The Insignificant Vote

“Grandpa, I heard today that the individual vote is insignificant because, statistically, it has no effect upon the ultimate outcome of any election. Is that true?”

Grandpa just looked down at me, smiled, and said “No, boy that is not true. First of all, it is a fallacious argument because it is a conclusionary argument rather than a evidentiary argument. Let's look at their argument and see what conclusion or conclusions must come from it.

Those who declare that their vote is insignificant because it has no effect upon the ultimate outcome are those who see the ultimate outcome in terms of winners and losers. From this point of view the only significant votes would be those votes that determined the winner. Any vote over and above that is insignificant because it has no effect upon the outcome. That would also mean that every vote for the loser was also insignificant. This would also mean that the vote of the non-voter had greater significance than the voter because if the non-voter, as a group, had voted it might have had an effect on the outcome by the ability to change the outcome.

What people don't understand is that the use of the democratic process is the means that is used to make a group decision not an individual decision. In order to ascertain what decision a group makes it requires that individuals make a decision first. Since the individual must make the decision first that means that no person can ascertain just how important his vote may be at the time he must decide. It is only after every person has voted and the winner declared that any voter can say his vote was insignificant to the outcome.

And this can only be determined on a statistical basis where numbers are all given equal status and no number is given greater significance than any other number. That is not true in regards to voting. Winning requires a certain number of votes and each one of those votes are significant for there to be a winner. So, for a person to declare that his vote was insignificant is to assume that his vote was not among those that determined the winner and no voter can know that. In fact, to carry this one step farther, no voter can be sure that his vote was even among those counted. And if this was the case then the question of the significance of his vote is an irrelevant question. You follow me, boy?”

I just nodded, a bit confused, and I could see by grandpa's smile that he knew.

“the point being, boy, is the fact that by this theory no voter can determine if his vote was significant or not to the outcome until after the outcome has been determined and a winner declared. In other words no determination of significance can be made until after a conclusion was determined. People vote because they believe that their vote is important to the outcome so the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that they are assessing their vote in regards to the wrong conclusion or outcome.

Every man's vote is very significant. It is the fact that people vote that gives democracy any significance. That means that in order for democracy to have any significance then the vote of the individual must also have significance. How much we, as individuals, value our individual vote is determined by how much value we place upon the use of the process of democracy to choose our leaders. The effect people should be thinking about when voting is not how it will effect the outcome of the election but how it effects our value of democracy. When this is understood then no man can declare his vote as insignificant. It is only in a dictatorship where a man's vote is considered insignificant and without any meaning.”

Amendments to the Constitution

I saw grandpa chuckling as he was working feverishly at the computer. Curious, I went over and looked over his shoulder to see what he was writing that could be so funny. When I asked he told me that he was writing amendments to the Constitution of the United States so that it would clearly reflect the ideology of a certain group of people. As I read what he was writing I noticed that the changes made were in color. This was what he had written so far;

The Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect society, establish fairness, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the welfare of the few at the expense of the many, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves but not to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I
Section I. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the people as represented in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Each representative of both houses are to vote for any legislation in concordance to the will of the people he represents not in accordance to his own conscience.

Article II
Section I. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States by acting in obedience to the will of the people as determined by a popularity poll, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States as it is determined to be applicable in the present society."

Section II. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States with one exception. That exception being, When in the performance of that service his popularity has waned with the people then the people shall be the commander in chief. He may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the society, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the will of the people and not the law be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. One exception, the high crime of perjury does not justify removal of office for the President even though it may be used against other civil officers for removal.

This was as much as grandpa had written but I could not help but chuckle at what he might write in regards to the rest of the Constitution. Also, I could not help but wonder if these were real amendments if they would pass.

Grandpa's Amendments cont.

As i continued to watch quietly he continued to write;

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. The Supreme Court may render this Article and any other Article of this Constitution useless by application of the theory of a “Living Constitution”.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The one exception to this would be in the nomination of any candidate for office. It would also require that any person holding office to place the rulings of the Supreme Court above his personal religious beliefs when such rulings are in conflict of those religious beliefs when making any decisions of government.

Article VIII
Nothing in this Constitution nor in any amendment is to be construed as a restraint upon the Supreme Court from interpreting it so as to redistribute any of the powers given, declared or undeclared, in order to meet the applicability standards of the day for government as they see it fitting without explicit permission of the States.

Working like a Dog

Howdy, my friends, been away for a while but I hope each of you have enjoyed the music while I was gone. And I hope each enjoyed the songs that I dedicated to both, the mothers last month and the fathers this month.

Just came back to give you a partial idea of what drug me away from all my friends. The pic below is a pic of my lovely house that i live in. As you can see, it needs a helping hand from its owner. A touch of paint here, a touch of paint there, a little glue in spots and i'll have it back on its feet in no time.

In case you're wondering, that big white building you see on the left is my dog's house.

I guess you could say that I am the one treated like a dog around here.

Ok, Ok you don't believe me, that's just fine as he pouts. That is an old shed in my back yard that rotted away and finally fell over from a strong wind.(click on pix for a good closeup)

Below is a pic of how it looks now.


And below shows you what happened to it.

That is grandpa's version of recycling.

When I planted that tree you see, its height was at my forehead. Now it is twice as tall as I am. And don't ask me what type of tree it is. I have no idea. The only thing I know is that the leaves remain as green as you see them year round. If someone can identify it I'd sure would like to know.

Well, that was just a short version that I'd share with you and give you a small idea of the reason I feel like someone is working me like a dog.

Father's Day Gift

Couldn't help but come by and give all you guys a gift for Father's Day. And I thought Julie London would be the perfect gift. Who wouldn't want to be her "daddy"?

Work

I'm going to be offline for awhile. I've been busy trying to catch up on work around here and won't have time for the computer.

Political beliefs vs Religious beliefs

People always worry about religion influencing the laws of this nation. But one thing you never hear is how the laws of this nation can influence the beliefs of religions. Where there may have been a diversity of religious belief on any given issue there is a trend towards unity of belief as a result of a law written, meant not to effect religious attitude, but the attitude of the people. Science has already agreed that laws do effect the beliefs of people. When this happens religious belief naturally must also change. For if it did not people would be adhering to two sets of belief in regards to that particular issue.

Now, we as the people have a choice. Would we prefer that government, by its laws, influence religious beliefs or would we prefer that religious beliefs influence government and the laws it enacts? Some would bring up the issue of which religion if the latter was advocated but I do not see that as an issue.

The reason I do not see that as an issue is because of how the founding fathers have set up our government, a government of three independent branches. We also have the Constitution to protect against any attempt to force a singular religious belief system onto the people. That protection is not found in the first amendment but in the body of the Constitution itself. It is found in Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution.

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Within those few words are the indication of just how important religious belief was to the founders. It is the only right of individuals that was protected from the very beginning. And if understood by its intent we can understand what role religion was to play in governmental decisions. For it protected those elected officials who would vote out of religious conviction rather than secular conviction. In do so, protected religions themselves. Thus, we can see that the founding fathers understood that religion was to play an important part in governmental decisions. Tradition supports this viewpoint.

The very diversity of religions represented by elected officials assures that no one religion will dominate and enact laws according to a singular belief system. This is especially true in the legislative body of government where laws originate. The only branch of government where a single religion can be declared as represented is the branch of the Presidency. While he may influence legislation in regards to laws he cannot enact them on his own. He only has the power and authority to execute the laws as enacted by Congress.

Within those few words we see another problem exposed also. With the advocation of a secular government we have seen and heard people attempt to use a religious test upon those who sought office. We saw it used against John F. Kennedy when he ran for the office of the Presidency. We have seen it used against George Bush often when attempting to associate his presidency with the “Religious Right.” we have also seen it as an influence in the Presidential nomination of Mitt Romney this year.

Yet also while there is a fear of religious influence and that fear is justified by past events of history I cannot help but believe that the fear is deeper than justified. I also do not feel that the founding fathers set up a separation of church and state in such a manner as to pit a man's loyalty and duty to country against his religious beliefs as a man must do now on certain issues. I do know they never intended to create a situation where a man might be forced to choose between serving his country and practicing his religious beliefs as might happen now.

Lastly, I do not believe I would get much of an argument from anyone if I was to say that the founding fathers placed the Bible and what it teaches above the Constitution and what it teaches. They may all have disagreed with what the Bible taught but not in disagreement of its place in the life of people.

The City and the Farm

I talk about my grandfather a lot in my posts and what a grandfather teaches. I use this format because there was a time when the elders of a family were honored for their wisdom knowing that they had the knowledge of many years of experience. In today’s world especially in societies as ours, we seem to forget that and have a tendency to treat them as if they were children needing to be cared for.

To me that is one of the pitfalls of an egalitarian society. It results in a belief that wisdom is shared by all although I also believe that it was not an intentional result. People need to be needed and they need to feel they have something to contribute and that need goes beyond the idea of someone to go to for money when in a financial bind or a baby sitter to save money.

I also use the farm as the place in my format and I do it for a reason. It offers a setting that, in today’s society, a city cannot offer, a place to do one of the most basic responsibilities of life and that is to raise children to become responsible adults. The rules are far different on a farm than they are in the city.

On the farm, you learn that there are no guarantees in life from an early age. In the city, you learn that there are safety nets regardless of the problem. In the city, where a safety net is not provided there is a demand that government provide it.

On the farm, a child learns discipline for he is given chores to do that require daily work on his part. Moreover, he learns early that his chores are an important part of being a member of a family. For the family is depending upon him to do his share. You cannot find that in city life.

On the farm you learn early to respect all life for you learn to realize just how much you depend upon it for your own life. In the city that is impossible for only people is the important life there. All other life is considered a nuisance meant to be exterminated or tossed away if no longer wanted.

On the farm you learn that each season has a purpose and adjust your life accordingly to fit that season and to make it productive. In the city the change of seasons only determines what you will do with your free time, summertime is the season for the beach and wintertime the season for the slopes.

On the farm, you learn to have faith in yourself and those that are close to you for they are the ones you must depend upon in order to succeed. In the city, you need to have faith in others and know that those who are close depend upon you in hopes that you will succeed. Failure on the farm is a family affair, in the city it is a personal affair.

On the farm, the laws of nature are the important laws to abide by and man’s laws are secondary. In the city, it is the laws of man that one must pay attention to first and foremost by the nature of its being. For it is by abiding in one that life is respected in the seed, born, tended to, and in the end, value is determined of that seed. By abiding in the other only life has value, the seed has no value and the end marks the finish of any value possessed.

What is written is of a time past and has no meaning anymore, this I know. There will be some that would say that to glorify the past is to seek to bring back a time when many wrongs were also a glaring part of it, this I know also. It is not my intent to bring back the past but only to reveal that we should remember that it contained many benefits that no longer exists. We should also think about the fact that when comparisons is made that comparison is dependent upon what we use to compare one with other is and cannot do either justice for it never can be compared in respect of the totality of either’s existence.

A friend died This Morn

He looks at each of his visitors as they enter and he whispers to each,

“This is a day of deep sorrow for me. A dear friend of many years passed away this morn. A friend who was always there when I needed. A friend who always beckoned to my call whenever I needed . I could always tell this friend my problems and that wonderful friend would listen silently and wisely.

This friend was never jealous but would lead me to wherever I wanted to go. This friend served me well each and every day whenever I asked and did so without complaint. Even upon its death bed it still tried to serve me. This friend never demanded that I speak the words of gratitude nor the words of love.

This friend will be missed very much for how can you forget a companion of so many years. I was stunned as I looked at this friend’s face and knew that all I saw was death as all old friends must eventually do. It was a quick death and for that I am grateful.

A friendship of nearly fifteen years was lost to me this morn. My monitor died on me. It has served me through two computers and I cannot help but think that my computer is about ready to follow it to Electronics heaven.

Decisions and Leadership

One day I had a decision to make and I didn't want to make that decision. Grandpa saw my dilemma and smiled but wouldn't help me in making that decision. All he said was,

Boy, as you grow up you will learn one thing whether you like it or not. That one thing is the idea of making decisions whether it is for yourself or for others. Some decisions may appear hard to make. There will be decisions that you will not like to make. There will be decisions that you will not want to make. Nevertheless, they will have to be made and you will have to make them, right or wrong.

The making of decisions is probably the one of the things that we have to do in life and do without choice in the matter. Now, that may seem like an oxymoronic statement yet it is true. What makes decision making hard is not the idea of making a good decision but the idea of making the correct decision.

A good decision may not always be the correct decision and I call this a mistaken decision. These decisions are correctable. A bad decision definitely is not a correct decision but it is not correctable and they are decisions we must live with. Once a bad decision has been made, the only thing that can be done is to make the end a good end to make that decision appear to have been a good decision.

Leaders are called leaders because the decisions they make have an effect on those who follow them. Those who follow a leader have a very important role. They have the role of being the support that a leader needs in regards to the decisions he makes. The problem here is the fact that not every decision a leader makes will have a positive effect on each and every one of his followers.

When a leader makes a decision that has a negative effect on his followers, he will lose their support. Whether or not he deserves the loss of support is another question to be answered. The loss of support is rarely justified. Just because a decision may have a negative effect on a follower does not necessarily justify not supporting a leader. Even the best of decisions that a leader may make will have a negative effect on some of his followers.

A leader may make a bad decision but he is not the only one that can make bad decisions. His followers can and will make bad decisions in regards to their support. It is when a leader makes a bad decision that he needs the support of his followers the most. For it is then that with the support of his followers that a leader can pursue a good ending.

Only the strongest of leaders is capable of pursuing that good ending without the support of his followers for he must pursue it without their help. In fact, they will even try to hinder that pursuit. Once hindered the end is prolonged unnecessarily and can end in a way that is not desired or hoped for.

Leadership is a quality that is possessed by few men in a society. Some will say that it is a quality given by God. Others will say that it is learned. Either way, the acceptance of the role of a leader is not one to be looked upon lightly. For it is a role only the thick-skinned can endure if he hopes to be a good leader. And we, who are called followers, should take a good look in the mirror and think twice before declaring a loss of support for our leaders.

So, boy, grow up to be a leader but know also there will be times you will stand alone.”

I just nodded and then thought to myself, “Why would anyone want to be a leader of men if they lead those who are so fickle in their loyalty?”

The Power of Another

Wind, one of the four great powers of life
In its warmth it can be the hug we need, the kiss we yearn
In its chill, a reminder that we be but human, not a God
‘Tis from the wind we know ourselves, ‘tis life it gives.

Fire be the force of our lives but touch it not
Warmth be its gift, the heat to kindle our hearts
It be a reminder that love is not to be smothered
For love needs it freedom if it be known as given.

Water we have to quench our thirst, to make us clean
It be there to hold us up though we may feel we be drowning
In the beauty of its turbulence, we know that peace will follow
From this, we know our strengths, we know our weakness.

Earth be the last but yet it be not the least
From within its soul comes the fruit of its labor
That we may know the cycle of life, short it may be
A reminder to know it well, to know it be deep.

The wind might cease, the fire may go out,
The earth may suckle the water dry but this I know
They be gone not long, they be there just the same
For life is ever here, they each have a need.

For as the grain of earth we be, a drop of water
A spark from the flame, the slightest of breeze
‘Tis in our insignificance that we be important
For we be one, we be alone, and alone we be of need.

‘Tis of need we seek for another, of need, we follow the wind
‘Tis of another we seek to be enflamed, to know the fire
For only another may quench the thirst of the unsatiable need
Only with another can the fruit of our labor come forth.

This be the end of my story, the end of my tale
Twas the story of one as each may be
Twas the story of all as each must seek
For it be the union of two that we know we be but one.

Homosexual Marriage

Grandpa took me to the monthly town hall meeting one evening. He usually just sat there quietly as he listened to others rant and rave about a particular peeve they had with certain departments of government. Nevertheless, this night he had something to say and at the end when time was about up he stood up sought permission to speak. Given permission this is what he spoke of,

“California has just joined those states in declaring it unconstitutional to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. But, have they really? There was no law that I know of that prevented a homosexual from marrying. In fact, as far as I knew the laws were gender based not sexually based. In fact, there are many cases where it was reported that a homosexual was married and the father or mother of children. Therefore, the reasoning for it can’t be based on the fact that it was against the law for a homosexual to marry.

Equality? If everyone has the equal opportunity to marry and that includes homosexuals, then where is inequality at, even at the class level? What the Supreme Court has done is make marriage a sexually based relationship rather than a gender based one as accepted on a universal basis. Equality is sexually based now rather than gender based in regards to this issue. Sodomy has been given the status of equality with sexual intercourse.

Some will argue that there are benefits to marriage that homosexuals cannot take advantage of without the right to marry. This is a poor argument also. First, no person who is not married can take advantage of those benefits including heterosexuals either. Second, most of those benefits they are claiming to seek can be designated. There is no law that declares only the spouse enjoys any of those benefits and that includes any decision-making necessary by another person.

As for those laws that do specifically designate the spouse as beneficiary, I have only one thing to say about them, change those laws. There is no need to change the laws of marriage for them. By changing those laws instead of the laws of marriage, all the people benefit not just the few. By changing the laws of marriage, you have created a sense of inequality by allowing the homosexual to participate in society in the capacity of two worlds, the heterosexual world and the homosexual world.

Upon marriage two persons accept the responsibility of two new roles in life, that of husband and wife. Furthermore, it is of marriage that gives meaning and purpose to these new roles. Without marriage these roles are non-existent and without meaning or purpose to any person.

The word spouse is often used as a substitute for the words husband or wife but should only be understood in terms that the person in question took the vows of marriage. It should never be used as an identifying term of the role. The word spouse is closely linked to the words bride and groom not to husband and wife.

Giving homosexuals the right to marry based of preference of sex destroys the total meaning and purpose of marriage. It no longer values the intricacies of the relationship that is involved. A two-man or two-woman relationship is an entirely different type of relationship than a relationship involving a man and woman.

Family is the recognized foundation of any society. Dilute the meaning of family and you weaken the foundation. Marriage is an integral part of the meaning of family. Over the years and within my own lifetime I have seen the meaning of family practically dissolved of its meaning and intent. In addition, with this dissolution I have seen another phenomena, greater dependence on government to provide for the needs of the family.

In closing, I do not ask you all here tonight to judge whether it is wrong or right. I only ask that you think on it as you go home and look at your families and then determine just how important that family is to you”

With this he looked down to me and said “Let’s go home, boy. Your grandmother awaits our return”

New Blog

Sorry,folks about being lax in my posting. Heat is getting to me here and besides I've been a little busy adding a new element to my site. I've added a new blog archiving all the music videos that I've been putting up here for your entertainment. I thought it might be niice to allow all of you good folks that have been enjoying the music to hear them again, especially the ones you particularly liked to listen to.

It will be a blog that contains nothing but music, music, music. You can find it in "Personal Blogs" and the name of the site is Music of my Youth

Gen. W.T. Sherman's reply to Anti-Victors

My fellow Americans:
I have read your posts, in the nature of a petition to revoke the orders of sending all the troops to Iraq. I have read them carefully, and give full credit to your statements of distress that have and will be occasioned, and yet shall not agree to the revocation of those orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the cause, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Iraq have a deep interest.

We must have peace, not only in Iraq, but in all the world. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates this once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the insurgency which are arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat this insurgency, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose.

Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Iraq for warlike purposes in inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be little manufacturers, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go.

Why not support the war now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past years? Of course, I do not apprehend any such things at this moment, but you do not suppose that the troops will be there until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot know what is proposed to be done, but I assert that our military plans makes it necessary for the inhabitants to live with it, and our troops can only renew their effort of services to make their lives in any way as easy and comfortable as possible.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into this country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know that our troops make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of a country.

If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until Iraq suffers the fate of many countries, which is eternal war. The government of Iraq does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the national Government, and, instead of devoting their houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, the leaders and the army and police become at once their protectors and supporters, shielding them from danger, let it come from what quarter it may.

I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept some into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation. You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Iraq can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don't want their oil or their businesses, or their lands, or any thing they have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of Iraq. That they will have, and if it involved the destruction of their improvements, it cannot be helped.

Gen. Sherman's reply, continued.

You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better. I repeat then that, by the original compact of government, the United States had certain rights in Iraq, which have been relinquished; that the insurgents began the war by seizing of funds, persons, etc., etc., long before Mr. Maliki was installed, and before the insurgents had one jot or title of provocation.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we fed thousands and thousands of the families of insurgents left on our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes to you, you feel very different.
You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, tanks and planes, to carry war into Afghanistan, to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.

But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may agree or disagree with me on any thing. Then, will I share with you the last tidbit of thought, and stand with you to shield your rights and privileges against danger from every quarter.

Now the troops must fight, never forgetting the old and feeble, feeding and nursing them, and rebuilding for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over their old homes in Iraq.

Yours in haste,
W.T. Sherman, Major-General commanding (The Griper)

Footnote:
This is my rendition of General Sherman's response to those who would pull our troops out of Iraq now.