Here we are again. In a couple of hours it will be exactly two years ago that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked. I read in the news this morning that the Office of Homeland Security is warning of possible Al-Queda attacks corresponding with the anniversary. I doubt anything major will happen, however. I have a feeling that our national security agencies have probably been keying in on this date as a possible date for attacks since the beginning of the year. Just like last year. But who knows, these Muslims are nothing if not symbolic.

Its always nice to have a date on your calendar where there's an increased possibility of your nation being attacked.

Really, 9/11 is just another day for me. I'm a little more thoughtful about the victims of 9/11 perhaps and I tend to become more interested in what we're doing to prevent terrorism, but aside from that...life goes on. 9/11 was a good thing for this country much as a forest fire, though devastating, is good for a forest grown clogged with vegetation. It woke up our citizens and expanded our interest in government beyond oval-office fellatio. Let's face it, times have been pretty good for us here in the U.S. Our citizens live a quality life which is second only to a couple Scandanavian countries.

We live the good life here in the U.S. and because its so good we've grown fat and lazy. Very few of us actually vote outside of big elections like congressional elections or presidential elections. 9/11 woke us up, to a point. I can see our society sliding back into apathy, but at least some of my generation got a taste of what Pearl Harbor must have tasted like. I think that's some important medicine.

People who only vote in the "big" elections have it all backwards. For the average citizen the most important elections are the city, county and state level elections. The people and laws you vote on in these elections have the most direct effect on your every day life, yet from my obersvations they are largely ignored.

It seems like everybody wants the federal government to pass a law for their perceived problems. I hear that we need a federal ban on cell phones being used in cars. Why should the federal government do that? Wouldn't it make more sense for that kind of a law to be written on a more localized level? It is much safer to talk on a cell phone while driving around Minot, North Dakota, than it is in L.A. for obvious reasons. How can we expect congress to pass a law that reflects that?

For that matter, how many laws can be passed by congress that will be right for all parts of this most diverse of countries? Is a law that is right for Jacksonville, Florida, always going to be right for Reno, Nevada? Or Moorhead, Minnesota? In my mind, there aren't many laws that can be passed at the federal level that are going to fit us all.



The framers of the constitution knew this when they wrote the 10th ammendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

U.S. Constitution, X Ammendment

Of course, you can also take this argument in a completely different direction when you take a closer look at the 1st Ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Constitution, I Ammendment

Congress shall make no law. It doesn't say anything about our state governments establishing a religion or banning newspapers. Of course, this loophole tends to be ignored by everybody except Pat Robertson.