On, Wisconsin!

Over the past two weeks, all hell has broken loose north of the Cheddar Curtain at the birthplace of the Progressive political movement, Madison, Wisconsin. Similar to Governor Chris Christie of NJ, Wisconsin's newly elected Republican Governor, Scott Walker, is doing a few things that people are just not used to from a politician: he is telling the truth, keeping his campaign promises and doing what is right rather than what is easy. 

What is right? It is right for the Gov. Walker to balance his state's budget as he promised his constituency during his campaign. He told the truth about the state's finances and explained that Wisconsin, like many other states was "in the red."  In order to fix the problem, tough choices and spending cuts had to be made. 

One of the places he went to make up for his shortfall was teachers. His bill proposes that teachers pay a larger portion of their health insurance premium.The bill says that 

"state employees, as well as employees of public authorities created by the state,who work more than 1,565 hours a year shall pay $84 a month for individual coverage and $208 a month for family coverage for health care coverage under any plan offered in the tier with the lowest employee premium cost; $122 a month for individual coverage and $307 a month for family coverage for health care coverage under any plan offered in the tier with the next lowest employee premium cost; and $226 a month for individual coverage and $567 a month for family coverage for health care coverage under any plan offered in the tier with the highest employee premium cost."  

Compare that to what workers in the private sector pay, and you can see that this is a great deal!  Personally, I pay $250/month for individual coverage on a medium tier plan, which is more than double what the Governor is asking of his state employees.  Also, the average income of a teacher in Wisconsin is about $77K (over $100K in Milwaukee county) which is more than twice I make in my underpaid position.

The bill also requires that state employees pay a greater portion of their pension contribution.  Most of America pays 100% of the ir own retirement, that is those who are fortunate enough to be able to actually save for retirement.  Again, a great deal and nothing to complain about. Yet they whine and complain anyway and hold up signs that say "Tax the Rich" and compare their governor to Hitler, terrorists and dictators. Their behavior is selfish, greedy and a disgraceful model for the children they are supposed to be educating.  

The biggest issue that teachers have with this bill which is not reported with any accuracy is that the bill limits the collective bargaining power of the teacher's union to wages only.  It removes the right for benefits and pension to be included in the bargaining process from this point forward.  It also limits wage increases to the inflation rate and requires increases beyond the inflation rate to be decided by the voters via referendum.  These are modest reasonable controls to put in place to control and curtail out-of-control state employee expenses.

The media has misreported the collective bargaining part of the bill and allowed a fervor to grow out of fear that Gov. Walker is out to squash the unions. It would be interesting to learn what percentage of protesters even know what the bill says that they are protesting.  It seems more that they are whipped up into a frenzy by their union leader and by hearsay and not by fact.  If one reads the bill, the parameters are quite clear.  Also on this matter, the media show irate teachers fear-mongering to all those who will listen to "Watch out" because "your state could be next" when the truth is several states have similar or more stringent provisions in the works or on the books.

Lots of states, faced with swelling pension and health-care costs and yawning deficits, are seeking to curb public-sector pay and benefits. A few are going further by trying to trim the power of the unions that defend civil servants’ wages. This week Ohio’s legislature took up a measure similar to the one being pushed by Mr Walker in Wisconsin, denying state and local employees collective-bargaining rights. A bill before the Florida Senate would prevent the state from deducting union dues from salaries, and make it harder for unions to spend money electioneering. As it is, many states already limit collective bargaining by public employees in one way or another; and North Carolina, Texas and Virginia ban it altogether. (From The Economist. The Wisconsin Way)   

The truth is that unions have outlasted their usefulness. When work conditions were unreasonable and unsafe, and wages were too little to sustain one's life, unions were necessary to set things right. Between the upsurge of union activity and corresponding legislation, the plight of the average worker was changed and the problem was fixed. Once unions learned how much power they could obtain, they grabbed all they could and instead of looking out for what is fair, they held corporations' feet to the fire for more and more wages and benefits which drove consumer prices higher and higher while, as especially evident in the automobile industry, quality went down.  Not just in the auto industry, but also in the schools.  Teachers are not rewarded for excellence and their wage increases are not based upon merit.  Once tenured, job security is pretty much guaranteed until retirement with no additional effort required.  The result is that our students perform poorly in comparison to other industrialized countries. Work hard for three years, then coast. That's quite  a racket!

What bothers me more than anything is that so many people do not seem to understand that demanding money from your government, whether it be local, state or federal is demanding money from your neighbor who works just as hard, if not harder for their own money which they should be able to keep as much of as possible, no matter how much they legitimately make. . Government employees, teachers included in most cases get paid greater than the national median income and have far better benefits than those in the private sector.  So they should be grateful to those who foot their bill to make them more money than they make themselves. Would they knock on their neighbor's door and demand a percentage of their income face-to-face? They might find that task a little difficult.  Instead they are calling their taxpaying neighbors by the collective name "government" or "state" and making the very same demands.  If state workers want more money, that has to come from somewhere; that somewhere is taxes.  "Taxation," says Judge Andrew Napolitano "is legalized theft."  Think about that!

There also seems to be a trend among the left-leaning wealthy to develop what I perceive as a psychological defense mechanism called "liberal guilt."  We see this most prevalently with stars of TV, film and sports whose origins were most likely modest and now live with such excess that it is incomprehensible even to them.  The resulting cognitive dissonance creates a conundrum whereby they love being rich and living extravagantly on a consciously, but unconsciously they believe they don't deserve it.  They thrive and feed on the luxurious consumer-driven American capitalist economy and simultaneously express utter disdain for that very thing that brought them the riches they so enjoy.  On some level they know that they are paid ridiculous sums for acting or playing a sport. What are they to do?  If they had any character, they could purge their guilt by living a modest lifestyle and giving all leftover moneys to the government of their own free will as a donation to society.  But instead, they maintain multiple residences, fly privately, make ridiculous demands (see: The Smoking Gun - Backstage Riders) and call for the imposition of a redistribution of wealth through a Socialist or Communist government.   So, since taxing the rich is what the teachers want,  let them stick their hands into the pockets of those suffering from liberal guilt, and leave those of us who wish to keep our earnings alone!

Stand strong, Gov. Walker and continue to do what you said you would.  We need more politicians with such integrity. 


Helpful links:
ORIGINAL SOURCE: Senate Bill 11 from Wisconsin Senate
The Difference Between Private & Public Sector Unions Explained
NEA Leader explaining what's important to the teacher's union

A Movie Review: The King's Speech

     The King's Speech is an historical drama chronicling the struggle of  King George VI of the United Kingdom to overcome his debilitating stammer. His stuttering affected even the simplest communications and most likely was a factor in his shyness. It became clear to Prince Albert, (impeccably portrayed by Colin Firth) or "Bertie" as he was called before his ascent to the throne, that as the health of his  father, King George V  deteriorated, he would be required to speak publicly.  He was to give athe closing address at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley which turned out to be a painful disaster for both speaker and audience, after which he stepped up his efforts to master his affliction.
     Prince Albert's wife, Queen Elizabeth I (Helena Bonham Carter) was loving and patient with Bertie and found the man who would, through his unorthodox therapeutic strategies, ultimately help the future king overcome his pronounced stammer. Lionel Logue was an Australian speech therapist who developed his techniques from helping veterans of The Great War (WW I) who developed stammers as a symptom of shell shock. He used a combination of modalities such as breathing, physical exercise, and a gentle, friend-like empowering psychotherapy.  The always delightful Geoffrey Rush plays Mr. Logue with just the right amount of reserved, uncomfortable quirkiness.
     Underscoring the storyline of the prince's stammer, we learn of his non-traditional ascendancy to the throne.  As the second son of the king, he was second in line behind his brother, Prince Edward.  Edward took the throne after his father's death, but didn't take it seriously and was more interested in marrying his paramour, the twice divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. Since parliament would not allow the king to marry a divorcée and stay in power, Edward, after less than a year on the throne, abdicated.  Since Edward was childless the presumptive heir, his brother, Prince Albert ascended, taking the name George VI to provide a sense of continuity to the monarchy. The film also gives us a glimpse at Bertie's two daughters, Margaret and of course Elizabeth, who would assume the throne at his death and whom we know now as Queen Elizabeth II. 
     The story was compelling and the movie held my interest.  If nothing else, it caused me to read up on the real-life characters. (Hence the abundance of links in this review.)  Colin Firth deserves every accolade he is certain to receive during awards season.  The movie is well worth seeing, though perhaps not at theater prices.  I give it three stars.

A Movie Review: Black Swan

        Black Swan is the psychological journey of Nina (Natalie Portman), a coy, reserved, young ballet dancer at her peak who struggles with being perfect in her art, growing-up and becoming a whole person separate from her overbearing, overprotective mother and from ballet itself, separate from her focused compulsion to achieve perfection and separate even from her own womanhood.  On her journey she learns that art occurs best in expressed passion which often causes technical imperfections and this fact maddens her on a deep level. She finds it painful to follow the urgings of her mentor, the choreographer (Vincent Cassell) of the ballet,  to let go of perfection in her technique in order to convey emotions of the character she is dancing.  He wants her to tap into her passion, her emotions and her repressed sexuality as she dances the dual roles of Swan Princess/Black Swan.  
        The Black Swan must seduce the object of the White Swan Princess' affections and steal him away from her ultimately leading to the White Swan's suicide. Nina's mother (Barbara Hershey), an overprotective former ballerina who never rose to her daughter's level of dance is dealing with her own madness as she lives vicariously through her 20-something daughter who she coddles, and treats like a child keeping her surrounded by stuffed animals and the bedroom decor of a preadolescent. This is the source of her personal and sexual repression. 
       Enter Lily (Mila Kunis), the street-smart newcomer to the ballet company who has exquisite passion in her dancing, but lacks the perfection in technique. Lily is irreverent and lives a full life.  Although she is devoted to ballet, she also enjoys the worldly pleasures of illicit drugs and sexual promiscuity. Nina is both drawn to and repulsed by Lily, but is mostly intrigued and envious.
       (It is worth mentioning that it was great to see Winona Ryder who was unrecognizable as the outgoing star of the ballet company who is a catalyst for some of Nina's madness.) 
       All of Nina's struggles culminate in an hallucinatory descent into madness becoming a living metaphor as it mirrors Swan Lake.  
       It was the multi-layer use of metaphor that I found most intriguing about this film.  Metaphors were everywhere and were artfully intertwined. Natalie Portman's work is going to be rightfully celebrated with multiple honors this awards season. 
       Black Swan gets 4 out of 5 stars from this nobody reviewer. 

Conservative Misconceptions

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions over the differences between Conservative and Republican. They are not the same thing.  Republicans can be Conservative or not.  Democrats can be Conservative or not.  Conservatives can be pro choice or not. Conservatives can be for gun control, or not.  Conservatives can be for or against gay marriage.  These are social issues and much debate can and will be had about them. So then, what IS “Conservative?”

Conservative means wanting smaller less intrusive government:  keep more of the money YOU earn; maximum freedom over your personal behavior. 

Conservative means you take personal responsibility for your life so that you can pursue happiness as you see it. Just harm no one in your path. Therefore a person does not need to be legislated into wearing a motorcycle helmet or seatbelt. Conservative means that the government is removed from the role as parental figure  Conservatives believe that individuals are capable of assessing risks and making decisions based on what they know, all the while taking responsibility for the outcomes of those decisions. Government leaves you alone to be a free thinker and to freely live!

Conservative means you understand that private sector businesses runs things more efficiently because they are accountable to shareholders and agencies run by the government are wasteful and inefficient because they are accountable to no one. After all, they can just steal more of your earnings to pay up for their shortcomings. Therefore, charity (read "entitlements) should be privately run and based on true need. We can take care of the less fortunate without government intervention.  It means less government (agencies, regulatory bodies), tax-payer funded jobs because if everyone worked for the government then no one is left steal/suck money from to pay for itself.  This would devalue the dollar further because the entire economy would be fabricated

Continuing along that path, conservative means allowing the entrepreneurial spirit to thrive, making it easier to start and maintain a business.  It means keeping rules and regulations realistic and minimal. Free enterprise is a key to success. It means there is an understanding that private business enterprises are necessary to fund the government and grow the economy and prosperity of both individuals and the country. Businesses are free to operate at maximum efficiency to produce maximum return on investment dollars.  Profits turn into more jobs and more prosperity for all involved.  It is a self perpetuating win-win scenario.  The desire to run efficiently and turn a profit is the fuel that fires innovation.  Finding new creative, sometimes more highly technological ways to do things is the outcome.

Conservative means welcoming peoples from all over the world to come here and live and seek the American Dream.  It means maintaining and securing our borders. It means upholding standards and making persons accountable for the nature by which they got here.  So if someone is here illegally, they must go back to whatever country they came from and start over to do it the right way.  It is unfortunate that other countries are so undesirable that their citizenry feel the need to escape.  America is here, come to us legally. It is not immoral for us to ask immigrants to follow the rules. In fact it is morally necessary in order to protect our current citizens and the very fabric of the country.  When immigrants come, they must realize that they are leaving their former country behind and need to assimilate, learn the language accept our culture.  If this is not so, then America, as the last bastion of freedom on the globe will cease to exist and the there will be nowhere to run!

The Tea (taxed enough already) Party movement is a Conservative one, not a Republican one.  It is an organization that flushes out true Conservative candidates from all parties and holds them up into the light so that we can vote for them.  That’s it. 

America is NOT a democracy.  Democracies do not work. They fail miserably.  We are representative republic and it is the only system that exists or has ever existed which allows for true freedom.  I will fight to get the Republic back to where individuals can live freely once again. I would die for the sake of this great Republic, this grand experiment in freedom.  I will not take it for granted. [Disambiguation from original post. America is not a direct democracy where "majority rule" is in play.  We are a representative democracy where the power still lies with the people, but where there are safeguards in place to protect minorities from prospective tyrannies of the majority.]

For the record:

• I am pro choice.  It is not the government’s, religion’s or anyone else’s business what a woman decides about whether or not to carry a pregnancy.  It is the most intimately personal decision a woman can make.  Let’s leave her alone with her thoughts, partner, conscience, God if she has one, and doctor to choose what is best for herself.

• I am pro 2^nd Amendment.  I believe in the right to keep and bear arms.  Gun control does not and will never work.  It keeps the guns in the hands of the criminals who don’t care about such laws and takes them away of citizens who abide by laws.  The bad guys will ALWAYS have guns.  Think about this: If there were 10 gun-related crimes in each state on any given day, that is 500 criminals breaking the law with a gun in hand.  On that same day, there were over 400,000,000 guns held by law abiding American citizens that did no harm. So what’s the problem?

• I am for marriage equality for all. Please refer to my previous entry for a more comprehensive look at my stance on this matter.

• I am against helmet and adult seatbelt laws and all similar laws that attempt to protect me from myself. I can assess my own risks, make my own decisions and deal with the consequences of same.

• I am for profiling.  If we have information about what terrorists look like, we should use it.

• I am against being treated like a criminal when I have committed no crime. Being searched to enter an amusement park or concert is an invasion of my privacy.  Being searched, having my body scanned and/or patted down is an invasion of my privacy and is humiliating and demoralizing. Being video taped at a store, parking lot or traffic stop is wrong and invasive.  I stand with Benjamin Franklin on this one, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

• I am an atheist.  There is absolutely no proof of the existence of any G-d.  When there is, then I will revisit this issue.  Until then, I will support to the death the right for all individuals to believe as they so choose. (I will also go to church when I wish because I DO believe in the goodness of people and in the power of love.  I still love the community that is my church.  I simply no longer hold the same beliefs.)

Being Conservative is neither immoral nor amoral. My political and social beliefs and ideals align most closely with the Libertarian Party. The more I learn about history and the historical, social and economic impact of more Liberal, Socialist and Communist policies, the more firmly I stand in my own convictions.  I am a proud, enlightened, knowledgeable, moral Conservative.  

Fire in the Hole!

The only thing in the news today was fire:  wildfires in Boulder, Colorado, explosive fires in San Bruno, CA and the proposed Koran-kindled fire of a wacko Floridian pastor. All three are tragic, but only one will be explored here. There are so many thoughts in my head over this issue that I preemptively ask forgiveness if this post is short on cohesion.

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center, a 50 member nondenominational charismatic Christian church in Gainesville, Florida should never have made the news.  The man is obviously irrational and unintelligent.  (Read his church's rulebook for becoming an "Apostolic Fife Fold Minister." The concepts are nebulous, grammar and spelling are atrocious, and parts are absolutely unintelligible.)  What should have been nothing more than a blip on the local Gainesville radar screen has become the center of a book-burning furor that has stretched around the world.  Why? Because the left-wing media wanted to point to someone who they erroneously thought represented the overzealous Right, the TEA party movement,  or any other Obama decenter they wish to disavow. If it was not completely orchestrated by the media, then AP and Reuters would have never picked it up.  It doesn't makes sense that they did.  They took an inconsequential nut-job and made him into a behemoth.  Or, as the Russian ladies at my doctor's office say, "They make elephants from flies."

The media is responsible for this getting blown out of proportion and for making it known worldwide. They are therefore responsible for the outcries from the middle east. They are responsible for the flag burnings, the "Death to America" signs and chants.  Shame on them!  Their little plan didn't turn out so well. It rather bit them in the ass.  However, the sickest twist in the whole media blitz is that now that they have stoked the publicity fire so much that members of Congress and  the Cabinet, General Patreas and even Obama himself have publicly commented, they say that if the book burning takes place, they will not show it.  Suddenly they want to take the high road?  Please! It wasn't news in the first place!

Islam believes that the Koran is sacred.  I get that.  The ORIGINAL writings of Mohammad should absolutely be sacred to them.  However, they project the equivalent holiness to every copy.  Really?  That is just as wacko as Mr. Jones, but just from a different direction.  Bestowing holy, mystical, magical powers onto paper and ink is silly.  Where is the sanity?  Can we be realistic here?  That's the problem.  For radical Islam, realism is nonexistent.  (Do not allow this paragraph lead you to believe that I am a hater of Muslims.  I work for a predominantly Muslim company and I like, respect and enjoy my coworkers. I learn from them and very much respect their religious discipline.)

Now, about the book burning itself.  

First: Book burning is the singular most paradoxical action of liberty one can take in these United States. At once it is the symbol of the squelching of freedom and the ultimate expression of  that same freedom. The practice (Brief History of Book Burning} is an ancient one.  The priests at the Council of Nicea burned whatever documentation they had that did not "make the cut" into what we know now as the Bible, thereby stomping out free religious thought, debate and ultimately practice.  The Nazi's burned books of Jewish origin, those that were anti-Nazi and those they deemed degenerate. They wanted to keep such books away from the masses which they thought were better off only with spoon-fed propaganda.  Even Harry Potter books were ceremoniously burned by those narrow-minded fundamentalists who thought that they were somehow demonic. So it's nothing new.

Second: There is something viscerally upsetting to me about the idea of burning books.  It is unequivocally wrong. Books - good, bad, important, ridiculous - are to be cherished and kept as an historical record.  They are the legacy of the author and also of the time period.  What we write today becomes the anthropological, sociological, cultural and historical lessons of future generations.  Leave the books be!

Third: Logically speaking, books are paper and ink. There are many copies of most books out there, so burning a handful will not matter. Besides, they make good kindling (tongue in cheek, people!) and if I were stranded and cold I would burn a library to survive.  Wouldn't you?

Questions:

Why does the media try to scare us with images of burning flags and crucifixes?  They seem so worried that the radicals will be upset or offended. Hello?  They are already upset!  We are dirty Kafirs, infidels to them and must be eradicated. Remember 9/11?  Remember the first attempt on the World Trade Center in 1993?  They didn't need a minor Koran burning to be able to recruit terrorists; recruits were available all along. 


Why is it OK for Muslims to burn the Bible, our flag and effigies of our leaders in protest but it is not OK for us to burn the Koran in protest?  This is a double standard!

Why is it OK to display a crucifix in urine or paint the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung and call it art but not to draw cartoons or caricatures of Mohammad?  This too, is a double standard. (For the record, I'm cool with all of it.)

And why does the left cry foul about protests of offensive art to defend it as free speech, but not stand up equally for the right to burn a Koran in protest?  

Free speech must be upheld absolutely.  Give me liberty or give me death!

Final thoughts:

It is tragic that the radicals of Islam get more press than the peaceful, kind Muslims.  Most pay little attention to the aberrant calls to violence in the Koran. We should be seeing more of that in the media to balance what we see of the radicals.


I believe that Americans think differently from the rest of the world because of our freedoms.  We see everything through the eyes of liberty.  In fact we have no real point of reference for looking at the world any other way.  All you need do is talk to an immigrant from the communist block who still looks over their shoulder before they share an opinion.  They see the world differently and have a level of fear that Americans will hopefully never know.  Middle eastern Muslims see the world differently too.  They see it from a place where religious and state law are one in the same.  How can we possibly have empathy for each other when we cannot put ourselves in the other's shoes to gain the perspective needed?  If only there was a simple way for us to see how they see and vice versa. It is only then that the emotional charge of our differences will dissipate. Then, perhaps an intellectual discussion could begin so we could truly  

A Movie Review: Eat Pray Love

It has been awhile since I have been to the movies and much longer since I wanted to see a Julia Roberts movie, so my anticipation for Eat Pray Love was pretty high.  Although I knew little about it, for some reason, from just the title there was a certain relatability. After all, what woman doesn't love to eat?  We all pray in some form or another, whether to a God, intentionally projecting out to the universe or just uttering exasperating hopes to nothing. And of course, we all love.

The premise of the movie has Roberts' character Liz reach that point in her life where she finds herself unsettled by the routines she has fostered.  She is out of touch with her husband, her family and who and what she thought she would be as a mid to late thirty-something: An early onset mid-life crisis.  As what seems to be a successful writer she has the luxury of taking off for a year to find herself.  So she spends four months in Italy (Eat), four months at an Ashram in India (Pray) and four months in Bali (Love). In each phase, and even before her journey, there are beautiful men in her life who teach her something. What happens to her in each of those places as she focuses on the respective activities is what can happen to any of life's sojourners as we go about examining our lives and how we live them; where we put our energy, and what is truly important. In that regard the story is universal.


This is most definitely a chick flick. The scenery is gorgeous. As an out-of-sorts mid-lifer myself, I found the character and storyline completely relatable. I do wish it went further into her internal life during her journey.  You got glimpses through Julia's facial expressions, but it left me wanting. Julia was beautiful and played the on-the-verge-of-tears almost depressed, but fighting to not sink emotions perfectly.  And where.... WHERE have they been hiding Javier Bardem?  What a deliciously charismatic man.  I wouldn't mind meeting him on Bali myself!


However it is the monologue at the end that ties everything together in a neat little package and gives the viewer (or reader of the book) an idea as to how the process works. 

“…I’ve come to believe that there exists in the universe something I call “ThePhysics of The Quest” – a force of nature governed by laws as real as the laws gravity or momentum. And the ruleof Quest Physics maybe goes like this: “If you are brave enough to leave behind everything familiar and comforting (which can be anything from your house to your bitter old resentments) and set out on a truth-seeking journey (either externally orinternally), and if you are truly willing to regard everything that happens to you on that journey as a clue, and if you accept everyone you meet along the way as a teacher, and if you are prepared – most of all – to face (and forgive) some very difficult realities about yourself….then truth will not be withheld from you.” Or so I’ve come to believe.”  

- Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat Pray Love.

Overall it gets 3 / 5 stars from this occasional reviewer. 


Links: Eat Pray Love on IMDB
            Eat Pray Love on Rotten Tomatoes

Restoring Honor Rally 8.28.10: Part 2, Reflections

It has been a week since the rally in Washington DC, enough time to reflect on the experience, the speeches and the message. The overall theme, as promised, was lifting up the value of honor. Why?  Because as we look around in these United States today, honor seems to have been lost.  From our presidents, accused of everything from corruption to lechery, to citizens who drive cars with bumper stickers touting that their kid kicked your honor student's ass and everything in between, we have as a nation seem to have chosen guttural behaviors over courtesy, mutual respect and rewarding merit.  Standards have gone out the window.  Everyone gets a trophy.  Effort and achievement are no longer held up as qualities to which to cling and aspire.  Honor, like integrity is about doing the right thing, even when nobody is watching.  It comes from within and is not always the easiest path to follow. But it is with such qualities that our country was founded and with which it shall be saved.

The rally started with a slide/video presentation with an inspiring narrative by Glenn Beck. We then all stood to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  I chose to say it as it was originally written rather than with the addition of  "under God" that occurred during the McCarthy era. It actually flows better and makes sense in its original form: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  I don't think that anyone around me necessarily noticed my omission. Appropriately, after the Pledge, we sang the National Anthem.  Hearing thousands of voices young and old, on key and off, raised and reverberating in and around the trees was pretty spectacular.  I stopped singing a few times so I could listen and my heart was filled with overwhelming patriotic pride. It was the first of several times during the three hours of rally that my emotions ran high and tears came to my eyes.  After that, Glenn came out to make a few opening remarks, setting expectations and ultimately introducing the speakers.


Since the rally was also a fundraiser for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (http://www.specialops.org/), the first couple of speakers spoke of the organization which ensures that the children left behind when a Special Forces soldier dies in battle, get a college education. One of the leaders of the fund spoke as did a mother of one of the recipients. 

Sarah Palin spoke next as a mother of a soldier. (Watch the video of her speech here: Sarah Palin "Restoring Honor" 08/28/10) Bringing forth living examples of people who live honorably and lifting them up as true heroes was a most touching part of the rally.  Stories of soldiers who get the job done even when they are severely injured, or go above and beyond to make sure their fellow soldiers are rescued and safe always work to pull at my heartstrings. When each of the three soldiers whose stories we heard were introduced, there was thunderous applause to greet them which was palpable.  As Ms. Palin's speech was winding down, and she was talking about the qualities that these men were made of, that our founders were made of, she reminded all of us present, "You have the same steel spine and the moral courage of Washington and Lincoln and Martin Luther King. It is in you. It will sustain you as it sustained them." 


Next, Glenn came out and talked about the original Purple Heart which was commissioned by George Washington to reward soldiers for merit above and beyond the call of duty.  Back then, it had nothing to do with being wounded and everything to do with achievement.  Then, three awards were bestowed: one each for Faith, Hope and Charity. Recipients were chosen by Glenn as best fit representations of each value.  Each recipient's story was told by someone who knew them well and how they lived their lives, and each are shining examples of how we can live and make a difference in the world. 


After the Faith, Hope and Charity awards came Alveda King, niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I do not like this woman. I found it misplaced that she insists on being introduced as Dr. Alveda King when her doctorate is an honorary one.  To me this is disgraceful, and diminishes the value of title as well as the effort, struggle, and hard work of those who actually EARN a PhD.  During her time on stage she spoke some and then introduced singers who then performed inspirational or patriotically themed songs.  When the last song was finished, Ms. King gave her speech, which was way too evangelical for my tastes.  Hers was also the only one to get political, the only one to play the race card. I did not need to hear her pro-life views. I disagree with her on that. The choice to keep or end a pregancy is between a woman and a man, her doctor, her God if she has one, and her conscience.  It is something that should never be politicized.  I also vehemently disagree about her desire to have prayer in public [sic] schools. In order to truly maintain freedom of religion, we must be absolute in the interpretation of separation of church and state.  But the most unconscionable phrase of the entire day was "I have a dream that WHITE privilege will become HUMAN privilege..."  This was out of line and far from the spirit of the day and also because as it was said usurping the use of her uncle's "I have a dream..." message.  This was the lowest point of the rally, at least for this observer.  You can hear it here: Alveda King at Restoring Honor

Finally, it was time for Glenn's speech. (Watch it here: Glenn Beck Keynote Speech, Restoring Honor Rally 08/28/10) It was filled with imagery and inspiration.  He spoke about the monuments and memorials around him and how we were surrounded by giants.  He spoke of the reflecting pool and how it was a reminder for us to reflect the values of courage, sacrifice, duty and honor of those men, the very giants who were there immortalized in stone. He pointed out that they were ordinary men who did the hard thing and that we are made of the same stuff... that one person CAN change the world.  But the thing that got to me more than any other happened closer to the end during Glenn Beck's speech when he talked about his sureness that in the crowd there was an 8 year-old boy or girl who would become the next George Washington and when he recited a speech which means as much now as it did when it  was delivered on November 19, 1863 by then President Abraham Lincoln on a battlefield in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania:  

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

As the crowd dispersed, Jo Dee Messina took the stage for 20 minutes or so of patriotic songs, including America the Beautiful, one of my favorite national hymns. Many of us sang along as we made our way back towards the train station and our buses. There is something special that happens when people join together in meaningful song.  When it happens, music becomes like connective tissue bringing all those within its reach together with a single common thread of song.  It fills the heart, lightens the soul and with it comes hope.


I left the rally very honored that I was able to experience it.  What I heard from the stage cemented in me the notion that politically I truly am a Libertarian, and most definitely NOT a Republican.  What I saw and overheard in the crowd somehow strengthened my sense of atheism.  That second one was odd for me, considering the God-centered message I knew about going in.  Perhaps part of me was hoping that I would have some sort of religious experience to restore my once-held belief.  Though I walked out without regaining belief in a divine creator, the event did restore faith within me; not in an unprovable unseen force, but in people and what may be possible when the right kind of leader appears. I am happy with that. 

Note: To see my pictures from the day go HERE