The Case For the Democratic Party

Friends:

First of all, hello. And thank you for taking the time to read this statement.  I know most of you have a pretty good idea of where you stand. If you consider yourself to be a conservative or a Republican, you most likely feel that identification strongly, and I respect that. I'm not writing to win an argument with you.  Consider this a respectful request for a moment of your time.

Abraham Lincoln described America's goal as "to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life". Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed our goal to be "freedom from want...freedom from fear".  The reason I mention the words of these two great Presidents is because I think each represents one end of a spectrum on which most of us sit.  Abraham Lincoln's ideal was a society that produced equal opportunity. Franklin Roosevelt championed a society that emphasized equal outcome.  These are very different ideals, and they are very much in tension. But as your friend, my hunch is that most of you would agree with one of these two statements. If you agree with neither, you should stop reading here.

However, if your feelings about our country sit anywhere between these two distinct ideals, I humbly request you consider the possibility that you are a Democrat.

I represent to you that we are neither a liberal party or a conservative party. In fact, mostly what we seem to be is a group of people having a vigorous debate about who was right, Lincoln or Roosevelt. But we all agree on one thing---that whichever vision you choose, no one human being can accomplish it alone.   That's why we're such a big tent. We have no need for litmus tests, and we don't excommunicate people, because we know that's no way to achieve anything.  We know we need everyone's help, whether we agree with them or not, to make life better in America.

That's about all there is to it. That's what we are about. That's what we stand for.  I'm not going to spill ink about other parties, because enough ink has already been spilled. 

I only ask you, if you believe you fit somewhere on this spectrum, to ask yourself which party genuinely wants our society to achieve either of these goals. If either of these goals are something you want, please consider your answer carefully as you make your choice on election day.  

Thank you for your time. 

Open Letter to a Christian (unless)

Greetings and happy Easter:

I write to inform you that my family and I received the greeting card you sent us wishing us a happy Easter. Incidentally (coincidentally?) it arrived on the first night of Passover, a very important holiday to us.

Your message to my family was as follows:

                    Enjoy this glorious season of His love!
                    May the wonderful victory of Easter
                    Be with you  
                    Each day of the year.
                    Have a Beautiful Easter!

I note that you signed your children's names to the bottom, along with your own.

There is nothing wrong with this message, in and of itself. Had you sent it to a family that actually celebrates Easter, it would be a fine and glad tiding.

But your decision to send it to us was wrong. Very wrong. And you know why.

You know we are Jews. You know our children are Jews. You know that our family prays to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to that God only. You know that we do not celebrate Easter. You know that we have no wish to have an Easter, beautiful or otherwise.

You may also be aware that Easter has historically not been a very pleasant day for Jewish people.  Not too long ago, Jewish people were made to attend compulsory church services in which we were hounded and vilified for not accepting Jesus Christ as our God. Only decades ago, Easter was a popular day for Christians to actually, physically, assault Jews in broad daylight, inspired by the prayers they heard at the Easter services in their Churches.

Happily for us, the means have changed. Sadly, your goal has not. I am aware that you still believe that our faith is unacceptable. I am aware that you are told, by your pastors, that our very existence as practicing Jews is unacceptable. I know it is your life's goal and your heart's delight to turn me into a Christian; or short of that, turn my children toward your faith and against our family and tradition.  I have a hunch that this is precisely the reason why you sent this card.

But you are wrong to do it. Your faith in the rightness of your action is wrong, no matter how sincerely you feel it. Your pastors are wrong to tell you to do it. It is not a message of love, it is a message of hate.  It is not a message of inclusion, it is a message of bigotry. When you send messages like this to Jewish people, you are essentially telling us that you refuse to be Christian unless we stop being Jewish.  You are asking us to believe that Jesus Christ, who loves us all so much, and commands you to love us as your brethren, wants us to turn our backs on our own covenant--one that we have faithfully pursued, often at great risk, sometimes at the expense of life itself. You are asking us to disrespect our families and our ancestors, to devalue the sacrifices they made to keep our culture and religion alive, to say that it was all for nothing. And worst of all, you ask us to forsake our faith, which we hold as sincerely as you hold yours-Jesus Christ himself would not send us a message like this.  As a Jew who sacrificed his life for the sake of other Jews, he would never ask us to so dishonor our ancestors, who made equal or greater sacrifices, often at the instigation of your church.

Ask yourself something. Your Church has been at this for over 2000 years; trying to convert all of the Jews to Christianity. In that time, it has managed to kill a lot of Jews, but it has not converted very many. Your efforts have been frightening, grotesque, violent and insulting--but one thing they have not been is persuasive. A few data points.

                   --It is now the year 2012 of the Common Era

                   --There are around 13 million of us, all over the world, and most of us are thriving

                  --We have regained the State of Israel, and it, for all of its political problems, is an economic
                     powerhouse and global leader in technology

                 --We are honored the world over for our achievements in government, philanthropy, science,
                    technology and every other conceivable human endeavor

                --Many Christians (I would argue the real ones) have come to accept us, just as we are

Is this the description of a people accursed by God? Could we have done all of this, for two millennia straight, notwithstanding the obstacles Christians put in front of us, if God did not love us?  Would we still be here today, celebrating Passover alongside you celebrating Easter, if God did not want us around?  You were not able to convince us with threats or violence.  Do you honestly think you will now succeed with Hallmark cards?

Your efforts have been a failure, because your quest is wrong. The road you are going down is a dead end. It is a rutted and ugly track that can offer you nothing other than a bitter journey, and you will not be satisfied at the end.

Because there will be Jewish people two thousand years from now, just as there were two thousand years ago. Your descendants, having inherited your distasteful legacy will still be angry and distressed that we have not changed. But there we will be.

With that in mind, and in the generous and loving spirit of Jesus Christ, I would like to offer you an alternative.  Love us. Love us as we are. Love us as Jesus would.  He does not have to be a wall that separates us--Jesus can be a bridge that unites us.  We both honor Him, you as a deity, we as a heroic leader of our people who tried, and sadly failed, to liberate our ancestors from Roman oppression. We mean you no harm, and we wish you no ill.  Christianity has accomplished a great deal of good in this world, and many Christians today are engaged in the most constructive activities imaginable, from feeding the hungry, to curing disease, to aiding and comforting those in need. We admire these efforts and support them entirely. Let us all honor Jesus Christ by uniting around those attributes of him that we all admire, and work together to repair this world. We have no desire to change you. If you accept us, think of all the good we can accomplish.

Of course, you could continue on your current path. But know this: You will fail.  There have been Jewish people for five thousand years, and there will be Jewish people in five thousand years.  We are fully prepared to wait you out, and we will thwart your present efforts at every turn. We are prepared to keep our covenant and hand it down to our children and our children's children, even if it costs us our lives.  We have proven this time and again. Count on it.

Because no matter what you say, and no matter what they tell you in your Church, God loves us--and he loves us as much as he loves you, and for this reason, the road you are on will not lead you to salvation in this world, or the next.

You can make the decision to change, but ultimately, it is up to you, and the consequences will be yours to live with.

Think it over.

Blessings.

Unpopular

For much of my childhood, I was unpopular. The reasons for this need not be analyzed; those readers who know me know the details of my childhood all too well, and those who do not know me need not be bored with those details. Suffice it to say that, for a variety of reasons, none of them good, I was, during my first 18 years excluded from activities, ostracized by my peers, and ridiculed for various "deficiencies" large and small. However, I would not trade my experience for any other, and I have no significant regrets. Let me tell you why.

Although I did not understand this then, during the entire time of those first eighteen years, I had intrinsic value as a human being; just like everyone else. Regardless of how I talked, dressed or behaved, regardless of my interests or what I cared about, regardless of whether I was good at sports or "athletically demented" as one quite eloquent "popular" kid once put it, I was a person. I mattered. No one, no matter what they did had the right or ability to make that untrue. That my worth was devalued was no failing on my part; rather, it emanated from the greed and cynicism of some peers, and the indifference of others, and some teachers. My bad experiences were caused by bad actors, bad policies, and failures of leadership. While these problems, which still plague too many childhoods, can and should be corrected, that they were not soon enough does not reflect poorly on me.

On the other hand, my conduct in my childhood reflects well on me, because in the qualities over which I actually had agency, which made up my true character, there was much to admire :

--I was honest

--I was fair

--I was kind

--I was ethical

--I was curious

--I was productive

--I was respectful

--I was friendly

--I was loving

--I took risks

In short, I had no control over whether I was "popular." It was for want of nothing intrinsic. Devaluing me with was just a cynical tactic that people with less to offer used to conceal their own deficiencies. But in everything that mattered; everything that was in my control, every core element of my being, I excelled. And I did what was required of me at the time with determination, perseverance, and dignity even in the face of exclusion and sometimes outright scorn. I was courageous--I got up every day, went to a place where people ridiculed and ostricized me constantly, -- and got the education to which I was entitled, and which was my duty to obtain. There was nothing not to like about me, and everything to admire. On the flip side, the "popular" kids, in order to achieve their popularity often had to resort to being everything I was not. Today I sometimes wonder how these individuals face that reality (assuming they ever achieved the self awareness and genuine honesty to grasp it).

Ironically, my intrinsic qualities, whatever their impact on my reception by my childhood peers, have made all the difference to my success as an adult. I attribute to them much of my success, both in my professional and in my social life. My wife loves me in spite of or perhaps because of, the fact that I didn't play football, smoke dope out back, or get laid, and I'm a good lawyer because I am kind of nerdy and, frankly, thinking and acting outside the crowd is precisely what genuine success in this world takes.

I was unpopular, to be certain. But I'm proud of the person I was, because I'm proud of the person I am. As I sit here today, I the people I feel sorriest for are the popular ones, especially, that subclass that decided I was "unpopular" and labored with such alacrity to make me unpopular. In addition to having to live with knowing, as adults, that they behaved in ways that demeaned them far more than their behavior demeaned me, many of them are now largely irrelevant; by dint of the qualities they possessed and developed in order to be "popular". I on the other hand, get to bend the arc of the universe every single day, and I can sleep at night knowing I earned my success, and did so at no one else's expense.

Bobby Takes Poop--National Crisis Averted

New York, NY-April 25, 2010

AP-As Americans from coast to coast sat on tenderhooks today, Robert Gerstein finally moved his bowels, putting a 48 hour ordeal finally to an end.

The elimination, which was average sized, emerged at 9:35 PM, Eastern Standard Time. Robert is now clean, and in good spirits, but heated discussions among the nation's leaders continue.

The crisis, which began at approximately 7:00 am on the morning of April 24th has provoked a special investigation by the United States House Energy Subcommittee on Health. The Committee will begin holding hearings at 8:00am tomorrow morning. In a press conference earlier today, Committee Chairman, Congressman Frank Pallone of New Jersey promised to get to the "root causes of the controversy. We have a lot of questions," said the Congressman "and frankly, some of the people involved may have a lot to answer for. The people need answers, and we need to get to the root causes. America's kids shouldn't have to spend a moment longer than necessary on the can."

Among issues the Congressman cited for investigation was the controversial decision to feed Robert rice cereal, which some experts say should not be introduced until at least six months. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebilius also expressed concern. "I'm glad the prunes worked," said the Secretary when asked about corrective measures that had been taken to finally move things along, "but really, breast milk or formula is all they should be getting at that age." Sebilius has promised that her department will be launching its own, independent investigation in the near future.

Meanwhile, an angry Tea Party protest on the National Mall nearly turned into a riot as activists slammed the government, insisting that Federal activity was the cause of Robert's constipation. "Those Commies definitely put something in the water!" Shouted Moe Briggs of Altoona, PA. "This never happened when Bush was President! Just shove a thermometer up his butt." Protesters also waved signs saying "My kid crapped when he was s'pos'd to! Why can't yours?" and "Prunes are for liberals and red socalists." Not to be outdone, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele promised to make Robert's bowel movements a divisive issue in the 2010 congressional elections.

President Obama had earlier today Federalized the New Jersey Air National Guard and scrambled F-16 Fighters from the 177th Fighter Wing, but they have since been recalled as the emergency has passed.

Republcians See RHG Birth As "Game Changer" in Health Care Fight

New York, NY (AP)-

Two Leading Republicans have hailed the birth of Robert Harold Gerstein, which occurred earlier this week, as giving their party a significant edge in the health care debate before the U.S. Senate.

Senate Minority Leader John Boehner praised the event as a "game changer".

"I don't see how you can look at the outstanding health care he received and not conclude how ludicrous and unnecessary this proposed legislation is. Bobby Gerstein's birth clearly proves, once and for all, that privately funded health insurance is alive, well and working for the majority of Americans."

The birth also attracted applause from former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. "If private health care is good enough for socialist countries like New York," said Palin "it should be good enough for America."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned his Republican Senate colleagues to temper their optimism, however. "I have it on good authority that Bobby strongly supports this bill," stated Reid. "He wants this legislation because he knows how critical it is for America's future, and we are going to pass it for him."

General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, welcomed Gerstein's birth for reasons unrelated to the healthcare debate. "He's a great little ranger, and I can't wait to serve alongside him in my Army, " said McChrystal.

U.N. Secretary General Hails RHG Birth

New York NY (AP)--In a brief press conference this morning, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Kai-moon offered congratulations to Theresa and Ephraim Gerstein on the birth of their son, Robert Harold Gerstein. The Secretary-General hailed the birth as a "stupendous event."

"We expect great things from Bobby, " declared the Secretary General, "the whole world is watching, and will continue watching. This is change we can count on!"

Gerstein was born on December 1, 2009 at 11:35 pm, at New York Presbyterian Hospital, in New York City.

Adidas to Sponsor Ephraim

New York-June 8, 2009

Erich Stamminger, Adidas brand CEO unveiled a new sponsorship agreement with Ephraim Gerstein, in a press conference at Rockefeller Center earlier this morning. The partnership is believed to be the first in history to feature a relatively unknown private citizen, rather than a professional athlete or celebrity. Adidas did not reveal the endorsement fees paid to Gerstein at press time. The optimistic Stamminger appeared relaxed and enthusiastic to begin what many commentators believe to be an audacious marketing strategy.  "To us, it was a no-brainer," declared Stamminger.  "The Adidas brand stands for quality, understated style, and a tradition of overall excellence, so it was natural to want to partner with an individual who lives those values. [Gerstein's] relative anonymity might pose something of a marketing challenge, but Adidas could not pass up the opportunity to deliver such a fresh, compelling message."

CNBC commentator Phil LeBeau believes the unconventional deal holds promise for Adidas.  "It's certainly a new way of doing things," said LeBeau "but I believe that this is a leading indicator that we are entering a post-celebrity era.  It may be that many consumers will relate better to Ephraim than they would to a celebrity.  After all, most consumers are not famous.  I think Adidas is betting that a young, upscale target audience would look at Ephraim and say 'here's a guy just like me, someone I can trust.' He's wholesome. Trendy, but not excessively so. Someone you could aspire to be, but within reach."

Though Adidas kept most of the deal's details under wraps, Stamminger said that Gerstein will not have to throw away his Chuck Taylors. "We don't consider those to be a competing product," said Stamminger. 

And The Problem Is?

This puzzling article about Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor appeared in this morning's edition of the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/politics/29puerto.html?_r=1&hpw

Basically what it seems to be saying is that her job, as a young attorney, with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, somehow renders her less than qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.  The gist of the argument seems to be:

1. Sonia Sotomayor represented indigent immigrants as part of her job.

2. She did her job well.

3. Therefore, she might presently be biased in favor of the people she used to represent as part of her old job.

The absurdity is not only in this argument, but that NYT reports it as though it's a legitimate conflict of interest.  All I can tell you (and this is from personal experience) is that we represent clients.  In order to do our job effectively, we have to empathize with our clients.  We are their advocates.  By this logic, all lawyers who have ever represented anyone in any capacity cannot serve on the Supreme Court, because we all have represented clients whose positions might be different from those of the parties we might judge.  The President will have to confine his search to first year law school students.  

Supreme Court Justice: Not a bad entry level job. 

Guantanamo Inmates To Alaska

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject of the Guantanamo inmates, however, I would like to make a couple of observations:

1. Guantanamo bay is unsettlingly close to south Florida--I don't know anything about this prison's security procedures, but it would seem to me that if an inmate was smart enough to escape, it might not take much more to get ahold of a small boat and get across the straights.  I know that those who raise the NIMBY problem are professedly concerned about having terrorists in their backyard, but I would counter that Cuba is our backyard.  A nice, remote location in the interior might be better.

2. Alaska is far away from most Americans, sparsely populated and very cold--Even if a prisoner could escape a supermax in Alaska, they would be very far away from our centers of population, and, depending on where it is in Alaska, might have to cover some very punishing terrain.  

Yes, the more I think about it, the more attractive a supermax in Alaska becomes forthe housing of Guantanamo inmates.  Of course, the Alaskans might not want them in their backyard, but that's fewer people being "inconvenienced" than anywhere else in the country.  Also, it's yet another opportunity for them to get federal funding.  Admittedly, this would also be a politically expedient solution for Obama, as Alaska has few electoral votes, and the Republicans will probably get them anyway (though I consider this, at most, an incidental dividend).

It seems like a winner all around.

P.S. I'm not, by this post, necessarily advocating that we indefinitley hold people without charging them.  That is, of course, a separate issue that I have to give more thought. 

Jon Huntsman--Ambassador to China

As many of you probably already know, President Obama announced this morning his appointment of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman as ambassador to Utah. You can find out more about that appointment here:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/utah-governor-to-become-ambassador-to-china/?hp

This is precisely the type of bipartisanship that the President promised us--and with this appointment, he is delivering (at least as much as he can insofar as the GOP is willing to co-operate. The appointment is of key importance for two reasons:

1. This is no mere symbolic gesture. China is the number two world power and arguably our greatest foreign policy challenge. Whoever serves in this post will have an enormous influence in shaping world affairs, and the U.S. role in them. Obama did not pick Huntsman just for the sake of picking a Republican. He doesn't have that luxury.

2. Huntsman has outstanding conservative credentials. He's the second-term governor of the most Republican state in the country. He was re-elected with the support of 77% of Utah voters. He is a strong fiscal conservative who has cut taxes substantially. Although he claims to favor making healthcare more widely available and affordable, he advocates doing so using free-market mechanisms such as tax cuts. You can learn more about Jon Huntsman's policies here:
http://www.utah.gov/governor/priorities/health_system_reform.html


Obama's choice of Huntsman demonstrates a continued strong desire on his part to work with Republicans. It also represents a willingness to look beyond his own party when filling important jobs He is a substantive pick for a substantive post, but he's no liberal masquerading as a conservative. His existence in the GOP, and his willingness to do it, should be consolation to Republicans wondering what has become of their party. If the GOP is to have a future, Huntsman represents the way forward. Of course, if Huntsman is confirmed it takes him out of the running in 2012, but I suspect that we will be seeing more of him in future election cycles. Whether we will also be seeing more of the Republican party, on the other hand, remains to be seen.

Cheney "Extremely Disappointed" at RHG Announcement

May 15, 2009

New York (AP)-An indignant former Vice President Dick Cheney offered biting criticism to Theresa and Ephraim Gerstein on their announcement that they were expecting their first child, earlier today. The child, who is currently being referred to by only its expected initials "RHG" is to be born in early December of 2009. In an early morning interview with David Brooks, Cheney called the announcement "precipitous, dangerous and irresponsible." "There is no doubt in my mind," Cheney went on to say, "that by disseminating such sensitive information so widely and at such an early date, Ephraim and Theresa have further endangered national security. They have clearly made America less safe and have given a big helping hand to the terrorists." When Brooks asked Cheney to clarify his concerns, Cheney replied "Oh come on, David! Do you really expect me to be able to anticipate every nefarious possibility? God only knows what these terrorists will do, and that's precisely why Americans need to vigilantly protect sensitive information. Frankly, as commissioned officers, they should know better. Their behavior was clearly dangerous and disloyal."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to issue an official comment. "Look," said Gibbs, "Dick Cheney has a lot of opinions on a lot of subjects. You name it, he has an opinion on it. If we had to comment every time that constipated old blowhard mouthed off, we'd never have time for the important news; and that really would be a threat to national security."

Support for the Gersteins came from an unexpected quarter, however: Archbishop Timmothy Dolan of New York. "The Archdiocese, and I personally, offer these dear friends only the warmest support and our heartfelt prayers as they enter this exciting new chapter of their lives," said Dolan. "I was personally wondering when they would have a kid. The news made my day. It's enchanting." When asked about Cheney's comments Dolan replied: "I don't profess to be an expert on foreign affairs, but it seems to me that now is the time to be patting both Gersteins--Theresa especially--on the back; not second guessing their decisions. The main thing is that they chose life; and that's a beautiful choice."

A better, fairer gun control

Unlike some liberals, I firmly support the Second Amendment.  I think we have a right to own firearms, and I see no reason why law abiding citizens should be prohibited from doing so.  However, I also recognize the harm guns can cause, particularly in the wrong hands or the wrong circumstances, and I recognize the need for limited government regulation of their use (just like with all of our other rights).  It's a tough balance to strike.  

With this in mind, I call your attention to this recent article by former New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer. He proposes a plan whereby the government uses economic incentives, rather than restrictive laws, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while still ensuing that law abiding people have access to them.  In a nutshell, the government, as the world's largest firearm purchaser, simply adopts a policy to only buy guns from manufactuers who put in place procedures to avoid selling guns to those likely to use them for unlawful purposes.  You can read the full article here:

 http://www.slate.com/id/2217117/

What I like about this idea is that it does not restrict a single law-abiding citizen from acquiring a gun; nor does it force any manufacturer not to sell guns. It merely creates powerful economic incentives for gun manufacturers to distribute their product responsibly.  U.S. taxpayers have to subsidize the sale of guns; our govenrment needs them to do it's job.  But why should we have to also subsidize the sale of guns to criminals.  Companies that wish to make money through sales that harm us should have to pay for it in the form of lost sales to us.  That's just basic fairness. 

Welcome to BlueHawk

Welcome to Bluehawk.

 I have three goals in starting this blog.

1. To lend a voice to those in the U.S. military or interested in national defense issues, but have a left of center perspective.  

2. To combat the stereotype of Liberals that we're all just a bunch of wussy flower children spouting off about peace and love. (Though I admit some of this is our fault; a subject we'll be talking a lot about later).

3. To lend some balance to military thinking.  

About me: As an Air Force veteran, I know from personal experience how it feels to be the only Democrat in the crowd.  In a word, it sucks.  Full disclosure: when I joined I dropped my party affiliation, and when people asked me, I said I was an independent. I did this for two reasons: 1) I was an officer, and as an officer, I felt that I should be for the country, not a particular party. 2) When people asked me my views point blank, it was a great answer to get them to drop the subject. It's not fun to be berated all the time.  Don't get me wrong-It was the best experience of my life.  I met a lot of incredible people, learned critical lessons about leadership, sacrifice and honor, and even met my wife (who was also serving at the time).  I think I even got to do some good.  I'm proud of my service, and proud to be an American. 

But one thing I discovered over the years was that the Military isn't as red as everyone thinks.  I never took a poll, but because of the nature of my job, I got to speak with a lot of people about political issues, and  it didn't feel like 90-10 to me.  Come down to it, it didn't even feel like 80-20; more like 60-40.  I think some of the reason for the misconception most people have about the politics of service members is that we don't speak up.  That's why I'm here.  

Another thing I learned is that, if you love this country; if you believe, as I do, that it's the greatest nation in the world, and like me, think it deserves better leadership than it has had in the last few years, you need to get involved. Service is a part of citizenship, no matter what your politics. Sure, if you come from Manhattan NY, you might not feel as comfortable as if you were from Manhattan Kansas, but that's exactly why you need to be there.  Somebody has to be first. That's one reason why I went in, and I can tell you, I think my unit benefited from my "unique" perspective. America needs those perspectives, and it needs Liberals to stop letting the right own defense.  Keep in mind, we won the "big one" under Democratic leadership, the Republicans in Congress at the time mostly wanted to stay out of it. (Now, if you want to talk about other wars led by Republicans, we can do that, but fair warning, we didn't do as well in those). 

I love this country.  It gave me and my family a lot. Serving in its defense was an honor, and a duty. Feeling that way doesn't make me any less of a Democrat, and being a Democrat doesn't make me any less patriotic.  I didn't serve in the red states' Air Force, or the Republican Party Air Force.  I served in the United States Air Force, and I helped make it better.  I hope I can inspire some of you readers to do the same.