I guess I need to go back (at least in my mind) and retouch on what I wrote yesterday.

The post is, in part, an answer to Erin’s post a couple of days ago. Not directly, but it is in addition to what she had to write.

What gets me is that the blogosphere is another medium wherein we can go to find continuing dialogue between (and among) a variety of individuals. Some examples of this (I normally read writer’s blogs) can be seen when one author will write up their writing process and then it is tracked from blog to blog as more and more authors and writers (and wanna-be’s) all add their own methods of going through the scripting and writing process. I don’t think I’ve added to this dialogue, intentionally, as I’ve not been published in the form or fashion I want to be published and, as a result, have nothing to add.

However, someone writes something. Someone else latches on and answers. It is passed from one person to another until it lands back where it started (maybe).

In the world of writing the dialogue does exist; though that dialogue can take months and years in between additions. Some people write faster. Others slower. Some move the conversation in odd directions; other’s follow the path of the person they are answering.

I think it is a fool’s errand to assume that people don’t answer what is happening around them. This blog was started in answer to things happening around me. It was adapted for family and has been added to as a result of questions or comments that’ve been made over the years. But the objective in writing in here is literally writing in answer to other things happening. I get to add a voluble dialogue; I’ve chosen to take a more essay-esque approach to my updates. The people whose blogs I follow also (for the most part) write essays when they update.

Is any of this interesting? Sure. To me. Apparently to other people. The dialogue moves forward and marches on. I get to add my two cents (or less) into what is being discussed and, granted, the likelihood of people linking directly to me seems rather bleak. I’m interested only in a couple of things:

1) Being a top hit when typing my name (without quotes) into Google.
2) Giving family, friends, and those who stumble upon and stay something they might be entertained by.

I have a parade of people (okay, maybe not a parade) that all want to know when I am going to update – especially when I’ve not done it in a while. It’s nice to have that kind of a following; this, in my mind, precedes a need for something much later on.

The blog also gives me an opportunity to explore ideas and thoughts in a bit more of a structured style and approach. Because of this, sometimes you can find that what I am thinking, working through an idea that was written about in another blog. When I do that I try to post a link to the other place I’d picked up the idea and am now pushing forward.

Literature is an open dialogue. Movies are an open dialogue. Poetry, the arts in general is an open dialogue.

What does that mean?

Well, consider that Shakespeare is accredited with claiming there are only a couple of handfuls of original plots. Every story is written based on one of these plots (whether the author intends to do this or not) and as a result, all stories are based off of a couple of handfuls of different plots. According to the book I ordered (and arrived) last week, there are about twenty plots. As I was flipping through it last night, I discovered that some of those plots are variations on a theme, but the outcome is that the reader/writer is introduced to twenty different structures they can base the major (and I’d imagine minor) story arcs around.

(Note: I did a simple Google search for Shakespeare, Quote, and Plot and came up with quotes where he uses the word but no directly attributable statement about plot by the alleged bard.)

Regardless of plot, stories are an open dialogue between thinking persons. You can take an idea posited in a specific story and find source material, ideas etc., that goes backward as well as tracking those ideas forward. Sometimes an author of a work is rather blatant in their attempt to answer a theoretical question posed by another author, but the outcome is that one author writes (or creates) something and someone else, somewhere else, picks it up and adds to the dialogue.

What do I mean by this? Hrm?

Well, specifically that an author (pick any author) will create something and in so doing will posit a question. My current favorite one is Tim Pratt’s The Strange Adventures of Rangergirl wherein he (indirectly) introduces the popular fantasy world to the idea that we can have magic and adventure set in the American west (or some facsimile of said) just like we often place High Fantasy in the world of Renaissance Europe. Granted, we are closer to the Old West, six shooters, and the Native Americans, but the question is placed out there and it allows for other authors to explore and offer their own interpretations on a theme.

Someday I’d like to add an interpretation on that theme.

Regardless, an author is adding to existing dialogue. Even though Pratt may have introduced the reading world to a new form of fantasy, he is adding to the ongoing literary dialogue of fantasy. He is expressing some unique flavor of it and, at the same time, is touching upon established techniques and dialogue that have helped authors like J.R.R. Tolkien to succeed in their work.

Robert Jordan, a fantasy writer, stated, years and years ago, that he’d intentionally written the first part of Eye of the World so that it was similar to Tolkien’s work in order for the fantasy reading public to feel comfortable with the world in order for him to delve into uncharted territory. The outcome is an epic series wherein the audience (readers) are brought into a well thought out world that transcends the ideas and ideals that Tolkien established in his The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings books.

Thematic elements are true of any genre. It is the thematic element, in my opinion, that asks the question. Go back to Pratt’s work, The Strange Adventures of Rangergirl. Within that book he delves into fantasy, modern Santa Cruz, CA, and the American Old West. Granted, there is no implicit question in his writing; though the idea does imbue the reader with the ability to seek out a way to explore those ideas.

There are many dialogues the reader can find and explore. About a year (and a half) ago I purchased a book simply titled Mindswap where the author posits that for man to travel the universe he transfers his mind to the body of another individual who takes his (her) body. The reason I bring this up is because there are entire sub-genres of speculative fiction that trace origins back to this story. The book is crap; but it introduces ideas that have been adopted and adapted over time.

Jules Verne is purchased (most frequently) through the Fiction and Literature section. However, his work precedes that modern Science Fiction movements. Added to that are writers like Robert Heinlein and Frank Herbert who’ve added to the dialogue. However, back in the days of Jules Verne there was fiction (which, for a lot of years, was just called Poetry) and nothing more. However, over time, with the advances in real world science, and an increased exploration of various points and aspects in fiction, the world is given a whole sub-genre of fiction called Science Fiction. The same is true for Fantasy. For Romance. For Speculative. And for others.

This is an idea that is often put forward in Academia. A professor will write an article or book that suggests something new or not considered before. Someone else will pick that up, will add to it, disagree, and then publish. That will be taken, written about, disagreed with, and published. All of this until you get to a point on a subject (say, Frankenstein) that is so well researched and written about that it becomes difficult to be a scholar on Mary Shelley or Frankenstein and, instead, you become a scholar on a popular piece of Frankenstein scholarship. The outcome is that you have to nod and defer to past scholarship in order to move forward with possible new scholarship.

Sounds boring to me.

And yet, a similar dialogue takes place in the literary world, in popular fiction. Dan Brown writes The DaVinci Code and as a result there has been a resurgence of publications about the theory that Jesus Christ was married in mortality. Brown was not the first to posit this. He won’t be the last. He is, quite possibly, the most famous. And yet, he introduces elements that are not inherently new, but are unique to that genre of dialogue: conspiracy, murder, mystery, and intrigue.

This takes place in all areas of literature, of art, of poetry, of music. Someone does something. It strikes a chord in someone else and they expand upon it. That strikes a chord and, again, it’s built upon and expanded. You can infer the outcome.

That, I think, is what art and literature is about. You can’t write (or create) without exploring and seeing what other people have done. That does not mean you can’t explore what you will in your own way; it does mean that you will find yourself exploring similar themes as other people. If you are really good you will explore those themes when they are popular and in a way that is unique to everyone else. The point, though, is that you build upon a dialogue that has been going on for hundreds of years.

Sunday night came and, knowing that something was about to happen, I went to bed; got sick; spent most of the night burning up; woke up; realized going to class/school was a mistake; went back to bed; woke up again; texted Erin; went back to bed; woke up again; spoke to Erin; went back to bed; woke up a final time; spoke to Erin again, saw Erin; and finally stayed awake. That was pretty much my day for Monday. Can I tell you that it was more exciting than a barrel full of lard in a room full of fat Appalachian’s.

I’m also pretty certain that last comment was pretty derogatory and I don’t care.

This morning I woke up before my alarm after not sleeping very much last night only to realize that I was feeling relatively better (see above comment about burning up) and needed to go to school because I had a meeting with Gary and have a class where the professor is rather adamant about our being in attendance. Granted, most of the professors, this semester, are adamant about that; but this one seems to give me the impression that he is not only adamant but serious about it.

I missed the James Joyce class yesterday. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Not really sure why I decided to stay in the class when I realized what it is/was AND, more importantly, the nuances to the class that would/do really annoy me. I mean that. There are nuances to the class that, if used in other classes, really annoy me. My Book of Mormon as Literature class uses some of the same conventions. That class, also, really annoys me.

With all that said, life seems to be progressing.

For example, today I finally acquired a copy of Movie Magic Screenwriter which, according to their self-advertisements, is the best screenwriting software on the market and the first to actually make screenwriting semi-intuitive (I interpreted their promotional material to mean intuitive). That’s not the reason I decided to acquire a copy. No, the reason I decided to acquire a copy is that I used Final Draft which, incidentally, you hear about a lot more in the industry and never really liked its functionality. Granted, it is better than Celtx, which is Open Source software and free to download (though donations are always encouraged); but the real outcome was that I was looking for something that would allow me to change formats while I was working, say, writing a television script that ABSOLUTELY needed to become a stage play BUT THEN needed to be changed into a full length feature script… well, Final Draft (if it does that) wasn’t as intuitive or easy to use and, truth told, Movie Magic Screenwriter is less expensive. They get me through the academic discount.

With all that said, I noticed, today, that BYU’s Bookstore is now selling the academic version of Office 2007; to include Project 2007. According to Jared (who is my current source for computer information), my system would run Office 2007, but not well. I need to wait to acquire that. I share this because, last week (or was it two weeks ago now?) I bought Project 2003 and no one in the Bookstore bothered to say, “Did you realize that 2007 will be coming out in the near future?” It wouldn’t have changed my mind, but, you know, it’s the thought that counts. They didn’t think. That still isn’t going to stop me from spending money at the Bookstore; just saying, a little customer service can go a long way.

So, the meeting with Gary was cancelled (this morning). He assumed I would still be sick. I can’t say that I am not sick (anymore), but at the same time, I am a heck of a lot better than I was. I am to meet back over at the new office space after my one class today and, from there, we will finalize my hiring and get me started on whatever it is I am meant to be doing. Gary and I will meet tomorrow at 1 p.m. (allegedly).

Beyond that, I am personally meant to fix some things with the blog and may get on that in the near future; especially since some of the elements (and NO I am not sharing what) have to be edited and altered, as well as changing the links on the sidebar in general. Maybe, if I REALLY think about it I will get to it sometime this week. You know, along with school, hanging with Jordan, seeing Erin, homework, the start of mid-terms, and journals. It’s wicked fun. Let me tell you.

That is all – for now.

John Hattaway | Smokingpen | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson | Denny Crane

Really, this doesn’t matter; but an e-mail came in asking me to add Erin’s website to the links bar on the right of the page. It is now there. If you didn’t notice it before now, well… it’s still there; and I did it about ten or fifteen minutes ago (from when I posted this) so… uhm… that’s about it.

smokingpen

I got home sometime around 11 p.m. last night. I was late. I admit that. Especially since, well, I have school relatively early in the morning. Let’s look at that a little more relatively… I have school at nine which means, since I am no longer in Salt Lake and have to commute down to Provo, I don’t have to get up AS early; but I still have to get up.

Anyway, there was a lot of noise in the house last night. I followed it. What I discovered was that the front room (can I call it that???) was inundated with males and females and they were (I think) attempting to play a game. I, honestly, couldn’t decipher what the game was. So, I stopped trying.

The outcome, however, was that the girls left and it was just guys. I learned a couple of things.

First, the house and room I am in are very desirable. This, in light of Jared’s opinion of the same, is rather interesting to me. Jared calls the place a “Rate Hole.” Granted, not the nicest place on the planet, but for the money, I think I did pretty well. Since it is a desirable place, they allegedly have a waiting list for people who want to live here. That, in turn, translates into a list of people who are now in some degree upset at my now living here.

What I learned is that a list is only as good as the actual decision maker knowing about that list. If he doesn’t (the landlord in this case) then the list is a waste of time as I paid rent and moved in and the list got delayed until (it sounds like) I get married in the summer.

And second, LARPing means “Live Action Role Playing.” I think I could’ve lived a lifetime (times two or three) and not known that. Moreover, the guys that were sharing this information (because they want to make a mocumentary and I was sitting there) are the same ones (plural) who are on the list to live in this house, in this room, sometime in the future. Granted, it’s a list that the owner doesn’t know about (again) but still, when a room becomes knowingly available it allows for those who live in the house to inform the possible parties of their leaving.

Regardless, I am disturbed, deep down inside, that LARPing actually exists. That people take it seriously. That people I know (even briefly) want to create something mocking an already sad event. And that I now know more about a counter-culture item (can I call it counter-culture???) that really shouldn’t be given the light of day.

They even have characters to mock.

And events.

I am disturbed. It’s akin to what Jared and Jordan do when they find out someone plays WoW on a Role-Playing server. I mean, WOW! And not WoW. (Note: WoW = World of Warcraft; WOW! = my amazement.)

I’m not sure there is a point to all of this. Merely that I scooped a room that other people want and that I am now made aware of LARPing. Now you are too. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid.

John Hattaway | Alicia Grey | Zach Johnson | Bond. James Bond

To begin with Erin has finally updated her blog. It’s over at Blogger and if you are interested in some of her thoughts (and seeing whether or not she updates in any frequency) you should head over to check her out. I’m excited that she is planning to exercise her writing muscles through an on-line source. With that said, I think she’s a good writer that needs to exercise that muscle; but, at the same time, I may be a little biased because of the whole love thing.

Anyway, we were conscripted by Jared and Emily to come and watch Cadence tonight. My expectation was that we would have a LONG night of Cadence, because, the last time we watched her she wouldn’t go to bed. She went to bed (almost on her own) this evening. Erin and I had no illusions about putting her down and leaving the room; instead, we planned to hang out in the room on the floor until enough time had passed that we could comfortably leave her asleep.

Last night, however, we drove after some excitement at Erin’s house. I slept this morning mostly because Erin was going with her roommates to a bridal fair which, I am eternally grateful, I wasn’t invited to go to; asked to go to; influenced to go to; or, in the very least, wanted to go to.

As everyone hereabouts is about to go to bed and we may be leaving in the semi-near future; as with that, I am going to sign off as I’ve added a lot of column inches to the website already this evening.

John Hattaway | Denny Crane | Zach Johnson | Alicia Grey

NOTE: This is another reprint from Blogger and back in the day.

I was eight or nine years old the day I went into my parent’s room, went into the closet, and found my dad’s handgun. My dad, at the time, was a federal investigator and the gun, though not an every day item, was used when he was sent on assignment investigating fraud and counterfeiting. The gun was left out of the reach of most children, but, as my parents may attest, I was not most children. I found the gun and I played with it. Fortunately, no one was hurt because my dad never left the weapon loaded or with rounds laying close to where his gun was stored. When he got home and discovered that someone, me, had moved the gun I found that playing with the wrong toys was completely out of line and I had it impressed on me how inappropriate, and wrong, it was to play with a firearm. As I recall Dad scared me to keep away from his firearms.

Mom never liked having guns in the house. She is an excellent shot, as is dad, but her feelings were that the house didn’t need to have guns or rifles – where dad had both (later stored in his closet). Dad had grown up hunting and had worked as a sheriff’s deputy before going back to school and getting a bachelors degree followed by a master’s degree in Criminology. He then went to work for the government. Dad’s life had been surrounded by guns. So had mom’s. She was raised by an avid hunter who had black powder rifles, handguns, and high powered rifles to take out the deadly deer, elk, and moose that he and my uncles encountered in the mountains around where mom grew up. Mom had seen the aftermath of what guns could do, she’d been on the hunt, she knew what it was like to kill an animal, and her opinion was that it was not pretty or nice. There was nothing about firearms or shooting that made sense to her.

When I was even younger, an infant or a toddler, someone tried to break into the house we were living in. Mom knew where dad’s handgun was stored. She went for it. She pointed it toward the window. She discovered that there was no way she was going to pull the trigger and ended up falling to her knees in prayer that whomever was trying to get into the house would give up and go away. The intruder gave up and went away. That was when mom realized her real aversion to firearms, when she couldn’t even bring herself to pull the trigger when her life was in danger and her children’s.

We were raised to respect guns when we found them. We were raised not to mess with handguns if we could avoid it. We were raised to respect life and property. We were raised to respect ourselves and when necessary to defend ourselves from those who would deny us of our rights, liberties, or freedoms. That was how we, as children, were raised when it came to guns, violence, and respect. If you respect me I will, in turn, respect you.

As an adult I went out of my way to purchase a firearm. I bought a handgun because I believed that it was a symbol of my rights under the constitution. I purchased a semi-automatic weapon that fit comfortably in my hand; and, coincidentally, is also issued by the majority of federal law enforcement agencies as the weapon of choice. It is still rated as one of the most reliable handguns on the market.

There have been times, since I bought that weapon, where I thought I would sell it. Without opening the case I put the gun up for sale, advertised, even entertained offers, until I would take it out of the case and hold it in my hand. It feels like it belongs in the meat of my hand. That weapons, disturbingly, feels like it is a part of me, somehow. That feeling scares me and yet, when I hold that gun, and know that I will never use it against anyone, I will never point it (willingly) at another life, that I will probably rarely use it in the future (even though I have inherited my parents skill at shooting accuracy), I cannot sell it either. It is against something inside of me to get rid of that handgun.

So I keep it. I pull it out occasionally, clean the barrel and the metal parts, and oil the slide I dry run round through it to make sure that they flow properly and check to make sure that there are none in the chamber before dry-firing it to make sure everything is still working properly. Then I put the gun away and try to forget that it sits at the top of a set of shelves next to other sporting equipment I hardly ever use.

One of the scariest things that happens is when I open a newspaper or turn on the news and hear about another life that is lost to an accidental shooting. A lot of times it is the life of a young child or teenager who didn’t know enough about the weapon they were using/holding to leave it alone. The gun is loaded, the trigger, pulled, and a life is lost, a life is changed. A cry goes out for the law to be changed and for additional safety measures to protect our children.

That same call went out when two boys went on a shooting spree in Columbine, CO. In retrospect, the police had quite a bit of warning that these boys were planning something. There were websites, there were journals, there were video’s, there were other students who suspected – and reported – that something was going to happen. No one did anything before the violence began and lives were lost. Justice was subverted because the two boys who became killers ended up taking their own lives rather than stand for what they had done. The media called it a tragedy, and it was. The public called out to Congress to protect them from this ever happening again.

Moreover, the number of accidental deaths due to premature discharge of weapons seems to go up every year. People still own guns. People still work with guns. People are still cops, they are still federal agents, they are still hunters, they are still private citizens who feel that a firearm represents one of the many freedoms this country affords. People still own firearms. And with the number of people who feel that ownership of a firearm offers a feeling of protection from different forms of terror, the number of accidental deaths will rise dramatically; especially as the post 9/11 babies begin to get old enough to grow curious about what mommy and daddy are hiding in their drawers, in their closets, or in the unlocked safe.

One the one hand there is a knee-jerk reaction to this kind of violence. We need to remove the guns or, at the very least, we need to make it harder, and harder for people to purchase them. We need to make it a crime to make them accessible to children and add safety measures that give the impression of security but don’t always work. We need to get rid of the guns to make us all more secure. On the other hand we could teach the children, and adults, proper firearm safety and make sure that our citizenry knows what it means to own, and possess firearms. We need to have classes, teach about it in the home, and if necessary, in the schools so that when a child sees a firearm they will know to avoid it rather than play with it. Children who are indoctrinated into proper gun use and handling know they are not supposed to play with a gun and know they are supposed to go get an adult when they find one. Children who’ve never seen or touched a weapon, let alone been taught proper respect for them, are going to pick a weapon up and play with it; and eventually someone is going to die.

I was taught that playing with firearms was bad. It was wrong of me to go and do that, especially when my dad wasn’t around. That lesson was impressed upon me so that I did not even think about touching a firearm, in any form, again until I was in my teens. Then I was given a pellet rifle before I was allowed to take my dad’s .22 rifle out for target practice. At each step it was made very clear that I was to use the weapon responsibly or I would not be allowed to own or use them again.

Whether or not you choose to have firearms in your home is up to you. Like so many others, the firearms has taken on the pallor of the criminal. They are evil and to be avoided and I can respect that opinion of firearms. They are scary and they do kill. However, the ownership of firearms were, in my opinion, designed as a protection, by our founding fathers, against the imperialism and oppression that were fought against in the Revolutionary War. It is a protection against government extremes. In either case, understanding the proper use of a firearm is essential to preserve lives, especially if you own one for any reason. I may never shoot again, not likely, but there is a very good chance that I will always have a firearm of some kind in my home.

NOTE: This is a reprint from my Blogger account. I don’t know that anyone can get to the account anymore, s’why I am not linking here; but what follows is something published before www.sw-c.com.

After World War two, the United States took a very slanted objective of thwarting Communism. The result of this effort is known as the Cold War. Cold because there was no actually battle or war going on. It was, for the most part, a passive war where the operations were intelligence in nature, and the successes still remain behind locked doors and in locked files. I read, not to long ago, a book by Robert Littel (sp) called, “The Company” that pretty solidly outlined the history of the CIA from just after inception in post World War II America through a more modern approach to the ‘Company’ and what they do. It is fiction, but rather well done. At one point in the book one of the main characters is accused of being a mole, a spy, an Ivan, in the CIA and having had the successes he did because of his direct connection to the KGB and Communist Russia. The CIA arrest him. They put him in a prison. They abuse him. They remove all of his natural rights as a citizen. You know, life, liberty, the pursuit (not the actual possession of) happiness. He was denied these things until a friend came to his rescue (think Alias but better).

Our Cold war changed the way the world looked at us and the way in which we looked at the world. It is reported, and probably very true, that we spied on our closest allies, let alone our enemies (i.e. Communist Russia). On top of that we have become, in a very short period of time, the top of the world when it comes to finance, power, and authority. Remember back to your history classes where they speak of empires and think about those Ottomans. Who were they? What did they do? Moreover, what has taken place to take a once great collection of nations, nations of power, influence, scientific changes, etc., and made these nations poor, backward, not influential. Some people suggest that it is the rise of Christianity that has done it. Others suggest that it is poor decisions by generations of sheiks and kings. Who knows. I’ve read that the fall of national power is a cyclical thing that changes. The U.S. will eventually leave the national limelight and that may be sooner than we expect. Recently a report was put out by Goldman Saks (I need to verify the company – the report is at home in a pile of paperwork) stated that the United States, within 50 years, would be the only one of the current big six to still be one of the big six and that we would not be top dog (financially) any longer. China is projected to have that honor followed by India followed by the U.S. and then Brazil (if they can get some form of an act together). Germany, England, France, wouldn’t even be close contenders. They fall somewhere in the top 15, but nowhere near the top. Russia seems to play in the projections for the top six and I don’t remember which other nation rounds out the list. The point is that nations (speaking broadly and not of specifics like Saudi Arabia) have a tendency to lose stature and status.

Now project that backward a step or three and lets go into our biblical history. We have two groups of people that for five or six thousand years (probably less than five given 1000+ years of history for pre-flood and another 100-200 years of post flood history and keep in mind that Abraham was somewhere around 100 to 140 when he had Isaac who then begat Jacob. Abraham was NOT young when he had Ishmael who had twelve sons through different wives who also started the current Islamic nations). The growth of the Islamic nation mirrored the growth of the Jewish, or Israelitish, nation (Jewish is a generic term we now use to denote children of Israel from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin – the other ten tribes were lost into obscurity (interestingly, there are scholars that believe at least one tribe ended up in today’s British Isles and hence we have the old English phrase Anglo Saxon meaning Old English Sons of Isaac)).

Okay. So we have two nations originating in one father. Now, I don’t know about you but with my family I don’t always get along with my brothers (or sisters) and we argue. My father, the great patriarch that he is (there is a bit of sarcasm here), tries to make us get along. It doesn’t work. Currently Justin is not talking to Jared or Kim and apparently respects me because I do what I say – the other two (of eight) do not. Anyway, Abraham was required by Sarah to send Ishmael off into the wilderness. God told Abraham two things. One, Ishmael would be taken care of and two a great nation would come from those loins. However, Ishmael was not of the chosen lineage and the birthright went to Abraham’s first son from his first wife – which is how the birthright and lineage follow – Isaac. Isaac had two sons and his oldest son sold his birthright to Jacob (twins – go figure) for some food and then Jacob’s oldest son from his first wife lost the birthright for sleeping with his father’s concubine (sub-wife, not a prostitute) which then went to the oldest son of his second wife and still one of his youngest children Joseph.

So. From Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, to Joseph leaving Ishmael off somewhere in the desert. At the same time Abraham was promised, by God, the promised land or the Land of Canaan. Canaan is the modern day Middle East. There are so few times when the Islamists and the Israelites have ever gotten along. In fact, the Jews have fought tooth and nail against the Ishmaelites for more generations than we can count. The Jews, and the Muslims, have a couple of things in common. One we have established in parental heritage. The second, however, is in family tradition. Both can often trace their families back many generations. When Christ was born, and the New Testament (Greek translation is New Testimony) written it is important to the Jews – who were becoming Christians – to know the lineage of Christ from David. They already knew David’s lineage and this was, and is, an important aspect to the nature of who Christ was. According to my basic religion class (it’s been a few years) Christ, has he been born under the rule of the Kings, would have sat on the throne of David. So, there’s more significance to genealogy to these two peoples than we often give credit for. It is not a mistake that Abraham is the prescribed progenitor of two races of people.

Now, back to more modern times, in the post World War II world England in the 1950′s made a historic action and suggested that the world create a haven for the Jews. In essence, England proposed that the Holy Land (the Jews historical homeland) be returned. This as a form of reparation for the holocaust that took place in Germany, German occupied territories and in Italy. Germany had started a war, had moved the war into parts of the world that really had nothing to do with them (except historically – think the Romans and Alexander the Great) and as a long standing result of that decision the body of United Nations redrew political lines on a map and sent the Jews home. The Jewish people had a nation they could call their own.

This was a major feux paux on the parts of Westerners. It is like the criticisms the U.S. is receiving in our occupation of Iraq today. We are there with an idea of what we want to see happen but without any understanding of historical context as well as local and tribal contexts. We approach the situation as though Iraq is like Afghanistan or some other nation (say Germany) and we are trying to rebuild under our authority – however, the people there are Muslim and have very peculiar idiosyncrasy’s. In essence, what the British did was to open a can of worms that began wriggling and separating. On top of this the Muslims in the region were forcefully removed from their homes and many of them retained the keys to their homes because they would one day return.

(SIDE NOTE: What we as a nation lack is an understanding of LONG TERM political and social conditioning. We are a young nation. Not even relatively young. We are a young nation. European nations have existed for hundreds of years longer than us and Eastern nations, including Middle Eastern, have existed for even longer. Political lines change and names change but the overall tenure of the nations themselves have not. We do not really understand what it means to have a family live on the same piece of land for more generations than we can count or to have family members buy other family members pieces of land and inheritance. These concepts are foreign to an increasingly mobile nation more concerned with status and symbols of status than history and symbols of history.)

By supporting this action and encouraging these nations to fight against communist aggressors we began a cycle of violence. Remember those bunkers Al’Quaida were hiding in? We built them to help the Afghan fighters against the Russian insurgents. Russia attacked and attacked and attacked and lost every time because we not only helped the fighters, we encouraged them and funded them all in the name of Democracy and freedom. On top of that it could be said, and has been said, that the United States has created far more dictators and despots than might have existed had we not gotten involved. Whether that is true or not is up in the air and may never be answered. Historians of all ilks like to argue one way or another on the matter and that is fine. It makes for an interesting argument, but the point here is that we supported, enthusiastically, a decision to allow the Jewish people to return to their Holy Land. The problem is that the Jewish Holy Land is also a Muslim Holy Land and a Christian Holy Land.

Take a step back for a moment and look at the Dark Ages of Christian history (commonly referred to as the Dark Ages) where European monarchs, under the direction of the Roman Catholic church, sent armies to reclaim the Holy Land from the infidel. Yeah, the term isn’t just a Muslim term for non-Muslims. We wanted the place where Christ was born and many of our ancestors were sent to reclaim it. Think today’s wars are bloody? They don’t even compare. Kings, princess, men, children lost their lives in the name of religion. The big question was who was right? The answer: Rome wanted to control Europe and when that control began to wan they sent monarchs to war to extend the control. Great theory. But that’s all it is.

So, in our modern, post World War II history, we have accumulated some pretty nasty enemies. People who are taught that dying for a cause is the best way to die. The Muslims aren’t the only people to believe this way. Historically the farther east Asian nations have all believed this as well. It is what you do in this life that determines the outcome in the life to come or within your next reincarnation. And in China wars were fought to the crown and not until one side decided enough blood had been shed. You either gave up your life or you GAVE UP YOUR LIFE. It was actually common for entire dynasties to die out simply from a feudal war between two large factions because you fought to the crown and not until one side gave up. The pride this history instills in people is indicative in China today with SARS and AIDS and the way they interact with the West. There are changes, but they are slow coming.

Muslims are not that different. They have fought wars to the crown. They have fought over water, over land, over cattle (meaning sheep here), over wives, over concubines, over lots of things. They have always been a warring race and that is, in part, bred into them and in another part it is taught. There are no mistakes that the Muslim world feels a little dumped upon. They are fierce warriors with a long history and very real tradition.

Heck, try getting someone to change the way they celebrate Christmas, Easter, New Years, or even the Fourth of July and you will begin to see what is being suggested.

On top of that tradition is the ‘law’ (actually more tradition) that puts a death warrant on the head of any Muslim who changes religion. In most Christian faiths you are born, you are raised, and at some point you make the pointed decision whether or not to be a member of that faith. In the Muslim and Jewish worlds you are born into the faith and you die in the faith. In the Jewish world you are lost to the family. In the Muslim world you are lost to life and sent to hell where you will be killed many times over for your treachery. At least that is the faith. Others can join the religion but you cannot leave it.

So, we have a short history of attacking the Holy Land in the name of religion, of supporting the redistributing of the Holy Land in the name of religion, and a series of nations (England, France, Germany, the U.S.) that are predominantly Christian in nature with Christian beliefs and tenants going for them. This can be construed as counter to the beliefs and tenants of the Muslim faith. So, we become an aggressor simply by support of a decision and we become an aggressor by supporting and encouraging wars against communism, some of which were fought in Muslim countries over oil. We need it, they have it, so it’s a marriage of financial convenience. However, the grandchildren of the men who made the deals have enough money and enough time to think about the consequences of the west to their countries and what westernization has done to their people, and add one plus one gives you a sum of forty-two (Douglas Adams’ answer to life the universe and everything) with the big dog (the United States) coming out as the ultimate aggressor.

However, it wasn’t the U.S., with the best natural border, that was the first targets of attack. It was France, Germany, England, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Israel that were the first recipients of the attacks. I believe, when history is through with all this, that we will discover that the USSR funded these terrorist operations and started the terrorist war during the height, and toward the end, of the Cold War. But we don’t know that yet. We used every means at hand, without actually starting a war, to attack the other side and we did it extremely well. The natural first recipients of the terrorist attacks were the nations in which there were larger numbers of Arab’s (Muslims) living in communities. Where money and opulence, of sorts, had come into existence, and where history was being taught in publicly funded schools and augmented by parents and grandparents at home. I almost believe that we are the only nation that would move a husband and wife (and children) and leave the rest of the family behind. Other nations (non-English speaking mostly) won’t think of moving without taking everyone with them or sending for them later.

Anyway, the Muslim world saw several infractions on their borders and began to fight against them. When the Berlin wall came down in ’87 it changed the dynamic. When the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan, it changed the dynamic. When the U.S. didn’t finish the job in ’91, it changed the dynamic. It allowed people like Saddam Hussein to come into a form of power and to recruit young men (and now women) to fight the battles. To wage terror. To do what they have been doing for decades now. We created poverty in a nation rather than tumble the power, in ’91, in the hopes that the people would eventually rise up and fight against the symbol of that power, Saddam Hussein. But again, we can go back to history and learn that it wasn’t likely to happen. Saddam was savvy and is still pretty good at what he is doing. He’s changed tactics and is now fighting a grass roots campaign against an obvious interloper – the United States.

Once again, we have invaded a Muslim nation. This time not in the name of Christianity (or Judaism) but in the name of Democracy. Democracy is a sacrosanct notion that was built out of Christianity. Christianity is the antithesis to Islam and Islam wants to be a world power. They want the historical status and honor that they once had and they want it back now. Unfortunately, someone convinced the young people of the Muslim world that the only way to fight against the interlopers is to do it under guerilla warfare. Maybe these men took a leaf from the lessons learned in Korea and Viet Nam. Fight dirty. Fight hard. And kill your own when you have to but make the enemy look bad to the enemy and you have won.

We were disgraced in Viet Nam because we didn’t understand the Vietnamese people. We didn’t understand their history, their needs, their wants, or how to win. Sure, given head, the generals could’ve won the ground war and destroyed the other armies, but Viet Nam wasn’t Germany. Iraq is not Germany. NPR, yesterday, had a description of why we were successful in Germany. We were successful because Germany started the war and were bombed, for years, because of it. They had killed millions. Fought on all fronts. Lost millions. And many of the people were tired of the fight. Germany was divided, the losers were broken, and the winners were there to help them recover. At the same time Communism hit the world stage and we had allies to depend upon. Allies that we all had something in common with December 7th, 1941. We fought a war that extended into Communism and we were successful because the German people wanted democracy, were already Christian, and were afraid of the Russians if they over ran them (remember that Russia lots 20 million plus people in that war defending against the Germans). We had a common goal. Another article suggested that with the fall of the wall in ’87 our goals changed and the date of importance to the U.S. is September 11th, 2001 and not 1987. Europe is trying to build allies and the United States is trying to build security.

However, in Iraq we are the infidel at the doorstep. We are the aggressor. And we are wrong. This is a part of the history of the Islamic faith and Muslim people. They don’t want what history has given them and they certainly don’t want us telling them what is right. If they adopt democracy it will be on their terms (Afghan announced that the first draft of their constitution upholds a form of Muslim law but does not make it the law). It will be according to the desires and wishes of their people and not because we are an invading force.

Our leaving the World Stage won’t immediately fix the problem. We are still a target. But the smaller the target we become, in actions, the less likely we are to be hit. I heard a newscaster say once that symbolism is important to these people. Maybe that’s true. It is true. Hitting the biggest country right where it eats (the stock exchange) is very symbolic and was supposed to destroy us, emotionally. It did not. However, the less of an active approach we take in making sure that everyone else gets along the smaller our target becomes.

As for Israel and Palestine. The war has been going on a long time. In this day and age I honestly believe there is no solution to the problem. One is always going to fight against the other. Remove Israel, the Jews, from the Middle East and you only move the problem. The Jewish people still want to live in and around Jerusalem and they will fight until it is theirs. Personally, I think there almost has to be a major battle between the two peoples to resolve the issue and I believe it would resolve the issue. But, as a world we won’t allow that to happen. President Bush will suggest summits and plans as will every other nations. Politicians will pander and lives will still be lost on both sides. Truth told, I believe that someday the world will be forced to stand against Israel because of their actions and the ‘cleansing’ they want to take place. That is just my opinion.

The outcome is that history and tradition are the ruling factors and when the organizations were large enough and defined enough the organizations (terrorist) attacked the United States. It’s not the last. It wasn’t the first. For thirty or forty years they have been building up to it.