Orwell gives the name “nationalism” to an attitude or approach that he describes. It is beyond pride in one’s country or patriotism. It is a pathology that I thought was a rather recent invention. But judging from the statements below, it was abounding in his time also. He wrote this during WWII. And I think much of it correlates to a situation of war, because I see many of the attitudes he criticizes as having increased since September 11, 2001.

“. . . [Nationalism is] the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests.”

“A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige.”

“. . . [E]very event that happens seems to [the nationalist] a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade.”

“Political or military commentators, like astrologers, can survive almost any mistake, because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of nationalistic loyalties.”

“All nationalists consider it a duty to spread their own language to the detriment of rival languages.”

“. . . [T]ransference [of loyalties to an entity (e.g., nation) outside one’s own] . . . makes it possible for [the nationalist] to be much MORE nationalistic—more vulgar, more silly, more malignant, more dishonest—than he could ever be on behalf of his native country, or any unit of which he had real knowledge.”

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage—torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians—which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side.”

“Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which it is felt ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied.”

“The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied.”

“What [the nationalist] wants is to FEEL that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him.”

“. . . [The nationalist] wants not so much to alter the external world as to feel that the battle for prestige is going in his own favour. In each case there is the same obsessive fixation on a single subject, the same inability to form a genuinely rational opinion based on probabilities.”

“An intelligent man may half-succumb to a belief which he knows to be absurd, and he may keep it out of his mind for long periods, only reverting to it in moments of anger or sentimentality, or when he is certain that no important issues are involved.”

“. . . [E]ach of them simply an enormous mouth bellowing the same lie over and over again, are obviously extreme cases, but we deceive ourselves if we do not realise that we can all resemble them in unguarded moments.”

“. . . [T]he most fair-minded and sweet-tempered person may suddenly be transformed into a vicious partisan, anxious only to ’score’ over his adversary and indifferent as to how many lies he tells or how many logical errors he commits in doing so.”

“. . . [A]s soon as fear, hatred, jealousy and power-worship are involved, the sense of reality becomes unhinged. And, as I have pointed out already, the sense of right and wrong becomes unhinged also. There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified—still one cannot FEEL that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function.”

That being said, it was tolerable for me. I wasn’t the most popular, but I had friends; which is why I’ll never understand why I wanted to participate in the annual lip-syncing concert assembly at school. I didn’t have any particular talents I wanted to display (later to be illustrated). I don’t remember a yearning for the limelight. I didn’t have a message I wanted to share. I just signed up for it—I guess I thought it sounded fun.

Because I didn’t want to drag any of my equally awkward friends onstage with me (or maybe because they refused; I honestly don’t remember) I was on my own—a frightful predicament in ninth grade. Thinking through my favorites of the few solo artists from the 50s and 60s—the music phase I was going through at the time—I lit upon Jerry Lee Lewis and his hit, “Great Balls of Fire.” This was a great selection for a lip-sync concert: a song that would get the audience out of its seat and hopefully obscure the performer’s lack of whatever makes a great lip-sync performance.

The fact that I didn’t have a recording of “Great Balls of Fire” didn’t deter me because I knew someone who did: the radio station. I called to request the song and then sat down next to the radio with my tape recorder queued up: play, record, and pause buttons all at once. Three songs later I flexed my fingers. Six songs later I got up for a snack. About an hour and half after I requested the song (and about 20 minutes after I had forgotten about it), it started, without an intro. I was half-expecting my own voice making the request, but I would have settled for, “And now, from Jerry Lee Lewis, “Great Balls of Fire.” I missed the intro chords and ended up with a song that started “click, click , static, click . . . attle my brain.” Don’t ever trust a radio station to be efficient.

Undaunted, I decided I would queue the tape to where the song started, at “. . . attle my brain.” Then, in the concert, when the mistake blared over the auditorium speakers, I would give an appropriately indignant scowl in the direction of the sound technician, then I would good-spiritedly turn my attention to the task at hand—it would naturally be assumed that it was the sound guy’s fault for ruining my otherwise spotless lip-sync. Maybe he’d get punched in the shoulder.

The night before the concert, I prepared my costume. This is an appropriate time to reveal that I had never seen a picture of Jerry Lee Lewis, much less watched him perform. I had no knowledge of the explosion of unkempt, curly blond hair, the gaudy sport coats, the bright colors, or the chair-tipping, keyboard-pounding style. So I wore black shoes, black pants, a white shirt, a bow-tie made of construction paper, and I pinned up the front corners or my dad’s black suit coat inside it trying to turn it into a dinner jacket with tails. That no one else in my family had seen Jerry Lee perform goes without saying. Or, if they had, they didn’t like me enough to inform me of the colossal error I was making.

At the concert the next day, I stood off-stage next to Mr. Johnson, listening to his evaluation of this or that student’s “stage presence” while he operated the curtain. Boy, would I show him stage presence! I don’t think I felt as nervous as I should have.

My turn came, I walked out to the piano, gave my “tails” a little flick as I sat on the bench (praying the safety pins would hold), and waited for the middle of the first line to start. Evidently, the sound guy had dutifully rewound and queued up the tape at the beginning. So as the speakers reported “click, click , static, click . . . attle my brain” my indignant look toward the sound booth was not entirely pretended. I kept my head down and played like a concert pianist, maybe stiffer.

I don’t remember if anyone clapped. I vaguely remember people congratulating me later in the halls, more on doing the deed than on its merit. I distinctly remember a glowing review on the walk home from a girl who “liked” me, whose affection I didn’t reciprocate.

I wasn’t embarrassed at the time. I knew it didn’t bring down the house and I had a fuzzy sense that it was kind of dumb, but I didn’t run home crying. The embarrassment came over the years, mostly when I first saw a clip of Jerry Lee perform. I think part of it is my chagrin at what a great show I could have put on. If only I had the chance to do it all again.

Adherents to mass movements are often seeking conversion as a way of hiding their multitude of sins. I think this is a major factor in the paralysis of American politics and patriotism. And I think it’s why civil, reason-based political discourse cannot be had in many places and with many people—because too many people, even those who claim religiosity, look to either the government or the nation as their Messiah. Messianism is defined in Wikipedia as “any field of philosophy which concerns itself with the interpretations of stories about a world hero or the establishment of a utopia.”

The Government

Liberalism (according to www.m-w.com: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties” although I would augment that definition for Americans as advocating “a wider social and economic role for the state” www.wikipedia.com) is the pursuit of a utopia through rules or legislation. The theory is that if the right combination of laws could be put in place, everyone would have the basics he needs, the opportunities he wants, and no unfair opposition to his achieving whatever he puts his mind to. This is where salvation lies for true liberal believers. They have the same plan that Satan had in the pre-mortal life: if you make it so people can’t sin, they won’t, and that way they’ll be perfect. The fallacies of this theory are, of course, that, despite its goal to provide a perfect opportunity for absolute personal freedom from impediments, 1) it’s impossible, and 2) it doesn’t really create freedom—it exterminates it.

This correlates to two trends in modern American religiosity. The first is that religions continue to try to make salvation easier and easier by changing the rules of the game. The second is the push toward humanism: “a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason”—self-realization is psychobabble for man creating his own salvation. In both cases the object is salvation through the right rules.

The Country

Conservatism’s salvation is obtained simply by believing. Do you accept America as your Savior? There are many who regard it as such, because America is greater than anything else we’ve ever seen—and somehow God has chosen me to be a part of it. It was sent by God to save mankind from monarchies, communism, and $2-a-day living. And, as a savior, it is infallible. This is why conservatives have such a hard time looking history straight in the eye and saying, “Wow! America has really abused and exploited some people. Oh, and look! We’re still doing it!” If they admit the fallibility of America, their hopes of salvation fade. Any intimation that America is supposed to mind its business in the world or that America could one day pass from power, especially as a result of its own mistakes, is heresy.

This philosophy is especially attractive among evangelicals and others who adhere to “salvation through faith.” This school of thought doesn’t blink in the eye of environmental ruin, “mutually-assured destruction,” or sectarian strife because that’s what the apocalypse is all about. America will come out on top as sure as Jesus will, because America and Jesus are good, and any opposition is evil. Only in such an environment could a “leader” say “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” And only those who truly believe will not be “left behind.”

Another concept in this vein attractive to conservatives is that of heredity—this is the problem many have with illegal immigration. I agree that America is a holy inheritance, but being born here or having access to it is a “talent” the master has bestowed. We are not to bury it nor spend it for our own purposes—we are to use it as the master has instructed and for his purposes only.

We received forewarning of this twisted philosophy of heredity in the Book of Mormon in Alma 31 as an apostate people recited a prayer containing the following: “We believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children . . . thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, . . . which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God. And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.” An example of this is the song “God Bless the U.S.A.” by Lee Greenwood, ubiquitous around Independence Day. “I’m proud to be an American,” it states. Being “proud” of a blessing is rather blasphemous I think, and the song grates on my senses because of this.

I realize this is a broad generalization of the population, and that there are few true believers. But I think that many of us adhere to one or both of these philosophies to some extent. I know I have fallen for both of these alluring ideas at one time or another. The kicker is that it’s putting other gods before Him. Can nationalism or progressivism be a way in which we, in the name of patriotism or equality, violate the second of the Ten Commandments?

There are many other scriptural examples of untimely-claimed inheritances going badly: the prodigal son, the children of Israel as they prepared to enter their promised lands the first time after leaving Egypt, Esau, Cain, Saul, etc. There are many opposite examples, of inheritances that were given in the Lord’s time: Joseph, the son of Jacob, and his childhood visions; Abraham and his innumerable posterity; Jacob working fourteen years for Rachel; etc.

What things are we over-zealous to inherit? This begs the question: what is our inheritance? We are “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). And what does Christ inherit, that we can join in? “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand” (John 3:35). So, as joint-heirs with Christ, we may become “therefore perfect, even as [our] Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and inherit all our Father has. Well, if we’ll inherit everything anyway, why can’t we just have it now? As shown above, inheritance is all about timing—and most of the things we are promised are conditional upon our showing good stewardship of the “talents” assigned to us.

In the parable of the talents, they were not given to the servants, but were assigned to the servants for the purposes of the master. And when he returned, he did not give the good servants any talents, but rather greater stewardship. Too many of us take the talents assigned to us and spend them, taking very little thought for the pruposes the master had for them. We will “inherit” very little in this world. This is not to say we cannot live full and happy lives in the bounteous terrestrial environment and love that God has provided us. But we will not “inherit” from the Father until the time is right.

Abraham, Moses, and Christ (among others) understood this as they each faced Satan and his promises of great wealth and power (the two objectives of capitalism). They understood that the world Satan offered was not his to give—he had only bought control of it through the selfishness of mankind. It’s a beautiful irony that Satan was offering Christ a world that Christ himself created, a world that Satan could never truly have because the only way to truly receive the earth is to inherit it, as the meek will do.

Moreover, Abraham, Moses, and Christ understood that the power Satan offered was not real power—the only real power is the priesthood. What Satan offered was the perception of power as demanded by the fear and greed of mankind. And this kind of false power can only exist where its subjects fear man more than God. In Sargent Nibley, PhD, it cites a scene witnessed by Gustave Gilbert of a Jewish family facing their death by gunfire at a mass grave. They were together, kissing and hugging each other, giving their last goodbyes; they followed the orders of the SS soldiers and were soon dispatched. But did the Nazis really have power over them? No. These people knew their God and they knew that they were beyond the superficial “power” of violence.

We can believe we have power over another, like I feel when I threaten my children with physical coercion or punishment, but it only works when they don’t understand their relationship to God and man. Therefore, anytime I force my children to do anything, I’m distorting their understanding of power and love. I can only get true power if I inherit it from God. And, ironically, he rarely coerces physically the way mortal parents often do.

But, some may contend, wasn’t man given “dominion” by God? As Dr. Nibley points out:

“Dominion, . . . deriv[ative] of domini-um, property, ownership, f[rom] dominus, lord,’ specifically ‘the lord of the household,’ in his capacity of generous host, ‘pater familias and owner of the house [domus].’ The title of dominus designated the Roman Emperor himself as the common benefactor of mankind inviting all the world to feast at his board. In short, lordship and dominium are the same thing, the responsibility of the master for the comfort and well-being of his dependents and guests; he is the generous host, the kind pater familias to whom all look for support.”

We cannot inherit the earth in its paradisiacal glory if we have abused it in life, any more than we have rights to live with a wife and children in the hereafter whom we have abused in mortality. What is abusing the earth? According to Brigham Young it is taking more than we need. That “need” can be defined along a very extensive spectrum, according to each person’s understanding. It’s definitely something to think about, though. Where do I cross the line between partaking of the God-given bounty of the earth and exploiting the earth? And what about all those good church-members who are very wealthy; are they claiming their inheritance before the proper time? I think that wealth can be a “talent” that the Lord gives us to have dominion over, in the role of “the common benefactor of mankind,” not as a means of control or power, and certainly not as an end in itself.

And what about my spiritual brothers and sisters? Can I expect to live and work with them in a heavenly community if I have taken advantage and exploited them here on earth, especially if my justification was to pursue the temptations of Satan, wealth and power?

So what does all this teach us about the American Dream? What was once the pursuit of freedom and later the pursuit of opportunity has become the pursuit of wealth and leisure. When there are only two things we can take with us to the next life—our righteousness and our learning—all of our daily pursuits seem trivial. Would we be disappointed if we, like the Levites of the Old Testament, were told we wouldn’t be given land like the rest of the tribes because “the priesthood of the LORD is [our] inheritance” (Josh. 18:7)? We have been commanded to take care of our temporal needs, but never to the exclusion of our spiritual needs. Our society is so wrapped up in the temporal, the fleeting, the trivial, the superficial. How much of what we ingest each day—celebrity worship, politics, current events, gossip, pointless entertainment—is simply “a poor player / That struts and frets his hour upon the stage / And then is heard no more: . . . a tale / Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / Signifying nothing”?

I’m pretty disenchanted with politics right at the moment. I don’t see how anything that happens in Washington or even Utah’s capitol building can really change what needs to change. As Tolstoy said, “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

I’ve decided I’m going to stop worrying about the world and start worrying about changing myself, trying to live Christian principles, not only those hijacked by the movements of the day, but the ones that “[have] been found difficult and left untried.”

I don’t know how long this “resolution” will last. It will be hard for me to leave my seductive mistress, politics. If I don’t give up my political domain name, does it mean I’m not serious, like I’m keeping her number in my little black book?

I want to be able to allow Christianity to permeate all the facets of my life. In order to do this I need to learn a lot more about Christ and start following His teachings more closely. But I’m already having second thoughts and doubting myself.

Anywayz . . . .

History repeats itself. The Iraqi government has decided to straighten up and take over more control of their country, including their security. They are currently in the middle of talks with the U.S. to decide the “structure of forces” in Iraq. The U.N. mandate for military action in Iraq expires Dec. 31, and Iraq appears ready to take a bigger role. But the Bush Administration is fighting it.

We should be pumping our fists in the air! The Iraqis feel like it’s time for us to leave or at least significantly lessen our presence. This should be GREAT news! But the Bush Administration is fighting for more time for U.S. troops, more permanence of U.S. military installations, and more influence in the affairs of the country. Ergo . . . the fight is NOT (and in my opinion never was) to liberate the Iraqis.

So what “national interests” are being promoted by our continued presence in Iraq, over the objections of the sovereign government? First is the perceived threat from Iran. But Iran does not threaten the U.S., it threatens Israel. Although I agree with the U.S.’s support of Israel, I think that preparing for war to prevent war is foolish. Bush says he prefers diplomacy, but then refuses to talk to Iran. How does diplomacy happen if no one talks? Iran’s median age is 26 and 70% of the population is under 30. They are materialistic, internet-savvy, and not particularly ideological. I think that within the next two decades Iran will see a revolution, probably soft, toward more openness, and will back down from their belligerent stances because they see no usefulness in them. In the meantime, I think that if the U.S. gathers an extensive coalition to rein in Iran’s nuclear program, the hardliners and their power will go the way of all the earth.

The second “national interest” is oil. Bush, an old oil man, pays lip service to alternative energy sources, but I don’t think he can really envision a world where oil is not paramount. And so we go on trying to solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s thinking and technology. If we had spent as much on alternative energy sources as we have on our illegal activities in Gitmo, the problem would be solved.

Hopefully the next president will have the intestinal fortitude to tell the truth, be honest with the citizenry. Who will do this? Will it be the man who opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2004 as irresponsible, but then changed his mind for the election? Or will it be the man who went into Chicago’s largest black church on father’s day to say that too many men are MIA and AWOL in the lives of their children, shirking their filial responsibilities. Which will have the guts to tell the pro-Israel and pro-oil special interest groups that there are more important issues on the nation’s plate?

Thirty-four year old lawyer John Adams was asked to defend the soldiers, as no one else would take the case. Knowing it would be a very unpopular thing to do, but caring more that justice be served, he mounted a defense that resulted in six acquittals and two convictions of manslaughter, punished with a branding on the thumb. One of the great lines to come from the dialogue of his defense was, “Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one. They are wretched conservators of the peace.”

Today the American military has been “quartered” in Iraq for more than five years. Recently, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that the Iraq government and the U.S. government are deadlocked on discussions of a long-term security pact. Maliki said, “”We have reached a deadlock, because when we started the talks, we found that the U.S. demands hugely infringe on the sovereignty of Iraq, and this we can never accept.” The talks pact includes such items as how long American troops can stay, whether Iraqis captured by Americans must be turned over to the Iraqi authorities, how long (and how many) U.S. bases can remain in Iraq.

If the administration’s objective were really Iraqi sovereignty, there would be no argument. As we now know, the purpose of the war was never to liberate the Iraqi people; it was to establish more U.S. bases in the Middle East and keep a claim to the oil there.

We curse the 18th century British empire for its quartering, exploitation, taxation without representation, and heavy-handedness; but because of the beam in our own eye, we can’t see our own empire-building techniques. Was the Boston mob justified in attacking the “lobsterbacks”? Were the guards justified in firing on the crowd? Or was the whole situation the creation of bad policy and hot tempers?

Let’s not allow jingoism to blind us to the exploitation our government often imposes on countries who haven’t the wisdom, wherewithal, or will to stand their ground against this 21st century empire.

So, essentially we have an oppressive Shiite majority and a threatened Sunni minority stirring up trouble. We originally helped the Shiites overthrow their government and now, not pleased with the outcome (sectarian violence and social strife), we’re arming and funding the Sunnis in an attempt to counterbalance the situation. Honestly, has the Administration never read a history book?

In the 50s, the U.S. aided in the overthrow of a left-leaning government in Iran and installed the U.S.-controlled Shah in its place. When the 1978-79 revolution occurred, resulting in a situation we couldn’t control with unwanted results, the U.S. threw its support (money, training, and weapons) to a Sunni strongman in Iraq named Saddam Hussein. This is the point where we’re back to, in miniature, in Iraq.

What happened next in the 80s? This Hussein fella got a little out of control, so we decided Iran was the lesser of two evils and sent Col. Oliver North there to sell them weapons (but it was for a good cause: fighting a left-leaning (although democratically-elected) government in Nicaragua). The whole while Iranians and Iraqis were killing each other in a drawn-out, pointless war.

Hussein continued to cause problems internationally , including invading Kuwait in 1990 (instigating the war we Americans know as Desert Storm, where ironically the Iraqis were using American weapons and know-how against us) and ordering genocidal actions against Iraqi Kurds, while the Iranians took advantage of the attention paid to Iraq in order to surreptitiously begin developing nuclear capabilities.

Looking at the past, can we infer where the situation in Iraq is headed? We have an ineffectual Iraqi government, a powerful theocratic Iranian-backed strongman in Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite majority armed to the teeth (with insurgency support from Iran, ironically using American weapons and know-how against us), a Sunni minority that is becoming better armed and organized through the Awakening movement, and a separatist Kurdish movement, all sitting on a sea of $150-a-barrell oil. And McCain wants to stay the course?

What Klein is criticizing the Democratic Party for is pointing out the country’s problems, while failing to recognize its greatness. Besides the fact that I think he’s slightly wrong, he does expose a rather large flaw in modern conservative thinking.

First he criticized the Dems for pointing out “deficiencies of superpower government.” In business there is a common analytical tool called a SWOT analysis; it is meant to be a tool for a broad and deep search of a company’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. The problem is that a lot of companies prefer a SO analysis, focusing on strengths and opportunities, while conveniently ignoring weaknesses and threats. These companies fail. Many governments fall into the same trap. The U.S. military has a system called the Red Team—they are basically hole-pokers, devil’s advocates, no-men whose job it is to find all the faults with the idea before them, in order to solidify the idea. If the nation doesn’t have a Red Team analysis, it won’t plan effectively.

Dems/liberals/progressives are too often the nation’s Red Team regarding the effective use of America’s superpower super powers because 1) we have not used them to lead as much as to exploit, and 2) we have missed out on so many great opportunities. We have been so concerned with favorable economic terms and military supremacy that we have treated the other nations of the world as though they were recalcitrant children or playground rivals rather than fellow problem solvers. According to the DoD’s 2007 Base Structure Report, we have 823 military “installations” in 39 foreign countries throughout the world (and that’s without counting Iraq or Afghanistan!). This is what we’ve been doing for too long—missile launch sites, banana republics, and puppet regimes.

We have been negligent in our stewardship. We are the servant given one talent—we’ve been so concerned about preserving our economic and military superiority (an illusion of security), we haven’t bothered to invest our resources in productive endeavors. I guess that’s what “conservative” means. It is only a matter of time before the master returns, takes an accounting, and give our one talent to another who will do something with it.

The second part of Klein’s quote is also important: “slighting the nation’s incredible strengths.” Let me go through the infinitive verbs in the Preamble to the Constitution: form, establish, insure, provide, promote, and secure. Nowhere in there does it refer to cheerleading or patting ourselves on the back. Government is all about action toward a future result, not looking back at the fine work we’ve done. If I downplay America’s strengths, it’s because I see a lot of wasted potential. America has been the Tony Mandarich of the 20th century. If I fail to laud our track record, it’s because I keep hearing the words inscribed on the pedestal of Ozymandias.

I like to think I love this country as much as anyone. I love much of what it has done and is, but it has fallen far short of its unfathomable potential. The job of government is not to congratulate itself on the good it has done but rather to find new ways to do good and to do better.

Rice commented, “I know he’s sitting in Iran. I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him. I guess that’s the message; his followers can go to their deaths and he’s in Iran.” This is astounding hypocrisy from the administration that has, from the comfort of D.C. offices, ordered more than a half-million Americans into combat where 4000+ have died, more than 40,000 have been injured (some completely debilitated), and about one-third of the survivors have returned with some degree of emotional or mental problems. The bald-faced hubris is outrageous. GWB has never put anything on the line more than his father’s name and his own legacy. He has ruined both.

The other instance of hypocrisy is the Bush administration’s criticism of Jimmy Carter’s attempts to find some common ground for dialogue with Hamas. The administration says that Carter’s trip “legitimizes” Hamas. The irony: Hamas was elected by the people; Bush was elected by the Supreme Court. Which has more legitimacy? Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization, but it is also the legitimately- and democratically-elected leading party of a sovereign territory (or at least part of it). The U.S. needs to grow up and realize that talk is indeed cheap, or at least cheaper than bombs, and often more effective.

Only 273 days left.

Grant was essentially a failure early on. Discharged from the Army for being drunk while processing payroll, he bounced from one job to another, doing anything he could to earn money to support his family (including chopping and selling firewood) until his father-in-law gave him a spot working in his leather goods shop, another job he was ill-suited for. He rejoined the Army after the beginning of the Civil War, mostly for the money and change of scenery. And he found his niche. He was a quiet, friendly and unpretentious man with an unmatched internal drive.

Sherman’s father died when he was nine, requiring that he and some of his siblings be farmed out to relatives. Oddly, his new home with his uncle and aunt was just down the street from his mother’s house where she still lived with some of his younger siblings. He ended up marrying his “foster” sister. He, like Grant, failed at most things he tried, although he settled in well as a military school superintendant in Louisiana just before the war began.

The book goes through Grant and Sherman’s time together and apart and how they relied on each other, Grant providing leadership and Sherman providing organization. Grant, with his drive and military acumen, became the most successful general of the war. Sherman, through the tutelage of Grant, developed the leadership and confidence he later needed to drive through Georgia and corner Joe Johnston’s Army.

One of the most interesting quotes from the book was describing an occurrence during the siege of Vicksburg: “One hot June day, after hours of desultory sniping, a private of the Eleventh Wisconsin said to his comrades, ‘I’m going down into the ravine and shake hands with them Rebs!’ and he did just that. More men from both sides came out, shaking hands with their enemies, until hundreds of men were milling about in the no-man’s-land of this ravine. They talked about everything: how hot it was, the kind of illnesses they had, what they thought of their generals. Union soldiers traded rations of coffee for Confederate tobacco. Farmboys swapped knives and chatted about their hometowns, and some soldiers even pulled out tintypes of their wives and sweethearts to show to men who had been shooting at them an hour before.

“A Union officer came walking into the middle of this friendly gathering and began berating the men of both sides for all this fraternization. The young men fell silent, said good-bye to one another, slowly walked back up the slopes to their respective trenches, and soon began shooting at one another again.”

This illustrates the truth of Hermann Goering’s statement: ““Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out if it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war. . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a Parliament, or a Communist dictatorship.”

Sherman and Grant both enjoyed enormous fame after the war and for the rest of their lives. Grant was elected president, yet another job he was bad at. He finished his memoirs on his deathbed to ensure his family’s financial well-being.

Sherman left some of the greatest quotes in American history: 1) “I confess, without shame, I am sick and tired of fighting—its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands and fathers. . . . It is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated (friend or foe), that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation. . . .” 2) “There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell.” 3) [regarding the presidency] “If nominated I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.”