On The Road To Ruin

The Senate just signed a bill that gives the President authority to prosecute terrorists. In a 65-34 vote, the Senate has called for the creation of military commissions to prosecute terror suspects. And while it prohibits blatant abuses, it does give the President authority over determining what interrogation techniques are legal and what are not.

This in the name of protecting Americans.

Right off the bat, this will do the opposite. This, instead, will give our enemies carte blanche to do as the please to Americans. We have just given them justification to torture American soldiers who are prisoners of war. "If it's good enough for America..."

Let's take this further. In grade school, kids play a game called "Mercy" where the object is to get your opponent to submit by twisting the fingers, hands and wrists. It is not uncommon for the winner to take advantage of his opponent's precarious situation and make him admit things. When someone is tortured, they will do and say just about anything to make it stop. This includes inventing terror plots and implicating others. It simply is not an effective tool. Giving a bully such as George W. Bush the opportunity to declare what kinds of torture is legal is not only foolish, it is un-American. The 65 who voted for this might as well urinate on the Constitution, for that is what they have just done.

On a global scale, it is only a matter of time before an action approved by George W. Bush under this bill (which undoubtedly will become law) will conflict with the Geneva Convention. Do you know what that means? That means that our President is a war criminal. There is no ifs, ands or buts about it. The minute Bush chooses a course of action conflicting with international law, he has crossed the threshold from bad leader into military thug.

Now, you tell me, how is it that this is in the name of protecting Americans?

A Beginning

There are customs and traditions that go back centuries, even millenia. It is wonderful when you are doing something that your ancestors had once done, or that you are keeping the culture of your people alive.

These cusoms and traditions can be seen in so many ways. Dancing is one -- the Irish folk dancing that was popularized in Riverdance is a great example. Food customs are another.

One of the few things I miss in life is a lack of real tradition. Both of my parents came from homes where any traditions had been somewhat, if not entirely, cut off. My mother's parents were both deaf. They worked through their disabilities, but much of the Italian and Polish culture that they grew up with was not passed on to their children. My mother, for example, leanred to cook Italian from her sister-in-law, not from some old family recipe. One exception to that is the stuffing recipe from her grandmother that is used by everyone in the family for Thanksgiving. It was originally a stuffing for tortellini and is one of the most sacred dishes in our family. The only other tradition passed down was that of the Catholic church, which has since been largely rejected.

My father's family traditions were interrupted by several factors, most notably alcoholism. Nonetheless, my grandmother's German traditions are largely gone. ANd since my father never knew his father's side of the family until recently, the Jewish heritage and tradition is completely absent.

For much of my life I felt I was missing out on something. There was no history in my family, nothing to pass down.

Or so I thought.

The fact is, my parents are sort of the very first of the line in our family. It is something made even more appropriate considering the name Anderson was given to us by someone unrelated. In family terms, my father then is Adam and my mother is Eve.

What that means is that we have a unique opportunity to create our own traditions. We are creating customs to pass down to our children. It is our values, our routines, our lives, that go into the development of Anderson family tradition.

We've already begun. A few weeks ago we made tomato sauce. It will be an annual affair. Our five-course Christmas dinners will hopefully be passed from me down to Jonathan one day. My mother's July 4th seafood dish will also be handed down to the next generation.

Other traditions will also, hopefully, be passed on. My father, sister and I are all writers. Perhaps that will continue. My father is an avid fisherman. We've taken Jonathan fishing, and will continue to do so. Both my father and wife have worked to educate others. My mother has created an environment where both her children have a deep appreciation for cooking. I hope to pass my love of adventure on to Jonathan.

What I had previously considered an empty space has become a glorious opportunity.

How very lucky I am.

The Leaders We Follow

Do the failings of our leaders reflect on the leaders themselves or on all of us who allow them to lead?

I know it's a hypothetical question, but it certainly has weight when looking at the world today. We have leaders all over the world whose words and actions have done more and more damage to an already tenuous and precarious situation.

Here are but a few examples of what I mean:

• Pope Benedict XVI quotes a Byzantine emperor who called some of the teachings of Mohammed "evil and inhuman". In one thoughtless act, this pope erased all the effort of the previous pope to bring the Roman Catholic faith together with the other faiths of the world. Not surprisingly, the Muslim world is up in arms. Talk about adding fuel to an already burning fire.
• Fox News, the leader in conservative television opinion, has lauched a new campaign: since the war they backed in Iraq has failed and the administration they lionized has not made this country safer from terror, they have decided to return to what had made them successful in the first place. The Fox News group is now blaming Bill Clinton for Osama bin Laden. Of course, they act as though they're being attacked unfairly when Clinton retaliated. But Fox News remembered: attacking Clinton is what put them on the map. They are faltering. They must resort to what worked before. No matter that this president hasn't succeeded -- in fact made it worse.
• With Iraq drawing ever closer to a civil war and with the world teetering between peace and global warfare, George Bush spoke to the United Nations about the success in Iraq. What planet is he on? What freedoms have Iraqis gained when they cannot even go outside without fear of being gunned down or blown up? What was he talking about?
• Hugo Chavez called George Bush the devil in the same U.N. proceedings. Now, I despise our president. I am ashamed that he is in our White House. But he is not the devil. George Bush is likely the worst president in American history. He is still light years better than thousands of leaders historically who are more prone to being called the devil. Chavez just signed a deal with a country (Iran) that funds terrorism -- including suicide bombings. He just made a deal with the devil.
• Speaking of the devil: the good Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's choice for president in 2008, it would motivate conservative evangelical Christians to oppose her more than if the devil himself were running. Good to know that the Christian right has admitted to preferring evil to logic.
• The number one box office hit this week: Jackass: Number Two

Now, who should we blame for this? Do we blame the leaders? I mean, it seems that every one of them is underserving at best. Perhaps, though, we should stop doing what bad leaders do. See, bad leaders do what Fox News does -- blame someone else for their bad situation. Perhaps it is time for us to do something different.

Let us realize that for the world to get better, we must change. We must choose better leadership. We must choose to follow those who will take us to a better place. If we continue to follow bad leadership, then the only ones we have to blame is ourselves.

Keep This In Mind

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment. This is the first actual law of our land. It states that there shall be no law against religion, free speech and free press. It also guarantees Americans the right to compensate for wrongdoing. That is what redress of grievances means.

Last night I discovered that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White has sentenced two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle to up to eighteen months in prison for refusing to reveal their sources in the leaked BALCO investigation. The reporters, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, have appealed the case, which will go to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

What does this have to do with the First Amendment, you may ask? Isn't this about investigating leaked information in an investigation and not an infringement on Americans' rights?

Everything. And no.

It is the responsibility of the journalist to report information. To do so, there needs to be a level of trust between the reporter and the informant. Punishing journalists for doing their jobs essentially threatens that trust. People who otherwise might come clean with information will clam up without the trust.

Think about it: Watergate would have gone unsolved. Investigations from the local to the federal would have fallen apart. Journalists everywhere would find doors closed to them -- as if it already isn't difficult to find the truth.

Judge White's decision not only is breaking that trust, it is breaking the First Amendment. This has implications far beyond Barry Bonds and his cheating. This has to do with the very fabric of this nation.

We are a nation of beliefs. We believe in the rights of people to decide for themselves and to live free.

Breaking the trust of the reporter is no different than removing the right to a free press. Let us insure that this does not happen.

How To Offend Your Co-Workers

Last night I turned on the television and was able to watch the Yankees celebrate their ninth consecutive division title and twelfth consecutive playoff berth. It looked in the clubhouse almost as if it were 1995 or 1996 all over again. I think that is because names like Robinson Cano, Melky Cabrera, Chien-Ming Wang and the newest addition -- Bobby Abreu -- are still new to this. It was nice to see the human side to the team so often compared to U.S. Steel.

I watched with extra anticipation, however. I was looking to see if I could find some hint of a chemical imbalance brought on by this week's Sports Illustrated article, written by Tom Verducci.

Here is my take on the New York Yankees:

This is a team that is focused on one thing and that is winning the World Series. Nothing else matters. A pitcher wins twenty games? That's nice. A player wins the batting title? Wonderful. But did it get the team that World Series? That is all that counts. MVP's, Cy Young's, Rookies of the Year -- choose your award -- are mantle-fillers to this team. They want rings. Reggie Jackson is revered in that clubhouse for being Mr. October, for his ability to deliver the rings.

One player, however, doesn't get it. He's too wrapped up in himself to see what is truly important in baseball.

Rings.

The irony of it all is that the player who doesn't get it is the most talented player in that clubhouse. His name is Alex Rodriguez. And it is this more than anything that has irked Yankee fans and the New York media. Sure he makes a lot of money. But so does Derek Jeter. So does Manny Ramirez over in Boston. But they have something that A-Rod does not have -- ring tan. They have come through when their teams needed it most -- in October.

ESPN's Bob Klapisch made some interesting points in his counter article. It is true that Rodriguez could run circles around Derek Jeter. Still, Jeter cares only about winning. And all he does is succeed when it matters. That is why Jeter (who also has a big contract, also is good-looking, also is biracial, also plays on the best team -- who is just like all the excuses A-Rod has made for himself) is beloved and why Rodriguez is reviled.

A-Rod destroyed his relationship with one of his closest friends -- Jeter -- by slamming him in GQ several years ago. He made more or less the same comments that David Ortiz had a week or so ago, only more pointed, more demeaning. He basically said that he was better than Jeter and that he could easily win in New York.

The Mariners and Rangers would have had a better shot with Derek Jeter than Alex Rodriguez.

Other players who have now been thrown into the mix are Jason Giambi and Mike Mussina. Giambi is tricky. He is a cheater. He used steroids. However, Giambi is apparently a value in the clubhouse. Just look how he and Johnny Damon get along. Look what he did with former teammate Miguel Tejada in Baltimore (in the Verducci article). He made a terrible mistake, but he is basically a great teammate. He also hit those two blasts off Pedro Martinez in game seven back in 2003.

Mussina is a little more disconcerting to me. Mike Mussina is quiet. Mike Mussina is, at least to my eyes, a quality person in any clubhouse. He also performed well in the postseason. He pitched successfully when it mattered for the Yankees and cannot be faulted for the Yankee drought.

What have Jason Giambi and Mike Mussina to do with Alex Rodriguez' failures when it matters?

Klapisch says Jeter as captain should say something to him but that he won't because he holds a grudge. Perhaps he should and perhaps Jeter needs to let it go. But unless Jeter hits for A-Rod in those situations, I don't think there is anything he can do either that will help.

And neither can Joe Torre. The fact is, Joe Torre's ability to manage stars has been one of the keys to this team's success. But this is one even the great "Mr. T" cannot handle.

Alex Rodriguez needs to do it himself.

He needs to quit making excuses. He needs to quit blaming others. He needs to be a postseason hero.

The numbers types are not welcome in the Bronx. Winners are.

Alex Rodriguez has only a few weeks to learn how to be a winner.

Here Is What I would Do

Today at the United Nations, only a few short blocks from where I am now seated, the leaders of two nations of great importance to world peace will both be attending the General Assembly meeting.

George W. Bush will be there. So will Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Yes, the two of them will be in the same place at the same time. The leaders of the two nations whose actions have the largest impact on world peace will be in the same room attending the same meeting.

According to CNN, it is expected that the two leaders will largely avoid each other. This is the wrong behavior.

If I were in George W. Bush's shoes -- well, let me clarify. If I were in George W. Bush's shoes, We'd never have invded Iraq and the leaders of al Qaeda would be either dead or imprisoned and I would have focused our military strength toward the other terrorist organizations in the Middle East. We'd also still have all of our rights, we wouldn't have trampled on the Geneva Accords and...

You get the picture.

If I were President of the United States and I was going to the General Assembly meeting today, I would make it a point to do two things. I would stand up and walk over to where President Ahmadinejad was sitting and I would offer him my hand. Second, I would assure him that the United States would do everything it could to insure that we had peace in the Middle East, and that I would welcome Iran's assistance in that regard.

Why would I do that?

If you could win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.
- Abraham Lincoln

There is a homely old adage which runs: Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.
- Theodore Roosevelt

I would, without hesitation, follow in the footsteps of two of our greatest presidents. There is no better show of confidence than to offer friendship. And there is no bigger stick than the American military.

Let us see what transpires today.

No One Deserved This

I saw the fists coming, but I couldn't stop them. My arms were held behind me and I couldn't move. Punch after punch kept smacking into my chest and stomach. There was nothing for me to do except take it.

It was spring of 1983. I was in seventh grade in Our Lady of Sorrows School in White Plains. I was being punished by some of my classmates -- punished for something they did.

It had started a few weeks earlier. No, it started a few years earlier. It really began in the fourth grade. That's when I became the target. It began then, as it often does, with the hurtful jokes children say about and to one another. I was a sensitive kid. I didn't like to hurt others' feelings. I also didn't like to have mine hurt. So when it began, I had no defense for it. I couldn't react.

My parents did not know how to react. My father, still struggling with his own anger, told me to fight. Perhaps this would have worked on some boys. But I was too gentle. I couldn't do it. I remember lying to my parents that the abuse had stopped just so they wouldn't be disappointed. However, it did not stop. Each year, it grew worse.

That spring, one of the boys in class wrote "Eric Anderson Sucks (insert expletive here)" in magic marker on the desk. Five or six classmates gathered around and laughed. It was the fourth or fifth time that month that they had ganged up. I lost it. I cried.

The teacher saw me crying and asked why. I pointed to the desk.

Smack! Smack! The punches were for pointing. One boy held my arms while the others took turns. It was only a few weeks after the incident. Those few weeks I had been socially cut off from the rest of class. No one spoke to me. No one even looked at me. It was as if I was a spirit visitor, like Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol.

I wanted to change schools. I wanted to die. I wanted to be anywhere but with those kids. But I had no choice.

Everyone in life has moments that are called gut checks -- tests of character. My son recently had one when he was going through a fear of getting hit with a baseball. He stepped out of the batter's box and kept missing the ball. He and I went to the coach's house, where Jonathan took batting practice for an hour. Swing and miss. Swing and miss. An hour! The other kids who were there complained and whined. Jonathan could have quit -- most of us would. He kept hanging in there, swinging and missing. The coaches and I knew he'd come out of it. He had guts. Sure enough, a few days later, he started stepping in toward the pitcher's mound and has been on a tear ever since.

Gut check.

The following fall, when eighth grade began, I remember my mother had read that school was to start at nine on opening day rather than the usual eight-thirty. Class had already been in session a full half-hour before I showed up. As expected, there was laughter. When I got to my seat, some of the kids started to say things. But not everyone. Not this time. After school that day I got a call from one of my classmates. He said he was surprised that I showed up at all, considering what I endured in seventh grade. He thought it took a lot of guts.

I still got abused at school in eighth grade. Real life stories aren't necessarily as neat and pretty as they should be. But it was less so, as if the bullies no longer had the heart to do it like they used to.

We all need gut checks. We all need moments that test our character. It is how we learn about ourselves and the kind of person we are. My son's experience taught him that he has heart.

I learned this about myself in seventh grade. It was an awful way to learn.

Who's The Wimp?

It will happen. It'll probably happen soon, too. You'll get into a conversation with someone about the Iraq war. Chances are, nowadays, that your fellow conversationalist will have either always believed or have come to their senses and learned that the war is morally, legally and ethically unjust.

In case, however, you have some holdout, some person so blinded by Republican rhetoric that they hold every word spoken by this administration as canon law, you will likely face a few barrages against your character. You will probably be told, in one way, shape or form, that your views are cowardly. You will likely be told that folding in the face of tyranny is a sign of weakness.

And, most likely, you will be told this by someone who has never been in the military, never faced an enemy, never watched their buddies die in combat.

Reminding them of that usually will not deter them. Facts, usually don't. These are the same people who once, if not still, call them Freedom Fries.

Which reminds me -- the same people who will call your views a sign of weakness probably consider the French weak. Yes, we've all heard it. We may have even said it at times (I'm guilty of it myself). France surrendered to the Germans and we had to bail them out. Now they won't even stand with us against Iraq. Wimps.

Let's review the wimpiness of the French, shall we?

The French spent 52 months fighting the Germans, Austrians and Ottoman Turks in World War I. They were invaded by Germany. They held the line. In the process, almost 1.4 million French soldiers and sailors, as well as 40,000 plus civilians, were killed. That is more civilian war deaths than Americans had in the entire Twentieth Century. And it's more military deaths than America has had in all our wars -- combined. We did not enter World War I until France had been fighting for 33 months.

A generation later, France and Britain declared war on Germany. Ten months later, the Blitzkrieg proved too strong for France and Britain. France was forced to surrender. Still it did not stop the French resistance, who continued to fight until Germany surrendered. The United States did not enter the European theater until six months after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. It was this, not our intervention, that ultimately saved Europe.

France gets flak for surrendering to the Germans. Yet, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia and Greece also surrendered.

In World War II there were 213,000 French military casualties. The U.S. suffered 292,000 military casualties -- not as big a difference as your friend would lead you to believe. In addition, the United States was never invaded. Germany's invasion of France cost them an additional 350,000 civilian deaths. The attack on Pearl Harbor, while tragic and debilitating, is not an all out invasion. The U.S. has not seen war on its soil since 1865.

Perhaps they aren't so wimpy after all.

Well, what about their leadership?

In the height of the Vietnam War, George W. Bush used his family's enormous influence to get into the Texas Air National Guard. He did not serve in Vietnam. Jacques Chirac was an Armoured Cavalry Officer who, despite his family's enormous influence, volunteered to serve his country in the Algerian War of Independence. He not only saw combat, but was wounded.

Representatives Robert Ney (R-Ohio) and Walter Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina) led the Freedom Fry charge. Jones, like Bush, served in the National Guard. Ney did not serve.

France, by the way, has troops in Afghanistan -- a war most would agree has justification.

So, after reminding your friend of the facts, ask him or her what is courage and what is weakness. Is it courageous to send others to die in an unnecessary war when you were able to get out of it yourself? And is it weak to choose not to send your countrymen to die in a war you aren't sure is legitimate just to get on the good side of an ally?

Being against this war is not weak. It is not cowardly. It is smart.

And, perhaps, the more courageous viewpoint.

A Letter To A Friend

Dear Joe,

It's been a little more than five years since I last saw you. My how so much has changed.

Claudia and I moved out of White Plains about a year after we saw you. We moved out to Milford, CT. But a lot has changed at home, too.

Sports Page, where you held court, is now moved. It's in the "Old Mall" now, an attempt to capture some of the nightlife that has taken hold in central White Plains. The old building in south White Plains is currently vacant and waiting to either be torn down or replaced by a bank or something.

Our city itself is different. You'd hardly recognize it. Scyrscrapers tower over where Macy's used to be. Sears is now a Wall Mart -- could you believe there's a Wall Mart in White Plains? And all those dollar stores on Mamaroneck Avenue have been replaced by restaurants and bars. It is a completely different city from the one you knew.

Five years ago we lost you. I spent the first couple of years afterward in a kind of shock. Now, I've regained my consciousness and am more determined than ever to insure that you and those we lost with you will not be forgotten and, more importantly, that you will not continue to be used by our government as an excuse to take morally unjust actions.

None of us who knew you have forgotten you. And none of us ever will. It is long overdue for us who miss you to make sure those responsible are held to task. At the same time, we who remember must make sure that others don't die in your name fighting those who were not involved and are not threats to us.

This, Joe, is my promise to you.

Eric

The Real Path To 9/11

Bill Clinton is outraged.

So is his administration.

Apparently, the upcoming ABC miniseries entitled The Path To 9/11 casts the Clinton administration in a negative light. According to stories, the miniseries implies that the Clinton administration was lax in its management of terrorism.

The members of the administration have every right to be outraged.

But they were, in fact, lax on the threat of terror.

This program is a dramatization. While there is some basis in reality, most of it is fiction. And fictionalizing actual events is a dangerous game, especially when it implies that certain people involved may be partially to blame. The way I see it, this is a classic case of defamation of character. ABC better be very careful.

That said, the Clinton administration did not do nearly enough to combat terror. Neither has the current Bush administration. Or the previous Bush administration. Or Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's, Nixon's, etc.

The mistakes our government has made that had helped lead us to 9/11 go back to 1948.

No, we are not to blame for what happened. Neither are our elected officials. But we need to understand the errors in order to correct them.

In 1948 Harry Truman fully recognized the state of Israel. Without formal borders. He did not formerly recognize a state of Palestine.

Mistake one.

Israel's right to exist is certainly not in question here. But neither is Palestine's right to exist. And no one did anything about Palestine. It was mishandled. By the U.N. By the British, who occupied the territory following World War II and whose failures there were a precursor to the U.S. failure in Vietnam and the Soviet failure in Afghanistan.

No other president following Truman took the diplomatic stand until the 1970's. They all failed in that regard.

Then came Jimmy Carter.

He had it. He actually moved the Middle East more towards peace than any President before or since. He created a peace between Egypt and Israel.

Then Iran kidnapped Americans.

All his steps forward were erased because he mishandled the deal.

Reagan had the tough guy image. His coming presence struck fear in the Iranians. He even bombed Iran and Libya during his term. But even he failed in the face of terror. The U.S. Embassy in Beirut is bombed by terrorists. 63 people are killed. We remove our troops shortly after. Terrorists everywhere learn that Americans cannot stand the sight of their own blood.

Reagan and his successor, George H.W. Bush, ignored Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. We helped them withstand the Soviets, but left them to fend for themselves as soon as the war was over. The country was left in ruins and was ripe for the kind of takeover that would soon happen with the Taliban.

Bill Clinton probably could have done more -- certainly more than the Republican administrations -- but he didn't. He brought the Palestinians and Israelis closer to peace than anyone before or since. But when peace talks failed, so did hope. The embassy bombings and the U.S.S. Cole bombings were icing on the cake.

We are targets of terror because we support Israel. We are targets of terror because we are a liberal nation -- at least in the eyes of fundamentalist Muslims. We are targets of terror because we have financial dealings with the Saudis and other regimes in the region that benefit us at the cost of the common men and women there.

Those were the reasons 9/11 happened.

That our leaders did not target terror properly before 9/11 is irrelevant. None of them could have expected an attack like what happened. And their mistakes were just that -- mistakes.

What matters is what we've learned from 9/11.

Let's hope the new administration in 2009 understands the lessons. And that we remain lucky until then.

Sending A Message Loud And Clear

My work experience has been as varied and storied as the rest of my life. I have helped paint the traffic lines on the streets, waking at 4:30 in the morning so we could beat the morning rush. I worked in a dry cleaners, inhaling all those unhealthy chemicals. I mopped floors and did inventory at a supermarket. I tended bar. I've worked for a banking company, a hotel company and was even an executive for a finance firm, with an office overlooking New York harbor.

For a little less than a year, I worked part-time at Bloomingdale's department store in White Plains, NY. I would work there after my regular job, and on weekends, to help pay for my upcoming wedding. I began there in 1994 and left after the summer of 1995. During that time, I learned a bit about style. I needed it -- before working there, I was known more for dressing poorly at best, in a street style that included high-tops and rolled-up sweatpants. I leanred how to properly fold clothing -- at the expense of my wife, who will attest that I don't really fold much of anything anymore. I learned that retail can be both thrilling and utterly boring in the same day.

I was assigned to men's casual wear on the main floor by one of the side entrances. The sales staff there were responsible for such items as Coogi sweaters, Nautica and Tommy Hilfiger, and the varied Bloomingdale's brands. Mostly, we spent our time laughing and talking and not doing much of anything.

On one of my days off, someone walked into the back entrance of the store, where men's suits, Polo Ralph Lauren and Armani Exchange was kept. He was carrying a pistol, and pulled it on an associate of mine who had just recently moved up to the suits department. My associate quickly opened the register and the robber emptied it and took off.

It wasn't the first time Bloomingdale's was victimized. Not even close. It's location made it ripe for snatch and run thieves. Once or twice, I was even involved, helping the undermanned security department catch the thieves in the parking lot.

But this was the first time in anyone's memory that someone actually pulled out a gun. Everyone on the second floor was shaken. The next day, I came in to work and was told the story. My associate was going to be out for a while. They had to hire a new person in the suits department.

I had often suspected that my boss there wasn't thrilled with me. Retail was not my career choice and I was there strictly to earn extra cash for my wedding. I guess in her eyes I was more expendable. I didn't know exactly how expendable until the following day when she called me into her office to tell me I had been transferred to Polo Ralph Lauren -- the very spot of the armed robbery.

I spent my remaining nights at Bloomingdale's alone at the scene of the crime.

Needless to say, this did not enhance my already shaky trust in authority.

Reflections From A Mini-Series

Sometimes even television can enhance your life like the finest works of art.

No, I'm not talking about anything I've seen on recently. While shows like 24 and House are creative and enjoyable, they are merely forms of entertainment. They beat any of the so-called reality shows, but they are not something I would declare a masterpiece.

Roots was a masterpiece. Seinfeld, I believe, was also a masterpiece, though of a different nature.

Last night I finished watching the finest television mini-series I've ever seen. It was the HBO mini-series called Band of Brothers. It chronicled Easy Company from training through D-Day through Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge through to the end of World War II.

As the series progressed, I felt every emotion. I laughed. I cried. I was horrified. I was proud. Most of all, I was in awe of these great men, these heroes of the battlefield.

Courage is a trait I believe we all wish we had. Sometimes, we find it, other times we fail. These men acted with courage in the most dire of circumstances. They showed resiliency. They never quit. They accepted their role and they executed it.

I found myself wondering many things. How would I perform under the same circumstances? Surely, I would have been trained as they were, so I would have been prepared. But war is war and no one really knows until they have been in it.

Also, I wondered about the other soldiers in World War II and in other wars. Were they as courageous? I came to the conclusion that most probably were. On both sides. Band of Brothers addresses that, as a German general is surrendering his troops to the Americans. He requests permission to address his men. What he said to his men was exactly what I was thinking about Easy Company.

I came to the conclusion that, yes, most soldiers acted courageously in battle. Most were, and are, heroes.

Then I wondered how we could send our heroes into battle as haphazardly as we do. Since 1959, when we first stationed soldiers in Vietnam, our government has sent soldiers all over the world -- and for what? To protect American interests?

American interests. The way I see it, keeping our soldiers -- our heroes -- from needless warfare is truly American interests.

The difference between the men of Easy Company and the men of units in Vietnam or Iraq isn't that they were more or less courageous or heroic. It's that their war was necessary.

Today we have soldiers in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Considering 9/11 and the recent attempted attacks on us, I have no doubt we are fighting a necessary war in Afghanistan. But the men and women stationed in Iraq are there, forced into battle where their courage is tested daily, without good reason.

Please remember, those of us who oppose this war, that the opponent here is not the soldier. It is the politician. There is great honor in serving your country as courageously as the men and women in our armed forces do.

There is no honor in sending those men and women to die without good cause.