This blog may be a bit different, and it will certainly be more melancholy and introspective than you've come to expect from me. Bear with me on this. It's been a while since I wrote, and right now, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, there was another confluence of memorable anniversaries lately, that seem to dovetail: June 4 is the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, where the Chinese Communist government crushed a pro-democracy movement with tanks, blood, and prison, and then lied to the world about it. And they are still lying. That was the death knell of freedom. June 6 was the 65th anniversary of D-Day, the Allied, American led invasion of Hitler's Europe, that led to a rebirth of freedom, not just for Europe, but for the world. And June 8th--well, that is a private anniversary. Suffice to say, in 1992, a Bible College in California was dying, after drifting from it's roots over many years, and sinking into crushing debt as a result. On June 8th, it was resurrected, and today it lives, standing again for the truth. Death, the struggle of rebirth, and living again to stand where it once did. Maybe there's a metaphor there somewhere for America.

On the other hand, Sunday is Father's Day, and I'm tempted to write something topical about the devaluing of fathers in our culture, the decline of marriage as an institution, "honored more in the breach than in the observance." About the plague of unwed mothers, of what used to be called "shacking up", or "living in sin", of "pervert's pride", and the normalization of pornography. Each of which, by the way, is a devaluing of fatherhood, and of the family.

Then, of course, I could always write something more lighthearted, or at least more directly personal, about things that are going on in my own life. Of the young woman whom I drove to Texas to see, and spent the last hours of June 3rd, and the early morning of June 4th sitting in front of Starbucks with, engrossed in each other's company. The one who a few days later, decided that she liked me so much she couldn't speak to me any more, as near as I can tell, over China. The one I like anyway.

Of my uncle, who a couple of weeks ago, was roofing a house, and stepped off--into a shattered ankle. Who is slowly recoving with eight pins in his leg. Or maybe of my parents, who are making their yearly pilgrimage in a couple of weeks, from Washington State to Oklahoma, to see family--but not in time for the family reunion at the end of June, or the 4th of July.

I suppose I could write about any of those subjects, but maybe this time I'll write something different. Maybe it's time we each take a day not to TALK to each other about anything, but to remember our God--and to pray--to talk to HIM: for ourselves, for our families, and for our nation. Yea, I think that's about right.

Oh, and about the title? Those who know what it means, will understand. And those who don't, wouldn't. And both are in my prayers.

April 19th and 20th are, or should be, exceptionally poignant for America, since events that shaped our nation happened on those days. April 19th is probably best remembered for the Oklahoma City bombing, when a couple of nutjobs blew up a truck bomb in front of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

However, we tend to forget that just two years earlier, also on April 19th, the federal government gassed and immolated (that's burned) a group of civilians called the Branch Davidians, after illegally attacking them with military equipment, including tanks. Although vicious rumors swirled during and after the siege that led to their deaths, as near as anyone can prove, the Branch Davidians were guilty only of being eccentric and somewhat apocalyptic. These aren't exactly crimes in the U.S., a country that has embraced various forms of tongue speaking, snake handling, Pentecostal groups through the years, to say nothing of the Mormons, among others. Waco doesn't justify the OKC bombing, but it is part of the same cycle.

April 20th, on the other hand, was the birthday of a man of whom H.G. Wells wrote that he had "a strain of certifiable insanity in his make up"--Adolph Hitler It is also the anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School, by a couple of deranged souls, who came to school that morning intent on topping Waco and Oklahoma City. Supposedly, they picked the 20th because it was Hitler's birthday.

Is there a bright spot in these remembrances? Only this. April 19th and 20th are not solely the reserve of lunatics spreading death and destruction. They are also the anniversaries of the "shot heard round the world." The battles of Lexington and Concord, those battles which launched the American Revolution, and our war for independence. Lest we forget, those were the days when a small group of ordinary people held a bridge against the mightiest army (at that time) in the world, in defense of their homes, and their liberty. And that, my friends, is what AMERICA is about. Not bank bailouts, and government handouts, and not a world where the government takes from some to give to others, and where the president can buy banks and insurance companies, and fire the head of a car company. Somewhere, we must find a bridge, and make our stand. Blowing up buildings is not the answer, or killing people just for the killing. Never forget, that Hitler was democratically elected, and always claimed to be responding to a crisis. Instead, if we wish to remain free, we must excercise the freedoms we have, which were won in those little towns in Massachusetts. We must speak the truth, and live it, and demand that our government do the same. We must not worry so much about our pocket books, that we sell our liberty for a bigger house or a good stock market, for a tax break, or for a government check. As Abraham Lincoln said in his Gettysburg Address, spoken on July 4th, another notable day, to commemorate a battle fought, at least partially, on that same date,

"Let us here highly resolve...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. And that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

As Patrick Henry, another great American patriot famously said, "If THIS be treason, make the most of it."

By the way, isn't there an election coming up in a couple of years?

You have to admit, the title is original. So, what prompted this sudden outburst? Well, my cable has been turned off since the middle of January, which means I've been watching precious little real tv.

So, yesterday, at work, I happened to be in the lunch room alone, and was drawn to C-SPAn, which was showing an interview Ann Coulter did with somebody from the Claire Booth Luce institute (no idea who CBL is or was). Anyway, Miss Coulter was promoting her new book "Guilty." I've read parts of it, in an odd moment in the bookstore, and it's not bad. Anyway, I've always thought that Ann Coulter was a bit of a shrew, with a bit too much invective for my taste (Although, I agree with much of what she says, as my mother used to tell me, "It's not what you say. It's how you say it."). Still, I always watch when she is on tv, if I can.

So, anyway, there she is, on C-SPAN, without all her bristles up, and seemingly at ease, although she did still flash her rapier wit. So, I caught myself thinking, "You know, she's actually a rational, intelligent, engaging woman. And she's kind of cute!" I know that last part was just the man in me coming out, but seriously, I've always thought Ann Coulter looked dried up or anorexic in her book jacket photos, and on tv, not to mention being kind of angular for a woman. In this case, however, she just looked and sounded like what Trisha Yearwood once called "A Real Live Woman." I mean, I'm not in love with her or anything, but she's not the Wicked Witch of the North or anything either. Angelina Jolie, on the other hand...

Which brings me to Wallace. It's a "docu-drama" about George C.Wallace, who never seems to get talked about in the history books. It originally aired on TNT. I had it on tape, but had never watched it. So... For those of you who don't know, GCW was a segregationist governor of Alabama in the 1960's, who is famous for calling for "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." He also ran for president several times, most notably in 1968, that eventful year in American history when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were both assasinated, Lyndon Johnson was hounded out of office, and violent riots were planned and executed at the Democratic Convention in Chicago by what someone has called "long haired, dope smoking, maggot infested hippie types" who were great lovers of peace. Yes, you read that right. Many of the rioters later went into politics.

Anyway, Wallace was shot at a campaign rally during his run for the Democratic nomination for president. Angelina Jolie plays his second wife, who was at the rally when he is shot. She does a good job making you forget that it's Angelina J, which for me is a good thing. I haven't had much use for her at least since she broke up Jennifer Anniston's marriage with her adulterous affair with Ms. Anniston's hubby. And she's not even cute. But I digress.

My point in mentioning the movie is that it is called a "docu-drama." That is, it pretends it's a portrayal of what actually happened, but actually, as the disclaimer at the beginning says, "some persons or events were created or altered for dramatic purposes." Which is to say, we're going to lie about, change or invent things without telling you what's fact and what's fiction, just so we can tell a better story. To show you how this works, one of the main characters in the story, a black man named Archie is completely made up. Didn't exist. And I'm fairly certain that the last scene in the movie, where Wallace visits Martin Luther King's church, and emotionally talks about how wrong he was, and apologizes to black people everywhere, didn't happen quite that way, if at all. Oh, and Archie was there with him.

My point isn't to defend George Wallace or not. My point is, if you don't know anything about Wallace, and you watch this movie, you might actually take it as fact, which it's not. For one thing, there is clearly an attempt to whitewash Martin Luther King, and the Kennedys, which is almost de riguer now days, and to tie Wallace, and the segregationist South, to conservatism, on the Vietnam war, on 'Law and order" (not the tv show, the campaign slogan), etc. (As Ann Coulter explained once, when Republicans seek votes in the South, this is a rascist ploy called "the Southern strategy." No word on what it's called when Democrats seek votes in the South.) And if you don't know any better, the movie makers won't tell you how they've slanted the facts. How we see the past affects how we act, and vote, in the present.

If you're saying, "But maybe it was accurate in the larger sense." Let me ask you, what if I made a movie about John Kennedy, and I painted him as a very ill man, who pretended to be exceptionally healthy, whose bootlegger, pro -Nazi father bought him into office, possibly with the connivance of his buddys in the mob? What if I then showed Kennedy as an inveterate womanizer, and an incompetent boob who couldn't get his agenda through Congress, and stumbled from one foreign policy blunder to another, from nearly bringing the world into World War III, to getting us bogged down in Vietnam? Oh, wait. That would actually be history.

Okay, so what if I closed the film by showing that he was shot by a communist who had already defected to the Soviet Union once, and was trying to leave the country to join his comrades again? Oh wait. That would be history too.

So, what if I then INVENTED a Russian communist character, let's call him Boris, who knew Kennedy, and was close to him all through his rise to power, and remained a family friend after the assasination? And I ended my movie with Boris taking Jackie Kennedy to Moscow, where she wept at Lenin's tomb, and apologized to the people of the world for all the evil her husband did, and all he helped perpetuate by his vicious crusade against the peace loving communists? Then I presented this as an essentially accurate depiction of JFK and what he meant to the country?

Can you tell me someone wouldn't scream bloody murder?

Again, I'm not defending Wallace, or his policies. I'm not attacking JFK either. I didn't know the men, and wasn't even born when they ran. It's also not my intention to refight the 1960's. I'm just saying, facts matter. Honesty matters. Associations matter. Truth matters. And you're not allowed to change the facts just because they don't fit your idea of the truth, or of what the truth OUGHT to be. Yet that is what "docu-dramas" do all the time. So, know what really happened before you start deciding that this person is good, and that person is bad because of how they are portrayed on tv or in movies. If I only knew Jesus from the movies made about him, I'd want to puke.

By the way, Ann Coulter sure is cute.