The Laughing Wolf

NASA is an agency with no purpose other than to maintain its budget, centers, and power. It has no grand vision, no realistic drive in science, and a workforce that has suffered many blows of late. The fundamental science at NASA is reasonable science, but often lacks a clear justification for it being done at NASA.

As for launch vehicles, NASA has not developed anything truly new in more than 30 years. Efforts to develop new systems, reusable systems, and such have generated tons of papers, multitude of powerpoint presentations, and loads of studies: and not one working piece of bent metal. In other words, they have yet to deliver on any new or innovative launch system in at least a decade, and I would argue much longer.

Innovation and risk taking at NASA are dead. NASA has become an extremely risk-adverse agency, because any perceived failure of any type immediately brings out enemies in Congress, the Administration, the Old Media, and even in its own leadership. Having survived the Goldin years and some presentations, I can testify that it did not take much to be declared a failure or otherwise call down the wrath from on high. The result was that, especially at NASA Headquarters, people became increasingly unwilling to make even the most simple or basic declarative statement. Any statement that was made had to be backed up with multiple citations and proof, and even then the statement might not be made for fear that it might be somehow wrong in some other unspecified way.

Safety is a shibboleth at NASA that demands large amounts of time and money, to no realistic end. While it is officially denied, NASA has become a zero-defect/zero-tolerance agency. Safety meetings take hours each month to discuss all manner of hazards and ways to prevent workplace injury, lost time injuries, personal injuries offsite, and flight safety. The emphasis during my tenure there was mostly on the former, because flight safety was supposed to be assured and being addressed in a responsible and effective manner. After all, hours upon hours and dollars upon dollars were being spent upon it.

Which meant that all other defects had to be purged. There were to be no lost time injuries. Period. Yet, by regulation the first aid kits demanded for all offices and floors of buildings could not have band aids. If something was bad enough for a band aid, it meant that a trip to the infirmary or paramedics were needed. Net result was, unless you violated the rules and kept some in your desk, a good paper cut would become a lost time accident. This, in turn, resulted in yet more meetings, studies, and new workplace rules designed to prevent this new threat to the drive for perfect safety.

It is my opinion that this idiocy, which came from the highest levels of the Center and NASA, directly contributed to a loss of safety. It was the focus on the minute that allowed the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Columbia. NASA has, again in my opinion, failed to adequately address the problems identified, and Ifni only knows that only a few token sacrifices have been made in regards that loss.

And it was a loss. More than just the crew and orbiter, there was a loss of confidence in the agency, in space exploration, and a loss of valuable data and programs. Because of its failures in the launch development department, NASA only has one real way to get to space. With the fleet grounded, NASA is reduced to begging or buying rides from the Russians. While this is good for Russia and the Russian space program, it means that almost every major NASA research program is at a standstill.

Add to all this the demise of the only realistic program NASA had for encouraging commercial space activities, because it failed an ideological litmus test of the Bush Administration, and a very bleak picture emerges. It is made even darker by the fact that the administration has never openly announced any comprehensive policy or plan towards space.

There is, allegedly, a group working on same for an announcement sometime in the coming year. The problem is, no one truly knows who is working in or with this group, or how to present things for consideration. The latter is crucial to any realistic plans for space, because it is very likely that the only model being considered is a governmental model.

For years, the idea has been that only the government could, or was willing to, fund space activities. It was too expensive for any one company, and no company would be willing to take the risks to put humanity into space. This was the public rational put forward in large measure because space was largely a military development. The technology and plans had to be safeguarded from the enemy, and the civilian and military space race was the result.

That has been over for quite some time, and commercial space the goal set since Reagan. Yet, NASA has bitterly resisted and fought any such efforts, even though its own Charter, not to mention the Commercial Space Acts, mandate it. Commercial is a very dirty word at NASA, and it is fought tooth and nail. One of the more effective means of doing so has been to promote and cite at every turn the cost/risk meme/model.

Because of the history and 60s successes of NASA, and the repeated use of this meme, is that very few people ever stop to consider that there is a box there, much less think outside of it. The so-called major aerospace companies are making a lot of money off the current model, and probably are not that interested in major changes to it. Few, if any, in Congress truly contemplate that the world and space exploration has changed. The concept of space exploitation is just bad science fiction, after all.

The real danger here is that the Bush Administration tends to do things all on its own. It does not leak trial balloons or engage in any of the typical things an administration does to test or tilt the waters. This can be, and for the most part is, a very good thing. The problem lies in the fact that there is no way to tell if anyone in the space policy circle can or will consider that the governmental model is obsolete.

Recently, I had the opportunity to see just how deeply the idea has been planted that only NASA can do space, and that only superbeings can be astronauts. In some channel surfing, I came across E! talking about celebrity Ooopses right in time to find that Lance Bass was in the top 25 of all time. Why did he deserve this? Turns out it was his attempt to go into space. Was it because the production company that was to pay for everything didn’t? No, the major reason given was that he, as an entertainer, had no business trying to go to space. Space, after all, was only for the elite.

This bit of bullshit was truly depressing. Admittedly, this was a bunch of actors and entertainment reporters so I was not expecting brains, much less brain surgery. What made it so depressing was how this showed a mindset that is firmly imbedded in a significant portion of the public, largely courtesy of NASA. NASA has for years pushed the best and brightest as a major part of its PR campaign. NASA goes so far as to ignore the IAF definition of what constitutes an astronaut to declare that only its chosen few career crews can be called astronauts. It is expressly forbidden to call anyone other than a career civil servant at NASA who has been duly chosen for the corps, an astronaut. All those guest scientists and politicians who have flown? They are forbidden to call themselves astronauts and anyone writing for or about NASA is very strongly encouraged to follow this practice.

NASA has seized this term as its own, and puts a very rigorous definition upon it. They also defend this practice by hook and by crook, for it promotes the idea that NASA is the best, and that only NASA and the hand-picked few can do space.

The rest of the world is not much brighter a picture. The Europeans are still firmly wedded to the governmental agency concept. Their idea of space commercialization is to form new companies with government assistance and ownership, and then work with or through the governmental agencies. Nor have they been immune to setbacks, and I was not happy at the apparent loss of Beagle 2. Not just because of the scientific loss it represents, but I also admit to a sentimental attachment from being owned by a beagle and having Beagle as a radio call sign for a few years.

Sad to say, but the people closest to any concept of free market space capitalism are the Russians. The problem here is a lack of funding, and being wedded to a NASA that tries to scuttle any truly commercial act by the Russians. Bring up a tourist? Not in our station or part of station! Advertising? Again, not in our station! Doing anything else that smacks of nasty free enterprise? Only in your vehicles and if we can block that we will. Now be a good serf and do what your betters say.

Amidst all this, however, is a great ray of hope. Proof that the governmental model is not the only one. For on December 17, a very momentous and under-reported (in the Old Media, at least) event took place. High above the Mojave, something wonderful happened.

Without government funding or support, developed by private financing and a lot of hard work by many talented people who are not a part of NASA or any other space program, a new spaceship broke the sound barrier. What is the big deal you say? We’ve broken the sound barrier for years, decades even. What is the big whoop?

To put it simply, this is pretty much the first time that any group has put together a manned vehicle to do this without government involvement. Nor will it be the last. XCOR and the companies competing for the X-Prize are all working towards this goal. Nor is that the end of it, for they intend to go to space inexpensively and on a regular basis.

Forget NASA, ESA, and all the rest. Private companies are going to space. The successful test flight of SpaceShipOne has placed us more than halfway to the goal. The technology has its proof of concept, as does the control systems and such. Now, all that remains is to go all the way, as soon as development and regulation allow.

Is there a place for government in space? Yes, there is. The government needs to set realistic policies and regulations for commercial, private, or other space ventures. The government can assist with developing truly advanced technologies, or allowing companies access to facilities so as to aid private development of same. The government can help limit liability for all space ventures, just as it does for aviation. There are a host of things government can do, but has to date not done.

What is needed now is not some grand re-do of the Apollo program, but a real space race. Not between governments or political ideologies, but between companies or private groups. This race, this competition, will result in the real next generation of launch vehicles. It will encourage innovation, risk taking, and all those other things that are an anathema to governmental agencies, but are crucial to development. It will give us not one system, but many proven systems so that there is redundancy and cost-effectiveness.

The governmental model has been broken. Frankly, I am not surprised at the lack of coverage given by the Old Media as it is probably about as much an anathema to them as it is to NASA. Well, that may not be entirely fair. Most Old Media reporters truly don’t have a clue why the real celebration of the Wrights was so important. They lack the subject knowledge to grasp it. Others see it as something bad, because it was done by an evil company who is bent on, gasp, making a profit rather than simply doing something noble for humanity. The best coverage and analysis, therefore, is in the New Media. This also means it is spreading, because there are few bottlenecks to block or distort it.

For the destruction of the governmental model of space, I would have to change my description of the state of space in 2003 to hopeful. The beauty is, however, that there is another reason to feel that way. The governmental model has been destroyed, and a new model has begun to emerge.

For decades, space enthusiasts have used the models of the exploration of the New World, as well as those of sailing and aviation, to describe the possibilities. The problem is, none of these are truly valid in and of themselves. There are portions of each that apply, but none truly apply to this bright new world.

Yes, going to space and exploring and exploiting does have parallels to the development of the New World. There are treasures and resources to be reaped, and just as our forebearers had no clue what awaited them, we have no real idea of what will come. A good example of this was the need for wood. One of the largest reasons for early settlements was to send back resources to the Old World, and wood was one very much needed given the loss of forests in England, france, and elsewhere. Yet, it proved to be much better to process the wood where it was being harvested, and simply ship home medium to finished products instead of the raw materials. This, in turn, created an industrial base in the New World. Much the same is likely to happen with space, since it just makes a lot more sense to process on the spot. Nice thing is, there is abundant energy, vacuum, and other resources for this. You also don’t have to worry about air, ground, and water pollution.

One portion of the aviation model has also been proven true. Contrary to popular belief, the Wrights didn’t get a single government grant to develop their first plane. Nor, for that matter, many of the follow-ons. In other words, the government was not needed to start this expensive and extremely risky new industry. In point of fact, the government hamstrung efforts for many years, and most of the interest and commercial business for the Wrights and others came from the governments and companies of Europe.

It can be argued that except for the profound military implications of space, that is what would have happened here. The government had little or no interest in rocketry or space until they were almost literally hit in the head by the military applications. Scaled Composites has just shown that the government is not needed as a sponsor, which raises questions about the real need for governmental funding. In the process, another portion of valid model is developed and proven.

By raising or proving new portions or complete models, the way is paved for doing much more. Models are needed for funding, for realistic and positive regulation, and for identifying new ventures. A door has indeed been opened, and what waits beyond is anyone’s guess. All that truly matters is that the door has been opened.

If the Bush administration will truly honor the ideals it has stated, and if you the Citizens will exercise your rights and responsibilities to be involved and make yourself heard, then next year’s state of space may well be described as rosy. What it will take is a realistic and meaningful space policy that is not married to a long-dead cold-war model, but embraces the true spirit of aviation, free enterprise and the new model of space.

-30-

This is a very good thing, because it actually brings journalism closer to the ideal instead of the way it has come to be practiced in the mass media. The ideals of journalism are like the ideals of the Round Table: high, noble, and largely a fiction that has never truly existed in reality. There have always been bottlenecks, or gates and gatekeepers to give it the proper academic terminology, and those have been manned by partisans of one stripe or another for time immemorial.

For the last 300 or so years, it has been the owners and operators of the presses: the publishers and the editors. These people have decided what was, and was not, news. They have shaped the coverage and scope of “news” in ways that simply cannot be overstated. Their beliefs and politics have been driving forces, and one need look no further than the dynasty of the New York Times in this regard, for it has made publishers and editors princes of the land. The fact that the publisher of the dingy lady was presented to royalty as being one of their own puts proof to this. If there is any doubt, simply look at the power and prestige of your hometown paper, particularly before it was bought by a major chain.

Yet, they were not and are not the only gatekeepers in the process. Reporters and sub-editors also serve this function, and can be a major impediment to change or a change in coverage. Even if the publisher desires change, and an editor attempts to implement it, the staff can bring all such efforts to a screeching halt without having to work up a sweat. All that is needed is to exercise “professional news judgment” and in so doing the coverage will be what they want it to be, regardless of what those above them may desire.

Perpetuating this is the very priesthood mentality, as the Armed Liberal calls it in his excellent post, that I have discussed before and called it that and many other names over the years. Most practitioners of mass media/Old Media journalism see themselves as an elite, dedicated to the highest ideals and what is best for all mankind. That they are a self-appointed, self-anointed, and self-important elite escapes them.

Most members of the Old Media are a product of the 60s, either directly or through a journalism school that comes from that concept. What this means is that they are taught lip service to fair and balanced, and a great deal about advocacy journalism. They went into this vocation not to report and inform, but to change the world for the better. To expose injustice, right wrongs, end corruption, heal the sick, and help the average person on the street. That they do so while paying at best lip service to the spirit of journalism – honest and fair reporting – and a lot of attention to rules and “ethics” that allow them to ignore the inherent dishonesty of the system.

The Old Media draws to it people who have ego, a desire to change or preach, and who believe in the mythos of the crusading reporter. The process to get into the field is such that it tends to weed out those who don’t fit the mold, especially the political mold. From my own experience, I have seen journalists and professors of journalism who have hidden or changed their political stances because not to do so was political suicide. The net result is that you have a cadre of people who all think the same way and have little or no contact with anyone outside of that viewpoint. This, in turn, tends to lead them to conclude that everyone, or everyone with a brain, feels the way that they do. Therefore, the conclusion is that their viewpoint is right and is the only one that truly matters.

If you doubt this, I invite you to join some journalists discussion groups. Many organizations, such as the National Association of Science Writers, allows public access to some or all of their lists. Lurk a bit, and read what is said when members of the media think that the great unwashed public isn’t listening. It is not a pretty sight, and I will remind one and all right now that the opinions expressed on such lists are not necessarily indicative of how the membership as a whole feels.

If you lurk long enough, you will experience some of the good that is in the field as well. The rules are there for a reason, but the fact that the situation has changed escapes many. You will also see journalists calling for rules of disclosure to be followed by others, that would have them screaming in outrage if there were a serious call for them to follow those same rules. You will also see some who do so anyway, because it is the right thing to do. You will also see the bias against capitalism and companies, who are at best agents of Satan in the eyes of many proper-thinking reporters.

The fact is, few journalism schools require any courses outside of themselves. This means no economics, no statistics, no science, and no philosophy. This lack creates a further inbreeding within the field, which then engages in internships and other professional adventures that further reinforce the process. The net result is a cadre of insular types who are strongly encouraged to associate only with their own. Some of this is to avoid contamination by hanging out with those heathen PR types, or the evil marketing and business development people. By the complex “rules” of “pure” journalism as espoused by the journalism purity league, any work and any association that is not part of “proper” journalism taints a person and will end a career.

Now, some of these rules evolved for good reason. Journalism as a profession has only obtained credibility in the last 50 or so years. Before then, being a reporter was not an occupation for proper or respectable people. Just as with entertainers, those in the profession were not allowed in the front door. Only publishers, and some editors, were socially or otherwise respectable.

And we are now back to a point made above: the publishers and bottlenecks. Before the electronic revolution, the dissemination of news and information was not something to be undertaken lightly. Manuscripts had to be hand written and hand copied for years, and only with the invention of movable type did printing become a realistic proposition. Then, the cost of the press became the limiting factor and that is why publishers have the status and the clout in the community that they do. Their fathers were the ones who invested in the purchase of a press and took on the expenses of paper and ink.

Because of this large expense, it was not at all unusual to find competing groups using the same press to prepare their messages. This is why the Founding Fathers insisted on freedom of the press: not so much as the media per se, but to ensure equal access for all to printing facilities. The idea was to ensure that as many points of view and sources of information were available to the public as possible. This, in turn, meant that a responsible citizenry could and would be well read, well informed, and capable of making a reasoned decision on any given subject. The more controversial or important a subject, the more competing points of view should be available.

This changed over time, as the costs decreased and the need for equal access decreased as well. Many groups could, would, and did buy their own presses. As time progressed, the law itself changed from ensuring equal access to printing facilities to ensuring the freedom of the media. Indeed, one of the arguments against government regulation of broadcast frequencies was that it was effectively control of the presses, just in a different version.

Yet, just as the technology of printing changed, so to has the technology of broadcasting, and so has the means of disseminating information. Today, instead of expensive printing and closely regulated broadcasting, we have the internet. It no longer takes a sizeable investment of time and money to disseminate information and opinions, and theoretically even the poorest household in America has access to this medium.

The profession of reporting has been changing even before the net turned things upside down. There never truly has been the idealized and fictional world of pure journalism as espoused by purists. The time frame of when a reporter worked only at a paper or magazine and did nothing else was a matter of a few years, if it ever truly existed. Much of that was tied up in the idea that you went to work for a company and stayed there for your entire career, be it Flangeco and production or Burnside publishing and reporting.

With the demise of employee/employer loyalty came the demise of the concept of the pure reporter. Modern freelancers often work for many clients, and write journalism for papers and magazines, and papers and other work for corporations or other entities. This idea is an anathema to the purists, who increasingly seek to isolate themselves even further from such contamination. They hold that any freelancer can not be a real reporter, because simply freelancing by itself means that the practitioner has been corrupted and can’t be trusted to do proper journalism.

As if this were not bad enough, they are now faced with something far worse: the loss of exclusivity. As if having these scruffy freelance types around was not odious enough, now any member of the great unwashed masses that many in the field not-so-secretly hold in contempt can self-publish. Horrors of horrors, they are doing so.

The response was sadly predictable. Reporters and columnists have written dismissive and insulting articles that belittle the new journalism and those that practice it. Editor and Publisher has the gall to call bloggers and other new reporters “self important” because they don’t have to use editors and publishers. I agree with the Instapundit, that the proper term is self-reliant.

It is also interesting to note the story on embedded reporters and the not-so-subtle attack on them in the same link. This was yet another blow to the Old Media, when their undeclared war on the military was dealt a stunning defeat. For more on this, you can check out my posts in the media archives and in this particular post.

Yet, while this has been a very bad year for the Old Media and the self-anointed public masters within it, it has been a great year for journalism. In many ways, we are now truly at a point envisioned by the Founding Fathers. For it is not mass media outlets that control the news, but the people themselves. All opinions can now be shared with the world, debated, and judged on their merits. News no longer has the chokepoints and filters that block or cloud, because any or all the people on the scene or involved can – and do – report on it. Nor is it limited to writing: digital cameras, digital recorders, and digital video cameras mean that images, sound, and movies can go out with the words. The dream of multiple sources of information has finally become a reality.

The Old Media cannot stand it, of course. Their power, prestige, and positioned are threatened, and they are reacting like any dictator or noble class in history. They attack, the prevaricate, and they try to legislate change away. They will be as successful as those same noble classes, or even the power groups they have done away with in the past. The smarter ones will realize this and move to embrace the changes, to become a part of them and incorporate such practices into their own. The not-so-smart are going to go the way of the dodo.

This does not mean that there will not be a fight, and a number of ill-considered actions. There will be demands for regulation, on the basis of ensuring fairness and accuracy, despite the fact that such will bring about regulation of the Old Media as well. This is a very slippery slope, but it will not surprise me in the least to see prominent members of the Old Media going down it. Indeed, it would not surprise me to see some of these very corporate organizations joining in with the totalitarians and dictators demanding regulation of the internet.

Yet, it will not succeed. The people, individuals, now have a voice. The technology is there, and just as kids of my generation made crystal radio sets, the kids today can and do build computers. If the official net is regulated and controlled, I guarantee you that unofficial nets will be built. Just look at China and its oh-so-successful attempts to control the net and electronic communications within its borders.

The coming year will see many challenges to real journalism from the Old Media and various self-anointed elites within it. Let there be no doubt, however, that the new journalism has established its beachhead and is moving rapidly across the world. The more voices that we can find and encourage, the better off we will all be. The more voices, the less control, filtering, and bias. In any media, old or new, lies will be exposed and challenged, points debated, and information exchanged. The difference is that the new media will revel in this process, and in so doing establish a self-regulation never before seen. The Old Media will fight it, and will resist to the bitter end the idea that mere peasants can challenge them and force them to live up to their obligations.

For more thought and information, please check out the Saving Private Journalism series as well.

-30-

It is not necessarily a desire to prevent panic in the populace that motivates the Administration to keep quiet about such acts. It is a desire to protect intelligence sources. In a good op, all the enemy knows is that their team disappeared or was unsuccessful and nothing more. While they have many suspicions, they don’t know for sure who did it, where it was done, or when it was done. This also means that they can’t figure out how their plan was penetrated, or at what level they might be penetrated.

This adds a lot of uncertainty to the equation. Are they being bugged? Are their communications compromised? Is there a mole or moles on the inside? Is it a particular group or cell that is compromised? This creates a lot of work for them, and makes it easier for us.

Even announcing that an action was blocked gives the enemy information. Enough news coverage and speculation, and they can plug the hole. Given the sorry state of the Old Media, I have little doubt that many so-called journalists would not hesitate to give the enemy all possible information while claiming the highest motives. Feh.

On the other hand, I agree with the comment. The public does not know the danger or what has been done to protect them. As a result, they grow complacent, slack, and easily manipulable by politicians and media that DO know better. There should be some things that can come to light, when the sources that made them possible are either protected or are gone. Maybe then the public will realize that this really is a war.

Which brings me to our gallant and brave allies, the french. By their actions, they willfully and deliberately did all they could do openly and covertly to blow our intelligence with the enemy. While they stopped just short of actively aiding them or conducting the attacks themselves, the handling of this affair by the french is nothing short of a deliberate act of war. Should an attack successfully occur because of the actions of the french, they should be held accountable.

Take a look at the lair, gallant allies. The eyes, they are serious and find you to be no allies or friends, and beneath contempt. The paw, well, I think you can see what digit is raised. Fiche moi la paix, cochon!

-30-

I found some pictures that were truly moving; some that were truly funny, and some that were truly beautiful. I very much would like to find the people behind some of them, to ask how they set some of them up, and to buy them a drink for an outstanding job. Having done a photographic internship at Playboy and loving to do photography, I can appreciate the effort that goes into some.

It was also good to see some where the models were quite comfortable with the photographers. A relaxed model that trusts you to do right by them in all ways will always give you better shots, and it is fun to see some of the stuck-out tongues and such posted. That is one of the blessings of the net, in that you are not as limited and can publish “fun” shots as well as the good ones. Indeed, one photographer who’s work I have watched on the net for some time has proven that you can make as much money off your mistakes sometimes as you can with the “good” shots.

Spam has destroyed so many of the Usenet groups it is not funny, but it is good to see some of the groups fighting back. More power to you. I don’t want a federal law on spam, unless it is to declare open hunting season on spammers: the mailers and the businesses who use them.

There were also some photographs I saw that I really, really, want to meet the people responsible for them: photographers, directors, set designers, and anyone else involved. I want to express my thoughts on their work in person, preferably in a remote and soundproof location. Think a week ought to do it…

As for me, if I have to keep going back will probably sign on with a news provider, as the retention (or just getting all the posts) at my ISP is terrible.

It is amazing the depth and breadth that is out there. Watch out for the slime, but enjoy the rich bounty of images and more that are available.

One reason so many people “fail” at New Year’s Resolutions is that they tend to concentrate on, and emphasize, the negative. They also are almost always passive. To make things work, look at changing this around a bit.

Instead of concentrating on the negative aspect (here at the lair it is the deer belly), find a way to emphasize the positive aspect involved. No huge as a whale type stuff, but the goal and the rewards that come from achieving the goal are the focus. Instead of looking at going to the gym, the resolution focuses on the end, as if it were already achieved.

To make it easy, here is a hypothetical example of a list made this way:

1. I am down to a fit 32-inch waist, with a resting pulse of 50 and excellent endurance, a low cholesterol level, and have been able to quit taking most medicines.

2. I have met my other half and we are married; together, we complete each other and are so much more than we ever could be apart, and our marriage is a strong one.

3. I have a new job and it is providing stability for finances, marriage, and life.

4. All debts are paid, we are building our home, and we have the money we need for living life

Notice, there is no emphasis on how things are done, such as unrealistic goals about the gym, eating less, or eating better. What matters is the end result, and the benefits, and that is where you should concentrate. The means of getting there will take place, if you work at it.

Now, the other trick to having successful resolutions is to visualize them already done. See yourself as you want to be at the end of the year. If you want to be married, visualize the person beside you even if you have to leave the face or some particulars blurry. If you want to be married and have kids, don’t be greedy and save some things for next year.

All that is left now is to make the resolutions come true. That does take work and effort, but by concentrating on the result you are far more likely to get it done, and far less likely to be overwhelmed in the doing.

Remember, it will take work. There is a saying that has come down through the ages in different forms, but it goes something like this: “The Earth/Gods/Lord will provide, but She/They/He like the taste of human sweat. You will have to work for it, for the good fairy is not going to just wave the magic wand and make it all happen at once for you.

So, go now and think about things. Don’t forget to include results that maintain and enrich the good things in your life as well. That way, you will be sure to appreciate and keep them with you in the year ahead.

-30-

A favorite stop was always Aunt Mary’s. She was a retired teacher and principal, and the discussions we got into as I grew up were truly wonderful. She engaged me on literature, politics, and more, to the point that Dad was resigned to the fact that we might be there an hour or two, schedule be damned. I loved those conversations, and it broke her heart and mine when Alzheimer’s began to claim her, for she knew what she was loosing and had lost.

Another favorite set of stops was with the Three Sisters. This was actually three different stops, but close together, and I love you all, dear ladies. Judy, I miss you so much, but am glad that E and T are still a part of my life. Thank you all for all that you did, and for the delights all of you provided.

Ann was another favorite stop, as she loved to bake. We still love to sit and talk about life and most of all about food. How I loved her baking as a child, as she used real butter – a thing my mother would not do, out of economy and the mistaken belief it was bad for you. Ann didn’t care. Butter was what you used for real baking, and she was (and is) good at it. Nice to know there is another Food TV fanatic in the family…

A non-Christmas side note is that in my Mom’s immediate family, it was the men that were the good cooks. According to her, I come by it honestly and she was always disappointed that I never knew my grandfather and great grandfather, who were always reported as being great cooks.

F & J were another favorite stop, for there were always great treats and food, cousins about my age, and a wonderful menagerie of animals including horses. Even today, a pack of dogs can and will descend upon you as you pull up, threatening to eat you and trample you if you don’t pet/thump/play with them RIGHT NOW!

Then it was off to Aunt Blanche’s, to sit around the kitchen table. Now, she could cook but the real one there was Ollie, her cook/maid/friend who did so much. For many years, this was always a stop the night of Christmas Eve, when there was a party there that brought in all of Dad’s family that was left. Given that there had been fifteen children in that family, there were lots of cousins I still don’t have straight. In retrospect, it was a bit strained for some of the adults, due to some nasty family politics, but to me and others, it was a magical time. When the party stopped after my Uncle fell ill and died, this became a day stop and in some ways an even more special time.

There were other stops and other relatives, but the Christmas Loop as I called it was such a special time for me. When I became old enough to drive, it was left to me and I continued to make it as much of an all-day event as possible. My hope is that I can do the same tomorrow with stops old and new.

May your day be filled with delight, memories bright, and wonderful traditions to enrich your life and those of the next generation.

-30-

That they must attack, soon and in a spectacular fashion, is a given. There are many reasons for this, and it behooves us to consider the facts before such an attack occurs.

First, Al Qaeda and all the related organizations under its umbrella are in disarray. They have lost much prestige in the world because of this fact. Their leadership dares not leave its strongholds in southern Afghanistan and neighboring areas of Pakistan. They are hunted, harassed, and have to take a great many precautions against coalition troops and fellow countrymen who have decided to hunt them. Relieving that pressure is a crucial need.

Second, the fact has been noticed that since 9-11 they have been unable to mount any large-scale successful operation within the United States or against any significant Coalition asset. What have they done? A few small-scale bombings in Saudi? Hardly the work of a major organization, even if those were intended to advance their plan there (elimination of current leadership and the creation of a new state with them in control). These bombings also had the effect of waking up some people in Saudi and the region, which has further hurt the cause.

Third, sending in fighters from all over the world into Iraq to lead the heroic resistance has played right into the plans of the Coalition. Those fighters are being sucked in from other areas, including Europe and, more importantly, Afghanistan. While in Iraq they can’t be disrupting the creation of the new government in Afghanistan or causing trouble in Europe or elsewhere. Add to that the growing number of these who are captured or killed, and it does create a growing kink in the system for the enemy.

Fourth, the network that has backed them has taken heavy hits. The Taliban is gone as an effective government, and is left as a shadow group that can’t even fully control its historic territory. Saddam is gone, and now being displayed on television for all the world to see. Iran is facing growing problems at home and not even the most Chamberlin-esque internationalist can seriously promote them as peaceful, misunderstood, or helpful types in international forums. Libya and the colonel have just left the cause of the righteous, and in the process derailed WMD plans the world over, not to mention creating a lot of other collateral damage in other areas. The Philippines has gotten serious and effective about combating the Moro Liberation Front and affiliated groups, courtesy of the United States and other allies. Australia is helping its neighbors in similar fights, further increasing the pressure on the affiliated organizations and tying up their resources.

So, times are tough and that is a good thing, right? Well, yes, it is. Yet, it also brings about the almost surety of a new and spectacular attack. The credibility of these organizations, and the movement they represent, is at stake. They need a victory right now, to rally the troops and supporters. They need to show their backers/masters that they are still in the fight, that they can do damage to the enemy and not simply bring the sleeping giant they awakened down upon the heads of said masters/backers.

About the only option left to them is an attack or attacks on the United States or members of the Coalition of the willing. America is the primary target, simply because without it the Coalition is likely to fall apart – at least in their estimation. America has been the driving force in terms of will, money, supplies, training, and people. They also still see Americans as week, self-centered, greedy, and spineless, who without strong leadership lack the will to fight even in self-defense. I think they underestimate individual Americans a great deal, though they may be right about more of our politicians than I care to admit.

What this means is that they need something big. They need something to happen that will damage our morale and our economy, and in the process bring about a change in political leadership. The enemy believes that any other leadership is better for them than what we have, and that such an attack will bring into power people that will not oppose them, or do so effectively. They are counting on the loyal opposition to be less than loyal, and to put politics and self-gain ahead of the country. They are counting on each of us to allow that to happen.

The latter is not surprising. The concept of a Republic and responsible citizenry is foreign to them. They see our population as sheep, and honestly believe that the politicians control and direct the public, and that the public will simply accept whatever happens. They see the Old Media pushing agendas, without realizing that the Old Media does not really represent, or even inform, the majority of Citizens. It is a miscalculation that will hurt them.

So, they will do more attacks. They will try for the showiest thing they can within the United States, and will use every last resource they have so that it appears they are far more powerful and capable than they are. The showier the attack, the more likely it is that they have shot their bolt in that area.

They are also likely to do attacks against England, Spain, Poland, and other members of the Coalition. They are going to pick their targets in the Coalition based on their assessment of the likelihood of said attack resulting in change of political leadership. England is ripe for this, not merely because it has been one of the staunchest allies in the fight, but because Tony Blair faces tough opposition at home. They see the polls saying the public does not support his joining the fight by a substantial margin, and they see how embattled Mr. Blair is on this and other issues. Therefore, they reason that if they can strike a blow that it will topple him and bring in an appeaser. Spain is in a similar position, as is Australia. Such attacks may well work, at least in the short term.

There is also one other thing to consider here. The showier the attack, the more likely it is to get the citizens of the attacked countries mad. A showy attack may well raise the ire of the public, and drive home the point that this is a war to the death. That to loose is to turn our backs on centuries of progress and enlightenment. Things could go either way in terms of this.

The fact remains, however, that the umbrella of organizations that is Al Qaeda must do something soon. They have to pull off the showiest thing they possibly can in order to regain and demonstrate any credibility to the world and to existing and potential members. A failure to do this will ensure their demise from within and without. Yet, to make such an attack will also be the surest sign of their desperation, and the extent to which they have been hurt.

-30-

Interesting speculation aside, you are going to need certain things no matter the disaster. You are going to need identification; you are going to need insurance numbers and related; you are going to need prescriptions and prescription information; and, you are going to need ready cash/valuables. These are things that need to be on you, and on others, during and after any disaster.

First, let’s look at who needs what. All adults need on them – not in a bag or other item that can be lost or stolen, but on them – a “master” set of documents. Given that I know far too many adults who are not nearly as responsible as some of their children, have at least one other member of the party have a master set as well.

Second, what are the needs of each master set? Easy. You need copies of each person’s drivers license and passport if they have one; a photograph or a good copy of a photograph of each person in the party; copies of critical pages of insurance records or all relevant insurance numbers, along with name of company, agent, toll free numbers, etc.; copies of bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and such; and it is not a bad idea to have copies of deeds, titles, or other relevant records in a reduced form. Each person should have a set of documents pertaining to them on them, for use and/or identification. In this way, you have every bit of information that red tape is likely to require.

Third, it is a good idea to have prescription medicine and copies of all pharmaceutical and eyewear prescriptions. This documents that you do indeed need and why you use them, and allows you to obtain replacements as needed. Remember, the odds are that you are going to have to prove a legitimate need in order to obtain medicines and the like, and that the natural tendency is going to be that you don’t need them unless you can provide overwhelming evidence. That is just the nature of the beast, and it has been seen many times in many disasters.

In an emergency, if your pharmacy is nearby and if you have time, get fresh refills before you head out. Your pharmacist is likely to be most helpful on this. Also keep in mind that even if you have to pay full price, it will be worth it and you can always charge it.

Fourth, have cash and credit cards in these packs. Use the credit cards as much as possible, but keep in mind that in an emergency many places will only take cash. My recommendation is to have a variety of bills and to spread things out. Never flash a large roll, things are bad enough without inviting attacks or otherwise making the kids hope that the milkman really was their real father by acting the fool. In fact, it is a good idea to spread things around the party, so that even the baby is carrying something. That way, no matter what, the odds are that some of it will be missed if things truly hit the fan. Having the numbers and the toll-free numbers also means that you can cancel the cards as soon as practical if they do get lost or stolen.

Another thing to consider in addition to cash is to have some other commodity on you. Gold coins come in a variety of sizes, are easily hidden, and readily exchanged for goods or money the world over. High-end jewelry can be used the same way. Think about it, think practical, and then act.

Now, this seems like a lot, but it really is not much more than is recommended for any traveler. Each of my suitcases has a page condom or two filled with this type of information, including copies of power of attorney and advanced healthcare information and directives. That is another thing you should have: blood type, allergies, and other critical information. That way, if things go really badly for you, the information is there for first responders and treatment facilities. I still wear a set of dog tags just for this purpose.

Make this a part of your normal travel planning, and make it a part of your disaster preparedness planning as well. The more you plan and prepare, the better off you are if things do go wrong, be it weather or man. The motto applies to us all: Be Prepared. And remember the wolf’s motto: That which you plan for, never happens. So plan for the worst, hope for the best, and take what comes.

-30-

I will skip the egregious breach of law and common sense, to cut to the heart of the matter. The real problem is that when this type of thing happens and is not fought, the civilizations in which they occurred have not long survived. More than that, I can find no example in history where such behavior has not let to concentration camps, gulags, killing fields, re-education centers, or similar. If anyone can provide me an example, particularly in the last 150 years, I would love to hear about it.

Let’s look at this as a mater of citizenship. Our country was founded on the concept of individual liberty and individual responsibility. A citizen has the right and responsibility to debate issues and take part in government. A citizen has the right to travel and do as they please provided they do not infringe the rights of others. A citizen is expected to exercise responsibility to protect themselves and their country at need, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Contrast that with subjects, who often need permission to travel and can only take what the state says they need with them, even when traveling with said country. A subject is not expected to take part in government and often is refused all say in government, or at best given token an ineffectual role. A subject is not allowed to defend themselves or to own or use effective means of defense. The role of a subject in war is most often as cannon fodder, from ancient days to modern. If you need a good example of this, look at the bulk of Iraqi troops in both Gulf wars. Take a look around at almost any totalitarian regime, and you will find large percentage of troops who are taught to obey orders from their superiors/betters. The penalty for thinking, acting with initiative, or disobeying said orders is summary execution.

Americans are citizens, but the trend for the last 70 or so years has been towards an all-encompassing and all-protective state, with resultant decline of individual liberties and most especially individual responsibility. One of the brightest spots in this move, however, is that the American military has continued to foster the concepts and traditions of individual responsibility and initiative. It is without a doubt one of the reasons that our military is as good as it is.

What happened to this individual was, however, a sign that many in government see people not as citizens, but as subjects. They see themselves not as public servants, but as public masters. The late Robert Heinlein wrote about this, and the story as presented here is a classic example of this type of thinking and behavior.

Note the way in which the subject was treated, and how things have been handled. From experience with bureaucracy at its best, it probably went something like this: Oh, a cylindrical object. He must have an unlicensed silencer or something else illegal. After all, he is not one of us, so why would he need these things? He is up to something.

When it turned out not to be the case, the overreaching of authority turns to covering of behinds. Hence, desperate attempts to manufacture something out of a T-shirt and other items that any citizen is allowed to have. Hence the leading and long interrogations, in an attempt to find anything to justify the actions taken.

One thing eluded the people involved, but it is an important thing. They know they are the masters, and have the moral imperatives to do what they are doing in a holy cause. The silence and the fact that any of the people involved did not scream or defy them is, to their minds, proof of their moral superiority.

It would never occur to them that failure to refute moral lessons imparted as suggestions to change lifestyles was anything other than acknowledgement of their superiority. They will never consider the fact that what was instead going on was “I have to keep quiet because I don’t trust you not to further abuse your power and pervert justice. If I refute you and do it well, you will be mad and then will take it out on the person in your custody by any and all means.” Yet, that is what such silence most often means.

It means the subject does not trust those in authority not to engage in physical or mental abuse of the prisoner; to make the passage through the legal (not justice) system as painful, expensive, and as nasty as possible; to do everything to keep the lawful property of said prisoner as their own; and, to extend that process to the subject themselves.

The truly sad thing is that individual liberty and individual responsibility would give us far greater safety and at a far lower cost. A nation of citizens is always better able to react, defend, and restore than a nation of subjects. Tragedies can and will still occur, but when every citizen is ready to do their duty, it cuts down on many of the opportunities for tragedy.

Then again, that is something that often lies at the heart of the matter. When you have citizens, government is most often small and does not take much of the economic pie. When you have subjects, you have a large government that takes a large part of the pie. Government agencies look for ways to grow, because with growth comes more resources and more power for those involved. As this happens, they tend to look with growing disfavor on citizens and to find ways to make them subjects.

What happened here appears to be a perversion of justice and a flagrant abuse of power. Take a look at the bit about if you don’t fight us and agree that we were right, we will cut the fine in half. I pray that the people involved don’t do this. Because if they do they will be admitting before law that they were in the wrong. That they knowingly and willfully broke the law. When an offer like this is usually made, it is because the other parties know they screwed up and are looking to cover their behind. They have the power and the ability to use and abuse it. They can make you pay, on many levels, and that threat is clear. To sweeten the deal, if you agree to it you have just admitted that you were in the wrong, they were right, and the legal precedent is set. You can never fight them again. The fact that they were set to bleed you dry and make your life as much a hell as they can is not precedent or even relevant anymore. All that will matter is that you admitted you were in the wrong, even if all you were doing was exercising your rights in a lawful and responsible manner.

What has happened here is a travesty and an outrage that needs to be stamped out. To that end, I think that one way to do so is to shine a large light here. Get the story out, let your representatives know about it and that you are outraged by it. Best yet, see about making a donation to cover the legal fees and other losses encountered here. You see, if people provide legal fees, that means that one of the largest threats here is negated. That will help a lot, and sends a very powerful message to the would-be civil masters.

We are still citizens, and you are not our masters. You serve us, not we you. This we will defend, just as we will defend our country against terrorists or anyone who would attack or threaten it. Most of all, we will not destroy our country ourselves. This we will defend.

-30-

My way of dealing with things was to observe Dad, and I was much amused. I tried not to let it show, but he knew it and it probably did not help his outlook. This was a man who had survived many things, seen many tragedies, shot down the Japanese plane that would have otherwise killed one of his older brothers, survived having my Aunt Joan drive the car such that one set of wheels went up a wall and only stop when the car was at an interesting angle, and did all of this without loosing his composure or displaying the slightest bit of fear. The man was terrified of going to the mall that day.

I was fascinated, so I observed. Dad’s revenge was making me take point, on the grounds that I knew where everything was located. We went our way, following carefully the list we had. Our goal: get the stuff on the list, or proof it wasn’t there, and get out as quickly as possible. The latter being rather urgent in Dad’s mind.

Now, I should say that at this time Dad was 75 or so. He was not frail, for he worked hard all his life, but he was not a young man either. Dad had also been raised old school, where manners and behavior were things to be treasured and done by good people. The behavior of the shoppers truly horrified him, and confirmed many of his thoughts about the modern world.

Push came to shove almost literally in a store. We were following up on an item and Dad was closing in when it happened. Dad had been trying to be a true gentleman as much as possible, but was starting to loose his patience with those who were not. He snapped when a lady in the 40-50 range, somewhat stout, decided she wanted where Dad was. I am still not sure if she wanted what Dad had or not, but it didn’t matter: she charged like a rhino.

At that moment, I saw a much younger man return. In a split second I saw several things flash over Dad’s face, and a decision made. This 75-year-old man suddenly regressed to the Marine of 1943, to the football player of the 1920s and 30s, to the man who would force the world to live on his terms. He stood his ground and the rhino hit.

She bounced.

The woman was amazed, then mad. How dare he stand his ground and not give her what she wanted. How dare he! She started to puff up, and Dad just sort of did his head towards her in slight thrust I remembered from early childhood. It was the move of a parent who is saying, non verbally, “Do you want a spanking?”

The mannerless rhino folded. She went away in defeat, with her tail between her legs. Dad stayed tall and proud the rest of the time we were there. There was a light in his eyes that dared anyone to try anything. He opened doors, he stood aside, he did all the mannerly things that are the hallmark of a true gentleman. He also made it clear that civility would be observed around him.

We left, heads high, and made it home. We had survived, and Dad had taught a valuable lesson to me. A reminder actually, that manners and civility do not mean being a doormat. It means not merely following the rules and doing right, but insisting that others do so as well.

Just a Christmas memory that brought a smile to my face, and a reminder of a lesson that should not be forgotten.

-30-

Even with proof, many refused to believe that it had been done. Being smart, the Wright Brothers took photographs, and along with witnesses, this helped prove their claim. What is not remembered today is that there was a good deal of controversy, some of which still continues in academic circles, over other claims to have the first flight. These other flights were done in secrecy, but the Wrights did theirs in the open.

The news of the flight opened the floodgates, however, and the world will never be the same. Innovation came fairly rapidly, with intense private competition between inventors and companies forcing the pace. The delicate flyer rapidly was left in the dust by more robust designs featuring more powerful engines and better controls. The rivalries were quite intense and often very personal, and the world watched.

Within 20 years, man was flying on a regular basis and planes were even being used for war. The era of barnstorming began, and new forces began to add to the forcing function of development. In addition to the personal rivalries and the growing market to commercial aviation, military demands lent impetus to the developments, and the plane reached new heights, quite literally.

Within 40 years, all metal planes were made that could do things that had been the provenance of the most wildly speculative of fiction. They could travel long distances, have multiple engines, and fly higher than the birds that have long fascinated man. They could carry heavy payloads, be it cargo, passengers, or bombs, and flights had circumnavigated the globe not in 80 days, but in weeks.

Within 60 years, the plane had reached space for the first true astronauts were not riding missiles, but planes that reached the limit set by international agreements. These planes were indeed rockets, and what rockets they were.

Within 80 years, air travel – once dismissed as a fad which could never carry any significant number of passengers – was the world’s primary means of intercontinental travel. Even within countries, air travel is the first choice of those needing to go a long distance in a hurry. The air travel industry, commercial and civil, is enormous and worth billions of dollars to the economy.

Now we stand at 100 years. The Wright’s flight came some 3,000 years since the earliest designs on flight by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Yes, I am counting the gentleman who tried the rocket chair in the mix, for it was just an early rocketry failure in my book. The Wright’s were close to 1,000 years since da Vinci did his drawings and experiments. Thousands of years in the making, and look at how much has happened in a mere 100 years.

Today, we stand poised on a new century of flight that may move even faster than the first. Civil aviation is making even more advances and changes, and is one of the safest modes of transportation the world has ever seen. Commercial aviation is the same, and as for military aviation – just wait, because the best is yet to come.

More importantly, there is a new generation of Wright’s at work today. Just as the Wrights, Langley, and the other pioneers of powered flight competed for a prize, there are people today competing for a new prize: the X-Prize. More than just a flight, it has to be a repeated flight carrying passengers. Nor is it just a hundred or so feet, it is to space.

I think the Wright’s would sympathize with these modern pioneers, for the chorus is the same: What good is it? What market is there for it? Only the ultra rich can afford it, it will never take off. The only thing missing right now is “Get a horse” Okay, that came from automobiles, but was also occasionally shouted to a pilot fixing a plane in a field.

The parallels continue, with the government largely non-interested and non-responsive. It is not government money that fueled the Wrights, but their own. Almost all of the X-Prize companies are privately financed, and some are even refusing to take government money. It is not the government’s dream, but the dreams of private individuals that will start this next century of revolution, this next century of flight.

Where the government was helpful in the early days, and not too much of a hindrance, was with air mail. The money for doing that job fueled aviation companies and aviation development. May the government have that much sense again, if it is even needed. For private companies have tasted space, they have studied history, and they see the possibilities. Those seeds are planted, and the new century of flight can reap them even as they sow the future.

In 100 years, we have advanced faster and farther than in the previous 3,000 years of flight. It is not even a comparison where one can say “combined” or other simplicities for ease of consumption. In 100 years we have not just met the dream, but begun taking it to the stars. We have gone from 100 feet to 100 miles to 1,000 miles and beyond. Circumnavigation of the globe is now commonplace, and it took a non-stop circumnavigation to draw any attention to this routine event. Thousands of people travel by air every day, and the figure is in the millions for the year. Zero to millions. 100 years.

What will this new century bring? I will not guess, for I think that my most wild speculation will be surpassed in less than 50 at the current rate of advance. If the dreamers, the speculators, those who put their sweat and own money into it do it again, we may well truly be on our way to the stars in 100 years. I hope that they do. I hope we are.

100 years. It is full of stars. This applies to the last century, as well as to the next. The stars were legion in the last, for the Wright’s simply opened a door and many other brave souls followed and took the torch forward. I will not even attempt to list all the names, for who should be on that list is still hotly debated.

My question for you now, is who will be the Wright’s of the next generation? I have suspicions and favorites here too, and again I will not say. All I will say is watch the skies. There is a new century of flight starting, one which 100 years ago was unthinkable.

100 years. Happy Birthday, heavier-than-air powered flight. Just look at what you have done. Just look at what you can do.

-30-

I am fairly sure that you know he was a bad man. The term evil is not an exaggeration, for he did or ordered done many terrible things. He hurt people for no reason, and he killed them almost at random. He had very bad things done to these people, and often used what was done as a way to force their families to do what he wanted them to do. Sometimes, he would not tell the families what had happened to their loved ones, as a punishment.

Being homeschooled, you have never met a real bully on the playground. You and your friends play nicely, and my memories of watching you all at play are special ones to me for that reason. But, I am also sure you have heard of bullies, of kids who try to force people to do things, to hit them, push them down, and make them cry. Think of Saddam as this bully, and you are off to a good start. Think of him as a big, much older bully, who liked to push others to the ground, hurt them, and make them cry. Someone who wants everyone to do exactly what they say, when they say it, and play only their way.

Now think of this older, bigger bully having the power to do more than just control a park or playground. Imagine if some of your friends stood up to him, and refused to do what he said, when he said it. Instead of simply getting pushed to the ground, they are taken away. Some might never come back, and, worse, some might come back but so hurt and scared that they would never come out and play again. Think of their parents, and how their parents might feel.

This is what Saddam was in the world. He was that bully, and now he is gone. He will never terrorize the playground, or the world, ever again. In the end, he was a coward who did not follow the orders he gave to others. This is a good thing, though, because now other bullies will be less willing to do bad things, because their leader did not keep his promises.

No one in any position of authority, or with two synapses to rub together (do you remember how the brain works, or how signals travel through the nervous system?), believes or has said that all bad things will stop now. For they will not. All the other bullies are scared, so they are going to try and act as tough as they can to hide their fear, and to try to make others scared of them. Don’t fall for this, anytime you see it, for these actions are a sign of weakness, not of strength. What the bullies do now is done because they are scared of loosing their power over others, and of what may happen to them. Yet, though bad things will be done, this will allow us to find the bullies and stop them too.

Think of Iraq as a park, just like the one where you go for park day. For years, the children and their parents have been afraid to come out and play. For years, they have been denied the chance to learn, to school or to homeschool, in the way you are so used to doing. They have been lied to, so now they must start learning again. They will have to learn how to play together, and then how to play with other children around the world. This will not be an easy thing to do, but it can be done and many countries, such as the U.S., Great Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, and many others are going to be like the adults at park day. They will try to keep bad things from happening, teach new games, show how to do new things, and try to help make up for all the years that the bully Saddam kept them from playing and learning.

The bullies in Iraq and elsewhere don’t like this, and are going to do all they can to keep it from happening. They hate learning, they hate education, and they hate homeschooling because ignorance is their only friend. If all the children and parents in their land know that things can be better, that there are different ways that can be followed, and that they have a choice in life, then they won’t follow the bullies. These people will no longer allow the bullies to push them around.

This is why one of the first things bullies do is to stop learning. They stop the schools or make them teach things they know to be wrong, to lie to the students and parents. They then take away all means to communicate, so that people cannot share knowledge and teach at home. The third thing they do is remove any way to fight back, by taking away guns and all weapons, and making it illegal to fight back in any form. Only they can use force, and they use that to create fear.

Yet, this is also why these bullies hate us so much. It is because here we share information, we love learning, and we know that things can be made better. Worse, from their point of view, we share with others and we share this dream and this vision. In America, you can still become almost anything you want to be, provided you will work hard. Bullies never like this idea, for they only want people to do what they tell them to do. In America, we still encourage people to think for themselves, and that is something I see instilled in you by your parents and your homeschooling. You learn to think for yourself, to work out problems, find the answers, and make things work. Bullies don’t want you to think for yourself, because if you do you will see them for the scared cowards that they are.

I could go on about this, but I will not for now. Right now, we have a cause for celebration. No matter what any adult may say, the capture of this bully, Saddam, is a good thing and a cause for celebration. In the playgrounds of Iraq, children can once again start to play. While there are many smaller bullies out there, their days are numbered because they are outnumbered. The children of Iraq can play and learn again, which means that the days of the smaller bullies are numbered.

Celebrate the fact that children can play and learn again. If you and your park day friends want to send some school supplies to them, I know just the person to help. For now, however, I want you to go and play, so that you and the children of Iraq can celebrate together, even though you are apart.

-30-