The beginning of this musing thing began innocently enough while I was listening to Dennis Prager a few weeks back on a Friday in August (you can find his radio broadcasts archived here http://www.townhall.com/talkradio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=3), listening to his Happy Hour (highly recommend it by the way). And the topic was looking for happiness by way of excitement. Now the precept for happiness Mr. Prager tells us is that it is a moral obligation. And frankly that makes sense to me. And as it happens, I had a conversation with a friend of mind who didn’t so much say that, as he said, “I decided to be happy,” which was astonishing, profound, and simple all at the same time.

Let’s see, selfishness, a word habitually and ably used as a club, or as an obscurantist fog. What’s that you say? the word wasn’t selfishness, but rather hypocrite? Well, technically, I suppose you’re right, but then really if hypocrite is going to have any meaning whatsoever, tell me what you think, it seems to me the word selfishness must be involved.

Really, what would you do with a tippler or smoker who adamented against their own practice? Surly you wouldn’t admonish them for being hypocrites, even if they smoke or tippled in private, excluding substantive hope of being recompensed for secrecy , would you? Wouldn’t you rather call them victims of biology, sociology or some such? Naturally!

Which obviously dispenses with recidivism as well. So in honesty, for many of us anyway, neither contradiction nor habitual transgression is really the cardinal sin of what we call hypocrisy, and as that is belabored lets play with that other club, selfishness.

Oh, wait, some circumlocution is tethering my brain. How is it, for instance, that as a society and culture we feel both aggrieved and pitiful at the plight of smokers and feel them to be victims exploited by tobacco companies and then in the same breath give sanction to, nay demand of our government, that it exploit smokers yet more? Here are these victims of forces beyond their control and yet our response is to take yet more money out of their pocket--they deserve to have their money taken away from them we say--levy heavier taxes still we say--let them pay for our health care those evil creatures, but wait I thought they were victims? And what should we call our selves and our government in this action? Charitable? Certainly not.

And in passing, I might add, though hypocrite seems to lack the bite one might wish with the above examples, that does not mean there isn’t remedy. If so desired we might call such a one irresolute, or perhaps with more bite, weak, and needless to say we can as a function of choice decide that this or that attribute of an individual is such that we choose to not associate with said person beyond what may be absolutely necessary, or conversely, that on the whole, this or that failing is not so much that all association must be broke. At any rate this choice may well rub up against the notion of tolerance, which I think is why so many prefer the word hypocrite, particularly PCer’s, as then one is relieved of tolerance obligations.

So then, to this word selfishness, and with apologies, to further this on the quick I mention the situation of Senator Craig. The specifics have been well elucidated elsewhere and we can leave it at that.

But what I do find of interest is this idea: “Had he simply admitted and acceded to his physical inclinations (whatever those may be) all would be well.”

Really?

“Yes,” they say, because “he was not true to his inner nature, and the retribution for such sinning is nature’s revenge.”

And I reply, “yours is a most terrible god indeed. What could be more debilitating, more terrible than to say the offense was the in-admission of inclination. Had he merely done so ‘all would be well.’ This animating idea that says one’s emotion, one’s mind, one’s own soul should be in service to the physical body. Isn’t that upside down? making a heaven of hell?--Isn’t that a perversion of the proper order of life? of liberty?”

Who believes that? neither you nor I believe that for a moment, not really, or how would we explain suicide by self willed starvation? And wouldn’t such an intellectual position lay waste as farce the idea of self improvement? Or how is it in a nation chalk full of self help books, with a tradition of the New Years Resolution, that is dedicated to the notion of self betterment by means of self assertion by way of the will and discipline; how is it that a strange bizarre hue and cry arose, “hypocrite.” What is it we call that?

“But Jon you say, I thought we were talking about selfishness.”

“Correct,” I say and “therefore don’t you believe that each of us has the right, the freedom, within legal limits of course, to choose to amend our condition in whatever way we deem proper? And so to insist that individuals in order to receive your sanction your sympathy must then confess to being a victim to this or that which is beyond one’s own influence--that is to confess oneself wholly as an object, subject wholly to political exploitation, what could possibly be more selfish?”

And yet, that is what the left world-view is (derived from post-modernism). Submission without recompense. It offers redemption by way of destruction: Destroy the grace of the soul; destroy the reason of the mind; destroy the sympathy of emotion; and finally destroy the flesh of the body--or what else do you believe abortion and euthanasia are? Each ascending understanding is destroyed by recourse of the lower understandings. So that sympathy is used to destroy reason, and reason to destroy grace. In doing so each understanding destroys the very font that gives it sustenance.

But here I must interject, as it happens I was wandering in my reading, as I’m prone to do, and I found myself reading Matthew, yes that Matthew, and I found in Matthew 6 a succinct and extraordinary elucidation of both selfishness and hypocrisy in this short and revealing passage:

“Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men.”

*****
It is said by many that selfishness is the bane of existence, but I wonder how many of us have a firm grasp on what selfishness is. Is it possible that many of us do not, but nonetheless we are all too happy to use a dead word as a cudgel to batter our opposition, but that is precisely what dead thought does because it is body without soul. Not that the soul is absent but rather it is cut off from influence.

The line between what is called selfishness and self expression can be a fine one. Can I describe one who in the public eye is a great humanitarian, a selfless giver of time, money, and physical exertion as selfish? Certainly! Does such a person contemn others for not acting precisely as he does? What could be more selfish? Does one pursue philanthropic endeavors as recognized by received wisdom, to run from, purify, squelch the face of one’s own soul? What could be more selfish? Good works of themselves are neither selfless or selfish. When untinctured by grace, disavowed by reason, unmoved by sympathy there is not selflessness, bur rather its inverse, selfishness.

Let me rather witness someone’s joy in purchasing a house, hitting a home-run, recovering from the flu--let me see their exuberance, joy, self satisfaction, as that self satisfaction is an expression that belongs to all of humanity and is in fact selfless by means of self expression. Fore if it is true but for the grace of God there go I, then it is true that by the grace of God there go I.

Me too, just doing the best I can to take the next step in getting things right.

*****
The foregoing may suggest to you that I believe the individual lives through others. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather the individual discovers others by means of living; self expression; self knowing; self understanding. Through the experience of our own lives we create the language that allows us to know others by way of ourselves.

When some say that the group requires the sublimation of self expression for the betterment of the group, as a principle, and not as a discrete action, they are then speaking on behalf of tyranny and the impoverishment of the individual.

That too I admit rubs against a fine line. Here, by group, I mean a group that the individual isn’t free to join or quit or never admit to having ever joined. That is a group that has as near as possible absolute coercive power. That would be government.

Yes government is itself no neutral thing. I believe consent by the governed is the only legitimacy that is available to just government, and government should be constituted to form a more perfect union for and by the group from which it is constituted. A just government in theory and practice is a free assembly and as such must afford that same principle, free assembly, to its sub groups, or it usurps authority not granted or authorized by the source of its legitimacy.

Still, the individual cannot demand acceptance of his self expression, as that itself is an imposition that is wholly unwarranted, unjustifiable, as it denies the same right to others that it asserts for itself.

Yes, this applies to assemblies too.

Just government must be as circumspect as practicable when considering what limits it will set to free expression. We call this limited government. But freely crafted groups must on the other hand be as free to self define as is possible within the limits of agreed upon law; otherwise, the group’s right to free expression is arbitrarily sacrificed to governmental fiat.

That is, an individual’s right to free expression is denied if that individual joins a group, by free action, and that group by inclination of governmental action, beyond the prescription of limited government, proscribes the expression of the group. Fundamental to group formation is who to admit and who to bar from the group.

Abstractly, the right of free assembly is in no more need of defense as to its possible peculiarities than the right of free speech, which is to say that here I will not be burdened with defending the merits of a freely constituted assembly anymore than I will bother with the merits or lack thereof, notwithstanding legal limits for either, of a freely given speech.

Free assembly is the canary in the mine.

Coerced groupings is socialism/fascism. Its personality is unrestrained selfishness. Its so called intellectual structure is so presumptuous, egotistical, and stupid as to boggle the mind. It presumes the meaning of life--as if it had a clue (by way of illegitimate coercion it reveals itself as clueless). It prescribes remedies based upon its presumed meaning as if these prescriptions are self evident goods. Yet, it can be nothing more than mediocre sentiment born from sloggy consensus. That is, far from being the height of human wisdom, being charitable, it is rather the dregs. It is a tyrant whose appetite for power is insatiable.

So from time to time we all need to take a moment and wax philosophical. To do so need not always rest on the largest topics at hand, but the more mundane and accessible are just as worthy though less profound of consideration. So I’ll indulge a little of my liberty and rewind to some thoughts on things that have been pestering me a bit lately.

This word hypocrisy, for instance, has been bandied about a lot lately. It is of course a handy word, just pick it up and club somebody over the head with it. It should be well within reach of everyone’s arsenal, but I confess, it seems to be losing a little of its thump of late. And, proving that I wander around in my mind too much, I wondered why?

Now, I could bring up plenty of names to provide examples of who is and who isn’t, and while that can be fun, if you’ll pardon me, I think I’ll side step that strategy and simply deal with hypocrisy in the abstract.

Let’s see the dictionary definition places much emphasis on “pretense.” That’s not really much help. Who doesn’t pretend? I suppose then the element of intent to deceive must be part of the meaning.
So some guy pretends to be something he is not and deceives others into believing he is other than he is--hmm putting forth an image of oneself that isn’t entirely true as an absolute under all circumstances. Well who doesn’t do that? Who doesn’t adjust one’s behavior depending upon context--and if so, doesn’t that entail an element of pretense? And if you don’t put forth a public self, could you please start doing so. Nothing personal, but I really don’t need to be exposed to every iota of what you think your absolute self is--that’s kind of unseemly.

Besides who has the capacity to be absolute. Let alone knowingly. Or, who is never not absolute?

Okay, enough of that. We all know what hypocrisy means. Its some guy that believes and states moral beliefs in public and engages in behavior counter to his belief. Well no wonder “hypocrisy” is so easily bandied about. You can call anyone a hypocrite (Jonah Goldberg of National Review has often well stated this point).

I mean who believes that lying is a good thing? Yet, who hasn’t lied? But to not be a hypocrite, a liar would have to disavow the idea that lying is bad. And then, if such a person were to call someone who advanced the idea that sex out of wedlock was bad--as said person was found to have engaged in sex out of wedlock--a hypocrite, well then such a person would be calling his own self a hypocrite, unless of course that person believed, that held, the idea and abided by the idea, that all morality led to hypocrisy, and therefore never engaged in moral judgments, which would mean that person wouldn’t utter the word hypocrite, unless to say the word was meaningless.

What in the world am I to do with such a word. What could be more useless than such a word. It’s not even useful as a club. Let’s just throw it in the trash bin and be done with it

*****
So I read about this guy, a public figure, who was married and he had an affair. “Who hasn’t,” you say. True (I mean read about a public figure having an affair). But my question is whether the guy is a hypocrite or no? Seems simple enough, the guy took an oath to honor and cherish and so forth, and well, it doesn’t seem very honorable of oath-holding to have an affair.

So “yes” says an acquaintance friend of mine.

But another asks, “did he preach Family Values?”

“What?” I ask.

“It makes a difference,” this acquaintance says, “because to be a hypocrite he has to believe and publicly state ‘Family Values‘.”

“Do tell,” I say.

So to be a hypocrite someone has to be foolish enough to believe and state one’s morality publicly. Who would be crazy enough to do that?

*****
Some people I’ve heard are audacious enough to believe that through self discipline, commitment and other acts of the will they can better themselves. Or at least believe they are bettering themselves. Crazy ol’ Benjamin Franklin discussed at length in his autobiography, his list, get this, his list of virtues for just that purpose.

Here’s the list for those curious enough:

1) Temperance--Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

2) Silence--Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.

3) Order--Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.

4) Resolution--Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.

5) Frugality--Make no expense but to do good or yourself; that is waste nothing.

6) Industry--Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.

7) Sincerity--Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly; and if you speak, speak accordingly.

8) Justice --Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are only your duty.

9) Moderation--Avoid extremes; forebear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

10) Cleanliness--Tolerate no unseemliness in body, clothes, or habitation.

12) Tranquility-- Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

12) Chastity…..

13) Humility-- Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

What a strange, little, quaint list, or notion if you will. Regulating one’s behavior to better oneself? And such a list, quite impossible for anyone to live up to, why attempt something so futile? Even Franklin admits that living up to such a list was nigh impossible. He made a matrix with boxes, and on one axis were the days of the week, and on the other were the virtues. Whenever he found himself at crosses with his endeavor he marked a little black mark in the matrix. Yet, he says, that by practice and effort he made great inroads to bettering himself as he himself proposed to do. Note: I copied the list as I found it in my copy of The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The anomalies with 12 and the ellipsis are his and do invite some conjecture, perhaps more than a little.

Needless to say my progressive left-wing post-modern friend found the list to be ludicrous, and concluded just such lists, “lead to societal and cultural dysfunction.”

*****

Naturally I asked, or rather what was I thinking, “why?”

To which he rejoined, “it leads an individual away from authenticity. It’s artificial, not real, its unnatural.”

This I admit I found curious, and still not grasping wholly my situation, I said, “its unnatural to want to better oneself, its not real, but rather artificial?”

I was certain that he was trying to get at something else, and when I mentioned the nigh endless time, energy, money spent on education, self help books, seminars and on and on and on. Well, he was a bit impatient with the whole thing.

“No,” he shouted, “of course people try to better themselves, but in real ways, socially conscious ways…being tolerant, green, diversity, social justice, peace, love, loving mother earth, recycling…” he started pacing, and I kind of drifted off, and there I was again being pestered by that word, hypocrite.

*****

And of a sudden I snapped too when he said, “its people like that talking about Jesus, chastity, family values and stuff like that which screw everything up. That’s why guys commit adultery. That’s why family values guys are hypocrites, because they’re not real.”

“And guys that commit adultery, but don’t believe in Family Values? They’re not hypocrites as you say, but do you think they feel guilt?”

“No,” he said, and then pausing, “some do I suppose, but that’s because of the culture making them uptight, planting guilt in their brains with all that ‘Christian Family Value stuff,’ it’s not real, it’s not natural.”

“So they’re victims of society because society makes them feel guilty about reality, doesn’t allow them to feel good about being natural.”

“That’s right,” he said, and that’s why men will be liberated by feminism.”

Swell I thought, and then I had an epiphany. I understood why a guy who has said he believes in Family Values and has an affair is relentlessly called hypocrite by progressive left wing post-modernists no matter how much contrition he may express.

And why is that you ask?

Elementary my dear Watson. To call someone a hypocrite that doesn’t speak about Family Values is then to say Family Values. And for a progressive that is a sin. Because traditional values built upon self discipline, personal virtue, individual responsibility, is the cause of social and personal dysfunction, or so we are told, and is the consequence of traditional morality, particularly a morality based upon free-will and free-will’s discovery of virtue.

Which is to say that when left wing progressives use the word hypocrite as applied to the individual who has fallen, they do not mean he has fallen against his higher meaning, against personal- or social virtue or both, but rather he has sinned against the zeitgeist of post-modernism. The individual has not allowed himself to be made into an object used to promote, propagandize, left-wing progressive secularism. The individual hasn’t admitted to being helpless, but to the contrary said individual asserts still his personal responsibility, and for such transgression that individual is not so much a hypocrite, but is rather, a traitor.

To what you ask?

To progress--of course.

*****

I fear I still haven’t found an acceptable usage for hypocrite, instead at best, I’ve discovered obscurantist and clubbing practices. Still, I think, the word does have its own proper use and meaning and maybe I’ll find it later.

And isn’t that the heart of darkness--turning away.

Musing here and there over the last few days before that steadfast and inspiring life in faith, I turned my thought toward Pontius Pilot and his one profound moment. He turned away. He washed his hands. He that was before him was too real, too filled with grace, indeed was the very embodiment of grace. And so he hardened his heart.

With a very different response, Job gives us quite a different understanding. His story is quite inexplicable from our imperfect, finite, materialist gaze. Job suffers. He suffers in such ways that many, most? Would lose all patience. Our hearts would harden. Yet his does not. He does not turn away. Why?

To some degree his faith, his determination to gaze forth beyond his material circumstance must remain a mystery. But surely the mystery to some degree is revealed by what he dismisses when confronted with a choice. God, the giver of the grace of his own soul, or the material circumstance that is a blink of an eye, a moment in time, so temporary as to barely exist at all. Did he grouse? Yes, he did. Did he waver? Perhaps, but we begin to move into the mystery of Job when we consider that question.

Questions proffered my way by those friends of mine who are agnostic, atheist, and for that matter proffered at times among us who believe is why does God allow such terrible moments to exist in the world. Why so much unmerited tragedy, death, and suffering?

And though this is no great answer it is a spring board for my own musing on the topic. God is so much more concerned with yours and mine eternal soul that the almost nonexistent material moment is almost of no consequence, at least in comparison with the infinite. Saying so does not obviate the very real suffering people experience, nor can it dismiss our responsibility to alleviate suffering as we are able; we should freely demonstrate our humanity. But we must recall that it is we who gaze out from our flesh and our moment in time and believe our experience here is the ultimate existent meaning. We judge from our perspective, finite perspective, something that by definition cannot be measured by our five senses, by our emotional experience, nor even by our mental cognition. Is it any wonder that we are confounded.

What cannot be found in this earth is grace derived from our material being. We will not find deliverance from the hardened heart by looking to material structures, whether those be socialism, communism, fascism, or any other construct of government. We cannot force an individual to gaze on the ineffable by fiat. We cannot construct an everlasting peace from this or that social, cultural, political innovation. We cannot call forth the promise of Man or the glory of God by constructing a perfect form. The ceremony does not beautify God; nor does the church or temple beautify God; rather, it is God that beautifies the ceremony and beautifies the church and beautifies the temple. The temple, church, ceremony assist man by helping him focus upon God. To suggest otherwise is to assert materialism.

We, each of us, have a choice. We can turn away like Pontius Pilot, or we can hold our gaze steady like Job.

For the latest on Elvira, Michelle Malkin has the updates: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/19/no-more-sanctuary-for-elvira-arellano/

Quoting form Revolution (voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA [http://rwor.org/a/058/arellano-en.html]):

From the Socialist Worker online (http://www.socialistworker.org/2006-2/599/599_04_Elvira.shtml):

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/faq.html#Q16

As you may know, having read an earlier post or two, I have busied myself with melting icebergs and drowning penguins, otherwise known as leaving my modest but indelible foot print over various parts of our fruited plain via the time honored tradition of spewing CO2 everywhere I went by the mere fact of my breathing, or the even more efficient act of driving vehicles and flying airplanes (actually, I didn't fly them, but you know what I mean). And by no means did I stop with those simple acts--I drove in the Midwest with the air conditioner on. When in a motel room I put that puppy on high. And I apologize to no one for being sane as it was bloody hot when I was there. And I might add, apparently August, the Midwest, and heat are a traditional kind of thing. Who knew?

Be that as it may, I have been somewhat slow on my reentry into all things political, cultural and so on. Now, I'm not saying that I didn't keep up on things, after all, we were able to find Rush all across this great land, just had to be aware of the time zone. And naturally we found Sean, and Laura, and Hugh and other friends too, but still time moves differently when you're on vacation. And one's attention is differently concentrated.

So it is I have been catching up here and there on my reading, viewing, listening, and consequently getting back up to game speed. So here's just a couple of quick quips, while I continue my reentry.

Getting it right 1): ICE deports, expels, removes a thief from our shores. Her name is Elvira Arellano. I had heard her case here and there in passing, but hadn't really focused on it. The MSM that referenced her was saying things like poor activist mom who was deported and was thereby separated from her son.

So having done its best to deprive parents, community, culture, society of any controlling authority, it has no other recourse than to act stupidly or not at all. To rely on the wisdom and authority of parents, community, society to admonish the boys, to do their jobs, to oversee adolescents safe conduct into adult life? Blasphemous!

So the question is, how long will Americans suffer fools gladly?

So I’ve been home for a few days from my larger vacation. Like my mini-vacation, it was wonderful, and as I think back just a bit on the sights I and Mrs. J were fortunate to see, I’m stunned, really, by the majesty of our country. From the Mendocino coast near Bodega Bay and Fort Ross, through the endless and beautiful green farm lands, prairie lands, forests beginning in Kansas, rolling through Missouri, Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, Kentucky and finally up to central Ohio. Natural beauty that fixes the eye. Stunning too the beauty of Man’s work whether in towns, cities, farms or other. Churches and buildings from the mid 1800’s. Old brick roads restored and maintained for that glimpse and delight into the past.

And the people from one end of the country to almost the other end--great to see, great to talk to, great to listen to. Oh sure, there were the occasional this or that nitwits with impeach bush bumper stickers or other on their cars--none in the Midwest, that I saw anyway, that is those were a species specific to the Bay area and Mendocino county. But enough about them. Wait: one word--a couple of times I had the opportunity to shake my head in an admixture of disbelief and disapproval at the owner or at least driver of a couple of those vehicles. The look of consternation, as if I, or any other would be so gauche as to show disapproval was worth the effort. Irony anyone? As in never mind their tacky tackless gauche bumper stickers. Okay, enough about them.

One of the things I remember as a child that I liked best about summer trips and still do is seeing all the different license plates while traveling down the highway, or in parking lots for that matter. People from all over the country, on the move, experiencing parts of the country they normally don’t get to see. It always gave me a since of wonder and adventure--still does.

America should travel. Tell the global warming fanatics to bug off. Summer is about fun, vacations, travel, seeing relatives, and me and Mrs. J and my father-in-law (my good friend who joined us on phase two of our vacation) were excited to do just that. But then conservatives have no compunction against embracing great American traditions. And summer vacation is a great American tradition.

Though I would like to share with you the whole of our vacation(s), I think that would probably be just a bit much, especially in a single post. But from time to time over the next few weeks I’ll probably try my hand at sharing with you a little here and there of our modest travels.

*****

But I do have to share, at the very least, some of my observations on what was the cornerstone of our phase two part of our vacation: The Sean Hannity, Freedom Alliance, Freedom Concert in Cincinnati, OH.

It was great! A life long memory!

The whole of the event, celebration, tribute, fundraiser was so large and encompassing, so much fun that I have been thinking about how best to describe it to you.

But it is simply not possible to do in a few words. Nor can many words really express my wonder at being present at an event with thousands of other conservatives where we were addressed by men who are already written into history’s pages. Author, host of Fox War Stories, LtCol. Oliver North; author, former Speaker of the House, New Gingrich; former NY mayor, Presidential candidate, Rudy Giulanni. Incredible! Amazing and incredible to see these men live and in person. Being there was a privilege. 

And joining the speakers were excellent musicians, who really gave us wonderful performances: We were graced with the music of Lee Greenwood, LeAnn Rimes, and Montgomery Gentry.

Not enough, well, Sean Hannity was our host of this great event, and what a great host he was. And I’m not sure who was having more fun or was more excited to be there, Sean or us.

And though there is much much more to say on this wonderful conservative celebration, I am always in mind when thinking back on it that this event was even more fundamentally a fundraiser and tribute to and for our troops and the children of our troops.

To honor those who served, to give thanks to those who served and are serving, this is and needs must be an American obligation (that any American university would dismiss this obligation is reprehensible to the highest degree. Those that don‘t recognize their obligation shame themselves, their students, and their alumni).

So though I would say more, and if the right words avail me, I will, I want to leave you with the words from the Freedom Alliance:

"The Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund honors the bravery and dedication exhibited by Americans in our Armed Forces who have sacrificed life or limb defending our country by providing educational scholarships to their children. In the last 20 years, over 15,000 service members have given their lives defending our country. More than 3,400 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Guardsmen have been killed in the war in Iraq, leaving behind approximately 2,000 children…

"Through the generosity of so many patriotic Americans, the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund will provide scholarships for thousands of young Americans, reminding them that their parents’ sacrifice will never be forgotten by a grateful nation…"

For how you can contribute here’s there home page:

Sean’s promise was kept, is kept for me, right here with the Marine helping the young girl at the chin-up bar. With Americans standing in rapt attention, watching, appreciating the Marine’s help in lifting the young girl to her goal.

Here it is again, though a bit less self evident.

But if you look into the picture you can see how comfortable these Americans are with their military, with those who serve (here represented by the Marines). But then, really, the pictures speak for themselves don't they. 

And here in my favorite picture (I wish I had taken more, and that more had turned out well--still perfecting this photography thing), here it is again, which is to say I could have taken a thousand such pictures, as many pictures in truth as would have been possible at this extraordinary event.

In the back left corner (so to speak) of the picture a Marine is talking to a mother and son. He is showing the boy some of the equipment used by Marines. A little later he demonstrates how a shoulder launcher should be held.

Those marines in front were often, casually, easily, innocently engaged in conversation with passers by, with those very same people they are standing next to, and often Americans simply walked up to them and any and all in uniform and thanked them for their service.
It is indeed a privilege to do so, and if you haven’t done it, do yourself a favor and extend the respect so rightfully deserved and due our men and women in uniform.

I’m tempted to close this post here, but that wouldn’t be entirely accurate, because you know, that which I found above, when I looked, I found it everywhere at the Freedom Concert. Love of country. Unabashed love of country. Appreciation, respect, affection for all those who serve our great country and truly the same, though of a slightly different quality, for those who feel likewise.

And so we who assembled there have a like purpose, a like understanding, and we were there to express our love for those who serve, and for those who serve the men and women that make our great country safe.

I loved this too:

This came shortly after (I think that’s right--I was completely immersed in the event--living it so to speak more than recording it, so if I get a couple things out of order, well, I ask your pardon). Anyway, we who were 9,000 plus strong, and of course, joined and led by the good folks from 55KRC Cincinnati (John Phillips and Brian Thomas) in a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Now the Pledge is a uniquely American ceremony that I don’t have opportunity enough to participate in. And to do it with so many, to hear it ring out like that. How cool is that!

Note: 55KRC has an excellent photo album or three of the Day's events:  http://www.55krc.com/cc-common/gallery/globalphotos.html

In any case the crowd stood to, we men doffed our caps (some a little quicker than others) and were treated to a stirring rendition of the Star Bangle Banner by a woman Marine with a stellar captivating voice. And this too I noted: I was among conservatives who were quick to mark appropriately the formality of ceremony. No instruction needed (just an observation).

*****

Ah, but what of the Great American. Well of course he was there. He was there in line with us in our excitement. He was in the buzz of anticipation, conversations, that flowed back and forth across the stadium. And then he burst out on the stage (or so it seemed to me), and I remember thinking that I wasn’t sure who was more excited to be there, Sean Hannity, or us.

Yes, I know, my photography skills have room for growth. Anyway, this was taken later during the concert, and I have to tell you that Sean had as much energy, enthusiasm, and was having as much fun at the close of the concert as he had at the beginning. When he and Will Cunningham joined Montgomery Gentry in the rollicking country hit “My Town,” well, we may have had our last good fun of the evening, but it certainly wasn’t our least: cheering, applauding, joining full throated in the chorus. Absolutely great send off.

*****

Oh yes, and there was plenty to applaud between the opening and the closing of the celebration. But I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that really this whole celebration was pretty well a whole day event.

For many the celebration began with the Sean Hannity radio show. His show was broadcast live from Kings Island. For others it began with an attendance at the Newt Gingrich and Col. Oliver North book signing, happily held in a large building with air conditioning.

Did I mention that I and Mrs. J and her father (my good friend) had touched down in Kansas City at the beginning of the first big heat wave in the Midwest. Well, it was still in full force when we reached Ohio.

So we were more than happy to be in an air conditioned building watching those great Americans sharing time with us and autographing their books as graciously as can be. 

 

Oh, and guess who we were listening to over the excellent speaker system in that auditorium/cafeteria.

Of course, the man on loan from God, the one and only Rush Limbaugh. A perfect setting.

Naturally enough the conversations were amiable and enjoyable. I even had some fun saying we were from California. Yes, we had made a comprehensive vacation that worked out well; visiting relatives; seeing parts of the country unfamiliar to me; and having as our center piece the Freedom Concert. Our vacation? Excellent! Perhaps more on that later.

Naturally, some of us destined for the Freedom Concert later in the day took advantage of the setting and did things like this. It is Kings Island after all.


(No, I didn't take this one--found on Flickr)

*****

But as I was saying, it was an all day event, and so I, Mrs. J, and her father (my good friend) needed a respit from the heat and humidity. Back to the hotel we went after the book signing, and I jumped in the pool. We all rested and got ready for some good fun.

So I think I'll take a break here too. In other words, to be continued.