Who do we shoot?

In a scene from the John Ford adaptation of the John Steinbeck classic, Grapes of Wrath, the farmer Muley was evicted by an agent of a shadowy organization from the farm that his family had worked for three generations.

MULEY: You mean get off my own land?
THE MAN: Now don’t go blaming me. It ain’t my fault.
MULEY’S SON: Whose fault is it?
THE MAN: You know who owns the land — the Shawnee Land and Cattle Company.
MULEY: Who’s the Shawnee Land and Cattle Comp’ny?
THE MAN: It ain’t nobody. It’s a company.
SON: They got a pres’dent, ain’t they? They got somebody that knows what a shotgun’s for, ain’t they?
THE MAN: But it ain’t his fault, because the bank tells him what to do.
SON: All right. Where’s the bank?
THE MAN: Tulsa. But what’s the use of picking on him? He ain’t anything but the manager, and half crazy hisself, trying to keep up with his orders from the east!
MULEY: (bewildered) Then who do we shoot?

In the recent elections, the American electorate was farmer Muley. But it was a different farmer Muley, one who was infinitely more determined to shoot. That electorate rampaged on the streets looking for people to shoot, people deemed responsible for their miseries. Except that now in 2010, those going postal pick off their managers.

The American people knew exactly who to shoot. It was the managers. And that meant the Democrats.

One by one, Democratic congressmen and women were picked off, downed by marauding mobs brandishing hunting rifles and shooting wildly into the air just to make sure their weapons were loaded and firing.

It was a massacre. Some of the best and brightest went down, along with the new ones who entered Congress only two years ago, men and women who clearly had nothing to do with the Great Recession that started in 2007, when the absentee President, George Bush, Jr., was still President.

The people are still jobless, their homes, their farms, their businesses have not been returned to them, but at least the American Muleys had found their revenge.

Now the Republicans are in charge of the House of Representatives, and they have two years to prove that they can do a better job than the Democrats in the area of job creation. The people want jobs, jobs, jobs. They are not interested in the ideological warfare that is going on between progressives and conservatives, between liberals and libertarians. They just want to work again. Is that too much to ask?

A lot of Americans - especially those 50 or over - who lost their jobs in the Great Recession just past, a recession that is officially over but is for most people still going strong, may never work again. Unless some drastic, even draconian steps are taken by the U.S. government. And what steps may those be?

Oh, please. Don't give me this tax cuts for the rich thing that Republicans Boehner and McConnell are trying to sell to the American people like snake oil. Reagan and Bush, Jr. slashed taxes for Americans in dramatic fashion and few jobs were created. Bush, Sr. and Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed, with 22 million jobs created in the 1990s during the Clinton presidency. Were the jobs created because of the tax increases? Of course not. But this proves that tax cuts do not create jobs, while tax increases do not lead to job losses.

What actually created jobs in the 1990s? It was American ingenuity and entrepreneurship. There were so many start-ups that were created by the high-technology boom during the Clinton years. Those start-ups were formed in kitchens and garages, employing one person plus the partners. They quickly grew and soon they were employing hundreds and relocating to Silicon Valley, Manhattan, Northern Virginia, Boston and other centers of high-technology. A lot of Americans were known to have day jobs and night jobs, some of them my nurse clients who worked in hospitals for three days and in nursing homes the rest of the week. Money was easy during the Clinton years.

America must start making things again in this country. All these American companies that pay their CEOs and top managers salaries and bonuses in the tens of millions while laying off American workers and transferring manufacturing and back-office operations to other countries, must be discouraged from doing so through punitive taxes. These companies must be encouraged to relocate plants and operations back in the U.S. or forced to pay punitive taxes. What? These companies will simply relocate to other countries to escape U.S. taxes? The U.S. Congress will know exactly what to do with such companies.

The challenge for these companies that relocate manufacturing plants in the U.S. is to remain competitive in the global markets, since American-made products will tend to be more expensive than goods manufactured in, say, China. How will American business accomplish this? By increasing productivity. We can put a man on the moon, we can explore the universe with our probes. We should be able to increase productivity enough to compete with any country.

The process will take time, over at least a ten-year period. In the meantime, the U.S. must impose tariffs on goods coming from countries that have a lopsided balance of trade with the U.S. If a country exports to the U.S. lopsidedly more than it imports from us, there will be tariffs imposed on their products that are exported to the U.S. We want trading partners, but we want partners who will buy from us, not just sell to us.

Think China. Of course this legislation would be aimed at China. Serves them right. Many economists, notably Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman, believe that China manipulates its currency to make the dollar more expensive than it should be, rendering American goods uncompetitive in the Chinese market. The tariffs against Chinese products will level the playing field and encourage American manufacturers to relocate back to the U.S. Chinese companies may also be encouraged to manufacture products intended for the U.S. market to be manufactured on our shores.

There is a widely held doomsday scenario that features a China retaliating and taking the world to the brink of a trade war between the world's biggest trading "partners." Fine. Let there be a declared trade war. There is currently an undeclared trade war being waged by China against the U.S. and other countries such as Japan and Brazil through its currency manipulations. In a declared trade war the American people will be on the same page, and on the same side.

In a trade war, the American market will be virtually closed to Chinese goods but will be open to Canadian, Mexican, European, Australian and Asian manufacturers. Most countries will be on notice that if they exploit the American market through predatory practices, they too will suffer China's fate. China, in such a hypothetical, will be forced to sell goods normally sold to the U.S. market in other countries, but this avenue appears closed to China because China has also manipulated its currency vis-a-vis other currencies. The result is that non-U.S. markets will not absorb the excess Chinese capacities resulting from the closure of the U.S. market.

In fact, other countries such as Japan, Brazil and Europe would likely be emboldened to confront the Chinese and join the U.S.-initiated trade war.

It is an Armageddon that China would rather not face. China will try to avoid this Armageddon from ever starting. However, if the world moves inexorably towards a trade war, the most likely scenario that will unfold is that China will dramatically ease its controls on its currency and allow it (yuan) to float to its true value vis-a-vis world currencies such as the dollar and the yen. The rise in value of the yuan, will of course happen gradually and the U.S. must not consider this as a cure-all.

The U.S. must insist that the multinationals that have access to the world's biggest and most reliable market - the American consumer - must go back to manufacturing in the U.S. once again. At minimum, the U.S. government must insist that the multinationals manufacture products intended for the U.S. market on U.S. territory.

Americans must have jobs again. The continued high unemployment in the U.S. will eventually result in the collapse of the American consumer market, which will not be good for China, Japan, India, Europe and all exporters to the U.S.

Besides, continued high unemployment will further stoke the fires of anger and angst in the U.S. and marauding mobs will no longer be just active during the election season but will be active year-round, year in and year out. Institutions will collapse and nihilists and anarchists will rule the streets, the airwaves and the academic communities.

American manufacturing must be revived, and quick.

Meanwhile, as China sees the error in its ways, the rest of the world will probably look upon the U.S. with admiration and gratitude because most of China's trading partners have suffered the same fate as the U.S. Especially hit hard, in fact, are some of the European countries. China's march towards world dominance will be slowed and to an extent reversed.

China will someday be the biggest and most important economy in the world. Only a fool would deny its inevitability. But it must be slowed to allow other countries, especially the U.S., to make structural changes that will ensure the viability of their consumer markets, which is important for an orderly globalization of the world's economies.

A word on the Chinese threat to stop buying U.S. treasuries. The additional revenues generated by our resurgent manufacturing will expand the U.S. economy, which in turn will be able to absorb the shock of a closed Chinese market for our treasuries. If that proves insufficient, we can print more money, causing a measured devaluation of the dollar, making us more competitive. The Fed has in fact done this recently, when it bought $600 billion worth of U.S. treasuries. U.S. short-term interest rates would go down further, causing an uptick in economic activity. The resulting inflation will also cause an increase in the value of U.S. assets, especially houses, rescuing homeowners from their upside-down (houses worth less than the mortgages on them) financial condition.

Consumer items will cost more, but the unemployment rate will drop dramatically and people will actually have money to buy the more expensive goods. The President and other political leaders will have to be on TV almost daily, explaining why higher prices are actually good for the American worker. Higher prices will mean lower unemployment in the U.S. in the long-run and a less reliance on a predatory Chinese economy in the short-run.

When normal trade resumes with China, the U.S. trade deficit with that country will be dramatically down. U.S. manufacturing will be healthy and strong and the relationship between China and the U.S. will be mutually beneficial, not one-way as it decidedly is now.

A new high-tech industry in the field of alternative energy, a long-range program of upgrading U.S. infrastructure to the 21st century standards being set by China and other modern countries will parallel efforts to bring back lost manufacturing industries to the U.S. Tax revenues will increase and Clinton-style surpluses may soon appear on the horizon, finally breaking the back of the monster that dumps mountains of debt on American taxpayers.

You wonder how the world will change for our children and their children? The answer lies in the political will of our leaders. If they act decisively and smartly, there is no reason why our children and their children must live in a humbled, timorous and self-doubting America.

There is no reason why future generations must adjust to a standard of living that is down significantly from ours.

(Pictures used are from Glorious Opposition and Media Matters for America blogs.)

Under cover of darkness

Like most of you, I have over the years joined a lot of social clubs. In many of those clubs, leaders were selected by the few who dominated those clubs. There were elections, to be sure, but most of the elections had predetermined outcomes.

The difference between social clubs and U.S. society at large is that elections for public office do not have predetermined outcomes, or so we hope. No matter how rich and powerful, those who rule over their fellow citizens cannot dictate who the voters should elect. There are just too many people to influence, coax, cajole and deceive.

Enter the United States Supreme Court. In the Citizens United vs.the Federal Elections Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations, unions, etc. have guaranteed first amendment rights to free speech. And money used by such groups to influence elections is a form of free speech. They therefore must be allowed to contribute to elections as much as their resources will allow. They are free to advertise and attack politicians they oppose, in the same manner that individuals are free to do so.

From the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) blog site:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
08-205 Sep 9, 2009
Tr. Jan 21, 2010 5-4 Kennedy OT 2008
Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

These mid-term elections are the first elections held since that fateful ruling in January, 2010.

In his State of the Union speech last January, just a few days after the Supreme Court ruling was announced, President Obama warned that because of that Supreme Court decision foreign corporations through their foreign subsidiaries would be able to influence U.S. elections through largely unrestricted contributions to groups that target individual candidates and political parties they oppose.

I remember seeing Justice Samuel Alito flinch and with his lips moving, he seemed to utter the words, "That's not true." What Justice Alito was really saying was that Obama was lying.

Fast forward to the current elections. The New York Times, in a front page article October 21, ran a story naming corporations that have given huge donations to groups that have been running false and misleading ads targeting politicians that those groups oppose. In a prior article, the New York Times pointed out that groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's American Crossroads have been running television ads that run constantly - 24 a hours a day - about the record and the plans of certain politicians those groups oppose.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been receiving donations from unknown shadowy foreign corporations while the Chamber continues to flood the airwaves with misleading ads and outright lies.

Did the Supreme Court, in its ruling, intend this? Obviously not, but this is exactly what is happening. How does this affect our democracy?

We all know how powerful the TV medium has become. Many of the "facts" that we hold sacred nowadays we get from watching television. There are messages that come to us at the conscious level, there are messages that reach our subconscious.

The groups whose contributors do not have to be revealed are so flush with money they can afford to run political ads aimed at destroying political and personal reputations round-the-clock. One commentator who guests from time to time at MSNBC - I believe it was Jon Ralston - reported that one study found that in one day in Las Vegas alone 1340 ads were run, and most of the ads were either lies, half-truths or distortions.

I guess it is OK for candidates to throw mud at each other. Democracy, after all, is messy as one sage has observed. People lie about each other's record, plans and resumes. People lie about their own resumes.

But when groups supported by huge multinationals and foreign corporations are doing the lying, they do so in such a way that they flood the airwaves with these lies. These groups, multi-nationals and foreign corporations spend huge chunks of money on these lies because they know that the constant barrage of these lies will eventually work. The mind surrenders to lies that are told often and relentlessly.

This why a lot of people now believe that Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. This is why people now believe that re-electionist congresswoman Dina Titus has voted to give Viagra to convicted rapists. This is why people believe that Harry Reid has voted to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.

Because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the other groups, notably Karl Rove's, are targeting Democrats, the actions of these groups are effectively turning the country deep Red, that is, Republican and Tea Partyist. The country is on the verge of electing people hand-picked by the corporations - both local and foreign - and groups of wealthy individuals who have a decidedly right-wing agenda. Central to that agenda is the dismantling of the New Deal programs that have protected vulnerable Americans since the three terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Justice Samuel Alito says the foreign corporations will not be allowed to contribute to the destruction of democracy in the U.S.? Happening now. Foreign corporations, under cover of darkness, have been contributing to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spending record amounts on ads that lie and lie and lie about Democrats, making outrageously deceptive claims about Democratic candidates.

Not even the notorious political hacks who created the Willie Horton ads that linked Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis to the murders of women killed by serial killer Willie Horton, could possibly top the lies being served on dinner plates of Americans in this election cycle. All courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its secret, shadowy contributors, along with Karl Rove's American Crossroads. Right now, only a few foreign corporations are known to have contributed to these sleazy ads, but the elections are not over yet. The end-game, I understand, will feature record-breaking contributions from all sources - including foreign corporations - to seal the deal for the Republicans.

Our country may be on its way to becoming a social club democracy, where the rich and powerful people - including powerful foreign corporations - are the ones selecting our elected officials. There is no way to prove this, but we are all old enough to know that in politics when something is considered legal, it is done if it results in political advantage. George Orwell's 1984 is apparently happening now, with constant barrages of lies that are turning Americans into robots who follow the bidding of the powerful local and foreign corporations, courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the newly spawned groups masterminded by Karl Rove. Courtesy, ultimately, of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Every freshman college student who is taking a Psychology course knows that the information that reaches our subconscious is what propels us to act and not what is coming at us at our conscious level. We can repel the onslaught of information at our conscious level, even debate the sources of such information, but we are powerless against the information that has found a home in our subconscious.

The U.S. Chamber and other groups that are flooding the television airwaves with lies and distortions know this, and they are laughing at us as they pull the strings.

We must resist this violation of our sacred trust, the elections that are central to our democracy. We must vote for candidates that are being targeted by those groups financed by shadowy corporations, both domestic and foreign.

Let those corporations squander away their profits. We must send the message that we will not allow them to trick us into voting for their candidates.

Are you a true catholic?

There have been a lot of noise lately regarding people's catholicism. How does one know that one is a true catholic? Is someone a catholic if he/she goes to Church every day? Receives communion regularly?

The Jews were often in their synagogues, but Jesus Christ pointed out that a lot of them (Pharisees and Sadducees) were not truly religious. Christ railed against the hypocrisy of those alleged holy men. The religion that Jesus Christ was preaching was that of universal love and honesty and complete absence of hypocrisy. Christ went after the hypocrites and those who were defiling the Temple by turning it into a market place. He blessed the poor, the downtrodden. He honored gentiles who had good hearts.

To help my friends determine if they are true believers in the Catholic faith or not, I have devised the following 10-question self-examination, which measures one's true catholicity, and not merely count the number of masses attended in a week, in a month, in a year.

To take the test, rank yourself according to the following point system:

5 points - strongly agree with the statement;
4 points - somewhat agree with the statement;
3 points - neither agree nor disagree with the statement;
2 points - somewhat disagree with the statement; and
1 point - strongly disagree with the statement;

41 - 50 points - Ang lelang mong panot. Hindi ka katoliko, animal.
(English translation: Your grandmother is a baldy. You are not a Catholic, you animal.)

31 - 40 points - You are a hypocrite, but not as bad as the Congressman from Idaho, Larry Craig, who had railed against homosexuality but was caught trying to pick up an undercover male federal agent in a public restroom.

21 - 30 points - You are average. A cafeteria catholic. You have situational morality. People hate you because they can't categorize you.

11 - 20 points - You are a good catholic.

10 points - You are a true catholic both in theory and in practice. Unfortunately, you do not exist.

The Self-test

(Take as much time as you need)

1. On mendacity in my dealings with fellowmen:

I am capable of hoodwinking my friends, promising again and again to pay them back the money I borrowed and then surprising them with a letter from my lawyer announcing my bankruptcy petition, which wipes out my debts to them.

1-Strongly disagree: 2-Somewhat disagree; 3-Neither agree nor disagree; 4-Somewhat agree; and 5-Strongly agree.

2. On hypocrisy and sexuality:

I am addicted to calling other people gay to hide my feelings of sexual inadequacy. I am also obsessing about the sodomy that goes on between homosexual couples in the privacy of their bedrooms. This is why I oppose same-sex marriages.

1 2 3 4 5

3. On spirituality:

I think the only way to communicate with God is by going to church frequently and receiving holy communion. I also believe that people who do not go to church as often as I do are destined for hell.

1 2 3 4 5

4. On truthfulness:

I frequently lie and even more frequently exaggerate about other people's faults to score points in discussions and debates.

1 2 3 4 5

5. On race relations:

I make fun of people of color. I am especially harsh towards blacks and Hispanics.

1 2 3 4 5

6. On materialism:

I am glowing in my praise of people I judge to be hugely successful financially and dismissive and arrogant towards those who are less successful in my view. I am a name dropper, citing often the powerful people I know.

1 2 3 4 5

7. On attitudes towards the poor and downtrodden:

I am convinced that people on welfare are lazy bums, while those who are on unemployment compensation are spoiled.

1 2 3 4 5

8. On Social Security and Medicare:

I believe that people who did not plan for their own retirement or disability are not entitled to help from the government in the form of Social Security payments in retirement or in disability.

1 2 3 4 5

9. On health insurance:

I believe that everyone in the U.S. already has health insurance, for as George Bush famously said, people can go to emergency rooms when they get sick, and they will be treated at taxpayer expense.

1 2 3 4 5

10. On Muslims:

I believe that the only good Muslims are dead Muslims. I also get a lot of satisfaction in calling people I hate "Muslim" after going through half a lifetime calling people I hate "liberal," "commie" and "lefty."

1 2 3 4 5

This study, as far as I know, is the only objective measure of one's catholicity. It is universal in applicability because the Catholic Church recognizes that the catholics of today are not just baptized catholics. The classification also includes those who are catholics by blood (heroes) and catholics in spirit (non-catholics who practice catholic virtues.)

As someone who is not particularly religious, I probably am not the most credible authority on catholicism. To all the doubters I say: Eat your heart out. If you were so smart, why did you not think of this self-test first?

__________________________________________________


I won first place in a golf tournament without actually knowing how to play golf, courtesy of long-ball hitter Jun Teves and fellow beginner Bob Maglaya, in the second day of the golf outing of the Lasallian Boys at the Happy Valley Golf Club in Summerlin, Nevada, on the western flank of the Las Vegas valley. Gary Salcedo complained that he had been playing golf for twenty years but had never won a first-place trophy.

A trophy is a trophy, even though the honor is depreciated somewhat by the fact that it was a best-ball game and it was only for five holes. Long story. Each team had three members, and all three members hit at the best ball spot. My team leader, Jun Teves, almost always had the best ball, so all three of us hit from where his golf ball landed. It was as though we were all hitting exceptionally well ourselves and not slicing, shanking, hooking or hitting duds that dribbled a few feet in front us.

No, the game was very forgiving. And, in the case of our team, known as Team 6, very rewarding.

Had to fly to San Francisco Airport Saturday night to attend a wedding of my niece, Annabelle Lumba, to Antonio Calasanz, a San Francisco policeman. All the Lumbas were going to be in attendance, so there was no way I would miss the wedding. Drove more than 30 miles to San Jose (straight down Highway 101) to check in to my hotel room at the Radisson. San Jose is dead after 8:00 p.m. so after checking into my hotel I had to drive twelve miles to a Chinese restaurant that was still open to join my relatives for dinner.

It was a nice wedding at the San Jose cathedral in downtown San Jose and a very short walk from Fremont Hotel where most of my relatives were staying. Fremont is probably the number one hotel in San Jose, but it is also the most expensive. Though guests at the wedding got special rates, I stayed at Radisson, where I had booked a room through Priceline. It was the first time I had done anything through Priceline and I'm sure it will not be the last. Priceline is really, really cheap. My rental car, also through Priceline, was $12 per day. $12 per day, like in the 1970s.

The groom is the son of his namesake, Antonio Calasanz, who grew up with my younger brother, Amado, in Santa Ana, Manila. It's a big world, but also a small world.

A Conspiracy of Dunces

I'm hooked on politics. Maybe it's in my blood, in my genes. If I had stayed in the Philippines instead of immigrating to the U.S. 43 years ago, I probably would be in politics. I like to think that I would be one of the good guys, but realistically I probably would have become just like everybody else there, looking the other way while others stole from the country blind. To survive there, one must not speak out against the shenanigans of the most powerful and richest.

Unless one was willing to spend a lifetime in the limbo of lost causes and election losses.

I think that the way my life turned out is OK too. I am in the U.S., where the best democratic politics are practiced. As a spectator, I get all the thrills that any man has a right to expect to have. Politics in the U.S. is the best politics in the world. British politics is the only kind that even comes close.

That's because we have ideological clashes, religious struggles, the politics of money versus idealism, the politics of personal destruction, campaigns based on lies and padded resumes, labor unions versus multi-national corporations, conservative populists versus progressive populists, white racists versus empowered minorities. Name one contest of wills between two or more social groups or movements - we probably have it here.

I love those nail-biting elections the outcomes of which determine whether the U.S. will continue to expand its empire or recede into the background. Elections like Bush vs. Gore in 2000, when unfortunately the wrong guy was awarded the presidency by the U.S. Supreme Court and the country quickly went into a downward spiral almost to the depths of another Great Depression from which the U.S. has not yet fully recovered.

Yes, that's how important elections are here in the U.S.

There are of course major disappointments, the most infuriating of which is the contest between Brian Sandoval, the Republican, and Rory Reid, the Democrat, for the governorship of the great state of Nevada - my home state.

I caught their debate last Thursday and with mouth wide-open I could not believe that I was witnessing an actual debate. Reid appeared to have given up. Why he bothered to show up for that debate was beyond comprehension.

Sandoval, who refuses to tell the people of Nevada which costs he will cut when he becomes governor and who refuses to paint a clear picture of how he would govern if elected, kept lofting soft balls at Reid during the debate, but Reid would not swing.

I was beside myself. Reid was not prepared for that debate. He was at least ten percentage points down, with a little more than three weeks to go. He should have been swinging for the fences.

I hurriedly wrote a letter to the editors of the Las Vegas Sun, which the Sun decided to publish. In the letter I complained that Reid missed an opportunity to dramatically distinguish himself from Sandoval.

The moderator kept asking Brian Sandoval if he would increase certain taxes, identifying specific areas where taxes might be increased. Sandoval kept saying no, he would not increase those taxes. Reid, when asked the same questions, simply kept saying he would not raise those taxes either.

It was a missed golden opportunity that probably put a nail in the coffin for Reid.

If I were Reid, I would have answered the moderator's questions this way:

"It is irresponsible for us to say we're not going to raise this tax, or that tax, this user fee or that user fee. We - all of us Nevadans - must ask ourselves: If we don't raise some taxes, can we get by with less money for the education of our children, or for the repair of our roads and bridges, or for the police and firemen? Are we going to let our local governments lay off more people so that the exodus of good people from Nevada continues unabated? Are we not going to take a stand so that our houses stop losing value as a result of being abandoned by Nevadans who are losing their jobs and moving to other states?

"We Nevadans must remind ourselves of what John Kennedy exhorted Americans in the 1960s to do (I'm paraphrasing): Ask not what your state can do for you, ask what you can do for your state.

"There is a 15% unemployment rate in Nevada, which means that 85% of Nevadans who want to work are working. True, many are working in jobs that are beneath their levels of expertise, but at least they are working.

"We must ask the 85% of Nevada workers to do more for the people of Nevada. If it means that they have to pay higher taxes or higher user fees, then I as governor and their leader, will ask them to willingly pay these higher taxes and user fees. This will benefit everybody. If the layoffs slow down as a result of local governments having enough money to keep their employees, the problem of empty, abandoned houses will be alleviated. Those 85% of Nevadans who are working will slowly see the values of their own houses rise as the economy improves all over America and the world and Las Vegas becomes even more attractive as the world's playground.

"As Nevada's governor, I will ask the people to make some sacrifices so that we can keep the current level of public sector employment while we create more private sector jobs, such as new jobs in renewable energy.

"In contrast, my opponent, Brian Sandoval, is not willing to tell Nevadans that in extraordinarily difficult times such as what we are faced with in Nevada today some taxes must be raised. Sandoval wants to take the easy way out. He simply promises not to raise taxes, which, under the circumstances, is irresponsible. Will he just let government services suffer for lack of money? That appears to be his prescription, since he is unwilling to raise any taxes, even though a majority of Nevadans in survey after survey indicate that they are willing to pay higher taxes or higher user fees to keep the level of government services they are currently getting.

"Sandoval is not a leader, fellow Nevadans, so how do you expect him to be a good governor? I want you to think twice and think hard from now until election day, about what I told you tonight. I want you to join me in putting our ship of state back on course. It will take a lot of sacrifices, but I'm asking you to make those sacrifices. Together, if you entrust me with the governorship, we will make those sacrifices and move our state forward.

"We were the greatest, most progressive state in the Union in the 1990s and in the first half of this past decade. We can be great again, if you elect me your governor."

Oh, I love making speeches. A speech like that, which comes from the heart, could have been the game-changer that Rory Reid was waiting for. The opportunity to make such a speech came in the debate last Thursday and Rory forgot that his goal was to swing for the fences.

I love politics, even when my dog won't bark - or bite. People will forgive me, I know, for suggesting that the campaign for governor of Nevada is a conspiracy of dunces.

Slavery in the Philippines

Many decades after my journey through Philippine elementary and high school education, I now realize how inadequate my education has been about Philippine history. We who grew up in the Philippines learned world history and American history rather early in our lives, but we learned very little about our own history. The historian I grew up with was Gregorio Zaide, who in retrospect was a historian who wrote Philippine history with a decidedly western world view. Either that, or my history teachers were mere parrots owned by the West.

We were taught - in the 50s - that the Spaniards had burned books about the Philippines because those books allegedly were pagan books and were works of the devil. This was why there was very little historical information about the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish cross and Eskrima.

Turns out there was a wealth of information about Philippine life, social and political structures. The scholar-historians had to do some digging, but this they did and all the juicy information about the Philippines in pre-Spanish colonial era burst into the surface. I was already in college - a full-time working student - when new research about pre-Spanish Philippines found their way into Philippine history textbooks.

The result is that there are gaping holes in my knowledge of Philippine history. I suspect that there are many in my generation who have this problem.

I was therefore very happy, in fact deliriously happy to discover the blog http://mananalaysay.blogspot.com where the excerpt below can be found.

CHANGES IN SOCIAL STRUCTURE IN 17TH CENTURY IN THE PHILIPPINES

by
Roel Cantada

"Take a look at the figure above and compare the 16th century social structure of the Philippines with that of the 17th century. What changed? What happened to the Datu? Timawa? Alipin? Who occupied the highest and lowest social statuses?

"These questions are what we will try to answer in this lesson. Notice that the highest social status is now occupied by the Spaniards and all the natives are below them. This means that wealth is not the only basis of the social classes but race as well. The implication is that no matter how wealthy a native gets he will never be equal or higher than a Spaniard in the colonial society. The racial barrier is something that will never be overcome unless the Spaniards are removed from the country.

"What if a native marry a Spaniard will their children be considered Spaniards? The answer is no, the Spaniards consider only pure blooded Spaniards, and half-breeds whom will be called mestizos later on (creoles in Latin America) will not be accepted equal to Spaniards. But in the 17th century there is not enough half-breeds to constitute a separate class.

"During this time the Spaniards coined three terms to refer to the natives of the Philippines. They called the natives who had converted to Catholicism indios, the muslim moros, and the pagans of the Cordilleras in Luzon, igorots. All three terms had bad connotations and should be avoided today. Both the datu’s family and the timawa are now called indios which when translated in the native languages would be equivalent to Tagalog, Visaya, Bikolano etc. The word indio is a word used by the Spaniards to refer to the natives of Latin America, wherein Columbus I think made a mistake when he thought that he was in India when in fact he was in another continent. In English it is the same as calling the natives of North America Indians. It is also related to the terms Indonesia, East Indies (Philippines and Indonesia) , and West Indies (Cuba, Haiti etc.).

"Returning to our figure, you would have noticed that the lowest class is now occupied by the timawas. What happened to the alipins? They were freed or natimawa by the Spaniards. The King of Spain issued a proclamation banning slavery (esclavitud in Spanish), and the Pope also issued a bull stating the same and even threatening excommunication for anyone keeping a native slave. But these proclamations where not automatically enforced because there was one curious thing about the implementation of Spanish laws in the Philippines: the governor general can decide which laws to implement and when given the current conditions and because of the distance from Spain. It takes months before communication with Spain arrives and consultation would have been impossible for emergencies. It probably took a hundred years before slavery disappeared. Until the 17th century some Pampangan datus were reported to have filed cases in Manila against their slaves who had escaped. The Spaniards being weak and under threat from Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch and muslims tribes from the south did not want to alienate their datu allies. Rather it was the next generation who had converted to Catholicism and integrated the values of Christianity taught by the church that had resulted in the freeing of slaves.

"Of course for the Timawa the implication was not good, they had become the lowest class and lost prestige. In fact by the 17th century the word timawa is no longer associated with being free or freedom, something positive, but with being destitute, poor, and always hungry. Today no one wants to be called timawa, because it has been equated with being a slave rather than being free. But as late as 1896 during the Philippine revolution Andres Bonifacio used it in his poem to mean free. Later on they would coin the new word malaya (free) to avoid the negative connotations of the word timawa.

"The datus did not go unscathed by the freeing of the slaves. The power of the datus in the 16th century was based on slavery. The slaves did the extra farm work that provided more crops and they served as rowers in the balangay boat for warfare. Without the slaves the datus lost prestige, wealth and military power. Later on we will talk about how the Spaniards substituted other institutions for datus to remain higher than the timawas."

Who were the datus and what were their perks and privileges? In much of the Philippines, the datus were the political leaders and the owners of vast farms, called the bukid or kabukiran. They owned many slaves, which were differentiated according to whether they lived in their own houses (namamahay) or lived in makeshift shelters on the grounds of the datus' houses (sagigilids).

Because the Catholic Church forbade slavery in the 17th century, the slaves were technically freed from bondage and ascended to the status of timawas, free men who were mostly poor but who counted among them some rich families who excelled in commerce. The datus technically no longer had slaves (alipins) but in practice still had them because the people who owed them money had to repay them through involuntary servitude.

The Spaniards were not willing to cross the datus because they needed those datus as allies against foreign invaders such as the notorious Chinese bandit, Limahong. This was the reason slavery persisted even after the Catholic Church mandated the abolition of slavery in the Philippines and other Spanish colonies.

The alipins, as an institution in the Philippines' social structure, have been formally absent since the 17th century, but in reality many Filipinos functioned as alipins until the the Land Reform Act in the 1960s was passed. Prior to Land Reform, many tenants of the biggest landlords were virtual slaves, working off debts to the landlords - for medicines, for rice seeds (palay), for operating capital for their small farms.

Until political correctness became fashionable, the treatment of housemaids and houseboys in the Philippines hearkened back to that earlier period in the country's history, when whole generations of pre-Spanish "Filipinos" were functioning as slaves.

The Spaniards as a ruling class have of course disappeared. They have been absorbed into the great mass of educated elites. Economically, the rich Chinese have replaced the Spaniards. Unlike the Spaniards, the Chinese tend to be as pliant and adaptable as the bamboo and have blended seamlessly into Philippine society. The Chinese are rich and powerful, but they are decidedly Filipino. They have never once hinted that they are superior to the local population the way the Spaniards saw themselves as being.

Going back to Philippine slaves. Slavery in the Philippines still exists today in the Filipino people's psyche. Many of the dirt poor people in the provinces behave as though their rich, landed patrons owned them.

The quality of Philippine democracy rests on the backs of people who have never known true independence and freedom. The masses who vote in Philippine elections - most Filpinos who are of voting age vote - are not voting their consciences but are voting choices dictated by their patrons and virtual masters.

This is how the powerful in the country retain power. The rich and influential people align themselves with their chosen candidates and generally deliver the votes in their spheres of influence.

The leftists in the 60s referred to Philippine democracy as de-mock-cracy. It was and still is a mockery, since most people in the provinces who cast their votes are not casting votes for their choices. They are mere clones of their patrons at the voting booths.

People talk about the utang na loob institution. Add to that the slave complex as a social institution.

The few who rule over the local economies and the local corridors of power are allowed to choose their candidates, while the great mass of the people echo those choices. This is why there are so many political dynasties in the Philippines. It is an important reason why the same people keep running and winning political offices in the Philippines, regardless of their abysmal records of service. Known jueteng and drug lords continue to be re-elected. It's always the same families, the same political groups, the same corrupt politicians that keep winning political offices there.

The rich and powerful decide who should retain or ascend to political power, while the great mass of political slaves make sure that the will of the rich and powerful is enforced in the ballot box.

The obvious question from all this discussion is this: if the great mass of voters in the Philippines act as ideological slaves of their padrinos (patrons) and not as independent agents who vote their consciences and according to their own ideologies and convictions, is true democracy possible in the Philippines?

Would the Philippines not be better off under the rule of a benevolent dictator? True, we tried this with Marcos and were greatly disappointed. Marcos was, in the language of today's youth, a bad, mean dude, but not every man or woman in the Philippines is a potential Marcos. Absolute power need not corrupt absolutely.

If Noynoy does what he promised to do in the campaign and the Philippines becomes a much better place and country, Filipinos should start thinking of keeping Noynoy as president for the long-term. He cannot be a Lee Kwan Yew if his term is limited to six years. The constitution would have to be amended to allow Noynoy to succeed himself for another term and after that for still another term, so don't hold your breath.

So far, Noynoy despite his glaring mistakes in judgment and execution is following through on his promises. The country is becoming stronger economically and slowly gaining admirers as a modern state. The world, especially the U.S., is eating out of Noynoy's hands. If he keeps this up, the country may find itself in its first golden age.

It is beginning to look like the masters and the slaves found someone who would lead the Philippines for the benefit of all, not just the masters. We will watch the developments in the Philippines in the coming months and years while keeping our fingers crossed.

The Estrada-fication of American politics

We all remember former President Joseph "Erap" Estrada, the ninth President of the Republic of the Philippines. He of the famous one-liner, "Bill Clinton gets all the scandals, I get all the girls." Or something to that effect.

He uttered another famous line, this one during his wildly successful campaign for the Philippine presidency in 1998. He said, I'm paraphrasing: "We Filipinos have tried all the brilliant politicians already. All we got out of them were brilliant ways of stealing from the government." Filipinos loved this and elected him in a landslide, with Filipinos largely ignoring the fact that the movie actor Estrada was a high-school dropout whose heroism and love for the common man was on display only in the movies.

What the Philippines got during the three years Estrada sat in power were dumb ways of stealing from the government. His idiotic ways eventually resulted in his resignation from office while the people literally were storming his Palace and he had to flee for his life. Prior to his resignation from office, he had been impeached by the Philippine Congress and he was later convicted of plunder of the Philippine treasury.

He is the only Philippine President who was ever impeached by Congress and charged with the crime of plunder. Even though in comparison to the late Ferdinand Marcos, Estrada's plunder accomplishments were puny. When the dumb steal from the government, they take very little, hoping that their crime will be considered a misdemeanor. Marcos, of course, is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the number one plunderer of government funds of all time, even though Marcos' stolen billions (in dollars) have not been recovered. The late Marcos was brilliant.

But this piece is not about corruption in government, though that is always topic number one whenever people all over the world talk about the Philippines.

I am reminded of Estrada every time I turn on the TV these days. America has made a decisive turn towards philistinism and it's reflected in our politics. The Tea Party is an illustration of this surly and visceral disaffection with cerebral governance and an unabashed embrace of the uneducated leaders of the angry mob.

The mood had been building up over the years. First, we noticed that the brilliant minds in business were using their above average intelligence and Ivy League diplomas to figure out ways to starve the labor movement in America by shipping jobs to foreign countries. Americans were being laid off by the thousands, then by the millions and factories were being opened up in India, China and other foreign countries. It was brilliant, and the multinational companies that shipped jobs overseas were richly rewarded with fantastic stock market successes.

Second, the brilliant and creative Ivy Leaguers in Wall Street securitized worthless mortgages and sold them to the public, to institutions, to banks and other financials, and this led to near-bankruptcy of the the country's financial system.

Third, the brilliant among us figured out ways of spending money that the country did not have, issuing IOUs to China, Saudi Arabia and other countries, effectively mortgaging the future of Americans yet to be born to the tune of $121,000 each. Each future American now owes that amount on the day they are born. They each will be coming into this world $121,000 in the hole.

The collective brains of the best and brightest individuals of this country, it appears to a lot of Americans these days, have been used not to reach for an even higher standard of living for Americans but to squander away the legacy of all our forebears who have built this country into the greatest democratic experiment in the history of man, the most successful social contract ever devised by human beings.

We have tried the brilliant minds among us, they have only led us to the brink. It is time, it seems to try those who are short on intellect but long on passion.

Enter Sarah Palin. This woman, when asked by CBS anchorwoman Katie Couric two years ago what books and magazines she had read, couldn't name one book, or one magazine. She went to four different colleges before earning her four-year college degree. She "wrote" a book that became a best-seller, despite the fact no one in America believes that she was remotely capable of writing a book.

Sarah Palin is America's version of Joseph Estrada. She is the ultimate anti-intellectual. She once claimed that she was qualified to talk about foreign affairs because she could see Russia from her front steps. She therefore was qualified to be a heartbeat away from the U.S. Presidency.

Her political soul-mates, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck of Fox News are all anti-intellectual clowns and buffoons, reminiscent of Joseph Estrada, the clown and buffoon of Philippine politics.

There is a viscerally anti-intellectual movement in this country - "The Harvard guys and gals have sold this country to the Chinese" - and it is evident in the rip-roaring sucess of the Tea Party movement.

Tea Party activists have sucked out all the oxygen from all other movements in this country. Such as the labor movement which is infinitely much more justified in crying foul after most manufacturing and back office jobs in America have been shipped to other countries. Only the Tea Party activists are being heard from these days. The insurgent youth in America, who swept Barack Obama into the presidency in 2008, are beleaguered. They are leaderless, they are dispersed, they are busy sending out resumes because the only jobs they can find after graduating from the most expensive U.S. colleges are as car wash attendants. There is a long line of applicants for every waiter and waitressing job in America's hotels, casinos and restaurants.

Only the Tea Party activists and radicals can find the time and do have the resources to march in the streets. These activists are mainly seniors and older Americans who have already built their nest eggs. That is why the only placards you see on TV these days are those comparing Obama to Hitler, those that declare Obama is a secret Muslim, those that claim Obama was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.

They are all angry at Obama, ignoring the fact that Obama has been able to turn the country around after Bush and the Republicans had taken it to the edge of the ravine. Why hasn't Obama restored the country to its pre-eminent economic position in the world after 19 months in office, they scream. He's had 19 months, why hasn't he done anything, they cry. They ignore the fact that the economic decline of America was years - decades - in the making and that the irresponsible deficit spending in the Bush years finally brought the country to virtual bankruptcy.

The leaders who are coming out of the Tea Party movement and who are being installed as the hot new leaders of the Republican Party are all anti-intellectual anti-heroes. Christine O'Donnell, who won the Republican primary for senator in Delaware, just recently graduated from college, despite the fact that she had been claiming for years that she was a college graduate. She apparently has dabbled in witchcraft and may have committed criminal offenses in the past, using campaign contributions to pay her rent and her many personal bills.

None of this matters to Tea Party activists who are fed up with the squeaky-clean, academically qualified and golden-resumed politicians. The Tea Party activists will embrace the passion of charismatic leaders like Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin, as long as they share the American people's revulsion for the bright boys and bright girls who have brought America to the brink.

Many American voters have become like the Philippine voters in 1998, when Joseph Estrada ran for president. Americans are fed up with the Ivy Leaguers and the so-called intelligentsia and are now on the verge of handing over the reins of government to the great unwashed, the intellectual peasants, the angry, empty drums that make the loudest noise, even when the noise does not make any sense. Anyone, or anything, as long as it is something that America has not tried or may have long rejected.

Consider what the Tea Party activists who have managed to hijack the Republican Party are promising to do if and when they win control of the U.S. Congress and Senate:

1. They will privatize Social Security, meaning they will invest working people's Social Security contributions in private investment accounts, effectively killing the Social Security program, which takes working people's contributions and gives those contributions to retirees.

2. They will scrap Medicare and Medicaid, which they say the country can no longer afford.

3. They will repeal the Health Care Reform bill that Obama signed into law early this year, effectively returning the country to the old system, when 50 million Americans were uninsured and Americans could be canceled out of health insurance plans when they got sick, or others could be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, including unhealthy babies.

4. They will scrap the Department of Education, letting each state decide on the quality of education that is offered by states to their citizens.

5. They will force the Federal government to balance its books, knowing that the only way to do this is to make drastic cuts in government services and entitlements.

6. They will shut down the Federal government to starve it of funds, if that is the only way to enforce budget cuts.

7. They will make discrimination against minorities legal in private establishments, while continuing to make it illegal in government offices. Restaurants will be allowed to refuse service to people they don't want to serve, even if the restaurant owners are making the decision on the basis of race, sex, age or national origin.

8. They will investigate Obama to find out where he was really born. They refuse to believe that he was born in Hawaii despite the fact that Obama has produced a birth certificate documenting his birth in Hawaii and a newspaper account of his birth 48 years ago.

9. They will pass a law mandating that all candidates for President prove that they are natural-born citizens and a mere birth certificate is not considered proof of this.

10. They will give more tax cuts to the rich - the people who need the least amount of help from the Federal government.

11. They will starve "the Beast," the government that they consider the problem and not the solution. By starving "the Beast" they will assure that the government will not be able to afford to pay for all the entitlements that go to undeserving Americans, especially the unemployed Americans who have been "spoiled" by the system and are not going out and looking for jobs, electing to live off the unemployment compensation that they are getting from the government. The government that continues to pay them for sleeping and goofing off, claim the Tea Party activists.

12. They will apologize to British Petroleum and Big Oil for the government's "excessive" regulations. They will apologize to Big Business for the government's meddling in private business decisions.

13. They will reduce the number of regulations governing business in this country, for they believe in the wisdom of the markets. They believe that the markets are the only reliable source of solutions for whatever ails America.

14. They will display the Ten Commandments in government offices and demand that the country be returned to its Christian roots. They claim that the country was founded on Christian principles and the separation of church and state should never have become a pillar of the social contract.

If you think all or most of these positions are extreme, you are not alone. Most Americans disagree with the Tea Party activists at the very fundamental level. Yet, most Americans seem to think that the situation in this country is so bad, how much worse could it be if the Tea Party activists ascend to power?

Well, they are wrong. The frog found out very quickly what happened when he jumped out from the frying pan into the fire. The Cubans found out quickly that Fidel Castro was not the savior that they had been waiting for. The Germans found out too late that they could not control the Nazis and Hitler by merely surrounding them with normal people.

I am not comparing the Tea Party leaders to Hitler and the Nazis. The metaphor is narrow, applies only to the mistaken notion that it is ok to choose extremist leaders, as long as there are people who can force them to moderate their positions. This, history tells us, is an intellectual chimera. Those who choose to ride the tiger often end up in the belly of the beast.

The Empire Strikes Back

I was sitting in the family room watching a broadcast of commemorations going on all over the U.S. and, the announcers emphasized - all over the world - of the most heinous act of terrorism successfully conducted on U.S. soil. It happened, as we all know, on September 11, 2001.

I immediately was transformed back to that fateful morning - approximately 8:45 a.m. - when I was hurriedly trying to down my coffee while reading the New York Times (or was it the Newark Star-Ledger?) and watching the TV in the kitchen all at the same time. I was multi-tasking.

Suddenly the TV showed the image of one of the twin towers of the World Trade Center with thick billowing smoke coming out of one of the mid-level floors. Shortly after, I saw a plane seemingly going into the other tower and not coming out.

It was the end of the world as I knew it, but I did not know it then.

Now, nine years later, I struggle to find meaning in the event itself and in all the subsequent events that followed as unintended consequences and which have had a profound effect on both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.

To many Muslims, it was as though an asteroid had struck their earth, a dark cloud hangs in the atmosphere, their homes have been shattered and their landscapes have been ruined and perhaps will never be the same.

It is remarkably unfortunate for Iraqis in general because they had nothing to do with 9/11. Darth Vader (Dick Cheney) and his student, George Bush, had decided that it was the Iraqis who must bear the brunt of America's wrath. An enraged Zeus with his thunderbolt must teach man his lessons, and Zeus could pick any man or men to be on the receiving end.

Close to a million Iraqi civilians are dead (the official number is 100,000), more than two million were displaced from their homes, many of them ending up in Syria and Jordan, destabilizing the populations in those countries and straining the infrastructures there to the point of breaking.

Iraqi infrastructure is a mess. There is not enough electricity, there is not enough water, the roads are still dangerous, occasionally patrolled by bombers and snipers.

The Iraqis have been punished hard. And for what? For having been cowered into submission by the tyrant, Saddam Hussein and his two sons. The era of the Husseins ended, and the era of the American bombers began.

Curiously, the Afghans who had cradled the blood-thirsty criminals who were the architects of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, have gotten lighter sentences. Sure, they've been toppled from power, but now the Taliban are in a resurgence and will probably be in charge of Afghanistan once again. At some point in the future, after the Americans leave.

The American invasion of Afghanistan destabilized western Pakistan. The Taliban escaped through the Afghan Alps and into northwestern Pakistan and turned the already-lawless region into a political powderkeg. The Pakistani government no longer controls that huge region and is helpless in the face of the Taliban and their sympathizers' challenge.

Muslim communities in America, in Europe and elsewhere have had the spotlight trained on them and their cultural practices and traditions. Muslims everywhere are being commanded by the host populations to either assimilate into the mainstream cultures or else. The "or else" is deeply disturbing and foreboding, since this usually means harassment, intimidation, hostility and Empire-striking-back terror.

The silver lining in all this is the acceleration of the Muslim march into the 21st century. The de-Muslimization of peoples who either originated from Islamic countries or descendants thereof is continuing and even accelerating, though greatly unnoticed.

To what extent this de-Muslimization will succeed is anybody's guess, of course, because the call of the Muslim prayer is strong, and it is obvious that Muslims are transported back in time through ages to their roots in Iraq and Saudi Arabia every time that call is heard.

It is equally obvious that though many Muslims are trying to assimilate, there is no way of telling which ones are and which ones aren't and which ones still have murder and mayhem in their hearts. The Muslim dress is no longer the tip-off. The 9/11 attackers all wore western clothes. They all mixed in with the general population, drank (which of course is forbidden by their religion) and whored the night before they boarded the ill-fated planes.

And this is the quandary for the side of the American people, the Europeans, Australians, Canadians and people all over the world who are suddenly confronted with the threat of terrorism emanating from the Muslim ghettoes, communities and mosques that are fast sprouting in their cities and countrysides.

With no way of telling which Muslims are becoming like us and which Muslims are rejecting us and are planning our itineraries that must include our reunion with our Maker, we have lumped all Muslims as dangerous, feared and treasonous. Not all of us, for there are many in America who have idealized the freedom of religion and pursuit of happiness clauses embedded in our constitution as their guiding principles and are full-throated defenders of the Muslims in our midst.

And this is the miracle of America and western society in general. Because of our love for our freedoms and our constitutional guarantees of adherence to justice and fairness, we know that there will always be Muslim defenders in our midst and nothing that approximates the Holocaust will ever be visited upon them in America.

Unfortunately, there is countervailing evidence that radical Islam has been bolstered by a bumper-crop of new recruits who live for the jihad that imams everywhere have declared upon the west. At one point, there was a fatwa (a call to assassinate) placed on the president of the United States, George H. W. Bush, Sr. That fatwa may or may not be in effect to this day.

It is this strain of radical Islam that the west has found itself at war with. The struggle may last as long as a hundred years, or it may build up and eventually explode into a conflagration before the end of this century, settling once and for all the question of which civilization shall be pre-eminent in our ever-shrinking world: the Crescent of Saladdin or the Cross of the Templars. Too dramatic? Perhaps. Yet, if you really think about it, the clash of Islam and western civilization was never really settled. Truce was declared, a truce that lasted over centuries. But the hatred, the hostility remains, and, like the coal in the bowels of the mountains of Pennsylvania, continues to burn underground.

Islam, after all, teaches that infidels who are occasions of sin may be killed. And we are, with our modern culture that exploits our women sexually, are occasions of sin. That is why the torturers in Abu Ghraib prison used naked women to insult the Muslim prisoners. Displaying the naked flesh and private parts of women before the prisoners was a form of torture since the Muslims deeply believe it is against their religion to find pleasure in the sight of naked women who are not their wives.

If the Muslims in Abu Ghraib held the guns and not the buards, the Americans there would have died.

This is the world we live in now, nine years after that fateful morning just as American children were starting a new school year. We adults did not know it then, but some radical Muslims were going to take us to school. And our world would never be the same.