The current depressing debate over whether or not the Iraq War has worsened the terrorist threat and if we aren't now busily making jihadis out of what would presumably be otherwise peaceful people isn't remotely interesting.

Except, maybe, as a lesson.

There are people out there who seem to think that our enemies derive their sole motivation based on our actions. If the United States does this, they do that; should we do that, they would do this.

Tied to this frankly childish view of human beings, cultures and civilizations is a related concept that holds that the source of all conflict is grievance.

Thus, if one (A) addressed the root grievances to a conflict while (B) refraining from conduct likely to provoke those with grievances then (C) peace will prevail.

It all sounds very logical, very rational and very, very moderate and reasonable, so it's no wonder all sorts of well-meaning fools are attracted to it.

What it leaves out, of course, is the humanity of the enemy. The enemy is reduced to a bag of grievances and an automaton who responds only when his buttons are pushed.

In reality, of course, the enemy has his own values and his own agenda. He takes action along a line of possible courses of action designed to advance those values and that agenda. The very nature of those values and that agenda presupposes that certain other national groups active in world affairs who hold opposing values and agendas will be in the way.

What those in the way do or say has little to do with how the enemy feels about them. It's what those in the way believe and who they are that is the problem.

However, the enemy is hampered in one respect: he is so enamored of his values and his agenda that he sees the world, including those who are in the way, through the lens of his values. Thus, even perfectly ordinary and unexceptional acts of those in the way come to seem to have ominous implications.

Take, for example, the following excerpt from a document containing guidance for Nazi officials on matters concerning the United States issued by the Reichspropagandaleitung (Nazi Reich Central Propaganda Office) in April, 1939. As you read it, note how similar the arguments are, how similar the role of grievance and, most interestingly, how similar the responses of the President's domestic opposition were:

After leading politicians such as the American Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes and Senator Pittman attacked the German government in the foulest manner, President Roosevelt did even more in his New Year address. He tried to persuade the American people that world peace was not assured, and that it was the duty of the American people to defend three vital principles: those of religion, democracy, and international good will. Roosevelt did not believe these principles were threatened by Soviet Russia or Soviet Spain, but rather by authoritarian Germany and Italy.

Millions are dead in Soviet Russia and Spanish priests estimate that a half million people have been murdered there only because of their faith, but that is not important and proves nothing. The dead do not trouble the American president's conscience, indeed they did not stop him from being the single world statesman to congratulate the Soviet Russian government on the anniversary of the Bolshevist Revolution. No other statesman did this, which explains why no other statesman received such praise from the Soviet press. The Soviet press praised the "noble efforts of the great American statesman."

Roosevelt also ignored the murder of millions of people when it was called to his attention by a letter from the former Spanish ambassador in Great Britain, the Marquis de Merry del Wal. The ambassador told Mr. Roosevelt the following:

Your country's press tells the world of Your Excellency's protests against the "persecution of the Jews" in Germany. According to the press, you are deeply distressed by these events. How is it then that the murder and massacre of 400,000 defenseless men, women and children in Spain has not resulted in the slightest distress on your part? These unfortunate people did not die on the battlefields of a civil war. They were torn from their homes and murdered in public not only because of their political, but also their religious, beliefs. Their murderers openly declared their goal of destroying the very civilization that Your Excellency defends. They have intentionally destroyed thousands of churches and monuments along with uncounted works of art and private homes. They have torn the clothes from nuns and revealed them to everyone's eyes. They raped women and looted to a degree unknown in the annals of the Christian era.

Your own ambassador, Your Excellency, against all the laws, norms and customs of international law, has been forced to live away from the government to which he is accredited, since as he said his personal security would otherwise be in danger. I further know, Your Excellency, that you have received certain proof of my assertions, for I have made efforts to ensure that you have received reports that support what I have said. Despite that, Your Excellency, you complain about events in Germany, events that cannot be compared with what is happening in Spain — and you have not given even the slightest sign of disapproval at the death of hundreds of thousands of people who have 18 million fellow believers who are among the best citizens of your country, far more than the two million Jews.

These people have been murdered solely because of their beliefs. Mr. Roosevelt, however, has never spoken of a threat to faith or religion. But they were only believers in a Christian church, after all. Mr. Roosevelt is conducting a crusade against the authoritarian states under the banner of religion only because the religious compatriots of his closest friends have been put in their place in the authoritarian states.

Sound familiar? Look, says the enemy, the United States says one thing, but does another. It's all just a front. They don't really believe what they are saying and they have ulterior motives. This isn't about democracy or decency or freedom of religion. If it was, the U.S. would be more concerned about Spain. What is going on here is the result of the U.S. monster ruthlessly advancing its interests against us, we Germans, who only want to be left alone. Why won't you leave us alone?

More:

If President Roosevelt believes that he has to take the field to defend democracy, we may ask where and when we have ever threatened or attacked democracy. In the past years Germany has done nothing more than to partially undo the injustices inflicted on it by the predecessor of the current president of the U.S.A. Germany has not arbitrarily altered the map of Europe as he did, creating states against the will of their peoples only for purposes of power politics. It has only reclaimed its citizens who suffered a decade long under governments foreign or hostile to Germany. Germany has also not attempted to extend its borders to areas to which it had no reasonable claim, something that other statesman, including Mr. Roosevelt, have done. America's president has told us that America's borders extend to the Rhine, though Germany has not claimed to border on America. Germany has not attacked the United States, and has avoided everything that might unsettle America. One need only recall Germany's refusal in 1898 to accept the offer of the President of San Domingo to establish a German naval base in his country. Germany said then that it had no wish to come in conflict with the United States. But from the beginning of the World War, America did all it could to interfere in European affairs and to support Germany's enemies by supplying weapons, credit, foodstuffs, etc., until it finally joined the war on the side of our enemies and sent its troops against us. Germany did nothing whatsoever to provoke America's attack. America's involvement is an arbitrary act unique in world history. America wanted to avoid the defeat of the Allies and their eventual bankruptcy. It joined the war as the military situation of the Allies became critical and the end was in sight. Such a defeat would have meant that the millions America had lent those nations would have been lost. That is the real story of America's fight for civilization and humanity. And one should not forget the 14 Points on which Germany trusted as it laid down its weapons, but which proved the worst trap ever a people fell prey to. The brutal consequences of the Treaty of Versailles demonstrated the nature of America's "battle for freedom."

Remind you of Chomsky at all? Every word here is true, in the sense that a half-truth with a heavily negative spin still remains partly true. There is, as in Chomsky's moronic assertions, a lot more to the story, a fact that both the author of this piece and Herr Professor are counting on you not knowing, but that is beside the point. Look at the complaint here: look at what the arrogant United States has done to us!

Seen through the lens of its agenda, the Nazi German leadership and its people saw the actions of the United States in this negative light. They felt put-upon. Hated, for no good reason. War was waged against them when they wished no conflict with the United States.

And, then, as now, "good hearted" Americans believed this:

The response on the part of the American people to this New Year address shows us that they reject the plans of their president. He was told that he had no business interfering in the affairs of other countries, and Congress was told to think carefully before permitting the president to engage in foreign adventures. A national article asked if America was threatened by Hitler and if Roosevelt should force the Germans to democracy, something that has been attempted since 1917. The article concluded with these words: "Roosevelt is playing with fire."

Congressman Hamilton Fish gave an even clearer answer. He gave a radio speech that strongly attacked Roosevelt's policies and declared that attacks by the president and his cabinet on the so-called dictators could lead only to war. All the totalitarian states that the president was attacking were occupied with their own problems, and would be for years to come. They had no thought of waging war against the United States or Latin America (Central and South America). Representative Fish said he could not be silent when the life, freedom and happiness of his nation were at risk. The time had come to put a stop to the warmongers of the New Deal, behind whom stand the war profiteers, communists and hysterical internationalists who want America to shed its blood and waste its money as the world policeman. Roosevelt's policies, Fish said, would lead to American involvement in every crisis in the entire world.

His speech was supported by the entire American press. It is also an indication of what the American people really think. The speech must be emphasized because it puts in words what the greater part of the American people think.

Why did the Nazis hate us? Rational Americans no doubt took these points at face value and sat down to think hard about how America could shore up her image in Germany, how legitimate grievances of Germany could be met with a helpful response, how the misunderstandings here could be avoided.

A fool's errand. The document continues:

Why is Roosevelt doing all this?

The reason is clear. The American opposition party asked "Why this warmongering?," and gave the answer. It claimed that Roosevelt was using such methods to:

1) to conceal the embarrassing sale of the most modern American warplanes to France,

2) to divert the attention of the public from unsolved domestic problems, and

3) to provide a reason for his premature return (from the naval maneuvers), which might have some impact on Congress.

We would add a fourth point: Roosevelt is acting as the mouthpiece and puppet of international Jewry when he attacks the authoritarian states. They want to use every means to destroy the newly awakened nations.

There will be a presidential election in the United States next year. People think that Roosevelt may want to run for a third term, or at least ensure that one of his close party associates succeeds him. He has done nothing at all to alleviate unemployment, improve the lot of the farmer, etc. The American people must be distracted from the complete failure of their president. Roosevelt seems to find no means too foul to accomplish this end. The only parallel we can see is to the rules of Soviet Russia or Soviet Spain. They, too, tried and tried to conceal their failures by unleashing world war. The leaders of the Soviet Union tried to persuade their people that true communism could only develop after all the other states of the world were allies of the powers in Moscow, and the Red rulers in Soviet Spain tried and tried to conceal their governmental incompetence by unleashing a world conflict. We are not surprised to see the American president in such company. The real rulers of the Soviet Union are the same as in the United States: international Jewry.

The Nazi analysis of American actions and words was put through the prism of the German people's then-obsession. Given their cultural madness and their paranoid delusions, there was nothing the U.S. could have done to avoid the coming conflict.

Any American who, in the face of this, despaired over the question "why do they hate us" rather than training with a rifle was wasting both his and his country's time.

Like I said: a lesson.

I love Peggy Noonan. I mean it, I really do. I read stuff all week and it just bounces off my windshield screen like so many over-sized billboards you've seen a thousand times before. See neo-con argue that more war is needed, register paleo-con argue that neo-con is Leninist conservatism, mark the netroots argue that it's all about profits and campaign contributions, check the new liberals argue that a new-new deal is required.

Noonan has retired from all this. Oh, she is still a conservative, very much so. But she is no longer much interested in the day-to-day tussle of ideas. Her once-a-week column over at opinionjournal.com sometimes advances the All Important Conservative Cause of the Week, but most often it does what Noonan does today: she takes a step back and tries to look at the big picture.

What is so refreshing about this approach is that she does it without patting herself on the back for it and trumpeting her virtue, both constant hazards for the big-picture folks.

And, today, she has focused on something that I think is vitally, critically important to know and to really get the significance of. She writes:

The left sees Fox as a symptom and promoter of anarchy. The old unity, the old essential unity one used to experience when one turned on the TV in 1950 or 1980, has been fractured, broken up. We are becoming balkanized. Fox, blogs, talk radio, the Internet, citizen reporters--it's all producing cacophony, and heralds a future of No Compromise. No one trusts the information they're given anymore, as they trusted Uncle Walter. This is bad for the country.

It is an odd thing about modern liberals that they're made anxious by the unsanctioned. A conservative is more likely to see what's happening as freedom. It isn't that honest and impartial news lost its place of respect, it's that establishment liberalism lost its journalistic monopoly. And it was a monopoly.

Not everyone believed Uncle Walter. Uncle Walter, and Chet and David, were all there was. But while they reigned, Americans were buying "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, and Reagan was quietly rising way out in California, and Spiro Agnew and Bill Safire were issuing mainstream hits like "effete snobs" and "nattering nabobs." In the time liberals think of as the last great unified era, Americans were rising up.

The new media did not divide us. The new media gave voice to our divisions. The result: more points of view, more subjects discussed, more data presented. This, in a great republic, a great democracy, a leader of the world in a dangerous time, is not bad but good.

But nothing comes free. All big changes have unexpected benefits and unanticipated drawbacks. Here is a loss: the man on the train.

Forty and 50 years ago, mainstream liberal media executives--middle-aged men who fought in Tarawa or Chosin, went to Cornell, and sat next to the man in the gray flannel suit on the train to the city, who hoisted a few in the bar car, and got off at Greenwich or Cos Cob, Conn.--those great old liberals had some great things in them.

One was a high-minded interest in imposing certain standards of culture on the American people. They actually took it as part of their mission to elevate the country. And from this came..."Omnibus."

When I was a child of 8 or so I looked up at the TV one day and saw a man cry, "My horse, my horse, my kingdom for a horse!" He was on a field of battle, surrounded by mud and loss. I was riveted. Later a man came on the screen and said, "Thank you for watching Shakespeare's 'Richard III.' " And I thought, as a little American child: That was something, I gotta find out what a Shakespeare is.

I got that from "Omnibus."

Those old men on the train--they were strangers, but in the age of media a stranger can change your life.

And because the men on the train had one boss, who shared their vision--he didn't want to be embarrassed that his legacy was "My Mother the Car"--and because the networks had limited competition, the pressure to live or die by ratings was not so intense as today. The competition for ad dollars wasn't so killer. They could afford an indulgence. The result was a real public service.

Now the man on the train is a relic, and no one is saying, "As the lucky holders of a broadcast license we have a responsibility to pass on the jewels of our culture to the young." In a competitive environment that would be a ticket to corporate oblivion at every network, including Fox.

TV is still great, in some ways better than ever. Freedom works.

And yet. When we deposed the old guy on the train, it wasn't all gain. No longer would the old liberals get to impose their vision. But what took its place was programming for the lowest common denominator. Things that don't make you reach. Things you don't want to teach. Eating worms on air-crash island with "Jackass."

I spoke with a network producer a few weeks ago, an old warhorse who was trying to explain his frustration at the current ratings race. He wrestled around the subject, and I cut with rude words to what I thought he was saying. "You mean it's gone from the dictatorship of a liberal elite to the dictatorship of the retarded."
Yes, he said. And it's not progress.

When liberals miss something in the media, that's what they should be missing. Not a unity that never existed but standards that were high. When conservatives say there's nothing to miss, they're wrong. We lost some bias, but we lost some standards, too.

Understand that, and you'll understand why the left and the right talk past one another...

...and you'll catch the gleam of the common ground. A treasure worth its weight in gold if someone with some wit would simple seize it and lead.

Good news (I think) from Sweden:

Wedding ring found in lake after 47 years

Published: 27th September 2006 12:21 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=5038

Maj-Britt Oster's wedding ring lay at the bottom of a lake for 47 years - but at last she has it back.

A boy found the ring in Langanas Lake [this is near Mirkwood, I think - NS] in the southern town of Eksjo when he was out diving and sifting through the sludge at the bottom of the lake, Smalands-Tidningen reports.

Maj-Britt lost the ring one summer's day in 1959 while staying at a cottage by Langanas Lake. Her husband Per-Olof was looking after the ring while she went for a swim. But he dropped it from the jetty and the couple's despairing attempts to retrieve the ring from the bottom of the lake ended in disappointment. [The article neglects to mention for some reason that Per-Olof was being pursued by Orcs at the time - NS]

For 47 years the ring went undetected but this summer there was an unusual coincidence. Maj-Britt Oster's son and his wife went to a party at the very same cottage by the lake. [You know, the big party by the Party Tree - NS] Her son told the story of how he had been there as a child and explained how his mother's ring had fallen into the water, never to be seen again.

Shortly after, 15-year-old Thomas Johansson visited the cottage and went out swimming in the lake. He dived below the surface and scrabbled about in the sludge at the bottom. Suddenly he felt something hard in his hand: the ring had re-emerged.

I'd keep an eye on that Thomas.

And, yes, I would throw the ring into some fire.

Just to be sure.

-- I never much cared for Clinton Derangement Syndrome and I have no time--no time at all--for conservatives, however sound, who deny that such a thing existed or exists. It did and it does. For me, when someone begins talking in hushed tones about the suicide of Vince Foster, the covering habits of Arkansas State Troopers or (worse) about who was in that Starbucks in D.C. where everyone got killed, I have the same reaction when someone begins talking about "the Jews." It's paranoia stuff, conspiracy theory craziness, and it's not the product of a serious mind.

And, to be honest, I didn't think that Clinton was a bad President on the merits of many of his decisions. I think he did a reasonably good job with his budget priorities and I think the Welfare Reform Act was a remarkable God-send that only a Democratic President could have pulled off. On many mundane topics of government, President Clinton came across as more-or-less a moderately conservative Southerner.

That said, the current turmoil over the President's appearance on Fox News Sunday did illustrate what I think is a long-standing weakness of the Democratic Party and their standard bearers: they're not used to being treated like dirt.

Conservatives are, and it shows. When a conservative Republican is on a show like Hardball or talking with a reporter from the New York Times, he knows he is in for it, that he isn't going to get a fair deal and that everything he says will be twisted and tortured and given the most negative spin possible. Accordingly, conservatives have learned to roll with such punches and, critically, how to get their message across in such an environment.

Liberals have not, to date, had to deal with any of this on such a large scale. One of the reasons Fox News drives liberals absolutely nuts is because of the simple *affront* of it all. No one talks like that to liberals, not the press and certainly not academics.

Clinton had some good points (and some bad ones) but the over-the-top, shrill denunciations of Wallace, Murdoch and Fox News were the product of an outraged temper of a man not used to being treated roughly. This sort of delicacy keeps liberal pols out of shape in the same way that a football player never knocked around in practice is not ready for the big game.

The media is changing, and liberals should wise up and realize their home field advantage days are long over. The sooner they internalize that lesson, the better off we'll all be.

-- During the entire Seahawks game on Sunday and especially when they were up 42-3, I was wondering "Why is Holmgren continuing to send Alexander out there when Alexander is clearly hurt?"

I just couldn't figure it out. And then, this morning, I learn from the Oregonian's sports page that Alexander cracked a bone in his foot and is out for at least two weeks. What the hell is going on here? I know Alexander is a tough guy and is proud of being the starter, but it's the coach's job to sit a player down when he's hurt for the better good of the team (and the player's own good). It was painful to watch and what I can't figure out is why apparently I'm the only guy who thinks this.

-- Good news for the Seahawks: Maurice Morris can *run* and on almost any other NFL team he would be a starter.

-- My good friend Mark, the Outdoors Pro, swung by my place Friday night and we went out for a much needed night on the town. Much Bushmills and Tanqueray was spilled, much steak was eaten and we did what any two guys our age would do: talked about old girlfriends, flames and torrid love affairs. A good time was had by all, though I must say I think we spooked our waiter a bit when he accidentally overheard some of the tales.

That night, Mark directed me to a YouTube find: an actual video of the Bangles before they began their descent into top-40-dom. You see, kids, once upon a time there was a little music movement near the end of the Los Angeles punk era called the "paisley underground" and it included bands you've never heard of like Green on Red, Dream Syndicate, The Three O'Clock (Salvation Army) and, yes, the Bangles. This movement was a little bit 60's L.A. pop (Love) and a little bit 60's British mod (Yardbirds) and it was a lot of fun.

Anyway, the video captures the Bangles doing what was then one of their standards. Take a look and you'll see how much the band changed (thanks Prince!). Also note that this version is pre-Michael Steele; the very cute Annette Zilinkas was on bass then.


But here is the thing: as I watched the video I felt the stirrings of memory. After Mark had left I watched it again and then it hit me: it seems so familiar to me because I was there when the video was shot! Yes, it all came back to me: my friend who worked for IRS Records then wanted to get a live crowd shot for the "club" scene, so we all went to some small club and watched the Bangles lip-synch the piece (very, very loudly, as Debbie still needed to actually hit her drums) over and over again. Strange how memory works, isn't it? I obviously remember now that I was there that day, but where did that memory go and how did I retreive it? What a mystery!

[Video Will be Linked Here When a Problem Gets Fixed!][Fixed it for you--Mark]

-- Did you see Heroes on NBC last night? I sat down to watch it expecting to hate it, given that I haven't liked anything science fiction or fantasy that TV has done since the Twilight Zone. By the first 15 minutes, I was hooked.

The characters are interesting and are presented as real people. From the Indian professor to the Japanese salaryman to the Texas cheerleader, these people seemed like actual people to me. Their reaction to their developing "powers" is more realistic than one usually sees in these types of stories. And the two plot twists at the end of the pilot episode sent shivers down my spine.

If they show's creators continue to approach the issue with delicacy and respect and resist the urge to geek it all out, they may have at least a niche hit on their hands here. In the meantime, I can't wait to get my questions answered next week.

Who's the woman in the mirror? What does she do? How does she do it? Is she separate from her twin or the same being? What happened to the loan shark's thugs?

Hiro can bend time and space, but how much and how far and to what effect?

What does the brother's psychic link do and how does it work? What does an Alpha-Male running for Congress do after he finds himself floating in an alley?

Who is the man with the glasses? Does he know his daughter can't be hurt? Who is he working for?

Did you see it? What did you think?

-- This morning at my MAX station I watched as two of our local outstanding young men shuffled into the station. The coming of even slightly cool Fall weather has allowed the Thug population to breakout the oversized coats and hooded sweatshirts that they think makes them look menacing.

(Hey, I'm not complaining. As far as fashion goes, that's as darn near as you're ever going to get to get people to voluntarily wear signs around their necks that read "loser, please stand clear.")

They shuffled around looking menacing, smoking a lot and ended up sitting on the tracks while waiting. (Look at us! We're not scared of no *train*. We break the rules! Do the Dew!)

They eventually got bored with the wait and began shuffling around again. One of them began walking towards me. He gets near me and says: "Excuse me, sir, but you could spare a dollar for train fare?"

I could not spare it.

-- I've been re-visiting a lot of Robert Heinlein lately and have come across some interesting stuff by him that I've never read before. Then I can across this, written in 1959:

"No Department of Defense has ever won a war."

It's now been 46 years since Heinlein wrote that line.

-- I also did not know this: apparently the reference to Somalis as "skinnies" among US Army soldiers during the whole humanitarian operation derives from Starship Troopers. Speaking of which, man, what a movie that would make if it was ever done right.

-- I'm currently reading a biography of Mussolini and it really strikes me how little I actually know about Italian fascism and its particular ideology. I've always assumed and guessed that Italy was just National Socialism's junior partner-in-crime and in a sense that it true, but there is a completely different history here that is just fascinating.

Again and again, though, the number one thing that really leaps off the page at me in any close examination of the West in the pre-World War II era is just how invisible the United States was in the grand debates of those times. None of the grand schemes of Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini involved the U.S. in any way other than mere sidenotes.

Yet, any disinterested economist or statistician worth his weight could only have concluded by looking at the raw data of production and economic output that the U.S. was the colossus of the West. As soon as the U.S. joined the war, it was all over but the shouting. Even without the nuclear bomb, the amount of men and materiel the U.S. could produce would have simply overwhelmed the enemy.

It really hammers home to me how blind ideologues can be. For Hitler, the Jews and Bolshevism were the enemy and nothing else really mattered. For Mussolini, his domestic enemies and the glory of Italy was what mattered. For Stalin, the power of the CPSU was the measuring stick. The agent of their actual undoing sat there, largely unnoticed.

-- Which brings me to something I've wanted to say for a long time, but keep forgetting.

I grew up in southeast Los Angeles County during an era of runaway crime. The 10 o'clock news on KTLA invariably began with a rundown of that day's homicides, which typically reached 6 or 7 killings considered newsworthy. While I was in a very safe bedroom community, my travels took me to other parts of the city.

I saw the guys responsible. They walked with a swagger. They ruled the town. Even the city governments began to divide the city up officially into the gangs' stated territory. Even the police force began to be organized in that fashion: these particular cops were for these particular gangs. Police walked around with stupid "gang enforcement" jackets, signaling to a bunch of rotten little crooks that they are what sets the agenda.

It's hard to believe now, but city officials actually participated in "peace" talks. This or that gang sent representatives to discuss territory, to divide up the city.

The press and the academic community said the cause was hopeless. The gangs and the criminals ruled the city and, they said, until the underlying conditions giving rise to their grievances were addressed by massive government intervention, the problem was only going to get worse. We needed to understand what would drive a young man to think of life in a gang and an early death preferable.

More police didn't solve the problem, nor did more courtrooms. More prisons didn't solve the problem. More and more people died and more areas of our city became no-go zones.

This was how it was. If you wanted peace you had to deliver "justice," which was defined as meaning "what left-leaning public officials and intellectuals thought best." Otherwise, we'd never know peace.

Then the Rodney King thing happened and a jury let the cops off the hook and the city exploded. The police retreated, the gangs strutted through a city conquered.

Then I saw the most amazing thing happen.

I can't put my finger on what exactly it was that tipped the scales. Maybe it was Reginald Denny. Maybe it was the sight of Chief Gates announcing that the LAPD had "withdrawn" from certain districts in the city. Maybe it was the images of hoards of tattooed thugs running around with cases of Coca-Cola and color TVs. Maybe it was all of these or none.

All I know is that I was there and I felt it happen. The collective will of the city stood up and said: enough.

At the end of the day, the ease in which the problem was solved was astounding, even revolutionary, to behold. It did not take an enormous operation, nor some new massive government program to address grievances. Instead, society just flexed the smallest of its sinews and rediscovered its power.

No. At the end of the day the people of the city just decided enough was enough and it was over.

At first, the strutting gangsters couldn't believe it. In one memorable scene, broadcast live on KTLA, a national guard unit at a major intersection closed off the surrounding streets. Residents were told that anything passing the line from the side-streets to the main avenues would be shot.

All though the evening, the masses milled behind the imaginary line. Jeering, laughing, drinking, throwing bottles. Then, three of them got in a car and drove through the crowd, to the whooping delight of the shirt-less young men.

As they pulled onto the main street, a short burst of machine gun fire shredded the car. Most of the crowd fled at that point, of course, but a few of the young men stopped fleeing after a few steps and turned around to look. And I remember the news camera pulling in and focusing on their faces.

I could read the expressions there.

They were: that did not just happen. We rule here. We do what we want. These police clowns are just playing games, no one is serious. We have the fist, the knife, the gun. We put people down, not the other way around.

It was: disbelief. The world is not working as it should. Something is seriously wrong.

To the gangs, the milling middle class Americans around them were invisible, powerless, divided, cowardly, nothing more than prey. And so they were.

Until they were not.