NOTE: The title question is rhetorical. I don't need you to answer it (though I do appreciate your input).

One of the questions I have to ask myself from time to time is whether I am too reckless in pursuit of the things that are important to me. I mean, I do want to defend what I feel is right, and without apology, but sometimes I have to wonder, at what cost? While I don't want to alienate myself from people I feel are important, I also never want to be a milquetoast, catering to changing political whims and opinions.

As many of you know, I have had to ask myself that question over the past couple of days. While I don't particularly wish to rehash the conflict, I do feel that the format of a blog is a good way to give you a look at the inner workings of my mind...and somehow delve a little deeper into what I believe.

I believe that one of the most glaring problems of modern society is: we have no belief (collectively). Sure, there are activists among us, but even they change as the political tide changes. For example: look at the current protestors of the war in Iraq, then notice that those protestors were notoriously absent in the first Gulf War, at a time when I, as a young political activist, wanted to organize protests but couldn't galvanize any interests whatsoever. We're too often pushed about by the wind and the waves, knowing little about what we believe, and even less about why we believe it.

That is the kind of person I never want to be. I have often stated that a faith worth having is a faith worth defending, and that is as true of politics as it is of religion. And it is precisely for that reason that both are considered (sadly) taboo topics in many conversations. It is also for that reason that I rarely discuss my religious beliefs on JoeUser; I know for a fact, I would hurt the feelings of too many people, and it's simply not worth the end result to advance my rather dogmatic beliefs. I would rather share only the parts of my faith that are more universal and leave it at that.

I have often wondered, as a historian with a solid base of understanding in psychology, just what it was that made our founding fathers patriots. They certainly could have had great success had they not made waves and marched lock in step with the Crown. And there were not a few of the colonists at the time that did just that. But somewhere inside of each of them, something sparked. A craving, a NEED for something more that drove these men to break from the Crown and form what I believe to be one of the greatest nations on the planet, despite our imperfections. I have ancestors among these men. Ancestors who fought both at well known battlefields and unknown battlefields. Ancestors who fought for something they believed in, and for whom failure was not an option, as it carried with it the certain end of execution. I do not take the blood of those patriots that runs in my veins at all likely.

As my ancestors helped shape and form this great country, I feel that our Republic is the only birthright I truly have from them. I did not inherit property, and, indeed, am basically estranged from my living blood relatives. But I inherited a desire, a thirst for liberty and for justice that will be with me until the day I die.

But such a passion, I am discovering, is alien to many people in our culture who take so much for granted. Because it is alien, it has probably hindered more relationships than even I realize. In my quest to leave a meaningful legacy, I believe I do get a little reckless, and probably leave more collateral damage than I should. Is that right? Is that wrong? I haven't resolved that yet, and my answer with that will probably change substantially over time. Essentially, it's the age old question of whether the ends justify the means.

For now, I would rather have the charge hung on me that I am too reckless than that I am too complacent. Because the latter is all too common; the former seems increasingly less so.