As I was watching the Eagles game the other night, I became aware that at one point in NFL history the Eagles and the Steelers had merged (a team-up informally known as the Steagles).  Upon looking up this event in history, I came to find that this corresponded to World War II and was due to many of the players volunteering to join the service and fight instead of stick around and play games.  Such patriotic actions also greatly impacted baseball – a much more prominently appreciated sport at the time.  And players who couldn’t serve for medical reasons were often looked down upon.  Yet today such uniform patriotism no longer seems prevalent and few are judged as being un-American for not wanting to serve in the armed forces – wartime or not.

Perhaps it was the questionable engagements of the 60′s and 70′s that lead us to our loss of innocence.  Maybe the war games of the 80′s made us more skeptical and cynical regarding our government’s military decision-making.  Surely the recent series of questionable maneuvers have subdued our appetite to join the fray.  But I have doubts that one or several changes in administration will wash away this new mentality.  I think that the American people may have grown up, and the zeal we once had to be all we could be may be, at least as a collective mindset, an experience that is permanently in our past.  We know that struggles will continue and we still have respect for our great nation, but we may never again look forward to taking on the evils of the world in the name of God and country.

This is not to say that American patriotism is dead, but rather that it has evolved.  Much like we grow past the cake and party favors we clung to as children, we are learning that loving our nation isn’t so black and white.  We can show our respect without being compelled to be on the front lines.

Perhaps I’m wrong – perhaps my own cynicism is too deep for me to see the forest through the trees.  Maybe a time WILL come when we, as a nation, will face a struggle that will compels us to a greater unified purpose.  But it isn’t where we are today … which seems perfectly fine to me – hell, I think it makes me love this country even more.

This week it seems that a war of words has been going on back and forth between Jon Stewart and the host of Mad Money on CNBC – Jim Cramer.  It started with a few light jabs – Stewart poking at Cramer over financial advice in favor of an investment that went belly-up a week later, to which Cramer countered that Stewart was blurring the truth.  Then Stewart mockingly apologized for his representation and the put forth the truth in film (not much refuting words from the horse’s mouth).  And as Cramer escalated the affair, Stewart returned volley with his usual method of turning the attack on its head.

The culmination of this battle came Thursday on the Daily Show when Jim Cramer came on as a guest.  While Cramer was upbeat, cordial, and ready to defend himself as needed, Stewart was prepared to go for the kill.  In his words, he made clear that his beef was not specifically with Cramer, but based on the carnage it would surprise me if Cramer’s show isn’t offered up as a sacrificial lamb to get CNBC away from the guilt Stewart is attempting to fling their way.  While Stewart readily admits that he is not a journalist and doesn’t expect to be treated as an information source of integrity, his questions were concise and his concerns valid, and the respect that he commands (however unintentionally) may be enough, in my opinion, for some of his rhetoric to make waves in the world of finances (or at least the work of financial reporting).

At the heart of this episode were some important questions and concerns.  Should we continue blindly trusting the long-term investments we have long been told would serve us well when they are based on a very volatile backbone of trading and investing in a cutthroat market?  Shouldn’t the financial media be doing more to call out these back-door practices that may have been the true roots to our current financial crisis?  Certainly there will always be the Bernie Madoff’s of the , but when they are getting away with such shenanigans using tactics that are known and in some cases only mildly frowned upon, then someone is asleep at the wheel.

This is the start of what will no doubt be an interesting new era in history – a moment in history that cannot be undone and that will change things forever.  We have always said that anybody can be president.  When an interracial son of a lower-middle class family actually does, there is no doubt that it is more true than ever.

After the hoopla last night I found myself giving my daughter a basic civics lesson – explaining the branches of our federal government and their roles, explaining how America became a country and what the Constitution is.  And even though it was after midnight, she seems interested and absorbed it all.  And at 1AM when we were finally going up to bed I asked her what she wants to be when she grows up, she said she wants to be president.  I told her that she definitely could … but she should start raising money now.

We went as a family this morning to the polls – my wife and I and both of the kids walked the 3 blocks to the fire station to register our votes.  My 4-year-old daughter (almost 5) was excited about being involved in the process (she had  made her own decision a few months ago based on the issue of equal pay) and my son was excited to see fire trucks (he is only 2).  We had only about a 20 minute wait and were on our way back home.

Now my daughter is in bed bemoaning the fact that we won’t let her stay up to see the results.  We considered letting her, but she is exhausted and it could yet be hours.  I’m not even sure I’ve got it in me to sit and watch things pan out.  As much as so many of the polls leading up to this have told me that my choice should win by a strong margin, I can’t see enough strong data yet to convince me and two prior disappointments have me hesitant to celebrate early.  It also doesn’t help that every 3 minutes someone on MSNBC mentions how no state has yet gone a different color than they have 4 or 8 years ago.  But I’m holding onto some optimism that things will shift sooner rather than later.  We shall see.

Hopefully in a few hours (or less) I will be following up this post with one of celebration of a long overdue victory.  Hopefully.  And hopefully tonight might be the end of a too-long series of politically-oriented posts.

I accept that I am at odds with my family each time we are faced with a major election.  I opted some time ago to part ways religiously with my upbringing and as a result my political views also shifted to be more liberal.  I understand the role that religion serves for some people and I do not push my beliefs on others.  But I do believe that we can have sensible morals without them having to be based on religious doctrine – especially since many of the religions of the world can’t even find consensus about their own doctrines (e.g., Christianity) nonetheless each other.

Which brings me to my next point: if we do try to base our laws and ideals on the teachings of faith, whose faith is right?  Can we even pick one without alienating others?  If we try to be non-denominational in such a choice, don’t we run the risk of being too vague and/or alienating everyone?

Again, I don’t begrudge anyone their religious beliefs.  If everyone in charge of our nation believes in some religion, I’m ok with that.  What I’m not okay with is them trying to dictate that their religious beliefs should be the basis of laws that govern us.  It is bad enough that there are religions that ostracize those that don’t play by their rules, even worse that the law of our land could enforce such rules.  The laws of our land should protect and serve all of our people regardless of their beliefs, race, language, sexual orientation or any other traits.

Most importantly, the decisions that our government makes regarding the law of the land should not draw black and white lines through gray areas, but rather keep our people from falling through the cracks in these areas.  So rather than continuing to argue about abortion rights, we should focus on minimizing the need for abortions.  Rather than bickering about marriage rights, remove the barriers that keep couples from living their lives on their terms.  Instead of trying to mandate questionable subject matter in our schools, foster a broader understanding of a variety of beliefs and practices throughout the world and leave certain discussions and choices in the hands of parents.

Throughout our history, this nation has been a safe haven and a bastion of freedom to practice any set of beliefs.  Our founding fathers fought for this freedom and made it a point to exclude religious affiliation from the laws of this nation.  The only way to ensure our freedom to practice our faiths is to avoid legislating around them.  Our laws should protect our freedoms, not constrain them.  And to allow any set of beliefs to blindly guide our choices (in law or in life) will only lead us to our own demise.