Not getting attacked

Bill O'Reilly was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Thursday and during the interview Jon Stewart asked him to name something domestic that George W. Bush had been successful with. His answers: the economy (because it followed Sept. 11 and it could have been much much worse), and the fact that we haven't been attacked again (and if they could, they would).

So following the logic than NOT being attacked is a success of the president, we can say that, first of all, GETTING attacked also sits on the president's shoulders, so for scoring purposes, I'll give Bush a -1 for 1991, and a +3 for the other three years we weren't attacked under his watch. So that gives him a collective +2. So following the logic laid down by Bill O'Reilly, Bill Clinton did pretty well. I'll give him a -1 for the bombing at Olympic Park in Atlanta and a +7 for the other seven years ... +6. Bush the first, +4 ... no attacks on American soil ... Reagan, +7 (after all, someone tried to kill him), Carter +4.

OK ... this is all hyperbole to show that IT MAKES NO SENSE! September 11, 1991 was a fluke. A total breakdown in numerous systems. We have to stop defining everything based on one moment in our history.

The American system functions much like the human system. When the human body is under diress and stress, you will not grow or develop. Studies on mice have shown that a mouse under constant stress is much smaller than a mousethat is encouraged and in a thriving social environment. Look at the Middle East ... it's the same thing. Keep it under stress and diress, and it will NEVER thrive. If we continue to live in fear of what might happen, we will never heal and move forward. Mourn, remember, but move forward by focusing on the positive that remains.