When I've posted poetry and song lyrics in past blog entries, people have told me about how sad or angry some of my words are. They're right. Most of my material is moody, sad, and angry. (I usually write songs and poetry when I feel depressed or upset. If I didn't I probably would have ended up in prison or in my grave).
Anyway this song, I've posted below is a change-of-pace. It shows I can be sexy, romantic, and passionate when I compose.
When you read the lyrics imagine lots of percussion, flamenco guitars, a South American ambience to the music. When you reach the bridge ("Love in the streets...") imagine an over-the-top Brazilian rhythm section going crazy and everyone dancing like crazy.
When you read the last verse imagine a fuzz tone electic guitar soloing in the background.
Oh yes, the last verse which has the line about peppers being hung? I had that lyric in my mind for a long time and was looking for the right song to use it. It comes from my travels to New Mexico where I visited old haciendas in Taos and saw peppers being hung about the hacienda for later use for cooking.
And now here's the song....
Best of Me Now
I lust for the heat of your body
I dance to the beat of your heart
I march down the streets of your memory
I drink because we played the wrong parts
Your flesh is soft and quivering
I taste of the juice of your vine
The ocean breeze leaves you shivering
You’re the cup I fill with my wine
We learn about love from the movies
We learn about life when we die
We learn that war isn’t groovy
We learn about trust when we lie
That’s the best that I’ve got
You got the best of me now
That’s the best that I’ve got
You got the best of me now
Love in the streets
Runs like blood
And it’s warm to the touch
Blood in the sheets
Like rivers of love
And it sweeps us in its rush
Gotta get it on! Gotta get it on! Gotta get it on!
The shot when you pulled my trigger
The wound in my heart that it left
You should’ve read the warning sticker
The path between your legs that it cleft
The meals we prepared were delicious
The peppers we hung became hot
The moments of tenderness were precious
The spices we stirred in the pot
That’s the best that I’ve got
You got the best of me now
That’s the best that I’ve got
You got the best of me now
© 03/10/2008 by Matthew DiBiase
Monday, February 15, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Obama and the Era of Impatience
We live in an era of great impatience. Things that once took a day to get done we now want done in an hour; things that once took a year to get done we now want done in a month; things that once took a decade to achieve we now want done in a year. That impatience fostered by the media, the internet, and both political parties has altered and distorted how we assess events in the American political landscape. The rules have changed and the game has gotten much tougher though definitely not better.
And so it is for President Barack Obama after finishing his first year in office. His post-mortems are already being written and we haven’t even reached the Congressional mid-terms elections yet.
If you take a deep breathe, relax, and look at recent events with a calm, detached eye the President’s situation is not as lost as many would like to see it.
What has gone wrong? The Democrats lost a Senate seat thus taking away their filibuster-proof majority. They still have fifty-nine seats in the Senate for the time being—a substantial number no matter how you slice it or dice it. All the Republicans can do is filibuster but can they roadblock every single initiative that comes from the White House? Would that be politically wise since the American economy and the job market remain in very bad shape and remedial action is still needed? Fiscal restraint is all well and good—when it is actually practiced which it hasn’t been since Dwight Eisenhower was President—but the essential problem still remains how do we get America working again. In reality all the G.O.P. can do is leaven the Obama Administration’s economic policies and put some brakes on the more liberal programs the President has in mind. They cannot stop it unless they gain significant defections from the Democratic ranks.
What about Health Care reform? Despite all the ideological mud wrestling, people forget that President Obama did a much better job in getting Health Care legislation passed than Bill Clinton did. Clinton’s health care initiatives were defeated in Congress. Obama got the House and the Senate to pass health care reform bills. Even though the House and Senate bills were not the same, Obama, with the help of the Democratic leadership, did get the bills passed. Whether those bills will actually provide the proper reforms needed for the American health care system is debatable. But Obama still deserves credit for showing greater political flexibility and patience in allowing Congress time to get the legislation passed. All that remains is for the two bills to be reconciled but with the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat to the Republicans that reconciliation will have to wait.
Did President Obama go too far in pushing health care and risking his congressional base? I think not. If I’m not mistaken Obama is the first President to have filibuster proof majorities in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Such opportunities to get major domestic legislation passed without gridlock cannot be wasted. President Obama saw the opportunity to tilt the political landscape and did what he could. He would have been a fool not to seize it. No President worth their salt—whether they are liberal or conservative—would dare pass up a political gift from God like that.
Lyndon Johnson once said words to the effect that a President has one year of maximum effectiveness; by the second year, Congress is more concerned about getting re-elected than passing the President’s initiatives; by the third year Congress is waiting to see whether the incumbent President will be re-elected or not.
Obama’s year of maximum effectiveness has ended. Now he faces the stern task of negotiating with a slightly stronger Republican base while seeking to preserve his majority. His reactions are revealing. After the Massachusetts defeat, he revamped his political advisory team; readjusted himself to the changing political winds; and has returned to the campaign trail.
How has Obama performed? Better than Clinton or Carter did in their first years as President. Obama’s domestic programs are much more ambitious and audacious in scope than Clinton’s or Carter’s were. He has proven more adroit in harnessing his Congressional majorities than Carter or Clinton did. He has been more lucky than skillful in the foreign policy sphere. He has dodged some bullets. Whether his luck can hold out remains to be seen?
As for the economic recovery effort, the maxim that time takes time is useful here. FDR’s New Deal didn’t end the Great Depression. America’s entry into World War Two did. What the New Deal did was to provide a wide variety of fiscal safety nets to the American people to keep them afloat until the economy did revive. More recently, it took two years before Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and fiscal re-structuring turned the American economy around. Until now, the recession of 1981-1982 was one of the worst in American history. President Reagan asked the American people to be patient and to “stay the course”. Although Reagan lost congressional seats to the Democrats in 1982, the American people stayed the course and the economy revived in 1983 and Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.
I feel that President Obama is entitled to the same consideration Reagan received.
It’s only fair.
And so it is for President Barack Obama after finishing his first year in office. His post-mortems are already being written and we haven’t even reached the Congressional mid-terms elections yet.
If you take a deep breathe, relax, and look at recent events with a calm, detached eye the President’s situation is not as lost as many would like to see it.
What has gone wrong? The Democrats lost a Senate seat thus taking away their filibuster-proof majority. They still have fifty-nine seats in the Senate for the time being—a substantial number no matter how you slice it or dice it. All the Republicans can do is filibuster but can they roadblock every single initiative that comes from the White House? Would that be politically wise since the American economy and the job market remain in very bad shape and remedial action is still needed? Fiscal restraint is all well and good—when it is actually practiced which it hasn’t been since Dwight Eisenhower was President—but the essential problem still remains how do we get America working again. In reality all the G.O.P. can do is leaven the Obama Administration’s economic policies and put some brakes on the more liberal programs the President has in mind. They cannot stop it unless they gain significant defections from the Democratic ranks.
What about Health Care reform? Despite all the ideological mud wrestling, people forget that President Obama did a much better job in getting Health Care legislation passed than Bill Clinton did. Clinton’s health care initiatives were defeated in Congress. Obama got the House and the Senate to pass health care reform bills. Even though the House and Senate bills were not the same, Obama, with the help of the Democratic leadership, did get the bills passed. Whether those bills will actually provide the proper reforms needed for the American health care system is debatable. But Obama still deserves credit for showing greater political flexibility and patience in allowing Congress time to get the legislation passed. All that remains is for the two bills to be reconciled but with the loss of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat to the Republicans that reconciliation will have to wait.
Did President Obama go too far in pushing health care and risking his congressional base? I think not. If I’m not mistaken Obama is the first President to have filibuster proof majorities in both houses of Congress since Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Such opportunities to get major domestic legislation passed without gridlock cannot be wasted. President Obama saw the opportunity to tilt the political landscape and did what he could. He would have been a fool not to seize it. No President worth their salt—whether they are liberal or conservative—would dare pass up a political gift from God like that.
Lyndon Johnson once said words to the effect that a President has one year of maximum effectiveness; by the second year, Congress is more concerned about getting re-elected than passing the President’s initiatives; by the third year Congress is waiting to see whether the incumbent President will be re-elected or not.
Obama’s year of maximum effectiveness has ended. Now he faces the stern task of negotiating with a slightly stronger Republican base while seeking to preserve his majority. His reactions are revealing. After the Massachusetts defeat, he revamped his political advisory team; readjusted himself to the changing political winds; and has returned to the campaign trail.
How has Obama performed? Better than Clinton or Carter did in their first years as President. Obama’s domestic programs are much more ambitious and audacious in scope than Clinton’s or Carter’s were. He has proven more adroit in harnessing his Congressional majorities than Carter or Clinton did. He has been more lucky than skillful in the foreign policy sphere. He has dodged some bullets. Whether his luck can hold out remains to be seen?
As for the economic recovery effort, the maxim that time takes time is useful here. FDR’s New Deal didn’t end the Great Depression. America’s entry into World War Two did. What the New Deal did was to provide a wide variety of fiscal safety nets to the American people to keep them afloat until the economy did revive. More recently, it took two years before Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts and fiscal re-structuring turned the American economy around. Until now, the recession of 1981-1982 was one of the worst in American history. President Reagan asked the American people to be patient and to “stay the course”. Although Reagan lost congressional seats to the Democrats in 1982, the American people stayed the course and the economy revived in 1983 and Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.
I feel that President Obama is entitled to the same consideration Reagan received.
It’s only fair.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Newest Inductee into the Hall of Infamy: Mark McGwire
Of all the disgusting aspects of Mark McGwire’s “confession” that he took steroids as a player, the one that is most disgusting (in my eyes at least) was the moment after he had “broken” the late Roger Maris’ home-run record when he walked over towards the stands and engaged in a group hug with Roger Maris’ widow and her children while the fireworks exploded and the camera flashes went off and the crowd was roaring, cheering, crying, and expending itself in a frenzy because they believed they were witnessing baseball history being made.
But right now? In retrospect, it degenerates into a moment of infamy—an insult to the late Roger Maris’ memory and an even more contemptible insult to the Maris family.
The late Roger Maris suffered greatly to break Babe Ruth’s mark of sixty home runs in a single season. He had to deal with a hyper-aggressive (and soon to become hostile) media blitz; a non-existent media contrived “feud” with teammate Mickey Mantle; the refusal of New York Yankees management to set ground rules for media access for Maris (in McGwire’s case there were definite ground rules in dealing with him); the hostility of certain fans who resented the idea of Maris breaking Ruth’s record (just as there was hostility towards Hank Aaron when he broke Ruth’s career record); and, of course, the bloody asterisk which dogged him to the day he died.
When Maris’ record was “broken” by McGwire we thought at the time that it was done with great respect and great dignity.
Now we know differently. Now, with McGwire’s “confession”, we know that it was all a lie; that McGwire was thumbing his nose not only towards baseball fans everywhere but at the Maris family and the late Roger Maris as well. It’s tragic that when Maris’ record was broken it was done with such callous cruelty and such a blatant, calculated disregard for fair play and honesty.
Roger Maris was a solid baseball player who played the game with great heart and integrity. He was a winner, a three-time World Series champion, and a team player. He deserved better than this. He broke Ruth’s record in a maelstrom of controversy. His record was “broken” in a covert web of lies and deception.
In a sense it’s good he was not alive to see McGwire’s disgusting, shameful, despicable little charade.
When the steroid scandal broke years ago, Roger Maris Junior made a statement to the effect that if there was proof that Mark McGwire was on steroids when he broke his late father’s record that an asterisk should be placed upon the mark or else be disallowed. I concur with Roger Junior’s desire. It will never happen though but I believe in the hearts and minds of millions of baseball fans a symbolic asterisk has already been entered into the record books.
But right now? In retrospect, it degenerates into a moment of infamy—an insult to the late Roger Maris’ memory and an even more contemptible insult to the Maris family.
The late Roger Maris suffered greatly to break Babe Ruth’s mark of sixty home runs in a single season. He had to deal with a hyper-aggressive (and soon to become hostile) media blitz; a non-existent media contrived “feud” with teammate Mickey Mantle; the refusal of New York Yankees management to set ground rules for media access for Maris (in McGwire’s case there were definite ground rules in dealing with him); the hostility of certain fans who resented the idea of Maris breaking Ruth’s record (just as there was hostility towards Hank Aaron when he broke Ruth’s career record); and, of course, the bloody asterisk which dogged him to the day he died.
When Maris’ record was “broken” by McGwire we thought at the time that it was done with great respect and great dignity.
Now we know differently. Now, with McGwire’s “confession”, we know that it was all a lie; that McGwire was thumbing his nose not only towards baseball fans everywhere but at the Maris family and the late Roger Maris as well. It’s tragic that when Maris’ record was broken it was done with such callous cruelty and such a blatant, calculated disregard for fair play and honesty.
Roger Maris was a solid baseball player who played the game with great heart and integrity. He was a winner, a three-time World Series champion, and a team player. He deserved better than this. He broke Ruth’s record in a maelstrom of controversy. His record was “broken” in a covert web of lies and deception.
In a sense it’s good he was not alive to see McGwire’s disgusting, shameful, despicable little charade.
When the steroid scandal broke years ago, Roger Maris Junior made a statement to the effect that if there was proof that Mark McGwire was on steroids when he broke his late father’s record that an asterisk should be placed upon the mark or else be disallowed. I concur with Roger Junior’s desire. It will never happen though but I believe in the hearts and minds of millions of baseball fans a symbolic asterisk has already been entered into the record books.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The 2000s: The Wasted Decade
The first decade of the 21st century closes—not with a bang nor even a whimper but with an exhausted, bleary-eyed, subdued gasp for something fresh, something new; something that is truly beautiful, ennobling, or offers the hope of redemption because the 2000s were none of those things.
Usually decade endings years end with a climactic rush of events; a hope of something better for the next decade; a premonition of what is to come. 1969 was like that. So was 1989 and 1999.
This decade offered none of this. Instead we’re backing into the 2010s with a sense of numbness, apprehension, and fear. Actually it reminds me of 1979. 1979 was fraught with economic crises; rising energy costs; political and social malaise; a lack of faith in our leadership; America beleaguered abroad by its ideological and spiritual opponents (remember the Iranian embassy hostage crisis?)
When I look back at this past decade one word keeps punching me in the face: waste. If I had to define the 2000s I would use that word: waste. The 2000s was a wasted decade for America and the world: wasted resources; wasted opportunities for improvement, change, and growth; wasted words; wasted monies; wasted gestures; wasted time; and the most tragic, saddening, devastating waste of all time: beautiful, brave, magnificent, innocent lives lost, taken from us, wasted.
I am struck by the despair this past decade has caused in all walks of not only American life but in every day life around the world. I feel like the high priest in the Bible watching the Temple curtain being torn in two the day Jesus was crucified. I sense an unraveling; a world being undone deliberately or unwittingly by our own devise. We see the damage being done. We express shock, dismay, and concern. We try to make changes as best as we can yet the unraveling, the uncoupling continues and, to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, the people come and go and talk of Michelangelo.
What about me, personally? All I can say about myself, at the end of this decade is that I am still alive. Don’t ask me how or why? But I’m still alive. For me, what interests me about 2010 are the following: how will the American electorate express itself on Election Day 2010. Will it be a repeat of 1994 when the G.O.P. recaptured the House and Senate? If so then who will lead the G.O.P. resurgence? What will the Phillies do in 2010? Can they win a third pennant in a row? The last National League team to win three pennants was the 1944 St. Louis Cardinals. If the Eagles fail to reach the Super Bowl next month what will become of Donovan McNabb?
For me personally, my personal challenges are this: continuing my hockey oral history research, completing my hockey coach articles and converting them into a book worthy of publication; climbing Mt. Katahdin in Maine in October and trying to survive 2010 intact physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Most of all, I want some peace and quiet.
Usually decade endings years end with a climactic rush of events; a hope of something better for the next decade; a premonition of what is to come. 1969 was like that. So was 1989 and 1999.
This decade offered none of this. Instead we’re backing into the 2010s with a sense of numbness, apprehension, and fear. Actually it reminds me of 1979. 1979 was fraught with economic crises; rising energy costs; political and social malaise; a lack of faith in our leadership; America beleaguered abroad by its ideological and spiritual opponents (remember the Iranian embassy hostage crisis?)
When I look back at this past decade one word keeps punching me in the face: waste. If I had to define the 2000s I would use that word: waste. The 2000s was a wasted decade for America and the world: wasted resources; wasted opportunities for improvement, change, and growth; wasted words; wasted monies; wasted gestures; wasted time; and the most tragic, saddening, devastating waste of all time: beautiful, brave, magnificent, innocent lives lost, taken from us, wasted.
I am struck by the despair this past decade has caused in all walks of not only American life but in every day life around the world. I feel like the high priest in the Bible watching the Temple curtain being torn in two the day Jesus was crucified. I sense an unraveling; a world being undone deliberately or unwittingly by our own devise. We see the damage being done. We express shock, dismay, and concern. We try to make changes as best as we can yet the unraveling, the uncoupling continues and, to paraphrase the poet T.S. Eliot, the people come and go and talk of Michelangelo.
What about me, personally? All I can say about myself, at the end of this decade is that I am still alive. Don’t ask me how or why? But I’m still alive. For me, what interests me about 2010 are the following: how will the American electorate express itself on Election Day 2010. Will it be a repeat of 1994 when the G.O.P. recaptured the House and Senate? If so then who will lead the G.O.P. resurgence? What will the Phillies do in 2010? Can they win a third pennant in a row? The last National League team to win three pennants was the 1944 St. Louis Cardinals. If the Eagles fail to reach the Super Bowl next month what will become of Donovan McNabb?
For me personally, my personal challenges are this: continuing my hockey oral history research, completing my hockey coach articles and converting them into a book worthy of publication; climbing Mt. Katahdin in Maine in October and trying to survive 2010 intact physically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Most of all, I want some peace and quiet.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Update
I am suspending my blogging until June next year. I am presently committed to submitting a weekly column titled "Profiles in Excellence" at www.insidehockey.com
The column work will continue until June 12, 2010, whereby I hope to restart my blogging.
Right now, I cannot juggle my weekly writing with my blogging schedule. I wish to devote my time and energy towards the column proper.
Thanks,
Matthew DiBiase
The column work will continue until June 12, 2010, whereby I hope to restart my blogging.
Right now, I cannot juggle my weekly writing with my blogging schedule. I wish to devote my time and energy towards the column proper.
Thanks,
Matthew DiBiase
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Yankees World Series Win? Who's to Blame?
The Phillies have no reason to be ashamed for losing to the Yankees in six games in the World Series. If anything it’s better that the Phils lost to the Yankees rather than a lesser team that they should have beaten. The fact that the Phillies were able to repeat as National League pennants winners is a testament to the team’s resiliency and desire. A year ago I wrote that the 2008 World Series champions were the greatest Phillies team of all time. Today I reaffirm that sentiment. Considering the problems the Phillies had with their starting pitching in terms of injuries and inefficiency, it’s even more amazing that they won the pennant. A lesser team would have folded.
As for the Yankees their World Series triumph can be seen either as a last hurrah for the older team members who were there between 1996 and 2003 or it heralds a resurrection of the Yankees dynastic dominance. There were unique aspects to this World Series. It marks the first time that a team won a World Series at the start of a new decade and won in the closing year of a decade. (The Yankees won in 2000 and again in 2009). That’s never happened before.
When the Yankees won game three I had a bad feeling that the Phillies would go down in defeat. When the Yankees won game four I became even more convinced because I knew that throughout the entire World Series history of the New York Yankees the Bronx Bombers never blew a 3-1 World Series lead. Their triumph in game six reaffirmed that fact.
There’s another more obscure factor that played heavily in the Yankees favor. I don’t know if some of you realize this but ever since 1973 (when George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees) the Yankees have always won the World Series when there was a Democrat in the White House and lost when there was a Republican as President.
Before you scoff, just look it up. In 1976 the Yankees lost to the Reds (when Gerald Ford was President). In 1977 and 1978 they won (when Jimmy Carter was in office). In 1981 they fell to the Dodgers (when Reagan was in office) but came back to win in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 (when Bill Clinton was President. They lost in 2001 and 2003 when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office but now in 2009 they have won the World Series while Barack Obama presently inhabits the White House.
For those of you who hate the Yankees and hate it when they win then you can blame the Democrats for all this!
As for the Yankees their World Series triumph can be seen either as a last hurrah for the older team members who were there between 1996 and 2003 or it heralds a resurrection of the Yankees dynastic dominance. There were unique aspects to this World Series. It marks the first time that a team won a World Series at the start of a new decade and won in the closing year of a decade. (The Yankees won in 2000 and again in 2009). That’s never happened before.
When the Yankees won game three I had a bad feeling that the Phillies would go down in defeat. When the Yankees won game four I became even more convinced because I knew that throughout the entire World Series history of the New York Yankees the Bronx Bombers never blew a 3-1 World Series lead. Their triumph in game six reaffirmed that fact.
There’s another more obscure factor that played heavily in the Yankees favor. I don’t know if some of you realize this but ever since 1973 (when George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees) the Yankees have always won the World Series when there was a Democrat in the White House and lost when there was a Republican as President.
Before you scoff, just look it up. In 1976 the Yankees lost to the Reds (when Gerald Ford was President). In 1977 and 1978 they won (when Jimmy Carter was in office). In 1981 they fell to the Dodgers (when Reagan was in office) but came back to win in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 (when Bill Clinton was President. They lost in 2001 and 2003 when George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office but now in 2009 they have won the World Series while Barack Obama presently inhabits the White House.
For those of you who hate the Yankees and hate it when they win then you can blame the Democrats for all this!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
America's National Parks and the Lessons of Advanced Citizenship
The dominant sub-theme of Ken Burns’ documentary series National Parks had to be the role of concerned American citizens who, either individually or collectively, took it upon themselves to take all political, economic, polemical, intellectual, and scientific measures to preserve and protect America’s natural treasures—which over the course of decades and centuries would later become America’s national treasures.
Time and again throughout Burns’ series one saw American citizens: male and female, young and old, rich and poor, eccentric and ordinary, the famous and obscure, outsiders and locals, the politically connected and the socially dispossessed rolling up their sleeves and going to work using extraordinary methods and tactics to maintain those parts of America which define the American experience so that Americans and foreign visitors can understand what makes our country so beautiful.
What Ken Burns’ documentary reaffirmed was what actor Michael Douglas called “advanced citizenship” in the movie American President; behind every great movement and action in American history were ordinary citizens using their collective talents, energies, and resources to make their country (and later on the world) a better place for themselves and their fellow citizens. Without that spirit of advanced citizenship there would have been no American Revolution; no Declaration of Independence or Constitution or Bill of Rights; no movement to grant women the right to vote and, later on, their right to an equal place in society; no movement to grant African-Americans (and other minorities) their full civil rights; no military triumphs in two world wars against militarism and fascism; no eventual triumph over communism. Even now it is advanced citizenship that is working today to keep America safe from another 9/11 type of attack.
Advanced citizenship has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It is simply concerned American citizens who, when faced with a major crisis, resolving not to wring their hands and accept the supposed helplessness or powerlessness of their situation; joining forces with others who share their concerns and, most important of all,
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
That is what makes America beautiful.
Time and again throughout Burns’ series one saw American citizens: male and female, young and old, rich and poor, eccentric and ordinary, the famous and obscure, outsiders and locals, the politically connected and the socially dispossessed rolling up their sleeves and going to work using extraordinary methods and tactics to maintain those parts of America which define the American experience so that Americans and foreign visitors can understand what makes our country so beautiful.
What Ken Burns’ documentary reaffirmed was what actor Michael Douglas called “advanced citizenship” in the movie American President; behind every great movement and action in American history were ordinary citizens using their collective talents, energies, and resources to make their country (and later on the world) a better place for themselves and their fellow citizens. Without that spirit of advanced citizenship there would have been no American Revolution; no Declaration of Independence or Constitution or Bill of Rights; no movement to grant women the right to vote and, later on, their right to an equal place in society; no movement to grant African-Americans (and other minorities) their full civil rights; no military triumphs in two world wars against militarism and fascism; no eventual triumph over communism. Even now it is advanced citizenship that is working today to keep America safe from another 9/11 type of attack.
Advanced citizenship has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It is simply concerned American citizens who, when faced with a major crisis, resolving not to wring their hands and accept the supposed helplessness or powerlessness of their situation; joining forces with others who share their concerns and, most important of all,
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
That is what makes America beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
