Iowa goes the way of the bigots

Zach Wahls, a 19-year old engineering student who was raised by a lesbian couple, speaks against Iowa’s proposal to outlaw gay marriage. He is both succinct and brilliant. An unusual combination.

And yet  the Iowa House of Representatives voted 62-37 in favor of Joint Resolution 6, thus prohibiting legal same-sex marriage in their state.

Someday we will look back on legislation like this and wonder how so many bigots could get elected to a state legislature at one time.

Top Gun and Homer Simpson? What’s next?

I have a hard time fearing the economic power of China after learning that China Central Television ripped off explosions from Top Gun in order to show off a Chinese J-10 fighter plane firing a missile during maneuvers and destroying another aircraft. I realize that the Chinese are famous for ignoring copyright, but this is ridiculous.

And not the first time.

“In a previous case in 2007, China's state-run Xinhua news agency issued a news story about a discovery related to multiple sclerosis, which was accompanied by an X-ray showing the head of cartoon character Homer Simpson.”

What’s next?

Moonraker footage to support claims that they landed men (and scantily-clad women) on the Moon?

I am at a loss for words. I simply cannot believe what I have just seen.

I cannot believe what I just saw.

Did you watch the State of the Union speech on Tuesday?

Do you remember President Obama’s well received jokes regarding airport pat-downs and smoked salmon?

These jokes got laughs. The salmon joke got a lot of laughs.

Here is video of the salmon joke from the speech:

And here is Fox News’s redubbing of the speech, minus the laughs (and with the added sound of crickets where the laughs once were), all done in order to criticize the President’s jokes for falling flat. 

I honestly cannot believe what I just saw.

Did Fox News think that people who watched the speech wouldn’t remember the laughs that the President’s jokes got?

Was this deliberate alternation of the video worth the ten minutes of conversation that Fox and Friends had?

Did Fox News believe that this misrepresentation of the State of the Union address would damage President Obama’s chances for leading effectively and getting reelected?

Was it worth what little reputation they have left?

When are the adults going to return to broadcasting?

Not sure how to feel about this.

I felt utterly torn when I first watched this banned Super Bowl commercial that pits Jesus against President Obama.

My initial reaction:

I’m glad they banned this commercial from the Super Bowl. Ultra-conservative craziness has no place at a football game. Especially the biggest football game of the year.

But then I thought:

Actually, isn’t it anti-capitalistic to ban a commercial like this? Why not let the moron make a buck off his Jesus Hates Obama tee-shirts, as long as he is willing to pay the million dollar price tag for the ad?

Then I thought:

Can a tee-shirt company really afford a Super Bowl ad? Or is this just a clever publicity stunt by the tee shirt manufacturer?

Then I thought:

Obama’s favorable numbers are well over 50 now and still rising.  From a political perspective, a commercial like this might further galvanize his liberal base and may swing moderates in his direction by illustrating the lunacy of the far right wing. This commercial might actually help our President in ways that no one has anticipated.

Then I thought:

I feel bad for my Republican and religious friends. Ideas like the ones being espoused by this commercial cast my friends’ political parties and religious institutions in a bad light.

Then I thought:

It really is hard to be a Republican.

Then I thought:

Why do I even care if this commercial pits Jesus versus Obama? As an atheist, the Jesus versus Obama fight is nothing more than placing an enlightened  philosopher from 2,000 years ago in opposition to a modern day political leader. The idea is not blasphemous. It’s just silly and stupid. But it would be no different than pitting a Thomas Aquinas or a Aristotle bobble head doll against an Obama bobble head doll.

Then I thought:

Actually, whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or merely an enlightened man, I am fairly certain that he would not approve of the message in this commercial or emblazoned on the tee shirts. How many times have we seen so-called believers defend of their God in ways that their God would fervently condemn?

Then I thought:

I have to admit that the commercial is funny.

Then I thought:

Wow. Stupid people can be funny.

Then I thought:

No they can’t. A clever advertising agency took the stupid people's money and made the funny commercial for them.

Then I thought:

I should find a way of separating stupid people from their money.

Then I thought:

I should find a LEGAL way of separating stupid people from their money.

Then I thought:

Maybe the guy making these tee shirts is a smart guy who has found a way to separate stupid people from their money.

Then I thought:

I wish I had thought of this idea first.

Then I thought:

But I still kind of hate it.

See what I mean? Utterly torn.

Do she not speak good on purpose?

I liked this paragraph from a piece in The Economist a lot:

It's not exactly a surprise that Mrs Palin uses the English language the way most people do: confusingly. This is part of her demotic charm. At critical moments, she has an uncanny, or perhaps very canny, ability to say precisely the wrong thing, or a strangely garbled version of the commonplace thing, in a way that makes a significant segment of the population sympathise with her because they might have done the same. And after all, linguistic mistakes are a relative concept; the people who made the Great Vowel Shift happen did so by speaking "incorrectly", and in a hundred years our progeny may all be speaking more like Mrs Palin, as disturbing as some of us may find that prospect.

Canny or uncanny?

Based upon everything we’ve seen so far, probably uncanny.

She’s either a Machiavellian linguistic mastermind who bounced around six colleges over a period of five years before receiving a Bachelor’s in Communications or she is exactly what she appears to be.

Either way, if any of my progeny end up speaking like her, this progenitor is going to kick their ass.

He needs more room in the crotch

Lyndon Johnson orders pants. If only we had more recordings like this. You must listen.

You know… I just had a thought.

Slate recently posted a piece about how many assassins have three names.

I actually sent the piece to a buddy who has a hyphenated last name, just to let him know that I am keeping an eye on him.

It just occurred to me that Lyndon Johnson, successor to John Kennedy, is more commonly referred to as Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Three names.

Successor to Kennedy.

Possibly linked to the assassination in the extremely factual movie by Oliver Stone.

I may be on to something.

Arizona shooting recap

Just for the record: 1. I do not blame Sarah Palin for the attempted assassination in Arizona.

2. I think that Sarah Palin’s gun sight website was incredibly stupid, dangerous and represented an astounding lack of insight and wisdom on her part.

3. Sarah Palin’s decision to remove the website shortly after the shooting demonstrated her agreement with at least parts of my previous statement, but also served as an indication of her unwillingness to stand behind a position that she fervently defended for more than a year.

4. The removal of her gun sight website also reflected a fundamental lack of understanding about the Internet. Removing a website from the Internet in no way removes a website from the Internet. Doing so only implies culpability and brings more attention to it.

5.  I actually support a surprising number of conservative ideals, but it is people like Sarah Palin and idiotic nonsense like this that continue to drive me farther and farther away from the Republican party.

6.  Palin’s “blood libel” video was reprehensible. It is chock full of trite Patriotism and a mish-mash of misplaced religious symbolism while failing to explain why she removed her sniper scope website an hour after the shooting.

And she has yet to agree to an actual interview from any print or media outlet.

And she reads her remarks rather poorly at times as well, not seeming to know where to pause.

I know that’s nitpicking, but c’mon.

7.  And for those who are not on Twitter, this tweet has become a “Top Tweet” for what I believe are obvious and incredibly salient reasons:

Sarah Palin Is Feeling Unjustly Blamed ...

So stupid it wouldn’t make for bad fiction

The fact that one of the Democrats who Sarah Palin targeted on her website with the crosshairs of a sniper rifle was shot in the head today is unbelievable. It’s like bad fiction.

Add to this Rep. Giffords’s prescient warning that there are consequences for placing crosshairs of a gun sight over certain political districts and the story becomes utterly unbelievable.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Had I tried to write this plotline into one of my novels, my agent would have sent me an email along these lines: ____________________________

Dear Matt,

I’ve read your manuscript and have a few questions about the plotline involving your portrayal of the lunatic former Republican VP candidate:

1.  Why would former Vice Presidential candidate be stupid enough to create such a moronic and potentially inflammatory website?

2.  Why wouldn’t she take the website down after receiving enormous pressure from both sides of the aisle?

3,  Why would she then be foolish enough to acknowledge her own stupidity (and possible culpability) by taking down the site immediately following the shooting of one of her cross-haired targets?

4.  What are the chances that the victim of the shooting would have so conveniently and so level-headedly discussed the issue of political violence and addressed the website specifically in an interview prior to the shooting.

None of this is believable in the least, Matt. Start over.

Onward!

Taryn ____________________________

My thoughts, of course, go out to the victims of this tragic event.

Bats with bombs

I just finished reading Bill Bryson’s At Home: A Short Histroy of Private Life. At Home 

I love everything that Bryson writes, and this was no exception. Bryson is one of the very few authors whose work I am willing to read again and again. Each reading is like a brand new adventure.

The funniest part of this latest book is Bryson’s supposed thesis:

He claims to be writing about the history of private life through the framework of a tour his English home. Chapters are named after each room, and the room itself provides the source material for the chapter. But time after time I found myself engaged in stories about anything but private life and quaint English homes. Stories that couldn’t be less about private life.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining. Bryson could publish a book entitled Random Musings and Utterly Unconnected Stories in an Inconceivable Order and I would buy it and most assuredly love it.

Bryson is that good. And this is what his latest book nearly amounts to.

Case in point:

Bryson writes about bat bombs, the World War II program designed to strap incendiary bombs to bats and send them into Japan cities, where the bats would roost amongst the predominately wooden structures before detonating.

Yes, you read that write. Bat bombs.

Bomb-toting bats.

batbomb

In a book about private life inside the home, no less.

From Wikipedia:

It was envisioned that ten B-24 bombers flying from Alaska, each carrying a hundred shells packed with bomb-carrying bats could release 1,040,000 bat bombs over the target—the industrial cities of Osaka Bay.

A series of tests to answer various operational questions were conducted. In one incident the Auxiliary Army Air Base in Carlsbad, New Mexico, was set on fire when armed bats were accidentally released. The bats incinerated the test range and roosted under a fuel tank.

My question: How do you strap bombs onto the backs of one million bats?

How many people does an operation like that require, and how long would a process like that take?

The logistics of the operation are mind-boggling.

Unfortunately, Bryson does not address this question in his otherwise thoroughly enjoyable and completely satisfying book.

How to know your Supreme Court justices

My admittedly unfair and terribly biased list of determiners of intelligence begins with:

  • The number of Supreme Court justices that a person can name

While my list has been surprisingly well received by a multitude of readers (I expected to be excoriated on the basis of my criteria), several have questioned me on this first item, wondering how anyone could be expected to know the names of all the Supreme Court justices when they appear in the news so infrequently.

In response, I promised to outline my rationale. Here goes:

President Obama has nominated two new Supreme Court justices in the last sixteen months: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Both were subsequently confirmed by the Senate after a series of public hearings.

Both of these nominations were big news stores. Both occurred recently and Sotomayor is the first Hispanic justice on the Court.

If you’ve been paying any attention to the news over the last year or so, you should probably know these two names.

You should also know the third female judge on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was only the second female Supreme Court justice in US history and the only female justice on the court for almost five years until Sotomayor was confirmed in August of 2009, making her rather notable.

In short, you should probably know all the current female members of the Court. Two are quite recent nominees and the other was singular for quite a while and relatively historic.

If you do, you’re already up to three.

Oh, there are nine justices by the way. Sadly, most Americans do not know this.

Then you have John Roberts, the Chief Justice for the past five years and the man for whom the Court has been named (The Roberts Court). As Chief Justice, Roberts tends to be the face of the court, appearing most often in news stories related to recent rulings and occasionally exchanging verbal jabs with the President over their opposing views of legal activism on the Court (the kind of exchange virtually unheard of until Roberts and Obama began taking swings at one another last year).

He was also the justice who administered the oath of office to Obama twice after misspeaking on inauguration day and causing a brief Constitutional kerfuffle.

If you know any Supreme Court justices, you should probably know Roberts.

And now you’re up to four.

If you were born prior to 1975, you should be old enough to remember the sexual harassment scandal involving Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Court, not to mention the fact that he is often reported as being the only Supreme Court justice to have never asked a single questioned during oral arguments.

Not one in more than two years, and barely any in his almost twenty years on the Court.

He is also the only African-American on the Court and only the second African-American in history of the Supreme Court.

Add to this his wife, Virginia Hill, a Tea Party advocate, who was in the news recently when she contacted Anita Hill, the woman who Thomas allegedly harassed, in order to confront her regarding the nearly twenty year old allegations against her husband.

Apparently Virginia Hill does not believe in letting sleeping dogs lie.

For these many reasons, you should probably know Clarence Thomas’s name.

And now you’re up to five. And if you can name five justices, you are already well ahead of the majority of Americans (two-thirds cannot name a single Supreme Court justice), and you’re doing just fine in my book. Five isn’t great, but it’s passable in my opinion, which if you will remember, serves as the basis for the list.

The last justice who I feel people should know is Anthony Kennedy, since he is often the swing vote on the Court. With four conservative justices and four liberal justices currently serving on the high court, Kennedy, a centrist in many respects, is frequently cited as the Court’s most influential member, and his vote often determines the direction of a ruling. If you are paying any attention to the Supreme Court at all, you should be paying attention to the way that Kennedy is leaning on any issue.

So now you’re up to six. Success in my book.

The last three justices, two conservatives and one liberal, are admittedly more difficult to name. In fact, in listing them yesterday, I could not recall the name of one of them. His name eventually came to me, but initially I could only name eight.

The remaining three, Stephen Breyer (a liberal who has served on the Court for sixteen years), Samuel Alito (a conservative who has been serving for just four years) and Antonin Scalia (the conservative justice who I could not name yesterday who has served for more than twenty-five years), have not been in the news recently and tend to maintain a lower profile compared to most other justices.

A triumvirate of boring, old white guys.

If you missed one of these three, I understand. Even though Scalia is the longest serving justice and Alito was nominated less than four years ago, these men tend to stay out of the news.

If you managed to name more than six, I’m impressed.

If you managed to name all nine, I’m incredibly impressed.

Not enough to make up for being a Jets fan or rejecting evolution or watching twelve hours of reality TV a week, but still impressive and a clear indication of an active, engaged mind.

Aligned with the lunatics

First, I am an independent when it comes to politics. I tend to lean slightly to the left on many issues but certainly not all. Second, I have many staunch Republican friends, and all of them are sane, intelligent, thoughtful people. I have great respect for them.

Third, I know that the Republican party is comprised primarily of sane, intelligent, thoughtful people.

That said, I can’t help but wonder if Bill Maher was correct last week when he asserted that the majority of the crazy people reside in the Republican party.

Mind you, not that all Republicans are crazy. Just that if you’re a crazy person, you’re probably a Republican. He said:

When Jon Stewart announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama's a socialist and people on the left who believe 9/11 was an inside job. But I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a socialist? All of them! McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them! It's now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves, and gay men just haven't met the right woman.

As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler, and the left calling Bush a war criminal.  Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal? That's the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib.

It seems like a point at least worth considering. While the Democrats certainly have their share of problems, they seem relatively deficient when it comes to bigots, hate-mongers, creationists, and lunatics.

A recent report, for example, indicates that 50% of the incoming GOP class to Congress does not believe in man-made global warming. How is it that every single Democrat in Congress sides with the 98% of climate scientists who assert that man-made global warming is real while so many Republicans do not?

Does this not strike you as a little nutty?

Do we really believe that there is a liberal conspiracy amongst almost all the scientists engaged in climate research?

Do we honestly think that every other industrialized nation is wrong in their attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

And on the campaign trail, was President Obama ever forced to defend McCain against unfounded and hate-filled claims uttered by his constituents? Of course not.

But again and again, McCain was forced to publicly defend his opponent against his own supporters who repeatedly called Obama an Arab and a terrorist, among other things, and he was booed in the process.

Tea Party organizers must now patrol their own rallies to ensure that hate-filled signage is removed immediately, and Tea Party leaders are forced to constantly disavow the racist and homophobic claims of their more extreme members, candidates included. This is a political movement that was centered on small government and deficit reduction but often becomes marred by candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Glen Urquhart, who recently said:

"The exact phrase 'separation of Church and State' came out of Adolph Hitler's mouth, that's where it comes from.  So the next time your liberal friends talk about the separation of Church and State, ask them why they’re Nazis."

I just don’t hear that kind of crazy-talk coming from the extremists in the Democratic Party.

When was the last time you heard a Democrat compare a Republican to a mass murderer?

And you just didn’t see signs like this, with such frequency, when President Bush ran for office:

I can’t help but feel bad for my Republican friends. Like I said, the great majority of Republicans and conservatives in general are intelligent people who want to do what they believe is best for the country, but it seems as if their party has been infiltrated by a large group of exceedingly loud lunatics who often dominate the conversation and force honorable men like John McCain to disavow their hate-filled speech at his own rallies.

It’s become near-political suicide for a Republican to support gay marriage or call for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, even though our Republican-appointed Secretary of Defense wanted the policy to end two years ago.

It’s like being a New York Yankees fan. I love my team, but I am also forced to acknowledge that there is an unfortunate number of Yankees fans who are loud, stupid, arrogant and willing to spit on the wife of an opposing pitcher.

I’m not happy to be aligned with these people, but I can’t simply switch loyalties and become a Red Sox fan.

And I fear that the intelligent, reasonable majority of the Republican Party feels the same way.

Germans continue to win despite their defeat

A couple of my closest friends live in the town of Berlin, CT. That’s Ber-LIN. Not BER-lin.

I got wondering about why the town’s name is pronounced differently than the German capital, and I learned that in response to war against Germany during World War I, the citizens of Berlin changed the pronunciation of their town in deference to the American cause.

What a bunch of pansies.

Had I been a German soldier fighting at the time and heard about this decision, I would’ve considered this a symbolic victory for my country. Not only did my presence in the trenches change the course of events half a world away, but 80 years later, that symbolic victory remains. The pronunciation of the town remains altered, causing confusion to many.

Can you imagine what would have happened if these Berlin pansies had run the country during the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812? Half the towns in New England (and maybe more) are named after English cities and hamlets. What if each of those names was changed in response to war with England? No one would be able to pronounce the name of a single town in New England without instruction.

This is not the only instance of a time when America has chosen to change tradition and ritual and bend to the power of perception in response to an enemy. The Hitler salute, the heil, was a variant of an early Roman salute that was adopted by the Nazi Party in 1933. But similar salutes were used worldwide at the time, including the United States. Francis Bellamy, author of the original Pledge of Allegiance (the version that does not violate the First Amendment by including God) instructed Americans to salute the flag during the pledge with their “right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it.”

Very much like the Nazi Party’s salute.

But this salute was abandoned in 1942 when it was perceived to be too similar to the Nazi salute.

Bellamy_salute

What the hell? America changed the way that it salutes the flag because a bunch of fascists across the pond copied us? I thought that this is why we fight wars… to preserve our way of life (at least this is why we used to fight wars). Not to change our way of life when lunatics start adopting customs too closely resembling our own.

Why not sail across the ocean, kick those fascists’ asses, and take the salute back for ourselves? Reclaim it as our own, damn it. Don’t allow a bunch of fanatics to change our way of life.

I get a little emotional over this subject.

And even though American soldiers kicked those fascist’s asses and won the war in a decisive manner, the change in our salute remained. Today, we place our hands over our hearts if we choose to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and every time I do so, I think of it as the echo of a Nazi victory.

I would resume the Bellamy salute in protest of this terrible decision if I weren’t afraid of a brutal death at the hands of an angry mob of patriotic fanatics, spurred on by the same kind of fanaticism that propelled the Nazi Party to power in the first place.

Yes, I am left handed. As a result, I am more likely to be President or a murderer. Or both.

The question my frequently asked at a book signing: "Oh, you're left handed?"

This is also the stupidest question that I am asked at book signings because I am asked this question while signing a book with my left hand.

So yes, I am left handed. Actually, like most left handers, I am slightly ambidextrous. Living in a world built for right handed people (which is why we are more prone to accidents and die sooner), left handers often learn to do things with either hand in order to compensate for life in this alien environment.

left_handed

I play baseball right handed (the effect of being given the hand-me-down glove of a right handed player) but can swing the bat from the left side of the plate almost as well.  I lack the power of my right handed stance, but I can be fairly effective when needed.

As a result of my right handed dominance in baseball, I also play golf right handed, which may explain some of my troubles.

I play basketball almost equally well with both hands and can shoot with either hand as well.

Watch me eat and you’ll see that I could be holding my fork with either hand and may even switch between bites.

As a pole vaulter, I used to make my coach crazy by shifting from a right handed to a left handed stance almost unconsciously.

Regardless, I am not really ambidextrous. I write exclusively with my left hand and favor my left in most other circumstances.

Recently I learned that five of the last six Presidents were left handed, including President Obama. In addition, former Presidential hopefuls John McCain, Al Gore, Bob Dole, John Edwards, Bill Bradley, and Ross Perot are left handed.

In fact, the only two right handed Presidents of the last 35 years were Carter and George W. Bush.

Draw your own conclusions.

I have been fascinated with the topic of handedness for some time. Specifically, I have always wondered why there are significantly fewer left handed individuals in the world.  It turns out that scientists have no idea why this is so.

One of my students once did a research project on handedness and cited a researcher who conjectured that right hand dominance relates to as time when soldiers fought with swords and shields. The right handed soldier would carry his sword in his right hand and his shield in his left, thus offering more protection for the heart, which is located on the left side of the body. For a left handed soldier, his heart would be on his sword side and thus frightfully exposed. If left handed soldiers were more frequently killed because of the exposure of their heart to the enemy, the genetic material that these soldiers would then pass on as part of the rape and looting of vanquished countries would be significantly reduced, thus diluting the propensity for the population to be born left handed.

This, however, is one man’s guess, but it’s an interesting, albeit unsupported hypothesis.

This same student also pointed out (correctly) that murderers and other violent criminals are more likely to be left handed as well.

I think she was trying to hurt my feelings.

A teacher's recollections of 9/11

I was teaching math to my third grade students when my classroom phone rang around 9:00. It was my ex-wife, calling to tell me that a plane had hit the Word Trade Center. She said that it was likely a commuter plane, but if I had some free time, I might want to turn on the news.

“All the networks are covering the story,” she said.

It was 2001, and I did not own a cell phone. Though the Internet was up and running, it was not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today. In those days, once a teacher entered a school, he or she was often encased in a protective bubble, unaware of outside events until the school day ended. No televisions. No radios. No smart phones. And little time for phone calls. The outside world did not exist while we were teaching. As a result, my ex-wife would occasionally call me with breaking news, giving me a chance to step away at lunchtime to catch up on world events.

I hung up the phone and continued teaching, wondering how a pilot could accidentally fly into one of the largest buildings in the world.

“What an idiot,” I remembering whispering aloud as I returned to my lesson.

Ten minutes later she called back. “Another plane hit the second tower. It’s an attack.”

I hung up the phone and turned to my students, who were still busy solving math problems. I had to smile and continue to teach them, knowing that something terrible was happening outside the walls of our school. As I spoke about subtraction with regrouping, I tried to imagine what was happening in New York City.

At 9:30 I dropped my students off in the basement music room for vocal music class, pulling their teacher aside and whispering, “Two planes have crashed into the World Trade Center. It’s a terrorist attack.”

I headed for the principal’s office to see if he even knew that the attacks were taking place. A small television had been moved onto his desk. He and several others were watching the events unfold. We watched the towers burn together in near silence.

A couple minutes later news came that The Pentagon had been hit. There was discussion that this might be the tip of the iceberg, the first in a long series of terrorist attacks. There was speculation that there could be more planes, many more planes, flying at many more targets around the country. We listened to new anchors report on the casualties and speculate on the numbers still awaiting to die in the towers.

Someone in the office said, “We're at war.”

Anger and fear seeped from our pores.

Just before 10:00, we watched the south tower fall. I couldn’t believe my eyes. I remember thinking that it was as if the tower had been built of ash and bone. There were several people in the office at the time, and at least two uttered quiet screams as the tower collapsed.

A minute after it fell, I left to pick up my students. I walked to the basement stairs, feeling saddled with momentous and awful information that I could not share with my kids. Did not want to share with them. I remember thinking that I would try to make this school day as normal and happy for them as possible, knowing that the world was changing before our eyes.

I remember envying them, too, thinking about how fortunate they were to have one more day of peace and normalcy than the rest of us. I decided that I would build a protective cocoon around them that day, making sure that whatever we did was normal and fun and spirited and full of laughter.

I wanted this last day for them to be the best it could possibly be.

Parents began coming in to pick up their children as news spread, but only a few left my class early that day. Most of us remained together, learning and laughing as buildings burned and people died. As their parents took them by the hand and led them out the classroom door, I felt sorry for them, knowing that they were returning to the real world where planes fly into buildings and mighty towers collapse onto city streets.

I remember thinking that nothing would ever be the same for them. The safety and security that infused my childhood would no longer exist for them. Their country had been attacked. Civilians had been killed and buildings had been knocked down by our enemies. Our borders would never feel quite as secure as they once had.

I wondered if Americans felt the same following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

In many ways, the world did not change as much as I had feared, at least for my students. America went to war, terrorists continued to threaten our safety, and civil liberties eroded under the threat of more attacks. It’s a very different world today, but my students remain as happy and as enthusiastic about the future as ever. The students who I teach today view 9/11 as a history lesson, something that happened before their time. And while the ramifications of the attacks will continue to impact their lives for years to come, their childhood remains blissfully intact for the most part.

Like those kids who I was teaching on the morning of September 11, 2001, these children see the future as full of hope and promise.

I love them for it.

"Be an unbeatable person and avenge my death.”

I write a daily blog to my daughter entitled GreetingsLittleOne.com. I’ve written every day since we learned that my wife was pregnant and have not missed a day. Sometimes the post is merely a collection of photographs and videos from the day. Other times it’s an account of the day’s proceedings. Occasionally I dispense fatherly advice or share stories about our family or our childhoods.

Coming from a family with less than two dozen photographs from my childhood and nary an account of my childhood days save my sister’s remarkable memory, I hope that this blog means something to my daughter someday.

For me, it’s meant a marking of the days and a purposeful recognition of each of Clara’s milestones. When asked by people if I think that time is flying by and Clara is growing up too quickly, I always say no. I think that the need to sit down each day and write something to her has helped me soak in every moment.

But nothing that I have written to Clara thus far holds a candle to the farewell letter written by Masanobu Kuno, a Japanese bomber pilot, to his 5-year-old son, Masanori, and 2-year-old daughter, Kiyoko, on the eve of his kamikaze attack against Allied vessels.

Translation:

Dear Masanori and Kiyoko, Even though you can't see me, I'll always be watching you. When you grow up, follow the path you like and become a fine Japanese man and woman. Do not envy the fathers of others. Your father will become a god and watch you two closely. Both of you, study hard and help out your mother with work. I can't be your horse to ride, but you two be good friends. I am a cheerful person who flew a large bomber and finished off all the enemy. Please be an unbeatable person like your father and avenge my death. From Father

“…be an unbeatable person and avenge my death.”

Awesome.

Nothing I have told my daughter so far comes even close to being this good.

And yes, I know he was a kamikaze pilot who flew a suicide mission into an American ship, killing American servicemen, but please remember that Kuno believed that his nation was under attack, his Emperor was a God, and that his mission was just. Japanese high command can be blamed for Japanese aggression and war crimes during World War II, but soldiers like Kuno were merely following the orders of their superiors who received instructions from God.

On a side note, I’ve recently launched a new blog with my sister (107FederalStreet.blogspot.com) in which I will attempt to mine her extraordinary memory in an attempt to resurrect my own childhood memories. Kelli is an excellent writer, so with some prompting from me, I’m hoping that we can begin a back-and-forth exchange that will provide me with a new and better picture of my time growing up. Probably not of interest to any of my readers, except for the stalkers.

And when it comes time to write my memoir, I’ll just do a lot of cut-and-pasting.

I don’t like the French

I know that it’s easy and even occasionally popular to hate the French, but I do. Not to the extent that I believe in "freedom fries," but enough. This should not be taken lightly, since in almost all things, I prefer the contrarian viewpoint whenever possible. I would love to love the French, but given who they are, it’s simply not possible.

And since neither of my books has been translated into French, I do not fear a literary backlash or drop in sales of any kind.

In 1986, the French denied US warplanes the right to fly over their airspace during a bombing run into Libya. The US government discovered that the Libyan government had financed recent terrorist attacks around the world, including a bombing of a West Berlin disco that resulted in the loss of two American servicemen and was bombing Libyan military targets in response.

Even though I was in tenth grade at the time, I was appalled at France’s unwillingness to assist in the mission, considering the number of times in that century that American forces had prevented the French people from speaking German.

Since then, my dislike for the French has continued. There are lots of reasons.

The French police cooperated with the Nazis and participated in the arrest and extermination of 42,000 Jews, many of whom were not previously identified by the Germans.

During Operation Torch, a World War II Mediterranean offensive by the Allies, the French fired on US forces trying to land in North Africa, later claiming they weren’t trying very hard because they liked the Allies but had to keep up appearances and make the Germans believe that they were fighting alongside them, since they had surrendered Paris without firing a shot.

They have yet to repay the 2.3 billion dollars that we loaned them as part of the Marshall Plan in 1945.

They opposed the first Gulf War and the subsequent liberation of Kuwait.

They spent most of the Cold War on the sidelines after removing themselves from NATO.

In 1963, Jerry Lewis's The Nutty Professor was voted the "Best Film" in France. And they think they have taste?

Lewis also holds the Legion of Honor, traditionally awarded only to victorious French generals. Since there have been so few victorious French generals, perhaps they had a few extra lying around.

They hate American tourists and treat them like dirt. In fact, the "Paris Syndrome" is a medically recognized type of depression which afflicts foreign visitors, caused by the sustained rudeness of French people to outsiders.

The list goes on.

I bring this up because I’ve recently been reading about the formation of the United Nations. There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council, who have veto power over any decisions that are to be made. These members are the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.

I understand the first four members, but France?

These five permanent members were drawn from the victorious powers of World War II, but since when has France been considered a victorious power? It took Germany about four days to conqueror the French, who barely fired a shot, and another two years for American and British forces to liberate them. There were dozens of other allied nations fighting alongside the United States during the war, so why does France, a nation that repeatedly fails to defend itself, gain permanent status on the UN Security Council?

Why not Canada? Australia? Brazil?

All of these countries, and dozens more, fought alongside the Allies, so why not one of them?

Why not even consider replacing France with a country like Germany, which is now a world power once again? Granted, they have a tendency to want to take over the world every 50 years or so, but those times seem to well in the past.

And both of my books have been translated into German, so they are fine in my book.

Historians, please explain.

Justin Bieber and Albert Einstein in one place

Digg,com, the social news networking site that allows users to determine which stories are the most popular, is an interesting and diverse site indeed, and it’s one of my favorites.

This morning’s top ranked story is a YouTube video of Justin Bieber (I heard this kid was young but MY GOD!) being struck in the head by a water bottle while onstage at a concert.

And the word water is spelled wrong in the title of the video. 

The second ranked story is a copy of Einstein’s 1939 letter to Roosevelt discussing the progress of the US nuclear weapons program and his fears that the Germans were also working on developing a nuclear bomb. 

The third story is this cartoon:

Out Of Sync

You can see why this site has appealed to me for so long.