All Hail Federer

I've been so busy of late that there has been little chance for me to catch any of the Australia Open. So it was with supreme pleasure that I watched Sunday's Men's Final between Roger Federer and Marcos Baghdatis. I'm a huge fan of sport in general, but tennis holds a special place in my heart - likely because I equate it so much with pitching. I have seem some amazing matches, Grand Slam and otherwise, in my brief tenure. While the Baghdatis and Federer match isn't a classic, hot damn it was good.

Baghdatis actually took the first set from the world's number one, even though it was all down hill from there. Federer claimed the second set and dominated the final two. The match was fantastic for two reasons: 1) Men's tennis desperately needs charasmatic players who are great, and Baghdatis is just that; 2) Federer continued his "poor" Slam and still dominated. 'tis the definition of a champion, winning even with all the odds against you. Roger Federer is an amazing athelete, a superb tennis player, and a nice guy. That's a phrase you don't here in sports often..."nice guy." However, let there be no doubt of how decent a fellow Federer is. Not only did the guy break down whilst accepting the Slam trophy, he seemed as equally touched to be included in the club of very few men who have won three straight Grand Slams.

I'm a sucker for class.

Speaking of class, so many congratualations to Amelia Mauresmo who won the women's championship and actually tried to convince Justine Henin-Hardenne to continue playing the match depsite a severe stomach ailment. There was a great picture I saw up on ESPN of Mauresmo actually sitting beside Henin-Hardenne talking with her, yet I can't seem to find it now. Apparently no one else thinks it's the great shot that I do.

And hey, Martina Hingis is back. Consider this a tentative "yay." I still hold a great deal of animosity for her pathetic performance against Steffi Graf in the 99 French Open. Wikipedia says this: "She then reached the French Open final and was three points away from victory in the second set against Steffi Graf, but ended up losing 4-6, 7-5, 6-2." What it doesn't say is that after Hingis lost those three points in the second set and experienced the better part of an ass-kicking in the third, she gave up. And boo's, they did rain upon her.

Unclassy bitch.

Warning: Morning Wood Ahead

Actually, it's Morningwood for the kids:



Again giving homage to Yahoo! Music. There are a select number of songs that make me spaz. And when I say spaz = giggle, clap my hands, and all around act like the fool of a white man I truly am. Morningwood's "The Nth Degree" spazzes me out.

*snickers*...to the nth degree.

Full disclosure: Author is aware of lameness

Matisyahu

I'm a slut for Yahoo! Music. This is unequivocal. I get free streaming music whilst I'm at school (90% of my current life) that both exposes me to random, punky bands and pop favoraties.

That's right, I'm excited.

*note to the girl, this is a cd.



The song of Matisyahu's I've been listening to for the past few months is "King without a Crown." It's the kind of great song that you buy an album for and hope like hell it isn't the only worthwhile track. You know, if you had money. Damn this secondary education!

Live at Stubbs, if portrayed at all accurately by "King with a Crown," captures an incredible vibe of jazz phunk without delving too much in either. Really fabulous.

And he's a Hasidic Jew.

Singing reggae.

*throws his hands up*

Do you need anything more to convince you? I don't...*becomes distracted by the new Bloodhound Gang song*

Isn't He Lovely?

...there he is
Just a walkin' down the street
Singin'...

...something along the lines of, "Death to God." Is there any doubt that this Luigi Cascioli doesn't live in some type of assisted living? He's so fiesty!

It will be fascinating to watch the progress of the "trial," if it ever gets there.

Yet what is truly interesting to me is the response of the public, specifically the Christian public, to the criminal suit brought against the church for the purported lie of Christ's existence. I went through a brief search of some blogs to try and find out what people were saying. There has been little response so far. Yet what little there is below (in clipped form, highlighting the main message of each):

"It is a real shame and says a lot about the world we live in that this case(?) is even given the 'time of day'... God help us!"
--from Woody's Blog

"As a Christian, I can think of a lot of things that I should do before I die but trying to ‘take down Christ and His Church’ wouldn’t be one of them."
--from CommonSenseAmerica

"It's a sad world we live in. Christians can't afford to stay put in their "comfort zones" any longer."
--from Christians Crawling Out of Their Comfort Zones

"And, at the core of my life, I know that Jesus existed two thousand years ago and now sits enthroned in heaven. I’d be a fool to believe otherwise."
--from Another Man's Meat

Clearly the overarching theme to all of these snippets is this: "Woe is me, being a Christian is so hard! Why can't everyone just believe in Jesus?"

First, if this guy is just trying to clean up the church (balderdash), then I'm all for it. However, if Cascioli strives simply to grind his heel in the name of Christ, that's scary. It is frightening to look on a world that, through subtle or overt means, looks askance at God. This is my view as a Christian. My view as a citizen? Let the guy do as he will. Who cares?

Second, I say who cares because of a simple fact, one intimated absolutely by Christ and then Paul. Fact: being a Christian is hard stuff. That doesn't mean those who call themselves Christians should turn over and let the world slap them around like a Frenchman. No! But neither does it mean professing Christians should attempt to take over the world and forcefeed the Gospel to those who will not profess. That was the falt of the church for 2 millenia. And it remains the falt of the church. Is there any wonder why the world hates those who calls themselves Christians? Christians are hypocritical, do not own up to living in hypocrisy, and show little mercy.

Christ continually says this world is not for the world of the believers - so why do they continually strive to make it their own? I don't say that on a soapbox. But why does the Christian faith demand and battle to force the world around us into its image? That is not God's manadate. His first was for the Jews: one nation. His second is for those who believe: the elect. By defintion of each of those mandates there is exclusion inherent in faith. Some believe, some do not.

Those who profess Christ should, are called to evangelize. I am not arguing against that. But why not strive to evangelize through life and loving words, instead of harsh damnation and judgment? Need I remind that it is God alone who will damn and judge? Never forget that you are Christian. But never forget your humanity. Christ never did, I believe it is why he asked His Father to relent the cup of sacrifice. Christ humbled Himself. Why do those who profess to follow him refuse to do the same?

Stand against Luigi Cascioli. Stand with him. But for God's sake, remember that Christ's kingdom is apart from this earth. Don't try and do Him any favors by fighting battles that, I assure you, He can handle.

Can You Hear Me Now?

This image has been floating everywhere it seems. While I do images sparely, I thought this introduced the subject well enough.


Senator John McCain said this when asked about the debacle concerning the NSA and domestic spying and whether or not the law was broken: "I don't know. I want to be perfectly clear. I don't know the answer. That's why I welcome the hearings."

Good man. I appreciate his candor and, I hope, heartfelt willingness to find out the truth. Of course, there are quite a number of people telling us what that truth is. There is so little absolute truth in the midst of personal opinion, but surely the greater truth can be found so that instead of talking, spinning heads, there would exist something to righteously affect.

I don't believe the entirety of Ben Franklin's quotation showcased in the picture at the top doesn't inherently change what the students intended to say. However, I do consider important that Franklin qualified himself:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

There is little doubt, I think, concerning the illegality of the President's actions in pure philosophical terms. Yet a man cannot live on philosophy alone. Neither apart from, nor alone. I think the clarification of what Ben Franklin wrote establishes the reality in the midst of the philosophy, or the philosophy in the midst of reality - your pick. We cannot abandon forsaking the ideal of freedom and privacy, yet neither can we abandon the stark reality of world that is unquestionably grey. If we abandon the philosophy and ideals, savagery and chaos will reign. And if we deny the reality of our world, we similarly deny ourselves the opportunity to defend against the savagery.

There must be some balance point.

"Blood Eagle?" Yes, Please!

I am thrilled to announce that the final of the "Cambridge Friends" - ala the "Super Friends" or the "Pound Puppies" - has whored himself out to the blogosphere! Yes, people, Andrew has come! Most especially satisfying is that now I will be able to catch up more often as...much to my shame...I suck at e-mail.

Andrew's new blog Getting Medieval is now gloriously linked for...well...the 6 people who read this here blog. Andrew, it's fantastic (I'm learning I'm susceptible to a great deal of hyperbole. There! I did it again!) to have you around. I hope we make up for lost time.

For Andrew and anyone else who excessively worries, fear not! I am not jumping on any bandwagon, steel or otherwise. I still cry little tears of blue & white for my ousted Colts. However, I recognize how good the Steelers team is and in the upcoming game, I favor them. And dude, who doesn't want to see Jerome Bettis win a Superbowl in his last game. That's gold, baby, gold!

Under Pressure!

Listening to the radio today I heard yet again the great cover of Under Pressure and had to express my joy. Freddie Mercury and David Bowie sang together on the brilliant song, and now The Used and My Chemical Romance have done the same on a very servicable cover. They do not shame, and for that we sing hallelujah! Romance and The Used released the song in April of last year, I believe for the Tsunamia aid fund. I had heard snippets of it but lately, through the utter usefulness of Yahoo's internet stream, I've been able to latch onto an Alt Rock channel that gives me much goodness, including the Pressure cover.

Immediately following Under Pressure came The Mars Volta's L'Via L'Viaquez from their album Frances the Mute. L'Viaquez the most interesting song I've heard in quite a while. Very....excellent. I'm always delighted when it tickles my ears.

Did Jesus Really Exist?

(*Shakes his ass to Gorillaz's 'Dare'*)

CNN chronicled a recent suit brought up in an Italian court. The suit, filed by Luigi Cascioli, is against a local priest who claimed in a church bulletin that "Jesus did indeed exist." Casciolli's suit claims that the Catholic church, via explicitly implicating the Rev. Enrico Righi, 1) fraudulently deceived people and 2) made financial gains by attributing a false name to someone.

Of course that someone is Jesus Christ or, as Cascioli believes, John of "some place in Palestine."

Interesting.

Cascioli wants to "denounce the abuse that the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige in order to inculcate...facts that are really just inventions."

...fascinating. While I don't think the facts (or some or most of them....at least a few) that the Catholic Church spews out are inventions, I'm behind the guy's intentions. You know, somewhat. Hell, all the way. The church sucks and does nothing for me (so I would imagine God might not find it altogether pleasing).

"We aren't optimistic -- unless the Madonna makes a miracle, but I don't think that will happen," Cascioli joked.

I can always get behind a good Madonna joke.

"Cascioli says he is merely going through the necessary legal steps in Italy so he can ultimately take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights, where he intends to pursue the case against the church for 'religious racism.'"

Now this, this is the crux of the article to me. The church as an institution is corrupt and decrepit, yet still wields amazing power over the masses. I would love to see the church held accountable for the uncountable abuses it perverts against those that love it. And singling out Christ as the lie that the church has perpetuated in order to abuse is an incredible way of seeking such accountability. Of course, I doubt the guy has much of a chance and sadly the focus (if there is any) on the trial will be about the fellow's denyng the existence of Jesus and not the atrocities of the church.

Though, perhaps a much more interesting way of changing the church's faults would be to reform it. But I'm sure that's just much too complicated for anyone to consider.

"I was born against Christ and God," he said. "I'm doing it (the complaint) now because I should do it before I die."

The quotation above confused me for a moment. The article spends almost the entirety of its length focusing on Cascioli's words against the church as an institution. He even goes so far as to say he has no problem with Christians professing their faith. And yet he ultimately equates the church and God, instead of continuing the previous statements about attacking the corruption of the church.

Of course, as I think of it, God in the eyes of an atheist is nothing more than a creation of man. Therefore the logic of the Cascioli's final words doesn't fail. In fact, it makes perfect sense. Cascioli equates the man-driven church as an evil, deceiving institution because it reaps money from those convinced to believe in Christ. And similarly, he equates God and man, the former being a construction of the latter to serve as the reason for all that happens in an inexplicable world. And thus, God is evil for deceiving everyone about himself.

The bastard.

Well, if you were an atheist.

Divine Steel

What a fantastic Sunday for football!

The Steelers continued their immaculate run with a deciding win against the Broncos and the Seahawks kicked Carolina from goal post to goal post. I was amazed to see the deserving team walk off the field the victor, in each case. Not to say that doesn't happen, but hot damn, if it wasn't a great exclamation point!

I love the Colts, unequivocally. But there's one thing I love more, those deserving to win winning. And the Steelers, hot tamale, they've waited for this a long damn time. I hope to soon say that about the Colts, but this was not their year. It was the year of Jerome Bettis and Bill Cower, Big Ben and Hines Ward and Troy Polamalu. I truly can't fathom a more deserving team winning the Superbowl. Uh...yeah, who cares about the next few weeks, they've won the Superbowl.

Nothing taking away from the Seahawks, but the minute, yea even second the Colts lost the chance to tie the game with the Steelers last weekend, I threw my hands up and I declared the Steelers Superbowl champions. That said, Mike Holmgren and his strong, stolid Seahawks will put up an amazing fight. I think this will be the most exciting Superbowl I've seen, ever. Two great quarterbacks, two great runningbacks, and two fantastic coaches. Yet, nomatter how decent the Seahawks are, they cannot fight destiny.

And gosh darn it, the Steelers got them some destiny! I remember when Bill Cower was clinging to his job. I remember the constant talk of retirement from Jerome Bettis in the past 3 years. But then I remember, too, the sudden emergence of Big Ben, the resurgence of Jerome Bettis, and the RETURN of the Steel Curtain in the existential form of the "Hairy One."

I wish I could watch this Superbowl 40 with the girl. I'm sad I can't. I just hope we get another classic like this in the next few years so I can show her the true climax of sports.

I'm so excited. (And so freakin' pumped the Panthers lost!)

That's Just Wrong

This night, coming home from some errands, I heard the first chords of Queen's classic "We Will Rock You." Naturally, I turned the volume all the way, ready to rock out and purposefully delay my arrival home (which I was just 30 seconds away from) in order to fully experience the glories of the song.

But....no.

Apparently, it some bastardization of "Rock You" will various lyrics celebrating the Carolina Panthers' trip to the NFC Championship game. Never mind that they're going to lose.

And! Never mind that you....Just. Don't. Fuck. With. Queen.

Oh, Freddie. What is the world coming to?

Hip Hop To The Hippity Hop

Amazing things happen when one walks. I'm not talking about the walks we all exprience throughout the day, walks that are hurried and rushed with the sole purpose of getting where we need to get. A walk is the antithesis of all the the hurry and rush that so pervades every day. I have thankfully been able to reclaim my devotion to this incredibly satisfying ambulatory motion. You see, having a car die on you isn't the worst thing in the world. While the sad death might throw the ultimate monkey wrench into plans to go to Italy, it emphasizes the need to cover short distances in other, exciting and less propelling ways.

Thus, to get to school I now walk. The distance I have to cover is about a mile to a mile and a half. So unless I'm really kickin' it up a notch, I saunter into Winthrop about 35 minutes after starting the journey.

I might have chosen a bicycle, unicycle, tricycle, skateboard, or a unicorn. But no, friends, I chose my feet. Though one of my feet has been rebellious over the past 6 months, the other has been perfectly reasonable and maintained a level head when others would have cracked. And, joyfully, the rebel foot has begun at long last to cool its heated head. So, I treat my feet and myself almost every morning to a walk of longish proportions.

I enjoy it. Immensely. Life is so tense, terse, and knotted that I relish the chance to not think. Not thinking is a big part of my life. I really don't or try not to do it much - think, that is. For when I do think, my mind seems to morph into a tornado. It's a rare thing for me to think of but one matter, satisfied with one portion of my mind covered for the moment. Rather, when one thought enters into my head, about four hundred and fifty-nine seem to follow. The thoughts don't overwhelm me, the multitude is rather comforting. But, such a mass of thoughts can make thought, even the most mundane thought, an intense and tiring experience. Hence my enjoyment of not thinking - or, in other words, my enjoyment of putting myself into a space of time where thoughts may come and go and have no order. I think it's the order and disorder of thoughts that gets to me.

Suffice to say, when a long walk stretches before me, it is as if a long avenue of peace also precedes before my mind. I have taken to praying at various points during my walk as it is one of the few times in my day I have to myself. I'd like to find the time elsewhere to pray: not only so I can focus on the prayer instead of being slightly distracted by all the shiny things around me, but also so I focus on being distracted and let my mind wander. I listen while I walk. To myself. To the words of others...actual people, don't you know. And to the world around me: the cars, the wind. What an amazing thing it is to just listen to all that could wash over you.

It is the thing I miss most about pitching (was a baseball pitcher for still the majority of my life...I'm still striving to make that was turn to is) - the isolation of self. However, surely you can see that it is not isolation just for the sake of isolation. I speak of isolation in order to foster a more receptive awareness -- isolate in order to open.

I used to walk to school when I was in middle school. And now I come to it again in my last semester of undergraduate work. Funny, the situations that surrounded both periods of time are somewhat similar. I hadn't thought of that before.

Walk, if you can. Or do something superbly isolating so you can see the world around you better. Of course, this might just be something peculair to me.

Reminder: if you walk, I guarantee you'll never run into one of these monsters. There is no such safeguard if you insist on driving piddly distances - at least, I don't know of one.

Gitofmibut: Para Jared

Yes, Jared, I finally read your Dante paper and was thoroughly delighted. As you can see, I was most impressed with Gitofmibut, the 5th Highway of Hell.

Though, I have to admit this. When I read your description of the 6th Highway and what I read to be "little Naufftus'," I immediately thought of two things: the fake oompa loompas from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the tiny Bruce Campbell from Evil Dead. Very, very freaky and funny. I commend you for inspiring the memory.

Now that there's some spiffy writing.

A King's Immaturity

This past Friday I had the happy opportunity of seeing King Kong with some friends from school. While it is indeed hard to not see every movie on its first weekend of wide release, I have been able to salve my complaint with good friends to surround me. That said, I was disappointed with Kong. Surprisingly, I found it to be an exercise in immature filmmaking.

Now, I think King Kong is a good, solid film. Peter Jackson created a wonderful world which I loved exploring. However, I was expecting an immense film, full of the wonder and humanity that pervaded the Lord of the Rings. What I was left with was a film that felt like it was made by a talented 20 year old.

The shocking aspect of Jackson's Kong was his seeming inability to trust himself. Throughout the entirety of the picture, I got the impression that Jackson felt he was remaking God Himself as he remade the '33 Kong. I love the 1933 version, but it isn't the holy grail. However, Jackson seemed to treat it as precious as an orgasm, hell bent on doing everything in his power to hit the magic spot. And all he did was create a little chaffing along with the good, if underwhelming, sensations.

There is one scene in Kong that encapsulates what I believe to be Jackson's immature handling of the camera on this film. That scene is the reunion of Kong and Anne, wonderfully poignant and heartfelt...for the first 10 seconds. The subsequent 30 seconds of continued and repeated medium/close shots of both Kong and Anne's moist eyes does nothing but undercut the emotion and investment that Jackson built up to this pivotal moment. What a shocking travesty! I don't meant that to be hyperbole, I truly am shocked by Jackson's cut of King Kong. As I told the girl, it felt like Peter Jackson had no confidence in his ability behind the camera and tried too hard. I look forward to seeing if a director's edit of Kong will turn out to be much shorter than the theatrical cut.

*All that said, I am amazed by King Kong, just Kong. The work by Andy Serkis is phenomenal and yet again I clamor for a special Oscar for this fantastic actor. I am a fan of animals and the character they shine forth. And Kong did that! I saw, understood, and loved the character of King Kong. Brilliant work with such an amazing presence. Exaggeration be damned.

Say It Ain't So!

I fell off my sofa last night. No, I really didn't fall, I leaped. Catapulted might even be a better word. Why? Perhaps because of the single most exciting football play I've seen in my life.

Nick Harper picked up Jerome Bettis' improbable fumble at the Colts' two-yard line with 1:20 left that would have finally given the Colts the lead.

Key phrase: would have.

But the bastard cut inside! Why didn't he cut outside and avoid every single Steelers' players ahead of him? Maybe the knife wound Harper's wife gave him the night before had something to do with it. Either way, Harper's failed touchdown run set up yet another failed Peyton Manning drive.

Oh, what a game! What a game, what a game, what a game - as it should have been. The Indianapolis Colts versus the Pittsburg Steelers is always a great game. The Steelers came out with everything, guns blazing and pounding away. And the Colts. Well, the Colts looked like the Detroit Lions, and there is no greater insult. There is no team I love more than the Colts. And there is no quarterback I root for more than Peyton Manning. Yet all the love in the world doesn't account for the lack of physicality in the Colts offense and defense.

For me, the divine evidence over the past few years of their weakness was their inability to pound it through on a goal line offensive stand. Improbably, they seemed to be changing that this year. The Colts got a lot more aggresive on the defense, where it all counts. And yet, their key problem still remains. The Colts are a SMALL team. Their most acclaimed open field defensive man is 5'8", and even that might be stretching it. Peyton Manning stands a towering 6'5" but is the smallest tall man you'll ever see. And their great, great wide receiver, Marvin Harrisson, is even smaller and more lithe than Jerry Rice...by a lot.

The Colts have everything but teeth.

Once the Steelers stole the game from the Bengals, I knew absolutely that the Colts would go down in flames. Simply because the Steelers are smash mouth football, and if you smash the Colts too much, they go lame.

Peyton Manning will never win a Superbowl unless he bulks up and becomes as good a leader as he is a quarterback. This Colts team should be a dynasty, and it's a crying shame that it isn't. Amazing that Tony Dungy, known for his defense, is stuck in a hell where he is defined by his offense. Find the men, Tony, and demand that Peyton become man enough to make a run of 8 superbowl wins. I firmly believe the team is capable of it.

Capable, though. We're all capable of a lot. It's the few among who turn what they are capable of into reality. And that is why the Pittsburg Steelers will be the new World Champions.

My Funny lil' Robertson

I honestly don't know what to think of Pat Robertson's recent outburst. Correction: I know what to immediately think, but I'm just not sure where his words are coming from. Obviously he can either be the guy that truly believes he is the voice of God or is just saying what he can to get himself into the headlines. I mean, the fellow did run for Presidential canidacy on the Republican ticket. So I imagine there's a bit of both supporting the candor of his speech. Regardless, I wish the man would just shut up. I know full well what it means to be an evangelical Christian, and it does not mean being a belligerent, confrontational prick - something Pattie is embracing a bit too much lately.

Robertson claimed that Ariel Sharon's illness (and Yitzhak Rabin's death) was possibly "retribution" from God for attempting to divide the "Holy Land." Now, Robertson has since apologized for his words. We shouldn't ignore his contrition, it's a great thing. (If only he had been so contrite with his other words about the coming damnation of God upon the people of Pennsylvania for a collective state - secular - decision.) However, we cannot ignore Robertson's initial words if only because they reveal a frightening trend within the depths of those who hold the Christian voice.

The profound egotism of such comments, that not only declare but go into detail with foreseen punishment of God quite outside any realistic remnant of the prophetic scriptures, is frightening. I've already said much enough about Roberts in a previous delineation, but it is fundamentally important that such a man not be the voice of Christians in this nation or any other. (I have a bit of a problem with Christians having a voice anyway, as if they're some type of political/voting bloc waiting to be exploited...oh...wait...)

There has been outrage over Robertson's latest words: from other Christian groups, the White House, and Israel. I expected all three, though I was surprised (if only by precedence) by the presence of a Christian voice in opposition of Robertson's. Good! Great! While I don't delude myself to believe that such opposition marks a beginning of ephasized humility by Christian leaders, I'm thankful that a few men see the despicable nature of Mr. Pat's (clear Happy Days' reference please) words - even if they only recognize and come out against those words because of 3rd party reaction. It's something, if pathetically little.

Something is something.

Why Do They Always Send the Poor

So says the glorious System of a Down:

"Why do they always send the poor?
Why don't presidents fight the war?

Why do they always send the poor?
Why don't presidents fight the war?"

Whilst I greatly love System's BYOB from Mesmerize, I have always considered the refrain quoted above to be one of the most ignorant statements I've heard in song. (Ignorant statements in a song, that is, from one of the most intelligent bands.) Without fault I answer the question posited about the poor with, "because it's the poor who are in the armed forces." Simple, case closed...no shit, Sherlock. Yet the girl questioned that sentiment. ...so, considering her words generally mean most of everything to me, I want to explore my response to System's refrain. I'm going to ignore the prescribed inspiration for BYOB and focus, rather, on the general response that System of a Down gives to said (un-said) inspiration. The response is nothing new and has been around since the days of the Civil War draft when Lincoln ordered the Navy to fire on NYC because the City's citizens rioted against forced "incarceration." However, the response still rings true today. Why?

First, let's get rid of an argument that just came into my mind last night. Is there any need for the armed services? Perhaps the best answer would be, "Yes, dude, because people are fucked up." A more intelligent response would be strikingly like unto the previous statement. Even though we "appear" to be growing more and more towards a society of enlightened gals and fellows, progressivism in no way affects crime and aggression. To qualify: if there are any overt affectations, they result only from altered roles -- crime and aggression becoming what it was not before. For this reason, the existence of perversions of law demands the existence of the pigs...*coughs*...sorry, police. So, police govern or protect a society's provisions of law both for and despite its citizens. So likewise, it makes sense to draw a bridge connecting a society's police to its military. The military of any nation exists to either defend or extend the nation's sybolic or physical influence, replacing citizens with nations. It's therefore logical to support a nation's international sovereignty just as much as domestic sovereignty. But of course then you get into good, wrong and Axical uses of such sovereignty...which the UN can do nothing about. So such is for another time of discussion.

(Yet, for a sedgeway, let me declare that the one thing I hate Teddy R. for is his "big stick" metaphor. I fully support America exerting itself, in the "good" way, in its most significant realm of influence, ie the Americas. That's it. All else must be conducted within a conglomeration -- notice how deftly I avoided using the word coalition -- of concerned and affected parties.)

Then, should we accept the military, who makes up the armed forces? Obviously we're talking about U.S. forces - army, navy, marines, air force, and specifically the non-officers: the blue collar of the military world, if you will. So who are the men and women that don the uniforms of defense and green/blue/cammo? Anyone and everyone would be the simplest and most accurate answer. The military is fantastic for two reasons. The first is that it offers to pay your way through secondary schooling, something even most state schools are failing to offer now. The second is it offers specific job training within a realm of discipline and order, an amazing promise, though surely faulty, in such a world as this. Pretty decent setup for those who might not have many promises or much of a future without help. And I think this is the essential point when thinking of who is in the military -- those who have little opportunity otherwise. Such a description does not encapsulate all, to be sure, but I think it covers a grand majority of those in the military. Of course - I think, therefore I might be wrong.

Is this good? Is this right? That was, essentially, the prompting of the girl. Well, it certainly is the situation. I can really think of no other way to accomplish the existence of a substantial all-volunteer armed force, unless one wanted to suggest the use of conscription. And while I sometimes toy with the value of conscription for two years for youth (ala Israel and...maybe Sweden?), that ain't gonna happen. So how else do we create and maintain an all-volunteer force? We need the force, we won't conscript its members, so where are we left? It is an honest question which undoubtedly falls within the same realm of how in the hell do we entice more, better teachers into our schools. The military offers incentives and schools offer inadequacy. Hey, but at least you won't die in the classroom! Oh...wait.

Anyway, as the system is, the majority of our military is a certain type of person. That person is, in the most general of ways, referred to as "poor." Using this terminology, the poor make up our military and the poor fight our wars, fights, and bar scuffles. Thus to answer System of a Down's oft-repeated question, "'cause they are the military!"

If there were a draft filling up the depleted ranks of the service, then the question of the massive presence of the poor would be incredibly poignant. Just as it was during Vietnam. Yet this isn't Vietnam and the question isn't all that poignant.

While I love the song BYOB and I adore System of a Down, this specific refrain is a very sloppy anti-war statement. The lyrics are delightfully catchy and socially charged but, in this instance, with little purpose in reality. And for a band who told us civilization was dead, I expected a hell of a lot more.