Xmas -- An attempt to take Christ out of Christmas?

Greek letters: chi, rho

Because I presumed it  unnecessary, a week ago I would have  not considered writing this post; but then yesterday I overheard the conversation of two women at my tennis club. They were looking at a poster advertising an upcoming "Xmas Party," and they were incensed at the use of "Xmas." 

"Look at that,"  the one woman said, "They are trying to take Christ out of Christmas.This is blasphemy!"

"I know it," the other replied. "It's all part of the diabolical War on Christmas. They're the same people who say 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas.' They even call a Christmas tree a Holiday tree. We have to fight to keep Christ in Christmas."

Listening to this I realized I was part of the aforementioned "they," and  I was wondering what kind of "fight" they had in mind -- from their demeanor, I presumed they wanted blood and it would be a knife fight. Being the chicken I am, I slipped away without engaging the two enraged ladies.

I had been under the impression that this whole "controversy" about taking Chist out of Christmas by using the word, Xmas, was an old 1950's and 60's discredited slogan, but apparently I was once again mistaken.

Had I not been fearful of a knife fight, I should have informed the ladies of the following.

The "X" in Xmas does not refer  to the mathematical x (the unknown quantity), but it does refer to "Christ."
The Greek letter "X" (chi) was a standard abbreviation  used by the early Christians to refer to Christos (Christ). Early Roman Christians carved it into the walls of the catacombs as code for Christ. 

A fish symbol was also used to represent  Christ because the Greek word,  ichthus (in Roman letters), is the word for "fish." To the early Christians it was an acronym for "jeseous christos theou uios soter"  Jesus Christ son of God savior."  The 2nd letter in the Greek word is "x" -- representing "Christ." Christians who have fish symbol on their cars are in effect using the Greek chi (x) to represent Christ. So why go ballistic at the use of "Xmas"?

The red symbol used at the begininng of this post has been used by Christians throughout history as a symbol of  Christ. It combines the two Greek letters chi (x) and rho (p) which is an "r" in the Roman alphabet to represent the first two letters of "Christos."

Now that I have that off my chest, I am going to turn on the Fox Network (notice I did not say "News") to hear Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin bring me up to date on the "War on Christmas." Have you ever noticed that conservatives tend to see all of life in militaristic terms? Everything is a war -- or a knife fight.

It's Obama's Fault

No matter what goes wrong, it's Obama's fault. Whenever anything untoward occurs, one can be certain Fox News and the Republican goons, from Michele Bachmann to Karl Rove, will be clamoring for coverage to inform us that Barack Obama has caused us and our nation irreparable damage. Recently Bachmann has blamed President Obama for "arming terrorists," being responsible for the disappearance of a Malaysian airliner, and Russia's invasion of Crimea.

In addition, the racists disguised as Tea Party members have established Facebook pages dedicated to blaming the U.S. President for everything imaginable. Some recent posts: President Obama "used the military to seize the government after he was defeated in the election." (Speaking of alternative universes.) Another FB post refers to the President as a "secret muslim socialist nazi." (Is it possible to be all three at the same time?) A man in Minnesota burned own his own home and blamed the President. (Raw Story, 1/6/14)

I wish Barack Obama had been around back in the day -- days when I was young enough to do stupid things. "Yes mom. I have a hangover. I drank a wee bit too much last night, but it was Obama's fault."

What a make-believe world the Republicans have created. "If it's bad, it's the black guy's fault." And, in their world, reason and common sense have no place. They do not try to explain why the President is responsible for the missing Malaysian jetliner; they just toss it out there and their lackeys at Faux News keep repeating it.

For example, did you know that the President of the United States is responsible for:

• the severe winter storms of 2014
• the Target credit card hacking
• the U.S. Hockey team's semi-final loss at the Winter Olympics
• the Boston Marathon bombing
• the suspension of Phil Robertson from "Duck Dynasty" 
• the economic collapse of the George W. Bush administration
• the increase in gun-related violence
• the persistent drought in areas of the US
• the obesity epidemic
• the Fukushima nuclear disaster
• hypnotizing Mitt Romney, causing him to say stupid things
• attempting to promote family values by raising the minimum wage
• refusing to do the bidding of the gun manufacturers ,aka, NRA
• the toxic drinking water in West Virginia
• the inordinate number of military rapes
• the New York Knick's dismal season

And the list goes on and on. For a while the right-wing, fundamentalist Christians blamed everything, the 9/11 attacks, hurricanes, autism, and dementia on the gays and lesbians; but once Obama became president, the entire Republican party adopted the blame-it-on-Obama tactic. It's amazing they are willing to attribute so much power to one man. 

On the other hand, since we are playing the blame game, I too would like to blame President Obama for;

• not shutting down Guantanamo Bay prison camp within his first year
• not reigning in the NSA and its unconstitutional spying
• not pushing harder for a single-payer health care insurance program
• not completely killing the Keystone Pipeline project 
• not having the Justice Department investigate the so-called charter schools
• not demanding a small tax on financial transactions like the purchase of stocks and derivatives
• not prosecuting the Wall Street "geniuses" who created  this country's "Great Recession"
• not calling out Catholic bishops for using "Religious Freedom" as an excuse to discriminate and breach the wall of Separation of Church and State
• not demanding a moratorium on fracking on public lands
• not immediately freezing Russian assets in the US after the Crimean invasion. The Russians had time to move their money out of the US before assets were frozen 
• not pushing more vigorously for federal fair voting regulations
• not challenging Paul Ryan for his racist remarks about inner-city men
• attempting to achieve bipartisanship with the Republicans who swore themselves to obstructionism

Perhaps we should stop playing the blame game and follow the advise of President John F. Kennedy: "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

Lenten Sacrifices?

Ash Wednesday is the beginning of Lent:  40 days during which  certain Christians engage in prayer, penance, almsgiving, atonement, sacrifice, and self-denial. For some it is a period of fasting; for others it is a matter of giving up something -- often luxuries. These days it's popular to give up the social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) for Lent; back in my day in the sixties I had a few friends who gave up their virginity, but that probably had nothing to do with Lent. Thanks to my many well-placed sources, I have learned what the rich, the famous, and the infamous are giving up for Lent:

• Vice President Joe Biden is going to give up talking for twenty minutes a day -- probably during his nap.
• President Barack Obama is giving up listening to Joe Biden.
• The Republicans have vowed to continue obstructing anything that might create jobs. (They're not really giving up anything because the concept of giving something up is "socialist crap.")
• Sarah Palin, on the other hand, promised to give up shooting large mammals, including Chris Christie. Not only that, Sarah is going to submit herself to the penance of reading at least one newspaper during Lent -- of course, in Sarah's world "reading a newspaper" means looking at the pictures.
• Speaker John Boehner. You may have thought he would give up cigarettes, wine, or golf. Wrong; he's giving up on trying to rein in the Tea Party. He is going to drink their "Kool-aid," and become a lacrimonious footnote in American history.
• Vladimir Putin is going to attend anger-management  and anti-bullying classes together with Chris Christie. They think it's a class on the best techniques of arm-wrestling.
• Former congressman Anthony Weiner is going to give up sexting and promises to take two cold showers a day.
• The Cleveland Browns are giving up any hope of having a winning season.
• The Toledo Blade is going to have one issue a week which does not have a dog story.
• Peyton Manning is giving up the "Omaha, Omaha" call. His new call is: "Seattle, Seattle" which means: here they come, run for your lives.
• The U.S Catholic bishops are giving up Girl Scout cookies. They have a reason for that, but it sounds much like discrimination.
• Ohio governor, John Kasich, is giving up working people's right to vote.
• Creationists and climate-change deniers are giving up the brains they were born with.
• The University of North Carolina is giving up fake classes for athletes. It seems the NCAA and other institutions of higher learning frown upon the practice.
• Ohio Attorney General, Mike DeWine, has given up his "pay-to-play" scheme until Easter, after which it will be back in play.
• "El Chapo" is giving up control of his drug cartel, but after Easter he plans to escape and take over again.
• Republican vice presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, is giving up on all random acts of kindness. Of course, that is not new; he is a devoted disciple of his favorite Russian, Ayn Rand.
• Texas Republican, Rafael "Ted" Cruz,  is giving up on shutting down the government. That didn't work very well the last time he tried -- it cost US taxpayers 24-26 billion dollars.
• Fox News is giving up any pretext of being objective and fair.
• American conservatives are going to give up calling Pope Francis a socialist for a day or two.
• Bill Clinton is going to keep the dogs under the porch for forty days.
• Tim Tebow wants to join a Trappist monastery, but the monks are questioning his skill set.
• For Lent, Ted Nugent has totally given up the use of reason.
• Mitt Romney, you remember him, in the spirit of Lent is closing one of his Swiss bank accounts. He is moving the money to the Cayman Islands to be near his other off-shore money.
• Rush Limbaugh on the other hand, refuses to give up his belief that Ohio senator, Sherrod Brown, is black. In fact, he refuses to give up anything because he is the  Ubermensch.
• George W. Bush is giving up painting nudes of himself. Laura informed him that such painting was sick.  For now at least, he will paint potted plants. You may argue there is no difference, but he maintains the plants have more color.

As for myself, I have been so fortunate that I have so many "things" I could give up and I will gladly give up those "things," but I will fight to death to keep my family and friends. 

Retirement: A Trail of Broken Contracts

Who Raided the Cookie Jar?

The City of Detroit is bankrupt. Michigan GOP governor, Rick Snyder, appointed an un-elected " Emergency Manager" to reorganize the city and return it to solvency. This administrator, Kevyn Orr, has proposed a reorganization plan that would unilaterally cut the pensions of many former  city employees by up to 34 per cent.

Norman, age 70, worked for the city for 31 years, retired five years ago at age 65. He worked for the Street Department and spent most winters clearing snow and ice in the middle of the night and repairing potholes during the day. In the summer he worked on repaving some streets and cleaning others. After retirement, he and his wife, Karen, who was a full time house wife and mother of five, have lived in a modest suburban home. Although he has some health issues, Norman and Karen do volunteer work at their local Catholic church and the St. Vincent DePaul society. Also, since he has been retired, they have traveled to Lakeland, Florida, for three weeks every March to attend their beloved Detroit Tigers spring training. Since they already had made plans, they will go again this March for the last time. Now that Norman will lose 32% of his retirement, travel is one of the luxuries they will have to forego. And, of course, they will not be attending their usual 12 home games at Comerica Park. Karen, meanwhile has begun searching the "Help Wanted" ads in the hope of finding a part time job to partially replace their lost retirement funds.

Norman is a fictional character; but there are thousands of Normans in the Greater Detroit area. Men or women, happy to have a job,  who worked diligently knowing that although they were not making as much as their friends working for the major auto companies, they were assured of "decent" retirement. Every payday they paid part of their paycheck into this system with which they thought they had a contract.

So, what went wrong? What happened to the contract? The politicians and accountants in the city of Detroit did not fund or under-funded the pension plan. They used that money to fund other aspects of government with the vague promise to replace it later. Of course, that never happened; and when the city began its downward spiral, there was no money to put back into the system.

For all practical purposes this appears to be a crime, but have you ever heard of a politician or an accounting firm found guilty of mismanaging a public employees' pension plan?

And Detroit is not a unique case. Pension funds across the US are unfunded or under-funded. 

Politicians and fund managers refer to the fund's obligations as "legacy costs" -- that sounds so much better than "under-funded or mismanaged funds."

The amazing aspect of this whole debacle of under-funded  pension plans is that it has happened previously in the corporate world. The employees regularly paid into the fund, but the corporations "deferred" their contributions. Then when things "went south" for the corporation, they declared bankruptcy and bye-bye "legacy" costs.

However, the real retirement disaster is the rape of Social Security; and since both Democrats and Republicans participated in the rape, nobody talks about it. It's the same old story. Social Security was adequately funded by the contributions, so much so that the system at various times had huge reserves, but politicians being politicians, decided that they would "borrow" that "extra" money to fund their pet wars/projects and then replace the money into the system at a later date. Unfortunately, no one bothered to do that, and now they are saying the system is running out of money and will have to be "downsized." (In fact, some Republicans who consider Social Security to be socialism, want to gradually eliminate it.) Once again, the  working contributors suffer for the mismanagement of politicians. And again, the contract is broken with no consequences for the culprits. 

And now everyone throws up their hands and capitulates. "O woe are we! Too bad; nothing can be done now. Sorry, retirees." 

But, there are things that can be done. For starters we can do what Al Gore proposed during the 2000 election. He wanted to take the entitlement trust funds like Social Security and put them is a "lock box." This would prevent Congress from taking the funds to use for other purposes and expecting future generations to pay it back. George W. Bush won that election (More accurately, the Republicans on the Supreme Court gave him the presidency.) and Bush along with a Republican Congress lowered taxes, raided the cookie jar, spent money like the proverbial drunken sailors, and got us involved in unfunded wars. Now, these same Republicans have the nerve to say the entitlement trust funds like Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt and have to be down-sized.

If politicians, local governments, and fund managers get away with defaulting on commitments to retired workers, it will be one more nail into the coffin of the middle class.

Republicans' Obsession with War

Republicans have a fascination with war. All of our recent wars have been initiated by Republican presidents. Ronald Reagan's war, however, may not qualify as a real war. After all, invading the small, defenseless island of Grenada is more in the category school-yard bullying and does not deserve to be called a war. More importantly, Reagan sent 12,000 US troops to Lebanon in 1982, only to withdraw them after 241 marines, whom Reagan had ordered not to carry live ammunition, were killed in Beirut.

Then there are the Bush presidents. George H. Bush initiated "The Gulf War' in which the US under General Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. In this quick and efficient operation  ("Desert Storm") , the military death toll was over 1,900.

Unfortunately, the popularity and perceived success of Desert Storm may have led the younger Bush, George W., to think that war was the best way of saving face after his administration  had been embarrassed by the 9/11 attacks. Dubya, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Neocons, like Paul Wolfowitz,  were gung ho on unleashing a "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq while fighting a major war in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that their reasons for the war were non existent, we suffered the loss of over 50,000 military personnel.  Now, all these years later, after these two wars are finally drawing to a close, a few Republicans are making noises about a war with Iran, but are receiving very little support.

Buck, a friend of mine, is fond of saying a Republican never met a war he/she did not like, but he is mistaken. Although the GOP is all in on the War Against Drugs and the War Against Crime, they turn pale at the mention of Lyndon Johnson's War Against Poverty.

More recently we have a group of Tea Party/Libertarian/ Fundamentalists who call themselves Republicans, and they want to declare war on everyone and everything. And although they swore to uphold the Constitution, their favorite war is The War Against the US Government.

Their bellicose passion knows no limits. They seek war and annihilation of a whole array of imagined enemies. They are intent upon waging:

• The War against Women: fighting women on every possible front. In addition to trying to redefine rape and restricting women's health care benefits, Republicans in Congress refused to renew The Violence Against Women law.
• The War against the Poor: poor workers are poor for a reason, God created them poor. Raising the minimum wage will only encourage the laziness of the working poor.
• The War against Organized Labor: what makes workers think they can negotiate with our friends, the huge corporations? 
• The War against the Homeless: they are an embarrassment; round them up and send them to Mexico or one of  our friends' "privatized prisons."
• The War against the Middle Class: What was Henry Ford thinking, by giving factory workers a just wage he allowed them to improve their lot in life.
• The War against Public Education: we need vouchers and charter schools which can operate like a private school, even promoting a religion, using taxpayer money but without accountability. In fact, some charter schools are seeking to be exempt from criminal law.
• War against Children: legislators in Kansas seek to allow teachers to beat children until they are bruised, and they cut back on the food stamp program which has a major effect on children.
• War against Public Employees: Be they police, firefighters, teachers, or civil engineers, they are socialist "moochers." But we do expect these public employees to put their lives on the line to save our sorry asses.
• War against Homosexuals: homophobic Republicans have introduced bills in various state legislatures which would permit discrimination against homosexuals. So much for the "home of the free."
• War against the IRS: the Internal Revenue Service began  investigating right-wing, tax-exempt "charitable" organizations which were in fact nothing more than political fund-raising groups. Ignoring the fact that these groups were breaking the law, they complained that  they were being "targeted" by the IRS. I think the Mafia should claim they are being "targeted" by the FBI.

Perhaps the most serious threat the Republicans are posing is their War on Democracy. In state after state they are seeking legislation designed to make it more difficult for Americans to vote. In addition to severely limiting early voting, absentee balloting, provisional balloting, requiring identification that many poor and elderly citizens lack, a few wing-nuts have recently suggested that the vote of the obscenely wealthy should count more than that of a working mother living below the poverty line.

Although my Republican friends frequently seek to solve a problem with warfare, I would remind them of Thomas Mann's admonition: "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."

Catholicism's Woman Problem

Women in Magdalene Laundry

The Catholic Church has always had a problem with women. What to do with them? The Church needs them, and wants to appear as though it respects them, but it does not want women to play any significant role in Church affairs.

Women appear to have been a problem from the very beginning. Although women were a respected part of Jesus' entourage and one or more may have been present for the Last Supper, Peter and Paul, following their Jewish and Mid-eastern roots, seem to have viewed women as hand-servants and wombs to bear offspring -- hopefully a preponderance of male offspring. (After all, a single male can impregnate many women, but a woman's birthing abilities are limited.)

And then when the writers of the Gospels came along, they had to deal with Mary, the mother of Jesus. They could not eliminate her. A human being, in this case, Jesus, has to have a mother; the father on the other hand can be ambiguous. The Gospel writers chose to make her a birth-mother, the concerned mother at the wedding feast of Cana, and a grieving mother at the crucifixion. Was she Jesus' educator and instructor or was she simply the woman who changed his diapers? The Gospels avoided that issue.

After the Church decided which Gospels to go with, it still had a woman problem. And since then the Church has wavered between making Mary a goddess on one hand, and a hand-servant on the other. There is a reluctance in the Catholic Church to admit that men and women are equal, but perhaps we should not be too surprised since the Catholic Church, a Medieval monarchy, does not understand democracy.

It appeared the Church had solved this problem with the "authorization" of Catholic Women's Religious Orders -- groups of women popularly known as "nuns"-- a term that has dubious connotations. (What does "nun" mean? Not male? Not significant?) But as it turned out, the women's religious orders took over the responsibility of fulfilling some of the Church's major social justice responsibilities by educating youth, tending to the sick, helping the impoverished, and caring for the elderly, the imprisoned and the mentally ill. The women of the Church excelled in carrying out the Christian mission.

Although women's religious orders seemed to provide a "place" for women in the Church, their "place" was one of subservience. The male pontiff and the male hierarchy were in charge and told the women what to do and how to live their lives. And it was within this context that abuses such as Ireland's Magdalene Laundries occurred.

Then in the 1950's Pope Pius XII told the women religious to modernize, to do away with outmoded practices that kept them from being in touch with the world around them. Along with the promise and encouragement of Vatican II, many of the women religious phased out their old habits -- their former mode of dress, and whole-heartedly embraced carrying their mission in the modern world They were free to use their talents and abilities and still be sisters in a religious organization. They became professors, scientists attorneys, community organizers and doctors while still practicing their religious and prayer life.

But then, in more recent history, under the rule of Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican felt threatened by the independence and courage of the Women's Religious Organizations in the United States and appointed a few males (bishops) to investigate these women with an eye on keeping them from questioning some of the practices of the Church. Now it appears unclear what Pope Francis is going to do with this "investigation."

Pope Francis, in spite of his inclusive and democratic inclinations, also has a problem with women in the church. Recently, in a speech to Italian women, he spoke elegantly of the dignity of women, their "gifts of delicacy, ...a special sensibility and tenderness, ..feminine intuition,..and the richness of the feminine spirit,"  and then he goes on to speak " of women in the domestic ambit." He envisions  "capillary and incisive roles" for women in the Church. He fails to elaborate what these roles might be; and in fact  "capillary" tends to suggest secondary and subservient roles. Given the limitations the Church places on women, one has to conclude that the Church will continue to treat women as second-class citizens.

But we can still be hopeful. After all, we were told a black man could not be elected President. Then we were told it would not happen again, and he was re-elected. We were told that Benedict 16 had stacked the College of Cardinals to insure ultra-conservatives would be be chosen pope for the next fifty years. No one saw what was coming with Papa Francis. There is always hope.

The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarity

My inclination is to describe The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarity as "chick lit," but I hesitate to do so because that may give the impression I am dismissing it. Let's just say it is a serious and clever novel which will have special appeal for women. I can imagine women's book clubs discussing this into the wee hours of the morning -- or until their supply of wine runs out. There are frequent analyses  which sound like they were taken from Dr. Phil -- not a bad thing, but face it, Dr. Phil's audience is predominantly women. That being said, most men, I suspect, will enjoy the novel as well.

The story, set in Australia, deals with an interesting confluence of events involving three suburban middle-class families. Each family is struggling with their own problems, only mildly interested in each other, but all somewhat involved with St. Angela's school.

The plot begins with one woman accidentally discovering a letter written to her by her husband with directions that it should not be opened until after his death. And thus Cecilia's problem. What does one do with such a letter? The decision to open it or not is laden with all sorts of implications.

Most readers will appreciate Moriarity's wit. "Marriage is a form of insanity; love hovering permanently on the edge of aggravation."

Other readers may be dissatisfied with the novel's ending, but I submit that the conclusion was not important. They story is the thing.

Boehner's Clown Show Returns

Thank God Congress has returned to Washington. Frankly, it was quite boring while they were on an extended vacation on Caribbean beaches and exotic ski slopes. (They were doing research on what the rest of us "free-loaders" are missing out on.)

Since the political scene was so boring. I was reduced to writing book reviews -- not nearly as much fun as writing about the the foibles and insanity of the U.S. House of Representatives.* Granted, there was the bigotry and hatred of the "Duck Dynasty" and the vile rhetoric of Ted Nugent, but in spite of some of the silliness that accompanied it, it was not humorous, it was despicable and un-American. In a somewhat lighter vein, Governor Chris Christie's tap dance around the truth was mildly entertaining, but I would not make fun of the big guy. He is too damn vindictive

Now don't get me wrong. I do not expect the GOP House of Representatives to do anything other than obstruct attempts by Obama to improve the economy, pass legislation to get people back to work, develop a sensible immigration policy, or redo the dysfunctional tax code. No these high paid "public servants" want to disable the country and then blame the President for the sorry state of affairs they have created.

But on the other hand, we the tax payers are paying these "public servants" a nice salary for not only doing nothing but preventing anything from happening. This is the Congress that has decided to limit their 2014 work days to 97!  Some of these same"hard working" legislators have complained that teachers have a 6-8 week summer vacation while they have given themselves 268 vacation days. They complained about needy school children receiving free lunches (even suggesting the kids clean toilets in exchange for lunch), while they have been receiving free lunches. They want to deprive working Americans of affordable health care, while they are receiving free health care. Although the price of stamps has just increased, they receive free postage. And for all of this (not to mention free travel expenses) they receive the paltry salary of $175,000. (That's $1,804.00 a day based on their 97 days of work.) But since over half of the members of Congress are millionaires, $175,000 may seem like chump change to them.

Although the unemployed would love to have a 40 hour week job and two weeks vacation, we cannot be too contentious with our "public servants" in Congress. They do not know they are "public servants," They think they are a privileged class because huge corporations and oligarchs like the Koch brothers throw tons of money their way as long as they follow orders. They are content to take legislation written by ALEC and introduce it  as legislation although they are not aware of its ramifications.

Today (1/29/14) the House passed a so-called Farm Bill which reduced the funding for food stamps by $8.6 billion while it continues very generous subsidies ("welfare for the wealthy") to corporate farmers and agribusiness.** (As the chart above indicates, many legislators benefit directly from those "subsidies.") Sorry about that, poor working families. We can't afford all that food for your families; we have to take care of the corporations -- after all they are people too, according to the Supreme Court.

The clowns have returned to Washington. Guys like me have silliness to write about, but the country should be crying.

* I admit not all craziness is in the House. After all, the Senate has Ted Cruz.

** Interesting that many corporate media organizations failed to report on the subsidies.

"Lone Survivor" Plus

Movie Poster

The world perhaps should be spared another review of Marcus Luttrell and Patrick Robinson's Lone Survivor, but I have read too many reviews that do not tell it like it is and I am going to do that.

In the first place, the reader should be advised that the first 160 pages of this 380 page book are a somewhat self-aggrandizing biography of the young Marcus Lutrell -- perhaps a luxury we tolerate in the young -- as well as a detailed (boring?) description of the training of Navy SEALs -- the best warriors in the history of the world according to Marcus. In addition, these pages are loaded with right-wing propaganda which could have been written by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Luttrell wants us to believe that Iraq must have had weapons of mass destruction and was allied with al-Qaeda. Really? Not even George W. Bush believes those lies. At one point he even suggests that the abuse of prisoners at Abu-Graib was not a serious problem until the US press and Al Jazeera blew it out of portion. He also uses this part of the book to attack "liberal" politicians and press, although he never bothers to identify either. Probably for good reason, because there were few politicians or members of the press who had the balls to question the invasion of Iraq.

Also, young Mr Luttrell  questions our government's ROE (rules of engagement) and certain provisions of the Geneva Convention. He believes that these bleeding-heart, civilian, liberal-sponsored regulations are a hindrance to the efficiency and efficacy of his beloved SEALS. Perhaps Marcus is too young to remember the massacre at My Lai as well as other atrocities in Vietnam. In fact, he goes so far as to suggest that the rules of engagement were responsible for the deaths that occurred in Operation Redwing.

Another interesting conflict for Marcus is that in the beginning of the book he comes across as being extremely critical of Islam and Muslims, but at the end of the book,  after he tells us how Pashtun villagers endangered their own lives to save him, he is of course very grateful to these Muslims.

However, the real story of the book, "Operation Red Wings," is an amazing story of heroism, courage, and endurance on the part of SEAL Team 10 on the mountain border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If the book had focused exclusively on this story, it would have been an excellent book. It is unfortunate that Luttrell felt compelled to use his story to preach his gospel.

I have yet to see the recently released Peter Berg movie version starring Mark Wahlberg, but I would hope that it tells the story of the ill-fated mission to capture or kill the Taliban leader, Ahmad Shah, and avoids those parts of the book not directly related to Operation Red Wings and its aftermath.

(For those who pay attention to such things, the movie was nominated for two Academy Awards -- Best Sound editing and Best Sound Mixing.)