought not be surprised.

By inertia alone has the DNC produced candidates over the past four decades possessing at least the requisite resume for the job of American head of state. The real work over these years has been that of the New Left steadily inculcating its Fifth Column dogma into the party’s ethos. Clearly the Democratic Party has suffered for it, yet remains, somehow, undead. Zombified in this fashion, the party has afforded its representatives nothing in the way of new ideas to promote. Since the mid-Sixties they have spewed and re-spewed the very same socialistic Great Society pap about defending the poor, minorities, and the oppressed; rhetoric exposed daily as empty, insincere, misleading, and counter-productive. It only follows then that this hollowed-out party produce and endorse a candidate as insubstantial as its rhetoric – window dressing for the empty store. But why are people buying it?

Because Obama resonates profoundly with the prevailing cultural influence of our time, what we call fashionable nihilism. In a universe without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value; form reigns supreme over content; style over substance; aesthetic over actuality; the subjective is enshrined and the objective demonized; relativism is embraced and absolutism rejected; perception is reality. These are the bylaws of contemporary popular culture and the parameters of acceptable modern thought. In the political realm, there may be no more perfect embodiment of them than the young, handsome, golden-voiced, and virgin - Barrack Hussein Obama.

Fashionable nihilism has been sometime in the making. No less than Friedrich Nietzsche heralded its rise and warned of its disastrous potential as far back as the late 1800’s. In his classic The Will to Power, Nietzsche warned that European culture was moving “as toward catastrophe: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.” He predicted that in “the history of the next two centuries …what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism.”

At midpoint now between “the next two centuries,” it seems Freddy may have been onto something. We do not here refer merely to the rise of sociopath monsters such as Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, but also the popular movements which supported them, and – perhaps most importantly – the mind set that rationalized reluctance and timidity amongst those who ought stop them.

In his April 24, 1933 address at the Royal Society of St. George, Sir Winston Churchill aptly diagnosed the condition and its effect on his contemporaries.

"The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage-earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians....Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told."

Nonetheless, for the next seven years England continued to drag her feet and avert her eyes until landing herself in the weakest possible position, resulting in the near extinction of Christian civilization. Ultimately, Britain did save herself, due largely to the leadership and state craft of Sir Winston Churchill whom she voted out of power the moment she was returned to safety. The body was safe. The soul is another question. Fashionable nihilism, temporarily suspended, had retained its hold.

This trend was not mainstreamed, however, until the 1960’s. What with the perfect storm of an unprecedented surge of young people, unprecedented wealth, and unprecedented mass communication technology – not to mention an elder generation too weary and few to counter it – an ersatz cultural revolution took place. Principles which had guided Western civilization through the storm of history to her present sanctuary –moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue - were cast off in favor of the values and world view of adolescence: the rash, the titillating, the intoxicating, the immediate, the audacious. The faith that our story was part of a larger more permanent Truth requiring of its actors courage, integrity, perseverance, and self-control in order to be told, was discredited as mere chauvinism and bigotry. This time, relativism was the Serpent’s apple, and the brave new world sunk its teeth into it with relish. Henceforth, Western minds have been narrowing while believing themselves to be opening.

The New Left seeing this for what it was - the hollowing out of free market democracy from its core - shrewdly seized upon this development. Marketers, entertainers, and opportunistic politicians, pursuing trends with all the discretion of bucks in rut, followed suit. Today, the sweet nothings of fashionable nihilism – ever-sexy, ever-youthful, ever-enticing, never delivering – are omni-present, penetrating Western minds and hearts from every possible angle and coloring every aspect of modern society.

In his new book, Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy, author Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident and political prisoner as well as a member of the Israeli cabinet, argues against the modern consensus that traditional concepts such as nationalism and religion are antithetical to freedom. Discussing his book at a recent Heritage Foundation lecture, Sharansky began by citing John Lennon’s Imagine (the lyric which prefaces this post) as iconic of this consensus.

“Imagine the world without God and without hell, without borders and without nations, the world where there is nothing to die for, the brotherhood of man,” Sharansky paraphrases. “He (Lennon) believes that real freedom is when people stop being divided into nations, into religion, and when there is nothing to die for. It’s such a good life you don’t have to die for anything.”

Sharansky then explained that, in his own experience and that of other dissidents he met in Soviet gulags as well as through his work since, it was the exact opposite belief that empowered them to defy and prevail against oppression. The faith that there is something permanent, something bigger than one’s own life and well-being, that there are things truly worth dying for; things like God and country, quaint old-fashioned notions that make extraordinary heroes out of ordinary men, this was the faith that sustained them. Those without it capitulated. What else could they do? What is the use of resisting tyranny when none of this nation and religion business matters anyway?

Yet even with the collapse of the Soviet Union Sharansky notes, the Lennon sentiment thrives throughout the West today. Should it continue to do so, Sharansky warns, it will mean our doom. For – seeking to disavow ourselves of our very selves as we are - what resistance could we possibly put up against a force so focused, so furious, so intense as say … Islam?

“We have two societies,” Sharansky explains. “One has a strong identity and no obligations toward freedom. And the other has a strong belief in freedom but no identity, no roots, no desire to die for anything. This society has no chance.”

Sobering words from one who knows.

The rise of Islam in the modern world is an indictment of the West’s self-induced enfeeblement. Frankly, it is laughable that a cult of 7th century cave-dwelling suicidal miscreants could possibly present any actual concern to the 21st century world. Yet it does, because we have allowed it. Like a drunken gardener who too long neglected the simple tasks of tending his plot and is now in danger of losing it to weeds and pests, so the free world today is poised to be overrun by goons of yore as a result of its own fecklessness.

And now we see that instead of rooting out that fecklessness, far too large a portion of the American people are evidently eager to let it lead them in voting a preposterously under-qualified man to the most powerful office in the free world.

“Oh whatever,” they rebut. “It’s time for a change. Besides it’ll be neat to have a black president.” Behold the rigorous logic of fashionable nihilism.

And Britain and Europe, oblivious to their own lost cause, cheer them on from the sidelines.

For nigh on half a century, the Free World has lounged in the spa of fashionable nihilism, bathing in its pretty songs, its feel-good policies, its pie-in-the-sky promises; sweet nothings seducing us to our undoing. In this context, the Obama campaign is indeed a referendum. Not a referendum on “race in America,” for what then of the rancorous debate around Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell etc.? This is a referendum on how America understands herself. Does she still take seriously her role as the last best hope of mankind and all which that requires? Or does she concur with her critics that she is too proud, too strong, too rich and must therefore humble herself before the court of world opinion, electing that court's preference for president being the first big step of many in that direction?

We shall see. This referendum on America is for American’s to decide. It they decide unwisely, the next one may not be. For once sovereignty is given over – be it in the name of peace, or reparation, or empty-headed stupidity – it may never be regained; just ask the Britons and Europeans.

At this point in history, these are the stakes, the bleak dividends of fashionable nihilism: sweet nothings more nothing than sweet.

And as Sir Winston forewarned at another such point in history,

"If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told."

Cheers,

Charlie

Our Unanticipated Hiatus

Dear readers,

We have been on special assignment. Our triumphant return shall transpire in short order. We apologize for any inconvenience or diminishment of enlightenment this may have caused. Your loyalty and patience is greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Charlie

"Paths of Glory" - A different kind of Memorial Day tribute.

In our ongoing audit of the West's depeletion of what we have dubbed the "Arsenal of the Will," we , on rare occassions, encounter a piece of writing where we are forced to admit even we could not have said it better ourselves. The following, from our dear friend Roger Gardner at Radarsite , is just such a piece. Enjoy!
------
"Paths of Glory"

Tonight, once again, I watched the late Stanley Kubricks' 1957 internationally acclaimed antiwar tour de force, the ironically titled "Paths of Glory". In the words of famed movie critic Leonard Maltin, a "shattering study of the insanity of war." A movie so profound, so powerful, so intelligent and deeply disturbing, so exquisitely wrought by a director of such singular genius and vision that it remains removed and aloof forever from any rational consideration of its true intrinsic value. Tonight, however, I watched it a little more closely and a little more critically through my wary post 9/11 eyes.

Somewhat sadly, I watched an altogether different picture tonight. Still moving, still poignant, still powerful, still filled with the bitter aftertaste of remorse and shame. So masterfully crafted is this unquestioned indictment of war that we willingly abandon ourselves to its most obvious message. We dare not think to question the basic premise of the argument, to do so would merely prove how far we have degenerated in our common morality. War is wrong. Period. End of argument.

The only socially acceptable reaction to this realistic depiction of this global madness is one of bitter regret and shame. Deep cultural historical shame. This is where we have come to today. In place of a national sense of pride, a pervasive and relentless awareness of shame.

And our dead warriors, those endless rows of crosses, merely serve to symbolize our shame, and our collective guilt. There is nothing here to celebrate anymore, nothing here to honor. How can we celebrate and honor these victims of our most egregious mistakes? The answer of course is that we cannot. We push them out of our consciousness with our gaudy parades and our honorific barbecues.

All we can offer up now are second-rate speeches and second-rate emotions. We feel self-conscious saluting our imperialistic American flag when it passes. We think we'd look silly if we stood up to attention. What would our neighbors think? Would they think that we actually approved of all this?

War, we have now learned, is nothing but a massive criminal enterprise. And our fallen warriors, for all of their individual valor, are really nothing but criminals -- innocent criminals perhaps, coerced into their catastrophic crimes by patriotic propaganda, but criminals nonetheless. We offer them only our grudging token condolences then quickly sweep them out of our consciousness and prepare our grills for the cook outs, hoping it's going to be a nice day and that it won't rain and spoil everything.

Occasionally, we feel a twinge of something approaching guilt about the true meaning of this special day -- but it's so insignificant and fleeting it's hardly to be noticed -- like forgetting about Jesus Christ at Christmas or Columbus on Columbus Day. This is our real Memorial Day tradition now. To avoid the embarrassment of the dead and celebrate the overwhelming reality of the living.

This, then, is how we have learned to think about war, and about our warriors. When there is no discernable enemy landing on our shores, when we feel safe and comfortable in our daily worries, lost in our selfish familial concerns, this is how we feel about war and about our war memorials.

In the comforting bosom of peacetime, we philosophize about war and make high-sounding moral indictments of it. We denigrate our warriors, because they represent a failed paradigm, the antithesis of our own great paradigm. We have learned that all wars for whatever reasons are absolutely evil and unnecessary, that to succumb to war is weakness. All wars, we have been taught, are essentially futile, gross senseless wastes of innocent lives. Young men sent to the proverbial slaughterhouses by cynical self-serving old men who have nothing to lose but their ideological arguments.

We lounge in our comfortable ignorance and refuse to stir from our virtual realities. We refuse to confront the glaring incontestable facts that we are only breathing now because men were willing to go to war and die to protect us. To protect our forgetfulness, our complacency, our self-centered myopic unconcern for their ultimate and final sacrifices. We are not in pain now so we refuse to believe in it. The threats, after all, are only virtual threats, manufactured ploys from our right-winger war-mongers. They have no real legitimacy and in no way conflict with our deeply held convictions that intelligent tolerance and understanding will see us through. We are, after all, civilized men and women, aren't we?

In short, Memorial Day is a farce. War is wrong and we protest it and we despise it. Warriors are, at their best misguided, and at their worst merely soulless unthinking brutes. We have convinced ourselves that we have risen above the necessity of all violence. We have moved beyond all that.

Well, my friends, I'm afraid we're in for a rude awakening.

Our 'brutal and senseless' wars have saved our precious tender skins. Our murderous brutish warriors have given us our lives and our freedoms and we use them to denigrate their victories. Soon, however, I fear that we will be reminded once again. Soon, I believe we will learn once again the truth that war is not an aberration, it is our American heritage. We have had to fight for every damn thing we have and we will have to fight again. The enemy is at our shore and they truly are real and they truly will take everything we have or they will utterly destroy us -- if we do not fight back.

Memorial Day is a day to remember. Not just to remember our warriors, but to remember our wars, and why we fought these wars. Once again, we must remember the hard won lessons that we have learned. That all peoples have learned: Defensive wars are simply refusals to submit.

And we will not, we must not submit.

- Roger W. Gardner , Radarsite , Memorial Day 2008