Hate the ultimate irony with Confederate flag

I read an article on msn.com about the black Confederate flag supporter in Mississippi who was recently killed in an automobile crash. His death, and the accident, are currently under investigation for possible foul play. There is suspicion that he may have been deliberately run off the road (1) because he was black, and (2) because he was a supporter of the Confederate Battle Flag (CBF).

Anthony Hervey, 49, had been well known for years around his hometown of Oxford, Mississippi, as a supporter of the CBF. His support for this well-publicized symbol of racism and hatred was to honor the memory of the black soldiers who served in uniform for the Confederacy during the American Civil War (ACW).

Granted, there weren't that many, but the fact is they did exist. Whether they fought conscripted as slaves or as free blacks is moot retrospective of the fact that they did serve, fight, and some died in service to the flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA).

Hervey was among the few who appreciated this, and his dedication to the memory of the fallen unfortunately seemed to earn him a death sentence in the hysteria following the racially motivated church shooting in South Carolina.

Just because one young wacko looked at the Confederate flag as motivation to do what he did doesn't mean every white person in the South sees the CBF in the same manner.

And in Hervey's case, certainly not everyone in the South has a racist view of the battle flag, either.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, an historical non-profit organization honoring the Southern veterans of the ACW and their descendants, has repeatedly defended the CBF being flown to show respect for the memory of the hundreds of thousands of men who served, fought and died for the CSA during the Civil War.

For these folks, and for Hervey, the CBF does not represent something hateful. It is history, and like it or not, many honest, good, hard-working Americans served in Confederate gray just as they did for Union blue.

These men served, fought and died for a variety of reasons; much of which had little or nothing to do with the preservation of the slavery institution.

Many Southern soldiers fought simply because it was expected of them. Going to war was a matter of honor, and of family pride, because their fathers, sons, uncles, brothers, nephews, cousins and neighbors signed up, so it was only right to sign up, too.

Others fought because they truly believed that their rights and their land—the sum of earthly possessions which any poor Southern had in this world—were being threatened. True or false, this motivated many poor Southern whites to enlist. The last thing they wanted to see was a massive blue army march across their fields, sack their farms, and seize all that they had.

And, let's be realistic: Most Southerners at the time were poor, or at least what one might deem lower middle class in today's economy. They even didn't own slaves, so the notion of fighting to keep slave property was moot. In fact, only a quarter or less of Southern whites in the CSA owned even a single slave.

I cannot find fault with the average soldier or sailor in the Confederate military any more than I can find fault with the average German enlistee that served his country during World War II. The average German warrior wasn't behind the grievous war crimes that his government had orchestrated. He was a soldier, a sailor, an airman who followed his orders and did his duty.

Likewise, the average Confederate warrior wasn't trying to proliferate the institution of slavery and spread racial hatred. He was a soldier, a sailor who followed his orders and did his duty.

There has got to be a reasonable and honorable way to respect their sacrifices and service for a country in which they enlisted to defend.

Why is the CBF considered such an unreasonable and irrational means of honoring the fighting man of the Confederacy during the ACW?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if we are going to react in knee-jerk fashion over the detestable action of one maniac with a gun by demanding that an entire symbol receive censorship, then we logically need to look at whether or not censoring the American flag and its precedents is appropriate.

More human atrocities in our nation's history have occurred under the folds of the "Stars and Stripes" than anything ever done under the auspices of the CBF. Just ask the Cherokee Nation, the Cheyennes, the Sioux, and numerous other American Indian tribes who were starved into submission, forced from their lands onto reservations, and often times killed without much of a reason.

But we still honor the flag of the troopers who faithfully carried out their orders at places like Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.

How about the atrocities committed against native Filipinos when the United States occupied The Phillipines Islands in 1903?

Or worse, how about America's own founding Constitution, which legally sanctioned slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment was finally ratified into law on December 6, 1865? This, by comparison, occurred nearly two years after the United States declared slavery illegal in the Southern states of the CSA. Slavery remained legal in states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland (the Border States) until December 1865. The war had been over for over seven months before slavery was abolished throughout the country.

From the end of the American Revolution through the end of the American Civil War, the United States of America kept slavery legal for over eighty years.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, too, right?

I mean, if we are going to argue that the CBF should be censored because it is a symbol of racism and racial hatred, then can we not make a similar parallel to the United States flag?

I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't support censoring any political flag of our nation's history, because it is history. Our country, and its states, have made mistakes over the years. And, they have taken steps to correct those mistakes and improve the condition of their people.

Is it too much to ask that we finally forgive the South for its wrongs? Is it too much to ask that we look at the bigger picture and what has been done right since then?

I am so sick of this idiotic and shallow notion that censoring a flag is going to make people feel better about what happened in South Carolina. It's not. All it seems to do is make people feel worse, and cause more tension between one another.

When I read the story about Anthony Hervey, I was glad to know that someone and something had the courage to print the story and present a different side than what we have been barraged with over the past month by the mainstream press.

It is maddening that the only places I read about Hervey is on more obscure news web sites. None of the mainstream broadcast or print media seems particularly interested in really investigating this story. Oh, they gave Hervey’s death some attention, but there has been nothing in-depth or investigative like their stories about why the Confederate flag is offensive. There have been no stories and no commentary asking whether or not Hervey had a point in his defense of the CBF, and whether or not mainstream public reaction might have gotten a little too extreme.

Unfortunately, the mainstream press has as much of an agenda as the politicians calling for an end to the CBF. Stories that pit people against each other sell papers, air time, and space. And stories that tend to fan the flames of anger sell big, too.

Stories that quench the fires of rage don't sell well. Stories that make us pause from our yelling and screaming aren't popular, either. Only stories that feed our appetites for hate seem to get the most attention in the news.

That perhaps is the ultimate irony in this case.

Trump should stick to his hair

If 2016 GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump would spend the time on his words the way his personal hair stylists spend perfecting his coif, he may not be so reckless with his mouth. If he was more considerate in thought and in speech, he probably wouldn't find himself in hot water right now over the comments he made about U.S. Sen. John McCain.

But that isn't The Donald's style. He likes being controversial. It's what gives him headlines, and that is really what Trump has been all about. Whether it was the highly publicized tabloid split with his ex, Ivana, back in the nineties, or the hype over his "apprentice" reality television show, or recent comments he made targeting John McCain, Donald Trump is a guy who lives for headlines. His own.

He revels in notoriety, good or bad. It doesn't matter to The Donald, because all of his money, fame and influence sort of make him feel as though he is above any sort of collateral damage. He doesn't concern himself with slander or libel, because he can settle out of court quicker than you and I can fill our order at the fast-food window. He doesn't care if he is offensive to others, because many more people grovel at his feet for a tiny little drop of his money.

When Trump announced he was running for POTUS, my concern from the very beginning has been his recklessness. He wields his mouth the way he does his money, fame, influence and power; wherever, whenever and however he can stick it. Forget about what he should or shouldn't do. Rules don't apply to The Donald, because he makes the rules; he doesn't need to follow them.

In my opinion, Trump is the GOP equivalent of Joe Biden, who has his own issues with foot in the mouth disease. I worry every time Biden opens his mouth, even if it is just to suck in some air. Likewise, I cringe when Trump parts his lips. One just doesn't know what future headline is going to come out.

We shouldn't get stuck with a president who's got more in common with P.T. Barnum than Abraham Lincoln. Trump is a showman, a showboat who is all about self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. The camera is meant to showcase him, and he craves it the way Hillary Clinton covets the Oval Office. With a passion.

I will be shocked if Trump is still in the race seven or eight months from now. I forecast that he won't be a factor after the first few caucuses and primaries. And, frankly, the end can't come soon enough for me.

What's with the Patriots?

I don't understand the New England Patriots.

How could one of the most successful franchises in professional sports be involved in so much controversy?

First it was "Spy Gate." You may recall the Patriots were found to be cheating when they were caught spying on the sidelines of the New York Jets. The event was so pointless, one wonders what in the heck Bill Belichik and company were thinking? It wasn't as though the Jets were a heavy favorite.

Actually, the Patriots were. And, New England ended up beating the Jets handily in spite of its nefarious spy tactics.

So, the ball club got itself into trouble over nothing at all.

In fact, the Patriots went undefeated that season until being clipped in the Super Bowl by, ironically, another team from New York. I felt it was poetic justice for the New England Patriots to get beat in the championship game by a team that shared its home with the club that was cheated on.

I was so relieved that the 1972 Miami Dolphins preserved their one unique perfect season; the only one in NFL history. The Patriots, on the other hand, were an undefeated team with an asterisk; a notation of "Spy Gate" and the Super Bowl loss.

Then, in early 2015, there was the notorious "Deflate Gate."

Once again, the Patriots found themselves at the center of controversy over nothing. New England pounded the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC title game, so the deflated footballs didn't matter one iota to the outcome of the game.

So, why in the heck did the Patriots put themselves in this position again?

The old saying goes, "fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you." And shame is exactly when New England got. It has, sadly, overshadowed the ball club's fourth Super Bowl championship, obtained with a knuckle-biting victory over the Seattle Seahawks.

Instead of talking about New England's place in NFL history as one of the league's most successful clubs, the talk is all about "Deflate Gate."

How sad. The Patriots, for some strange reason, aren't content with winning cleanly. They prefer to win dirty.

Until New England decides to play by the rules, and stops trying to bend them for its own advantage, my respect for this ball club will continue to circle the drain of the toilet bowl. Of the 32 teams fielded by the NFL, the New England Patriots are at the very bottom. The reason is clear.

Cheaters never prosper in the end; even with Super Bowl trophies.

What in the Jurassic World ... ??

My wife and I decided to make a date Sunday afternoon, so we went to the cinema and watched Jurassic World, Steven Spielberg's fourth, and latest, installment of the Jurassic Park franchise.

This film may have shattered records as the highest grossing opening weekend blockbuster in history, but I personally feel that Jurassic World is a little bit overrated as movies go.

In my humble opinion, the movie is just a little bit better than the second and third installments of the series; but a far cry from equaling the original film.

My most significant complaint with World is that same as Lost World and JPIII: the rather casual violence and gratuitous death that the first film did not have.

While the "terrible lizards" killed and/or ate people in the first Jurassic Park, the deaths were strategic and integral parts of the story. In other words, when people died in the first film, it was part of telling the story. They weren't gratuitous.

But in Jurassic World, as in the previous two Jurassic movies, death came swiftly and often to people who otherwise weren't part of the story, or held insignificant bit parts that had little to no baring on the story's development.

Like the poor park employee who looked pathetically at Pratt, whimpering in sad silence a moment before Indominus Rex stuffed him in its mouth. Why not let the poor fellow live? His death had no significance to the story.

Either did the death of the hapless Brit girl tasked with keeping tabs on the female lead's nephews. She literally got carried away by flying dinosaurs before being dropped into a large pool of water, where she survived long enough to get picked up again by the airborne reptiles. She continued to fight but it was all for not as the giant aquatic dinosaur leaped from the water to snag the Pterodactyl that held the poor girl in its grasp. So, not only did the flying lizard get eaten, but so did the girl.

Why couldn't the girl have been dropped a second before the monster came out of the water to eat the dinosaur trying to kill her?

Then there were the velociraptors, who turned on the commando unit and shredded them to pieces. Screams of horror, pain, and terror resonated as the pack lizards had, their way with the troopers.

Sprays of blood, the sound effects of bones crunching, and shrieks of pain, pretty much told the story of the Indominus Rex and the velociraptors.

Don't get me wrong here: I understand the movie's undertones. The dinosaurs are supposed to be scary. We are supposed to be afraid of them, and the power they once possessed over the planet 65 million years ago. We are supposed to think critically about the wisdom of cloning and bringing back to life animals that could realistically wipe us off the map completely.

But is all of the gratuitous death really necessary? No, it's not. And I'm sure even Steven Spielberg would agree with that. However, movie makers and producers are continuously pushing the envelope of what is conventional. Boundaries are constantly being pressed toward the edge. Sometimes they go over it, too. They are on the look-out for ways to add "shock" value to their films. That is really the bottom line. Shock sells; be it sex, language, or blood.

Spielberg wants to see his movie to as many people curious enough to check it out. The edgier he makes it, the more shock it contains, the more money he makes. Period.

It is a sad reality that popular culture places a high value on shock, and the viewing public tends to soak up popular culture values like a sponge. Because movie-goers have been conditioned to enjoy, even love, shock in films, the more shock there is in a movie the more people seem to like it.

Hence why Jurassic World contains so much gratuitous death and casual violence. It isn't necessary; it's essential to selling movies anymore.

Very sick.

A word on the Confederate flag

The recent mass shooting at a South Carolina black church by a supposed white supremacist has become like a spark to damp sticks of unstable dynamite.

More than just dander or ire has been raised by the shooter's violent crime. Holy heck is about to rain down on American whites. In some parts of the country, it may no longer be healthy to be white. It is already that way in South Central Los Angeles, Harlem, New York, and other big cities where racial minorities have carved out ethnic niches for themselves where they may exist apart from those danged anglo-saxon whites.

In a matter of months, there has been severe racial unrest from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore, Maryland. In response, riotous protests have occurred across the nation. The deadly South Carolina shooting is like throwing a can of gasoline onto the white-hot coals of a campfire. And it has the potential of exploding out of control into a raging bonfire.

Something is going to happen that pushes our country's pride--its racial diversity--over the edge into martial law. And it may well be brewing now in the wake of the South Carolina shooting.

Waves of protesters throughout the South, and across the country, are now demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouses as symbols of local government. This comes after learning that the South Carolina church shooter had an affection for the flag as part of his racist zeal.

Many American blacks view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred on par with the Nazi swastika of the 1930s. Although I am not black, I am also not without empathy. I can understand where black Americans might draw such a parallel.

But a word about that: The Confederate flag is nothing like the Nazi swastika. The swastika represented a regime that deliberately killed people who didn't agree with it, or who represented threats, or were just easy scapegoats used to advance the agenda of propagandists.

The Nazi flag represented not only hatred, but war crimes against humanity: millions of them, to be precise.

The Confederate flag, although insensitive to the descendants of slaves, represented a government nowhere near the level of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.

Under the Confederate flag, men fought for many of their own personal reasons. Preserving the institution of slavery was a national consequence of their service in the Confederate army and navy. But these guys fought predominantly because they were expected to. Sons followed fathers, brothers followed each other, cousins followed cousins, and neighbors followed neighbors off to war. It was believed to be the right thing to do, because their states needed their service.

I do not speak for the slaveowners of the period, but I daresay that however misguided their beliefs were on liberty and who was entitled to it, history shows that they generally took care of the things they owned; including, and especially, their slave property. Although paternalistic and patronizing in their view of the African race, Southern slaveowners weren't the murderers that led and carried out the orders of Germany's Third Reich.

Furthermore, slaveowners of the period took up arms to preserve their Constitutional right to own property--yes, even slave property--which they felt was being infringed upon with laws meant to keep them out of the new territories west of the Mississippi River. They genuinely felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, and that few in the federal government were willing to defend those rights. However mistaken we may feel today about the antebellum South's view of human property, the fact remains that certain human beings were property in the United States until after the end of the Civil War. This property was recognized in and protected by the United States Constitution.

Playing devil's advocate here, put yourself in the shoes of a Southern plantation owner of the period, and ask yourself what would you do if a government overtly denied your right to property by saying you couldn't have this property or that property with you if you wished to move to a new territory? Would you think perhaps the government was preparing to eventually take away this property from you outright?

Don't get me wrong: I don't believe humans should be slaves to other humans. But, in playing devil's advocate, I think my point is made.

Slaveowners weren't the monsters that the members of the Nazi Regime proved themselves to be. And their flags? Two different flags for two different times, reasons, and circumstances. Not the same.

Now, about the Confederate flag coming down: There are multiple reasons given in support of this argument. One is that the flag supports a period in our history in which racism from one group of people held another down. A second reason is that the Confederate flag represents rebellion against the United States government. I see the points of both arguments.

However, do we really want to open this can of worms? Should we take down all flags flown in support of the American Revolution fought 240 years ago? These flags represented rebellion against an established government, and the families of many Continentals owned slaves.

If we take down the Confederate flag, then we ought not ever fly the Spirit of 76 flag, the Gadsden Flag, or the Liberty Tree flag, because these were symbols of wreckless, oftentimes violent rebellion against a civil governing authority. And some of the people who fought under them were slaveowners, family of slaveowners, or who endorsed and embraced the institution.

As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, slavery remained legal in the United States until December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This occurred nearly three years after slaves had been set free in the Confederate Southern states by the Emancipation Proclamation. (January 1, 1863) Ultimately, then, slavery legally existed longer in the United States than it did in the Confederate States.

And, so, it begs the question: Why not the uproar over the United States flag, the banner under which slavery was protected even after it was outlawed in rebelling states?

This is not the time to be hypocritical. If we are going to remove one flag, and deny the First Amendment on grounds that it is hurtful, then we ought to remove all symbols ever associated with hurtful activities, such as slavery.

Should American Indian tribes be allowed to tear down the Stars and Stripes because it symbolizes the hatred of white society over their ancestors? How about the civil and military oppression suffered by numerous Indian tribes throughout the 19th Century as thousands were marched away from their homes and placed on reservations? Would not the American flag be hurtful or offensive to Indian tribes? What if the tribes wish to follow suit, after the Confederate flag is successfully removed from statehouses, and demand that the American flag be taken down on their reservations for the same reason identified by black Americans? Heck, American Indians living off the reservation might still find offense to the flag flying wherever it does, and demand it be removed.

If the Confederate flag can be removed or banned because it is offensive and hurtful to others, then why not Old Glory itself?

Do we really want to go down this road, this slippery slope? Do we really want to open this can of worms? Precedents can have very damaging cascading effects not unlike a trail of dominoes that fall after one is knocked over.

I advise caution and restraint in the midst of angry passion. White-hot anger is dangerous, even deadly. The victims of the shooting at the South Carolina church are proof of that. How much more white-hot anger should we be fanning? How many more deaths must occur before reason and rationale take the place of passionate anger?

If the Confederate flag can be removed, other things can, too. It won't stop with just one thing. Kind of like the butterfly effect, something else always seems to happen in consequence.

Count on it, America.

What's in a name...

...says a lot about a name.

As a lifelong Washington Redskins fan, I have mixed feelings about the renewed push to force the National Football League franchise to change its name.

On the one hand, I'm not opposed to changing the team's name. The term "redskin," after all, is well-known as a derogatory racial reference. I can think of a more dignified name that brings honor both to the members of the franchise and those represented in the team's logo.

How about the Washington Braves? Before the Redskins moved to Washington, D.C., and before the team was called the Redskins, they were known as the Boston Braves. The name "brave" harkens back not only to the long established heritage of eastern American Indian tribes, but also gives honorable reference to the men and women over the centuries who have defended their country and the nation's capital in the name of essential liberty.

That said, I don't want to see the Redskins' logo changed. It is very dignified, and in my humble opinion, there is no better mascot to elicit strength and courage than an American Indian warrior.

Hmmm... the Washington Warriors? That's got possibilities, too.

Either way, I think the team needs to retain its American Indian mascot. To change the team completely would upset a lot of us Redskins fans who are not only fond of the mascot, but its color scheme, and all of the great professional players who performed under its badging.

On the other hand, I feel like we've been down this road many times before in the past. Politicians of some variety or another take an active interest in the team's name, push for change, and then drop it when more pressing or important matters concerning their re-election surface.

The issue of the Redskins' name has been a point of contention for many years. Concern waxes and wanes, comes and goes, and fluctuates like a case of indigestion. Once the sour milk has passed and we feel better, we forget about what upset our stomachs in the first place; until somebody opens the carton of sour milk again, and it hits our olfactory senses, reminding us of the stench.

Ours is such a fickle, fleeting society. Perhaps "hypocrite" best describes American popular culture. We express outrage over a name that we say is disparaging. Then we turn right around and use disparaging language toward our fellow man as casually as we say hello.

We get upset over a name that marginalizes people. But we don't show any concern over television networks, dating web sites, other media, and even financial programs that target specific individuals based on their skin color: Back Entertainment Television, www.blackdating.com, race-based scholarships, etc.

In fact, how unfair is it that the American Indian can clamor for a change in the name of a professional sports team, and it can get away with blatant racial discrimination? Read a want ad from tribal government, and you'll often see the phrase "Native Americans/Indians preferred."

I'm sorry, but how racially just is that? They'd rather have one of their own than lift their prejudices and intolerances toward anyone outside of their ethnic gene pool.

But I digress: Returning to the issue of the Redskins, I think it is ironic that some American Indian tribes are leading the charge to change the team's name when I see individual Indians wearing Redskins apparel and memorabilia.

In two visits to Albuquerque, NM, the most common sports team apparel I observed worn by local Indians was the Washington Redskins. I've seen Redskins apparel on local Indians here on Northern Nevada reservations, too. It is uncanny.

If the Washington Redskins are so offensive, then why do so many Indians choose to wear the team's apparel? Don't they know that "redskin" is an offensive name? Maybe they didn't get the memo from their representatives in Washington, D.C.

It seems obvious to me that we have greater problems in our country than the name of a sports team. Problems that involve a lack of a moral compass, degenerate behavior, and desensitization to violence. Personally, I think our efforts need to be focused on what is really wrong in our nation's cultural fabric, and fixing that. We can also choose to look at all of the good that members of the Redskins team do for their respective communities.

If the Skins do change their name, it will only bother me if their entire identity changes with it. As someone with a small percentage of American Indian blood in me (which goes back several generations) I can empathize with the way that a disparaging name is perceived.

But I also believe in the old "sticks and stones" saying I memorized as a kid. Seems like our culture has forgotten that important mantra. Instead, we let names irritate and agitate us when they shouldn't.

By the way: I refuse to refer to American Indians as "Native Americans." It insults me and every other non-Indian American who was born here, and whose generations before them were born here. I'm as much a "native" American as any full, half or quarter-blooded Indian is.

But that is a discussion for another time, and in another blog post. Stay tuned.

SITYS

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

Or so the clichéd and oft-quoted axiom goes.

Love it or hate it, there's a lot of truth in the saying.

Last week's knife attack at a Pittsburgh area high school that injured about 20 people is yet another clear reminder that weapons aren't responsible for human destruction, but rather the humans using them.

I hate to say this to those who have been stuck in the gun-ban gear, but, see, I told you so.

I've said multiple times before that if we ban guns, then those who are bent on destruction will simply find and use other objects to carry out their violent intentions.

This is the second major knife attack in as many years. The last one was at a Texas college in 2012.

Will our benevolent leaders and government authorities ever be convinced that we cannot legislate our way to solutions to an intrinsic, pervasive cultural problem?

Banning firearms certainly didn't prevent the knife attacks from being carried out. And, banning knives now won't prevent another student from assembling a pipe bomb and stashing it in his locker until he is ready to detonate it in between classes when the hallways are crowded.

We cannot merely treat the symptoms and hope to cure the disease. But that is exactly what civil leadership is doing when it proposes legislation to limit or restrict weapons. If we ban this weapon, then that one, and then another one, then all we are doing, in effect, is treating the symptoms of a much deeper disease. The real problem is never addressed; only its effects.

If we are ever to get a handle on the why's and how's of solving America's violence problem, then we must summon the courage to probe deeper than the surface. Far below in the depths a cancerous tumor grows. We cannot see it. We can only see its effects on the surface of the body.

It is much easier to treat the symptoms, and feel better about ourselves that we were able to do something, than it is to dig underneath only to find things that we don't want to see.

But it is imperative that this be done if we are going to meet the problem head on, and have any hope of getting a handle on it.

This means having to reflect on society and our culture as a whole, to see the bigger picture hidden under layers of bandages that we've placed over the wound that is now infected.

We thought we could just put a Band-Aid over the wound to cover it up, so that we wouldn't have to look at its ugliness. And when that bandage became soaked with blood, we just replaced it with another. And another. And another. Until the wound became infected and now the problem is more wide-spread and life-threatening than it was at the beginning.

America's self-serving and humanistic culture has much to do with the deterioration of morals and values that place a premium on life. People today are not much better than wandering zombies; hollow bodies without any internal substance. Life to them has been all about the acquisition of materialism, stroking the ego, instant gratification, and the pursuit of power, position and money.

Many people today lack a moral compass. Their spirits are all but dead, and the only thing that separates their actions from those of animals is that humans know when they are doing wrong.

But when the messages we receive from popular media is that nothing really matters, then who cares? What does it matter? We are born, we live, we die and feed the worms.

Until or unless Americans summon the courage to attack the viruses of apathy and spiritual agnosticism, we will never find the deeper answers to the problems that are seemingly out of our limited line of sight.

There will be other mass violence attacks: Be them with guns, knives, bombs, vehicles, or vials of deadly germs. We cannot afford to focus on the symptoms any longer. To rid our body of the cancer within, we must attack it straight up and head on. We must be prepared for how uncomfortable and difficult cancer treatment can be. But to do nothing to the tumor only encourages it to grow.

Our nation cannot bear the consequences of doing nothing for much longer. If we are not careful, we risk imploding and collapsing from within.

There is no greater enemy to the self than the self. No weapons necessary save for the destructive thoughts of pride, ego and apathy.