2010...IN REMEMBRANCE OF MARGARET

2010 was a notable year, but it was marred in January by the sudden passing of my mother-in-law, Dr. Margaret Smythe Emmons. In remembrance of her life and legacy, I am publishing the eulogy I delivered at her memorial service. She was a remarkable woman and a great humanitarian.

~~~ * ~~~

"To laugh often and much; to win respect of intelligent people and the affection of children . . . to leave the world a better place. . . to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

By these standards, Margaret Rachel-Smyth Emmons was an unqualified success. I stand before you today, not just mourning the passing of a mother, a grandmother, a mother-in-law, a friend or a fellow member of this community. I stand here celebrating the success of Margaret's endeavors upon this earth.

I didn't know Margaret back in the 1920's or 1930's, the years of her youth in Correctionville, Iowa and later in Fort Dodge, but Margaret never forgot the lessons of the Great Depression – frugality, kindness to the less fortunate and the value of community service. In regard to frugality, Margaret never met a piece of aluminum foil she couldn't re-use twenty times or a plastic bag that couldn't be washed and recycled. If Margaret had written a book on frugality, it probably would have been titled, "1001 Things You Could Tie Up Using Thirty-Year Old Pantyhose".

I didn't know Margaret in the 1940's, when Margaret went to Cornell College in Mount Vernon or did something that very few women did in those days – go to Medical School. She graduated from the University of Iowa College of Medicine in 1949, and then began her career in service to others when she did her internship at St. Louis City Hospital and her residency at her alma mater, the University of Iowa…go Hawkeyes! Margaret was an ardent Hawkeye football fan; and if you called her during a football game, you can bet the conversation would be very, very short.

I wasn't even born yet when Margaret married fellow med-school classmate, Dr. Richard O. Emmons. She told Richard that she didn't mind where they lived or practiced medicine, as long as it wasn't in Clinton, Iowa – so wouldn't you know it - that's where they ended up moving to in 1954. And 56 years later, there's still an Emmons presence in Clinton. Margaret's sister-in-law, Elizabeth Emmons Gussack resides there and carries on the family banner.

By then, the first of her four children, Kathy was born. Both Margaret and Richard established private medical practices in Clinton – hers as an anesthesiologist, and his as an internist, and together, they practiced medicine for twenty-seven years, until Richard's death in 1981. Margaret practiced for five additional years before she retired, in 1986.

I didn't know Margaret in the later part of the 1950's, when she gave birth to Sally, my future wife Susan, and finally to Bob. I understand it was a hectic household with two doctors always on call, but Margaret was a great organizer and she made sure it worked.

Margaret's children thought she was a strict disciplinarian. When my wife, Susan was five and Bob was three, Susan embarked on a hairdressing career by giving Bob a haircut. Margaret nipped Susan's career plans in the bud and forbade Susan from using scissors for two whole weeks!

Margaret was also a practical woman, and she didn't confine her knowledge of anesthesia to the operating room. When the family lived on Fifth Avenue South [in Clinton], a bat found its way into the kitchen. When the bat flew into a cupboard, Margaret calmly closed the door and secured a bottle of ether. She placed a cloth soaked with ether in the cupboard, and that took care of the bat.

I've heard many stories about the Emmons' family vacations – like how Margaret would insist they stop at every historical marker on the roadway, but I've always been struck by the fact that Margaret never seems to have forgotten that her first role was that of wife and mother.

I didn't know Margaret in the 1960's or 70's, when her children were growing up in Clinton. I was growing up in Pennsylvania and Margaret was busy serving her church and her community. I could spell out a long list of organizations she served and accomplishments she attained, but I think the activity she enjoyed most was her mission work.

Margaret spent time in Ghana as a missionary training doctors and nurses, and she continued her mission work at home by being a member of the Board of Directors of Self-Help International – an organization dedicated toward helping people overcome poverty and famine by becoming more productive and self-sufficient. And if she was at a church annual meeting, Margaret always led the charge for more funds for mission work. She never met a church building project she couldn't oppose or a mission project she couldn't refuse. That's probably why she got as much solicitation mail.

I didn't know Margaret in the 1980's and the early nineties when she was traveling around the world on a regular basis, or riding her bicycle around Ireland, Belgium and other parts of Europe. I'm not 55, but I'm sure I couldn't complete RAGBRI…but she did it at age 55 and my hat goes off to her for that accomplishment. I'm lucky if I could get ten miles down the road, let alone making it all the way across Iowa.

I first met Margaret in 1998, when Susan and I journeyed to Iowa for my first Emmons' Thanksgiving…which turned out to be the first time I ever saw salmon-spinach loaf replace a turkey, and cranberry sauce with nuts and raisins instead of the stuff my mom always served from a can. I'm not sure if it was because of her frugality or her dislike for the Dallas Cowboys and the Detroit Lions, but every time I got up and went to the bathroom, Margaret got up and turned off the football game. It wasn't Hawkeye football – so I guess in her book, it didn't matter.

When Susan and I announced our engagement in early 1999, Margaret seemed to approve of our match. Oh, I'm sure she had a few reservations, after all, Margaret has always been a staunch Republican and I'm…well, let's just say I'm not! But she loved me anyway, despite what she'd characterize as my "misguided political beliefs". It probably helped that she and I had a few other things in common: a competitive spirit, a love of reading, intellectual curiosity and Scrabble. I think my habit of pulling out Scrabble wins at the last moment vexed her, but she never missed a chance to play whenever we visited. She and Susan's cousin, Nancy played Scrabble almost every Sunday night.

But Margaret's long-time love was bridge…and she was a whiz at it. She tried (unsuccessfully) on two occasions to teach me the game, and then to demonstrate the depths of her generosity at a card table, she paired me up with one her opponents.
Now, everybody in Margaret's family is probably thinking, "I thought you were going to say Margaret's long-time love was her geography game – Go Travel Africa." No, Bridge was her long-time love. Go Travel Africa was her passion! There's a big difference between the two.

Margaret developed Go Travel Africa because of her love for mission work, her love of Africa and her desire to teach its geography to her grandchildren, but then her project turned into a mission of its own – some might even say an obsession, albeit a good one. Margaret always carried a "Go Travel-Africa" game in her pocket. If you were sitting next to her on an airplane, you were going to get her spiel. If you found yourself at an event with her, make no mistake about it - she was going to sell you a game. We joked about holding a special memorial service sale, because Margaret would definitely have approved, but then we realized that if you knew her well enough to attend this service, you probably already have a game.

And if you think Margaret wasn't driven, you should know that Margaret even sold a game to her mortician…I kid you not…that's before she died. I guess Margaret figured that if he was going to get her business, she should get his too!

I will always remember Margaret as an authentic and unique individual. She lived her life independently, and on her own terms. Yes, she had her foibles. She was stubborn, and like a lot us, thought her way of doing things was the best way. If you knew her well, I'm sure you could add a few items to this list. But Margaret was a caring woman, an adventurous woman and a woman who was not afraid to forge ahead when others would have hesitated. Margaret didn't spend her retirement years resting on her laurels – she used that time like she lived her entire life…always on the go, always learning, always looking forward to what comes next.

Margaret loved God, her family, her community, her country and the world in which she lived. She cherished her friends, even when she was mad at them, and she touched the lives of countless people, many of whom will never recognize her name.

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, that is what it means to have led a successful life. Margaret will be missed, but not forgotten by those who've known and loved her, because she lived, and we breathed easier because of it.

CHRISTMAS THIEVES

A rash of local thefts during this holiday season has left me a bit bewildered. In one case, a "baby Jesus" was snatched from a church's nativity display. In another, somebody made off with a "wise man and camel" from a couple's front-yard crèche. And let's not forget the "angel heist"; a brazen theft of two angels perched atop a wooden manger. The thieves left the accompanying "star" lying in the street.

Who does this stuff? Who could possibly take pleasure at, or see personal gain in stealing a couple of square feet of molded plastic? It boggles my mind.

Then again, maybe it shouldn't. If the sum total of the meaning of Christmas in today's world can be adequately displayed with an illuminated piece of molded-plastic figurine, perhaps the thieves have been doing us a favor. Christmas is more than a pretty lawn display; and that's something that even the best of thieves can't steal.

MEXICO INVADES TEXAS...and all that entails!

Did you know that Mexico invaded the United States last Tuesday night?

Well, they did, but today is Friday and we're just hearing about it. Does that mean we're officially at war with our southern neighbors? Inquiring minds want to know!

Apparently, a drone aircraft that was owned and operated by the Mexican military crashed in the back yard of an El Paso, Texas home last Tuesday night. That sounds like an invasion to me, but I'm still scratching my head over why it's taken so long for the public to hear about it. Has Texas been returned to Mexican control? I know that Texas Governor Rick Perry has been hemming and hawing lately about Texas succession. I just never expected that it would happen so soon, or that "bigger than life" Texans would cave so easily to our southern neighbors. I guess you just never know!

And that brings to mind another question: Are we going to retaliate with a "shock and awe" campaign similar to the one we used in Iraq? Stay tuned...though it will probably be another week until we get an update. Apparently, news travels slower in Texas.

PALIN & THE ALMIGHTY

Sarah Palin says that she is giving a 2012 presidential run "prayerful consideration", but if she is seriously looking for a sign from the Almighty on whether she should toss her hat into the ring, I can ease her mind right here and now. God has heard enough "Sarah Palin religious drivel" to fill a hundred worlds and He's not impressed with her commitment to the things that matter most to Him - feeding the poor (i.e. food stamps), housing the homeless (i.e. subsidized housing), comforting the sick (access to health care) and visiting prisoners. Nor is Palin's record on non-violence or seeking protection for the defenseless something worth bragging about before the Almighty. If Palin thinks that she'll receive a "thumps-up" from God to champion her viewpoints in our Nation's highest political arena, she's either disingenuous or incredibly ignorant about what God truly asks of His followers, or perhaps a little of both.

When Sarah Palin touts her commitment to Godly principles in her various speeches, she never explains in any meaningful way what principles she is referencing to, and with good reason. Palin's principles are not God's principles. They're Palin's principles.

Palin's principles do not champion feeding the poor, housing the homeless, comforting the sick or visiting prisoners. Palin's principles do not promote non-violence and protecting the defenseless. Rather, Palin's principles advocate the advancement of individualism and self-reliance. The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. The rich get richer and the poorer get poorer. Success is not measured by one's commitment to God, but instead by how far one rises on the political and economic ladder. Of course, Palin's principles are cloaked with fancy language associating those principles with Godly principles, but God is not fooled by them, and neither should we.

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL MUST GO!

Because our venerable Declaration of Independence labeled Native Americans as "merciless savages", it should come as no surprise that there were many during our Revolutionary War who opposed Native Americans serving in the continental army. The "Indians", as they were called, were frequently viewed as heathens and brutal savages who were unfit for civilized military combat. George Washington, however, recognized the value of Native American warriors, having witnessed their bravery during the French and Indian War, and readily welcomed their assistance. Eventually, at least sixteen hundred Native Americans served during the American Revolution, and the Native American "guerrilla warfare" tactic, adopted by the colonists, was largely credited as the reason the colonists were able to defeat an army that vastly outnumbered them.

Ironically, during our nation's Civil War, Northern military commanders resisted efforts to enlist blacks in the Union army, arguing in the process that the black man was intellectually and physically inferior to white soldiers, and much more prone to cowardice and desertion. Near the latter stages of the Civil War, when confederate military commanders in the deep South suggested that black slaves be used to form fighting regiments, because confederate units were suffering massive casualties, southern citizens were outraged by the notion that blacks would be considered for such an important duty, and calls for the replacement of those commanders was loud and swift.

In World War II, citizens and immigrants of Japanese and German descendants were widely regarded as unfit for U.S. military duty, under the assumption that they would automatically be enemy spies for their former homelands. The Japanese were eventually interred in prison camps for the duration of the war, and many Germans quickly "Americanized" their names.

During the latter part of the 20th century, the role of women in the military was hotly debated, with opponents spouting the notion that women were weaker than men, both intellectually and physically, and could not be relied upon in various combat roles.

Whether our nation was considering the role of Native Americans, Blacks, Japanese, Germans and Women in our military forces, the major arguments against all such participation and service has always focused on a perceived weakness of the particular group being considered.

Today, with the question of homosexuals serving in our armed services, that focus has changed, and I'm scratching my head over the irony of what I'm hearing. I'm not hearing that gays can't shoot straight (pardon the pun), can't execute orders, can't think strategically and can't fulfill the physical demands or stress of military jobs. Nope! What I'm hearing is that non-gay service men and woman can't function properly or efficiently do their job in the company of recognized homosexuals.

So, this is what I want to know: Are straight members of the United States military, the supposed strongest and bravest in all the world, somehow too weak and undisciplined to be able to occupy a foxhole, a tank, a fighter jet, a submarine or a communication outpost with a soldier with a different sexual orientation? If so, it seems that we'd be better off with an "all gay" army. At least then we wouldn't be wasting our time on stupid discrimination.

ANOTHER JIHADIST CAPTURED

A Baltimore construction worker named, Antonio Martinez, who used the alias Muhammad Hussain, is the latest proof that there's no shortage of "whack-job terrorists" in the world, even amongst our own citizens. Apparently, this 21 year-old home-grown knucklehead is the latest would-be jihadist bomber captured by the F.B.I. Like the kid captured in Portland, Oregon last week, Martinez was caught in a sting operation by the F.B.I., who had discovered Martinez's plan and were able to take steps to prevent Martinez from bringing his murderous plot to fruition. [Again, kudos to the F.B.I.]

Martinez's target was a military recruitment center in Catonsville, Maryland, which Martinez wanted to destroy in order to retaliate against the U.S. for military operations currently underway in Afghanistan and Iraq. That numerous lives would be lost apparently meant nothing for Martinez. Hopefully, our courts will convict and imprison Martinez and throw away the key.

Violence is truly the root of all evil, and extremists like Martinez seem to have an insatiable desire for it. Nevertheless, I hope our nation's response to men like Martinez doesn't draw from the same well of violence that feeds fanatics like Martinez. Otherwise, the cycle of violence will never be broken.

SACRIFICE DELAYED IS FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY LOST

Politicians in Washington and citizens around the country are breathing a sigh of relief today as word of a compromise between the President and the GOP has been reached regarding an across-the-board extension of the Bush era tax cuts for Americans at every income level. Republicans demanded an extension of tax cuts for even the wealthiest Americans as the price for capitulating to an extension of unemployment benefits and a roll-back of payroll taxes for one year.

Compromise is a necessary component of our country's government structure, but the "deal" reached yesterday does not begin to address our burgeoning federal deficit or the unstable state of our social security system. In fact, the cost of the tax cut for high earners alone will cost the government several hundred billion dollars, which will simply be added to the federal debt.

The GOP has revealed that all their pre-election talk about fiscal responsibility was just a puff of smoke and attested to their own hypocrisy by abandoning that notion in favor of refusing to ask their own constituency (big business & the wealthy) to make sacrifices necessary to bring this country back to a level of economic stability. Middle class taxpayers are hurting, but the GOP held relief for wage-earners hostage to their demand to further enrich the wealthy. In the process, another opportunity to address this nation's economic woes has been lost.

At the end of the day, no American was asked to sacrifice, and our leaders chose to bury their heads in the sand for two more years. When will we ever learn?

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

I am a staunch believer in American Exceptionalism. Americans are exceptionally arrogant, hypocritical and lacking in a sense of humility. Americans are exceptionally disdainful of the poor, the oppressed and anybody with opposing viewpoints. Americans are exceptionally wasteful and unwilling to sacrifice for the good of mankind. So much for American Exceptionalism.

MANNING - A TRAITOR IN OUR MIDST

As outrage continues to grow over the recent Wikileaks release of secret U.S. State Department cables from U.S. diplomats abroad and foreign leaders, the call for bringing to justice those responsible for the release of the top-secret information contained in the cables is sure to increase. Currently, only Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning has been arrested and charged in connection with the leaking of top-secret information, and I for one hope that a charge of treason is added to the list of criminal charges Manning faces. There is no justification for his actions.

CITIZEN TO F.B.I. - Thank you!

A major debt of gratitude is owed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for foiling the terrorist plot of Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a 19 year-old living in Corvallis, Oregon who tried to detonate what he believed was a van full of explosives during yesterday's Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. His efforts failed because he was unknowingly working with F.B.I. agents who had previously uncovered his plans and were allowing Mohamud to think they were rendering him assistance. In reality, the F.B.I. was building its case against the young terrorist and taking steps to insure that Mohamud's sinister plan would never come to fruition.

Mohamud was arrested seconds after using his cell phone to try to detonate the fake device the F.B.I. had built for him, and contrary to Mohamud's wishes, the Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony was held as planned and no loss of life or mayhem occurred.

While this foiled terrorist plot must serve as a reminder that the danger of terrorism is very real and constant, it also underscores the effectiveness of people in the security sector simply doing their job. People remaining vigilant and alert are the most effective weapons we have in combating the destructive plans of terrorists and we should never cease our efforts to remain aware of our surroundings.

Thanks F.B.I. – well done!

BLACK FRIDAY SHOPPERS BEWARE

Macroeconomics is the study of national, regional and global economies. It examines the structure, behaviors and decision-making processes of those economies and studies the relationships between national income, product output, consumer consumption, savings, investment, inflation, unemployment, trade and banking. Its counterpart, microeconomics, examines the factors involved in the smaller-scale buying and selling of goods and services. Microeconomic study dissects the laws of supply and demand and examines the economic decision-making processes of individual households and businesses.

On this day after Thanksgiving, commonly known as "Black Friday" here in the United States, shoppers historically begin their Christmas shopping. For many businesses, Black Friday is the day they have the highest volume of sales each year.

I noted the facts listed above because Black Friday provides an excellent example of how something can be great for macroeconomics, but bad for microeconomics.

The U.S. economy will get a shot in the arm if consumer consumption (spending) is high on Black Friday, because economic activity (the buying and selling of goods) generally boosts an economy. However, if consumers overspend on Black Friday, their individual household economies will suffer if their incomes are not sufficient to sustain their level of spending. The larger economy will benefit, but the individual economy will suffer.

That is essentially what happened during the middle to late part of this decade. Consumers were encouraged to spend, spend, spend…which was great for the larger economy, but all that overspending sent vast numbers of individual economies (the economy of an individual household) into a tailspin, and ultimately they collapsed. As the number of collapsed individual economies reached into the millions here in the United States, the collective impact of those collapsed individual economies exerted a substantial negative impact on our nation's economy, forcing the U.S. into a deep recession.

The moral of this economic lesson is clear: In the long run, while additional consumer spending is beneficial for our national economy; massive overspending is not. Shoppers, be careful out there!

GIVING THANKS FOR PILGRIM HYPOCRISY

Today, we celebrate Thanksgiving and pay tribute to our grave-robbing (*) ancestors, the Pilgrims. They came to America to escape European religious persecution and then promptly started persecuting the non-Anabaptists (**) in their midst. Thus, we owe a debt of gratitude to Pilgrims for introducing the concept of hypocrisy to America. Without the product of their pioneering spirit, many a columnist would now be unemployed!

~~~~~~~

(*) The Massasoit native tribe that inhabited the coast of Massachusetts stored food in mounds with their deceased kin. The Massasoit believed that their deceased kin would watch over the stored food until the tribe returned to the site in early spring. When the pilgrims dug into the mounds, they discovered the food and promptly raided all the burial mounds in the area, causing much consternation with the native Massasoit. The rift was eventually settled with the help of Squanto, a Massasoit native who had learned English from early English fishermen visiting the coast of New England, and befriended the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims gave the Massasoit several rifles as retribution and assisted the Massasoit in fending off an attack by a militant neighboring native tribe. That Pilgrim assistance cemented a critical relationship between the Pilgrims and the Massasoit, which allowed the Pilgrims to survive those early harsh years in Massachusetts. You probably never learned about that in school.

(**) The Pilgrims were actually in the minority on the Mayflower. In addition to the Mayflower's crew, 44 Pilgrims made the voyage to America along with 66 "strangers" (the religious Pilgrim's word for non-believers). There were so many conflicts between the Pilgrims and the "strangers" during the voyage across the Atlantic, that once land was sighted, the two groups had to negotiate a truce (called The Mayflower Compact) to guarantee equality for both groups under a single governor who would rule the colony. Eventually, some of the "strangers" returned to Europe when the Mayflower departed, some died, and some left the colony to trap and hunt on their own. Once the Pilgrims were in the majority, they began shunning the non-believing "strangers" and ostracized them from the Pilgrim community. So much for religious tolerance!

EARMARK IRONY

Just days after winning control of the U.S. House of Representatives on a campaign platform to end the Congressional practice of "earmark spending", the GOP has gone back on its pledge and inserted $200 million in earmark spending in a bill currently under consideration in the House. I'm not surprised that they reneged on their pledge. After all, all that talk about fiscal responsibility was just campaign bullshit. Nevertheless, I expected that the GOP would wait until at least February of 2011 before reneging on their word. I guess I was wrong!

AN EXPLOSION WAITING TO HAPPEN

Dealing with North Korea is like trying to handle an obstinate juvenile delinquent hell-bent on breaking the law; no amount of rehabilitation will work.

North Korea's rulers have perfected the art of mass propaganda and have filled the entire citizenry with such hatred for the United States and the leaders of South Korea that tens of thousands of North Koreans would rather die than divert one cent of the North's military budget to help feed their starving population. Kim Jung Il, the North's leader, is considered a god by his people and it isn't a stretch to view the entire nation as one gigantic religious cult, albeit one with no desire for peace or tranquility or interest in the afterlife. That's why North Korea is so dangerous.

Yesterday's mortal shelling of a South Korean island was the latest incident in a chain of provocative attacks by the North on South Korea. Some claim the incident was meant to bolster the militaristic spirits of the North Korean people as the country goes through a period of changing in their leadership – from Kim Jung Il to his son, Kim Jung Un. Others see the North's intrusions as saber-rattling to discourage attempts by the outside world to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons development. Whichever view is more accurate, there is no denying that North Korea's activities are unsettling and provide a legitimate reason for heightened concern.

Given North Korea's intractable nature, it's hard to see anything but the concept of containment as having any chance for real success. Attacking the North militarily would unleash a devastating second Korean war that would result in the loss of life for millions in both North and South Korea. Thousands of American soldiers would suffer a similar fate. Nor can Americans expect that diplomacy will one day yield a peaceful North. The North Koreans are too steeped in paranoia and militarism for trust in diplomacy to take root there and the world doesn't possess the number of therapist it would take to deprogram an entire population.

We can only hope that containment works, because North Korea is a powder-keg waiting to explode, and you won't want to be there if it does.

NO SACRIFICE - NO SOLUTION

The co-chairs of President Obama's bipartisan deficit commission, former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Bill Clinton aide, Erskine Bowles recently released a set of proposals designed to reduce the federal deficit and bring federal spending in line with what the taxpaying public as a whole can afford. Since their release, the proposals have been met with nearly universal condemnation from every sector of American society – from rich to poor, from young to old, both Republican and Democrat and everyone in between.

From the nearly universal outcries against their plan, I can only surmise that Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles have finally hit upon a solution that is (1) fair, (2) workable, and (3) demands an equal measure of sacrifice from every group in our country. Why else would everybody be angry at their proposal?

For too long, we Americans have deluded ourselves with the notion that the solution to our nation's financial woes lies in the sacrifice of every group but the ones we occupy. That viewpoint has left nobody willing to bear the necessary sacrifice and everybody willing to pass the buck onto the next guy. The real reason everybody is angry about the Simpson/Bowles plan is that it requires everybody to sacrifice – the only real chance we have to achieve financial stability.

Do I believe the Simpson/Bowles plan has any chance of being enacted into law? Nope, and that's too bad, because the Simpson/Bowles plan is a great first step, but that requires sacrifice, and that kind of sacrifice isn't something Americans are prepared to do.

SIX FEET UNDER

While limiting the size of the federal government has become all the rage these days, and GOP and Tea Party politicians are banging their fists on the table demanding a major downsizing of the federal workforce, I'd like to focus on the dirty underside of all this bellyaching. Some people will pay the steepest of price for crippling the protections offered by the federal government – they'll lose their lives…as in stop breathing and get buried six feet under! You don't hear that from the politicians, do you?

The Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) is the agency of the federal government that works to safeguard the health of our citizens and our environment against air, water and land pollution and hazardous waste (chemical, mineral & nuclear). The E.P.A. employs approximately 18,000 workers to develop, maintain and police federal regulations designed to carry out the Agency's mandates. Without E.P.A. regulations and the power to enforce those regulations, individuals and businesses would be free to dump unlimited amounts of toxic waste products into our nation's air and waterways and ordinary citizens would be virtually powerless to protect themselves against the effects of discarded deadly toxic pollutants.

People like to think that businesses would not jeopardize the health of people living around their plants by polluting the local environment, but that kind of thinking is delusional. The goal of business is first and foremost to make a profit. So long as polluting does not result in negative profits, polluters will continue at will. Ordinary citizens are seldom in any position to prevent, monitor or prosecute polluters for destroying the environment, so without government regulations of pollution, ordinary citizens would have little or no protection.

For example, since 1980, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, a law enacted to clean up sites contaminated with hazardous substances, the E.P.A. has supervised the clean-up of over 1600 toxic waste sites, all of which involved a finding that the hazardous waste site posed a substantial likelihood of causing human death and other adverse health conditions if left untreated. Without E.P.A. protections, our entire citizenry would suffer the consequences.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is another good example of government protecting citizens. The Transportation Department maintains and enforces federal regulations that cover aviation travel and shipping, highway infrastructure, highway safety, motor carrier safety, railroads, pipeline infrastructure and maritime shipping.

Maybe you don't care whether a truck carrying propane has had its brakes inspected in the last 30 days, but I do, because a propane tanker with faulty brakes is a time bomb barreling 65 MPH down any highway it travels. With DOT safety regulations and regular enforcement at weigh stations, people are far safer when on highways than they would be without safety regulations.

Yes, smaller government would mean less regulation and less taxpayer money to fund regulation, but less traffic safety regulation means more accidents and more loss-of-life. That's because people will cut corners when they can and profits trumps safety concerns in an unregulated marketplace.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Its job is to protect and promote public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines, over-the-counter medications, blood transfusions, medical radiation devices, veterinary products and cosmetics. It has over 35,000 employees.

You could downsize the government substantially by eliminating that work force, but then there would be no meat inspectors working to insure that your hamburgers are not laden with the latest food poison to hit the slaughtering plant. There would be no scientists intervening on your behalf to insure that that the drugs you are taking have been reasonably tested to reduce the possibility of your dying from the medication. Yes, your spouse could sue the pharmaceutical company if you died taking one of its pills, but that would end up being one ordinary citizen versus an entire drug industry, so I don't personally like the individual's chance of winning that battle.

My favorite is the Federal Reserve banking system, a system the "small government" crowd wants to dismantle.

The Federal Reserve System (The Fed) is the central system of the United States. It was created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, and over the years since, has been the chief arm of the Federal Government conducting the nation's monetary policy. It also regulates banking institutions, maintains the stability of our nation's financial system and provides financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and many foreign governments. The Tea Party crowd would rather risk frequent runs on banks and total losses of individual savings rather than stand for government regulation of the financial sector. That stuff happens in third world countries with no financial regulation, but not here.

The next time somebody says they want to down-size the federal government, ask them which protection they want to jettison first. People think differently when it's their life in the cross hairs.

PLEDGING FAILURE

The GOP Pledge to America is nothing more than a pledge of failure.

Two days after the November 2nd elections, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the United States Senate boldly declared that making President Obama a one-term president would be his party’s top priority in the new Congress. There you have it - a pledge of failure.

Tens of millions of Americans (10% of our workforce) currently lack jobs, but the GOP's top priority is not getting those people back to work. Their top priority is adding one more person to the unemployment line.

Tens of millions of American homeowners (1 in every 5) are paying on mortgages with balances higher than the value of their homes, but the GOP's top priority is not to bring stability to the housing market. Their top priority is evicting a family living in a house with no mortgage.

Tens of millions of Americans (1 in every 7) lack health insurance and adequate access to health care, but the GOP's top priority is not working to get those people coverage. Their top priority is to oust a working President and give he and his wife health insurance coverage for life.

Tens of millions of voters (7 of every 10) are sick of partisan squabbling in Congress and want our two major political parties to compromise ideologies in working toward solutions to our nation's problems, but the GOP's top priority is not working with the President in a spirit of compromise. Their top priority is to obstruct the President effort's long enough to give them another crack at winning the presidency.

Thanks, Senator McConnell. You've explained GOP priorities in a nutshell...one failure after another.

MY PREDICTIONS CAME TRUE

Here is the list of the predictions I made regarding yesterday's election:

I predict that on this upcoming Election Day, a majority of American voices will not be heard, and it will be their fault for not taking the time to vote.

I predict that Americans who are poor, sick, uninsured or unemployed at the beginning of Election Day will still be poor, sick, uninsured or unemployed at the end of the day.

I predict that many angry voters will have sore feet, for in the words of a Korean proverb, "If you kick a stone in anger, you'll have a sore foot".

I predict that many winning candidates will falsely proclaim that their election to public office validates the goodness of their ideas and many losing candidates will falsely assume that their ideas lacked merit.

I predict that the overinflated egos of many winning candidates will get even bigger and the self-esteem of many losing candidates will take an undeserved blow.

I predict that many winning candidates will pledge to work in a bipartisan manner when they take office next January, but they'll be lying when they make that pledge because they know a majority of folks who voted for them hate the idea of compromise.

And I predict that at the end of the day, America will still be a divided nation, and our greatest potential will still be unrealized. Unless we as a collective people come to appreciate the value of compromise in the process of self-governance, candidates will come and go, but no election will place us any closer to being a united people.

Wow! Every one of them came true last night. Way to go, Steve!

TRADING BULLETS FOR EGGS

This past Sunday night, a 17 year old kid in Atlanta tossed a bunch of eggs at a Mercedes Benz automobile as a Halloween prank. The driver of the Mercedes was so mad about the boy's prank that he stopped his car and fired ten shots at the boy who was in the process of running away. One of the bullets struck the boy's neck and he died while being taken by ambulance to a local hospital.

At first blush, you might assume that the driver of the Mercedes will soon be facing homicide charges, but that probably won't be the case, especially since Georgia is one of a growing number of states that have expanded the rights of gun owners to use deadly force whenever attacked, no matter what level of force is used against them.
Now, kids who toss eggs on Halloween or snowballs after a winter storm can expect a hail of live bullets in return.

Gun rights activists call it self-defense. I call it insanity.

TEACHING KIDS TO APPRECIATE DUMB POLITICIANS

Have you ever noticed that some people constantly complain that schools have failed our children, and yet, when election season arrives, those same complainers are the first to accuse political candidates of being out-of-touch members of the "intellectual elite"? How can we expect our children to cultivate a thirst for knowledge or value educational pursuits if the message we propagate in our political world is that intelligence and reason are traits to disdain?

Our children are not stupid. They grasp our hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it affects them too.

When we tell our children that a good education is important and urge them to work hard in school, but in the next breath berate political opponents because of their intellectual achievements, we signal to our children that our words regarding the importance of education are hollow. They quickly deduce that ignorance is the more highly valued prize.

What's sad about America is that our kids are right!

GOP SPENDS BILLIONS FOR A HANDFUL OF JOBS

I've heard the right-wing politicians claim that President Obama's fiscal policies are driving the U.S. economy down the tubes, but things can't be as bad as they claim if people have four billion dollars to shell out for political campaigns to spend on TV ads and billboards, which is how much has been spent during the current congressional campaigns. And let's not forget the fact that only 1/3 of the U.S. Senate is up for election, so 66 senators are watching from the sidelines.

Four billion dollars, if spent on creating jobs that paid $30,000 apiece, would place 133,333 workers back on the job. That's no small number.

Instead, the four billion dollars will simply enrich media outlet owners and create 469 congressional jobs…albeit a majority of which are Republican jobs. That's the Republican version of sound economic policy, which is why I'll be voting for the other guys.

GOVERNMENT ISN'T BROKEN...IT'S DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE ASK.

I'm probably one of the few people in America who believes that Washington, D.C. isn't broken. The government created by our so-called Founding Fathers works just fine. We Americans are a different story.

Over the past two decades, Americans have become more politically divided than they've been during any period since our nation's civil war. Abortion, gun rights, taxation and social program spending have become hot-button issues that polarize the electorate to such extremes that few are willing to seriously listen to the valid concerns and objections of their political opponents. Compromise has become a dirty word. Hence, we send our representatives to Congress with clear instructions – make no concessions and refuse to compromise. The result: gridlock!

It turns out that Congress is doing exactly what we ask it to do. Serves us right!

BULLYING IN OUR SCHOOLS

Is there really any wonder why bullying is so pervasive in our schools? Can we honestly expect our children to recognize the dignity and value of their fellow students when the grown-ups they see on a daily basis are failing to value fellow citizens who possess differing viewpoints?

Children are malleable in their social development and very often exhibit in their behavior the kinds of attitudes they observe at home. When diversity of thought and tolerance of others is openly valued and practiced in a child's home environment, those same values are transported to a child's school. Similarly, when bullying, intolerance, dehumanization and narrowness of thought are displayed in a child's home environment, children living in those homes carry those attitudes to school too.

In today's American society political extremism has grown immensely and intolerance of opposing ideas has reached new heights. Diversity is considered an ugly word. Political opponents are vilified, dehumanized and equated with the purest of evil. Fellow citizens with different political ideas are labeled the enemy and calls for their annihilation fill our airways. We can call such actions political sport, but in the end, all it really amounts to is bullying on a far grander scale than what happens in our schools.

Given that grown-up bullying is so rampant in our society, it really shouldn't come as any surprise that bullying in our schools is rampant too. After all, children usually mimic the habits and attitudes we adults teach them.

THE TEA PARTY AND CIVIL WAR

American politics has often been a rough and tumble sport, but an escalation of physical violence at Tea Party events raises a legitimate question about the willingness of the Tea Party activists to remain a peaceful political movement.

In March of this year, a mob of Tea Party protesters physically assaulted a Parkinson's victim in Ohio who was peacefully holding a sign favoring President Obama's Health Care reform.

In my own hometown of York, PA, a mob of Tea Party supporters verbally assaulted a postal carrier as he walked by their rally on the steps of the old courthouse.

On October 17th, an Alaska newspaper editor was assaulted and handcuffed by the security entourage of Alaskan Tea Party senatorial candidate, Joe Miller.

Yesterday, a group of Lexington supporters of Kentucky Tea Party Senatorial candidate Rand Paul violently wrestled a woman to the ground and stomped on her head. The woman, Lauren Valle of MoveOn.org (a liberal watchdog group) was trying to present the Tea Party candidate with an award when the Tea Party mob stepped in and took her to the ground.

The angry rhetoric of the Tea Party is moving beyond the scope of political rhetoric and quickly taking on the dangerous overtones of physical violence. Placards stating, "Kill Obamacare", "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy", "Death to Tyranny" and "The Time for a Second Amendment Solution is Now" have become staple signs at Tea Party rallies, as have calls for a second revolution using any means necessary. Angry Tea Party chanters leave no doubt that the Tea Party is advocating a complete overthrow of the government, and Tea Party supporters have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to use physical violence to accomplish that end.

Newt Gingrich's proclamation that the Tea Party is the militant wing of the GOP appears to be right on point.

Can civil war be far behind? I hope not, but that sentiment is not shared by the Tea Party and it should give us all a reason to be concerned.

ANOTHER REMINDER OF SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS IN THE UNITED STATES

Documents from the Catholic Diocese of San Diego that are about to be released by a San Diego judge for public inspection are reportedly going to reveal what has become an all too frequent scenario – officials in the Roman Catholic church returning pedophiles to active duty in parishes and exposing children to sexually predatory priests. One has to wonder whether these kinds of revelations will ever end.

As bad as the sexual abuse by priests has been, I wonder how much additional harm the Catholic Church has caused by its efforts to stonewall litigation here in the United States and around the world.

THE CRYSTAL CATHEDRAL GOES BANKRUPT

Although I've regularly criticized televangelists and the ministries they operate as being little more than con artists operating under the banner of serving God's will, I find no solace in hearing that Reverend Robert H. Schuller's mega-church, the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, California and its "Hour of Power" TV show are bankrupt. That predicament is likely to shake the faith of many of the church's followers and leave thousands of its supporters in a state of bewilderment. I wouldn't wish that type of crisis on any congregation

Still, you have to question how any church congregation or religious ministry could allow itself to become mired in $43 million dollars of debt. That's $4,300 worth of debt for each of the church's ten thousand members. Granted, that's not as bad as the national debt, but that's still a significant amount of debt.

Leaders at the Crystal Cathedral blame their situation on the drop-off in donations that accompanied the latest economic downturn, and there's no question that the economy has put a damper on charitable contributions in general, but I can't help but think that the opulence of the Crystal Cathedral itself is a testament to the long-time excesses of Reverend Schuller's ministry.

For years, Reverend Schuller preached a message of prosperity built upon the notion that positive thinking leads to prosperity, but that message is now suspect because all the positive thinking of his congregation was not successful in creating the necessary cash to meet the ministries' financial obligations or find a way to cut costs and still carry out their mission. And though many members of the Crystal Cathedral may feel that their own lack of positive thinking contributed to the current economic mess that faces their church, the real problem rests not with the members, but with the gospel of prosperity that their church leaders preached.

Positive thinking does not permit a person to ignore the workings of our financial world or operate as if God is a printer of money and will furnish all the cash a congregation needs if only a congregation maintains the proper mindset. For spreading that kind of false message, I blame Reverend Schuller and the rest of the leaders of the Crystal Cathedral. As a result of their misguided preaching, the members of their congregation must now suffer.

CITY STUDENTS IN SUBURBAN SCHOOLS

A local newspaper asked whether our City's school district should be subsumed by neighboring suburban school districts as a way to address the problem of sub-par performance by inner-city students. This was my response:

Those of us who live in the suburbs around the City might be tempted to think that the problem of underachieving students in the City school district is the City's problem and not something that concerns us, but the education of every child in this Commonwealth is mandated by state law and funded in part by state taxpayer dollars, so the education of those students is every bit our business. When City students succeed and become productive members of our society, we all benefit from their contributions. Conversely, when they fail, every one of us pays a steep price for that failure. If we who live in the suburbs turn our backs on City students, in doing so, we become complicit in their failures.

I do not pretend to know the exact reason for what has become an annual and unacceptable event - underachieving standardized math and reading test scores by inner-City students. I surmise it involves some degree of many factors, including but not limited to a lack of parental involvement in the student's education, a lack of educational resources in the schools, the City's higher poverty rate and a high truancy rate. What I do know is that students who attend schools in the suburbs perennially achieve acceptable standardized testing scores, which means that whatever the suburban districts are doing is working.

I refuse to accept the notion that City students are dumber than their counterparts in the suburbs or any less capable of being educated. It behooves us then to insure that inner-City students are given the same education afforded students in the suburbs. If that means absorbing City students into the suburban districts, I'm all for it.

As I type these words I can imagine a host of complaints in opposition to such a plan. Some will moan that they don't want drugs, violence and teen pregnancy infiltrating suburban schools, but they'll be kidding themselves because the schools in suburbia already face those problems. Some City residents will complain that they'll be losing a voice in their child's education, but that argument lacks merit because residents will continue to vote for school board members who make those decisions.

Unfortunately, what are really at the heart of many objections are racial biases and the discomfort created by the specter of racially integrating our suburban schools to a much greater degree than already exists. We cannot allow these kinds of objections to stand in the way of our students' educational progress. We owe that much to inner-City students. We owe it to our own students too.

THE CASE AGAINST 72 VIRGINS

Islamic extremist suicide bombers have been told they’ll go to heaven as martyrs and spend eternity in the company of 72 virgins. What could they possibly be thinking? At first glance, the promise of eternity with 72 virgins sounds like a blissful sexual romp through the ages, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The promise of “eternity in the company of 72 virgins” is nothing more than a cruel hoax.

Let’s consider the “72” portion of the promise more closely. Suppose Abdullah el-Maddabomber blows himself to Kingdom come and awakens in a place he thinks is Heaven. Suddenly, seventy-two virgins show up to accompany him around the place. The noise level of that mob alone would disturb anybody’s peace and quiet, but you have to figure the blast from the “bomb-belt” probably blew out the bomber’s eardrums, so the guy doesn’t hear a thing. Now, if Abdullah el-Maddabomber stops and immediately has sex with one of the ladies-in-waiting, does that mean he’ll spend eternity in the company of 72 virgins? Hell no, the numbers wouldn’t add up. Assuming he leaves the other 71 alone (unlikely, as it seems), he’ll spend eternity in the company of 71 virgins and one very tired concubine. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be 72 virgins! Under to that scenario the promise of “72 Virgins for Eternity” would be hollow and that wouldn’t be theologically acceptable.

Now technically, I suppose the “deflowered one” could always be replaced with a new virgin, but that doesn’t seem likely given the fact that the promise quotes a specific number and not an unlimited supply. Besides, offering “all the virgins you can deflower” isn’t something a Deity would want to commit to producing these days. Accordingly, 72 virgins meant just that – 72 pure flowers – no more, no less.

The word “virgin” in the promise doesn’t sound like it would give rise to any questions. Most people would agree the word applies to a person who has never had sexual intercourse. But does the word include both comely and homely maiden? Don’t forget that alcohol is forbidden among adherents to Islam and can’t be used to blur the lines. I only raise this issue because it doesn’t seem fair for a suicide bomber to have one vision of beauty and end up with 72 versions of another variety.

Okay, here’s where the hoax comes into play. Since the number of proffered virgins stands at 72 and if the suicide bomber has sex with one or more of them that number would decrease and render the promise hollow, it stands to reason that Abdullah el-Maddabomber never actually gets to have sex with any of the 72 virgins. He just gets to spend eternity in their company! That’s right! Go back and read the fine print: “spend eternity in the company of 72 virgins.” You see, it never actually says they get to have sex with the virgins, only that they spend eternity in their presence. What kind of fun is that?

I doubt whether Abdullah el-Maddabomber has ever been in the company of 72 women at the same time, let alone 72 virgins. I’m guessing the suicide bombers haven’t thought this thing through. Then, it struck me. The suicide bombers aren’t going to Heaven. They’re going to Hell…where incidentally, they’re going to spend eternity with 72 virgins.

ME OVER WE - THE ESSENCE OF THE TEA PARTY

The Tea Party is essentially a movement of "Me, the person," rather than "We, the people." The movement focuses on bettering the lives and conditions of a group of individuals rather than improving the lives and conditions of an entire nation. When one hears the vitriolic Tea Party jeer that Obama is leading this country toward socialism, nobody seriously believes Communism is what the shouters have in mind. No, they are angry because our nation calls upon them to help their fellow citizens in need.

The Tea Party vehemently opposes such a nation. They believe the concept counters America's long-professed ideals of rugged individualism and self-sufficiency, and they argue that looking out for the least of our brethren will sound the death knell for America's belief in hard work and the necessity of taking personal responsibility. Sadly, these otherwise valid concerns mask the true aim of the Tea Party movement – the elevation of narcissism at the expense of the weakest members of our society.

To be sure, many in the Tea Party would deny such a claim, but those denials ring hollow in light of the movement's rhetoric. According to that rhetoric, America's greatest enemies are not the tyrants and dictators of the world who seek to bring death and destruction to our nation's shores. They believe the country's greatest enemies are Obama and Pelosi and anyone foolish enough to think that raising the conditions of the weakest in America is a noble pursuit for the nation of America.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once noted, "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."

In that regard, America's Tea Party does not advocate for movement toward progress. Rather, it advocates movement toward selfishness, and away from the virtue of charity that motivates the better angels in all of us.

The rise of the Tea Party movement is a sad chapter in our nation's history. In America's prior darkest hours, we banded together for the good of "We, the people," not just "Me, the individual," and we as a nation were better for it.

SPRINGING FROM THE WELL

There is something tremendously exhilarating about watching the Chilean miner rescue operation as drilling teams slowly bring miners to the surface, one by one, in a special capsule built to extract the trapped miners from what would otherwise have been their final resting place. At a time when anger and turmoil has seemingly brought our nation's progress to a halt, it's good to take stock of the fact that struggles of the highest magnitude can be overcome with cooperation, determination, ingenuity and the human will to survive.

Here in America, we all too frequently reject and dismiss the beliefs and ideas of our political opponents as evil notions that possess no merit or value. In doing so, we deprive our nation of an opportunity to overcome major obstacles and feats that can only be accomplished through the collective wisdom and efforts of all our people.

The political affiliations of the Chilean miners and their rescue workers have never been an issue during this entire saga. Their goals were simply to save and survive, and in their unity, they accomplished both.

A SEPTEMBER 11th AFTERTHOUGHT

Servicemen and women from every branch of the military will confirm an unspoken, though nearly universal desire – if one has to make the ultimate sacrifice, let it not be made in vain.

I spent this past September 11th pondering that desire, not for the 2,819 innocent Americans who lost their lives in that horrific tragedy, not for the thousands more who lost a relative or friend that day, not for our cherished country, but for the 19 suicidal soldiers of al-Qaida who visited their destructive hatred upon our nation's shores. Did they die in vain?

Some people claim the U.S. was attacked because al-Qaida hated our liberties, but instead of responding to their attacks with an overwhelming reaffirmation of personal freedom, we systematically, and often cheerfully, surrendered our rights in the name of maintaining public safety. Twenty years ago, submitting to a search of one's body to gain admission to a public building would have been viewed as an intolerable invasion of an individual's liberty. Today, people are glad to be searched.

Others claim that the al-Qaida attack was motivated by their hatred of our society's tolerant attitude, but instead of meeting their attack with an unwavering defense of religious freedom for all, hoards of angry American mobs protest the construction of a mosque blocks away from Ground Zero, and a venomous preacher attracts world attention by pledging hatefully to burn the Quran.

Still others claim that al-Qaida attacked us because of our wealth and our generosity, but instead of holding true to those noble words inscribed on the Statute of Liberty – "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.." we treat our immigrants as scum-of-the-earth criminals, and seek to choke the very breath of freedom from their bodies.

Finally, some insist al-Qaida attacked us over their hatred of our principles and values, but instead of holding steadfast to them, we responded by declaring war against a nation not responsible for the 9/11 attacks, tortured our prisoners and abandoned the very rules of law we claim to hold most dear.

Looking back, I wish I could claim those 19 angry soldiers of al-Qaida died in vain, but I can't.

We only have ourselves to blame.

STARVATION OF AMERICA'S POOR FINE WITH NEWT GINGRICH

GOP standard bearer, Newt Gingrich has been traveling around the country and advising GOP candidates to declare war on Food Stamps. While that message is sure to energize hard core anti-social program zealots like members of the Tea Party, the fact that a party standard bearer like Gingrich would make killing the food stamp program a central focus of his campaign to elect an all-GOP Congress is quite telling of the lack of empathy and the contempt the Republican party has for the poor in America.

Food stamps are the only lifeline that separates millions of poor Americans, most of which are under 18 or over 65, from hunger and starvation, yet the likes of Gingrich and his cohorts are happily traipsing around the country advocating the starvation of America's most needy citizens. The only thing more disheartening is the applause Gingrich gets from those who pay to hear him spew his disdain for the poor.

HONEY, I WAS JUST ON A MISSION FOR MOSAAD

If a cartoonist was drawing this story, the cartoon would depict a woman in bed with a man, not her husband, and the illicit couple would appear surprised by the husband as he opened the bedroom door and caught his cheating wife. The cartoon's caption would read: "Honey, I was just on a mission for Mosaad."

Mosaad is Israel's intelligence agency, the equivalent of America's C.I.A.

Recently, one of Israel's leading rabbis, Ari Schvat issued a decree of sorts that legitimized the practice of female Mosaad agents, even married ones, engaging in illicit sex with enemies of Israel, if the sex was part of a mission meant to protect Israel's national security. The Rabbi's edict suggested that married women get a divorce before their mission and then remarry after the mission is completed, but that just seems like they're splitting hairs if you ask me. Once more, there weren't similar rules issued for married male agents. I guess in Israel that just goes with the territory.

Sleeping with the enemy is certainly not something new in the espionage game, but the Rabbi's pronouncement underscores how willing nations and people are to sacrifice their morals and values in the name of maintaining public safety or advancing a nationalistic goal. Islamic extremists frequently break their own religious rules during terrorist missions to allow them to carry out their jihad. Here in America, our own government acknowledged torturing terrorist prisoners to acquire information.

Given that, in the world of espionage, the ends apparently do justify the means, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the Rabbi's public edict. I wonder if husbands in Israel feel the same way as I do.

NO FRIEND OF FRED PHELPS

I am no friend of Fred Phelps, the so-called Pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. He and his hate-driven band of relatives picket military funerals around the country and their practices are front and center in a case being heard by the United States Supreme Court this coming Wednesday. Once more, their practice of carrying hate-filled signs outside churches and cemeteries while mourners grieve the loss of loved ones is one of the most repugnant and insensitive practices in America today. Phelps is certainly no man of God.

The Phelps case pits two important freedoms – freedom of religion and freedom of speech, against one another as our highest Court grapples with the limits of both rights as they apply to disputes between private parties.

A 'friend of the court brief' submitted by Democratic Senator Harry Reid and 40 other senators in opposition to the Westboro Church is worth reading and can be found at the following web address:

www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_PetitionerAmCu42Senators.pdf

Similarly, a 'friend of the court brief' submitted by the Scholars of the First Amendment in favor of the Westboro Church is worth reading and can be found at the following web address:

www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-751_RespondentAmCuScholarsFirstAmendmentLaw.pdf

Both sides present powerful arguments for and against the practices of the Westboro Church and highlight the fact that the question being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court is not as cut-and-dry and people might assume.

KILLING FOR SPORT

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman famously noted during the Civil War that "War is Hell", and no more profound a statement can be made to describe the horrors involved when two or more armies of humans set out to kill one another, but even a general as ruthless as Sherman could not take pleasure at witnessing the death of fellow human beings, lamenting in a later speech that "War is Cruelty."

People join the U.S. military for a host of reasons. Many enlist out of a sense of patriotic duty. Others join for the opportunity of world travel. A number seek a chance to gain job training and skills that will help them later in life. Some seek the military's discipline. Others sign up for a chance to go to college. A few join because it's the only job opportunity available to them, and unfortunately, a very small cadre of individuals enlists to satisfy their own personal lust for killing. It is toward this latter group that I focus my attention.

Soldiers with a lust for killing do not share Sherman's belief that war is hell or war is cruel. Rather, they view war's theater as a welcomed stage upon which they are granted license to carry out their darkest desires. They seek not the end of war's depravity or the cessation of human bloodshed. They seek only the thrill of the kill and the adoration of an approving audience. That is why a small band of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan randomly murdered several Afghan civilians and distributed photographs of their selves standing triumphantly next to their Afghan victim's corpses. In some cases, the soldiers even kept the fingers of their victim as souvenirs.

In prosecuting the soldiers involved in these Afghanistan atrocities, our military leaders have rightfully decried the actions of these soldiers as the unsanctioned work of a small group of depraved individuals, and not reflective of the intention of our military or our nation, but if we truly wish to dissociate ourselves from the atrocities committed by those soldiers, we must take affirmative steps to weed out like-minded soldiers from our military ranks. Otherwise, we become complicit through our failure to act.

War is hell and war is cruel, even under the best of circumstances. That is why there is no room on the battlefield for those who kill for sport or take pleasure in doing it.

GOING POSTAL IS NOT AN OPTION

Last week, the Independent Regulatory Postal Commission denied the U.S. Postal Service's request to increase the price of a first class letter from 44 cents to 46 cents, but considering that the Post Office lost $3.8 billion dollars last year and is expected to lose almost $6 billion dollars this year, just how does the Postal Commission expect the Postal Service to meet its expenses? After all, money doesn't grow on trees, and the Postal Service has to compete with the likes of U.P.S. and FedEx in the parcel shipping business and cope with the loss of letter traffic to the Internet.

Essentially, the Postal Commission is requiring the Postal Service to deliver mail six days-a-week on five days worth of income and is not being realistic about what it takes to provide the service they demand. Plus, 2-cents per letter will not break the bank.

I do the grocery shopping for my household, and I can name at least twenty items that I regularly buy that have risen more than 2 cents in price over the past 2 months. I haven't seen letters in the newspapers decrying those companies for passing on their expenses to the consumer, who in the end, can choose whether or not they purchase those products for consumption. Once more, the store shelves are not suddenly overstocked with those items because consumers refuse to buy them. That tells me that American consumers recognize that product costs have increased and are willing to absorb those increases as a necessary cost of purchasing the products they desire.

The same rules of supply and demand should apply to the Postal Service. If a person does not wish to pay the two additional cents for mailing a first-class letter, it is their prerogative to opt not to use the Postal Service to make their delivery. In the same vein, people should not expect, nor should the Postal Service be required to render a service for which they are not being adequately compensated.

At 44 cents per first class letter, the U.S. Postal Service is not being adequately compensated for the service it is providing and the Independent Regulatory Postal Commission is doing a disservice to the nation by jeopardizing the ongoing financial health of this important service provider.

Going postal shouldn't be an option when it comes to a 2-cent rate increase, but you wouldn't know that by listening to the Postal Commission. Then again, they probably never delivered the mail.

MEALS-ON-WHEELS

Can you afford to donate 2 hours of your time, one morning each month? If so, you can make a huge difference in helping to eradicate a serious, but seldom mentioned nationwide problem - senior hunger.

In a November, 2009 study released by the Meals On Wheels Association of America, researchers found that between 2001 and 2007, the number of American senior citizens facing a risk of hunger increased substantially, and in several states, the percentage of senior experiencing hunger was as high as 12.5 percent of the senior population. Those numbers are unacceptable. Once more, people should know that hunger among the senior population is not just confined to seniors living in poverty. A substantial number of seniors with income above the federal poverty guidelines still struggle to put food on their table and are frequently faced with the prospect of not eating in order to pay for their housing and/or medical bills.

How can your two hours help address the senior citizen hunger crisis? The answer is simple: Become a meal-on-wheels driver. For a commitment of only two hours a month, you can make a huge difference by delivering meals to home-bound senior citizens who otherwise face a very real risk of senior hunger. The sacrifice of your time is easy, and the satisfaction to be gained by your helping neighbors in need is extremely rewarding.

Plus, your volunteer efforts help reduce the taxpayer's load when it comes to paying for hospital and nursing home care for our nation's senior citizens. The cost of providing a year's worth of meals to a senior citizen through the meal-on-wheels program is less than the cost to the government of placing a senior in a nursing home for one month. That’s because helping seniors avoid hunger allows them to stay in their homes far longer than would otherwise occur. In that respect the meals-on-wheels program is a win for seniors and a win for taxpayers.

America owes a debt to its seniors for their years of hard work and sacrifice. Being a meals-on-wheels volunteer is a great way to help repay that debt.

ANGRY FOOLS

"Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools" – Albert Einstein

What's up with GOP politicians this week? First, Maine's GOP candidate for governor, Paul LePage tells a reporter that President Obama can "go to hell". Then, New York's GOP candidate for governor, Carl Paladino, threatens a reporter saying, "You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy." Is this a new GOP strategy? Call out somebody for a brawl in the street? Perhaps pay-per-view might want to consider adding a new feature for its fight-thirsty audience.

For quite some time, Republicans have been boasting of their success in tapping into voter anger, and look to make huge gains in this fall's elections as a result of that anger. Undoubtedly, GOP politicians like LePage and Paladino feel that exhibiting the 'angry tough guy' image will buoy their chances for success at the polls in November. They may be right, but all that anger they're stoking won't create a single job, balance the budget, pay off the national debt or make our country any safer from our angry enemies than it is today. In fact, that anger makes us more susceptible to attack from our angry domestic terrorists, many of whom are being fomented by the angry GOP rhetoric. I ought to add Tea Party to that sentence, but that would be redundant because, as Newt Gingrich previously noted, "The Tea Party is the militant wing of the GOP."

Einstein was a keen observer of life's fundamental forces of nature, as well as the relationship those forces had with one another. He recognized which forces built up and which forces tore down. He understood that which was positive and that which was negative, and so he knew what he was talking about when equating the notion of anger to fools.

If anger is all the GOP has to offer, the only question left to answer is this: Who's the bigger fool, the angry GOP politician or the angry voter who votes for him?

PREJUDICE AND IGNORANCE

"Prejudice is the child of ignorance." ~William Hazlitt

It's not surprising that religious prejudice abounds in America today, and our collective ignorance on the subject of religion helps explain why. According to a survey just released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Americans as a group fared poorly on a survey of questions testing general knowledge of all the world's major religions, including their own.

The Pew survey, a series of 32 questions covering tenets and facts about various religions, revealed that many Americans cannot identify the central teachings of the major world religions, their observances and their founders. Given that prejudice comes from the seeds of ignorance, it's easy to understand why religious prejudice flourishes in America.

We fear the unknown. We are hostile toward that which we do not understand and we all too frequently seek to stamp out anything that is not familiar to us. That is the very core of prejudice.

Ironically, the most knowledgeable on the subject of religion were the atheists and agnostics. Those individuals are also the most tolerant of people with beliefs other than their own. Now we know why.

IS THERE A PREDATOR IN THE PULPIT?

I have no idea whether Bishop Eddie Long of Atlanta, Georgia is guilty or innocent of allegations that he groomed young boys in his Longfellow Youth Academy program and eventually manipulated them into having sex with him. The boys had reportedly reached the age of consent when the sexual conduct supposedly occurred, so no criminal investigation will be held. Nevertheless, after hearing descriptions of Bishop Long's alleged methods of operation, if they are true, then members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church should know that they've got a predator in their pulpit.

It's understandable that members of the New Birth congregation would be stunned by the allegations made against their Pastor. Equally understandable is the decision by many of those congregants to reject the allegations outright and stand wholeheartedly behind Bishop Long. After all, Bishop Long is a widely loved preacher, and nobody wants to believe that a man of the cloth, a person in whom they've placed their deepest trust, would betray that trust and commit predatory acts against young members of their congregation.

It does happen though, and members of the New Birth congregation would be well-advised to take a long, hard look at both the substance of the allegations and Bishop Long's responses to those allegations before rendering a final judgment on the matter. Many a preacher has used the pulpit as a cloak to hide their personal transgressions, and a congregation invites a far greater crisis of faith by automatically dismissing charges of improper behavior leveled against a pastor, even a beloved pastor, simply because the pastor is supposed to be a man of God.

Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggert and Tony Alamo are the first who come to mind when I think of sexual misdeeds of so-called men of the cloth, but any Catholic in this country can probably whip off the name of some priest in their diocese who was charged with sexual misconduct, and many in other denominations can do the same. All of those men had several things in common, besides their sexual transgressions. They all railed in the pulpit against the very type of conduct they were committing in private. They all used their position of authority to accomplish and conceal their acts. They were all loved by their congregations. They all initially denied the allegations of their misconduct and their denials were believed by many of their followers.

Whether Bishop Eddie Long finds himself walking in the footsteps of the formerly disgraced men of the cloth, or reveling in the comfort of the vindicated, remains to be seen. What is certain is that the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church faces a difficult challenge in days and months ahead, and I wish them well on their journey. They have my prayers.

THE SERMON I NEVER GAVE

In Victor Hugo's classic novel, "Les Miserables", the main character is a convict just released from prison, a man imprisoned for thievery, a man named Jean Valjean. By law, he must wear a patch that identifies him as a former prisoner and upon entering any town or village; he must first announce his presence to the local chief of police. Wherever he goes, news of his presence precedes him and the local taverns and innkeepers refuse him food and lodging. Destitute, he finds himself at the door of the local Bishop, a kind man of the cloth, who takes pity on Valjean and offers him food and a place to sleep for the night. In the middle of the night, Valjean awakens, sneaks through the Bishop's house and steals several valuable items of silver, including two silver candlesticks – the Bishop's prized possessions…candlesticks that everyone in the village knows belong to the Bishop. When local police stop Valjean on the road the next day, they find him in possession of the candlesticks and realize that he has stolen the items from the Bishop. Valjean claims that the candlesticks were a gift, but the police know he's lying and drag him back to the Bishop's house. When the Bishop answers the door, the police relate to him the lies Valjean has given them, but to everyone's surprise – including Jean Valjean, the Bishop scolds the police and tells them that Valjean's story is true. The Bishop then scolds Valjean for forgetting another bag of silver, and sends the ex-convict on his way with not only the bag of silver previously stolen, but a second bag of silver as well. You can imagine how Valjean felt. One minute, he was on the way back to prison. The next, he was free with money in his pocket. In the story, the Bishop's act of kindness had such a profound effect on Valjean that he made a dramatic change and dedicated his life to the service of God.

Many of you may be tempted to say, "That's a good plot for a novel, but stuff like that never happens in real life." But I take exception to that notion, because with God, that happens to each and every one of us, each and every day.

We're not deserving of God's love – but He loves us anyway. We're not deserving of God's grace, but He showers us with it in spite of ourselves. We don't deserve the rich and abundant life we enjoy in this Country, but God has blessed us with it nevertheless…and He wants us to take those gifts and use those gifts as instruments of His good will. The important question is – will we?

As I look back on my life, and how I arrived at the place I find myself today, much of the credit goes to people I never thanked. It's not that I didn't have good manners; I just didn't always appreciate the gifts they were giving me, or recognize at the time how powerfully their actions would affect my life. And the times when actions of others affected me the most, were the times when I was the least deserving.

I've done and said things to people that were mean and cruel, and a few people forgave me anyway. I lived my life in a selfish pursuit of my own pleasures, oftentimes at the expense of others, and when it all came crashing down around me, there were a few people who didn't stand around and jeer, "Boy, you had that coming", but instead, offered me a hand and pulled me up. I not proud to admit I once ruined a marriage. I broke the trust of friends and relatives. I trashed a decent career and got about as low as one can be in life without giving up and committing suicide, but there were a few spectators to the tragedy that was my life, like God and a few others, who recognized that I didn't deserve their mercy or kindness, but they gave it anyway. And they changed my life because they did.

I have to admit that I struggled for a time with guilt over not having said "thank you"…or not having let those people know that their generosity and kindness to me (when I was least deserving) had a huge impact on my life, but over the years I've come to appreciate the fact that in their own way, each and every one of them made a choice to act as Jesus would act, to show kindness, mercy and compassion, when none of it was deserved…to be forgiving, even though I wasn't really being remorseful. They were people who saw value in me, even when I didn't recognize it in myself, and they went out of their way to help me, even though they never got a "thanks" in return or saw that their actions made a difference in my life.

At first blush, you might think, "That's a shame", but I don't think so. People weren't kind and generous and forgiving to me because they wanted a pat on the back or a medal or public recognition of their good deeds. They did what they did because they made a choice to be like Christ. They decided to be an instrument of change in the life of another human being without the immediate reward of seeing the fruits of their deeds.

My Grandma use to say, "God's work is hard work and slow work". I understood why it was hard. It took me a lot longer to figure out why it was slow.

In Victor Hugo's novel, when Jean Valjean left the Bishop's home for the second time, that's the last the Bishop is mentioned in the novel. The Bishop didn't get to see the fruits of his charity. He didn't get to appreciate the fact that his single act of mercy ultimately changed the lives of hundreds of people for the better. All he had was the knowledge that he had done God's will.

That's one of the difficulties with being a follower of Christ. We're asked to do things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever - to love our enemies, to be kind and generous to those who don't deserve it, to forgive when forgiveness isn't warranted…and not seek anything in return except the knowledge that we have done God's will. That's because God's work is slow work and things don't always turn out as fast as we hope they would.

These days, people are falling all over themselves in this country to be called Christian, but with what it takes to be a true follower of Christ, you have to wonder whether they're nuts or delusional, or just ignorant about what Christ really asks his followers to do.

For me, being a follower of Christ boils down to this one question: How will I respond when Christ asks me to be a life-changing instrument in the life of another person? I ask that question because I don't know when that time will be. I don't know who that person will be and I have no clue as to where I'll be or what circumstances I'll be facing. All I know is that God is going to ask…maybe once, maybe twice…maybe a thousand times. And if I'm to be a true follower of Christ, I have to be ready, able and willing to respond each and every time.

The best and most practical piece of advice I can give is to get in the habit of doing God's will, because it certainly doesn't come naturally. You have to work to make it part of your life and part of your nature. Once it is part of your nature, it will change you, and it will change the lives of many people you meet along the way. But like the Bishop, you may never see it, because God's work is slow work and all you'll have is the knowledge that you've done God's will.

In the end, that's all we really need. Amen.

THE STRENGTH OF FORGIVENESS

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong". ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Recently, I was fortunate to overhear a conversation among several acquaintances about the response of the Amish community in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania to the family of the deranged man, Charles Roberts IV, who stormed the Amish schoolhouse in that community in 2006 and killed five young Amish children before committing suicide. One acquaintance expressed admiration for the Amish community's immediate outpouring of support and forgiveness to the Roberts' family, but the remainder of the group voiced strong dissent to the Amish response to the shooting.

At first, I found the emotional intensity that accompanied the dissenters' remarks to be a surprising phenomenon, but after giving that discussion more thought over the past few weeks, I've come to believe that the emotional responses were a mask of sort to hide an underlying fear of weakness.

Gandhi was right. The Amish are strong, and not just in physical strength. The Amish are strong of heart! They are strong of character! They are strong in their belief in God and strong in their dedication to carrying out God's message of non-violence and forgiveness.

The lessons of the Amish are particularly apt given the Commonwealth of Virginia's recent execution of Theresa Lewis, a woman convicted of hiring killers to murder her husband and her stepson for insurance proceeds. Despite Ms. Lewis' religious conversion and her documented efforts to help fellow prisoners lead a more productive life, Virginia's governor rejected pleas for clemency and a commutation of Ms. Lewis' sentence from death to life in prison.

No doubt, Virginia's governor found little need to forgive, as such an attribute is frequently viewed in today's political world as a sign of weakness, but in refusing to grant a commutation of Ms. Lewis' death sentence, all the governor did was confirm his own weakness of character.

THE LATEST BRAND OF SNAKE OIL

The Preamble to the soon to be released GOP "Pledge To America" is a farce of the highest magnitude and anybody who's fooled by the cow manure that passes for this Republican manifesto deserves the just desserts of the "old government" that appears likely to take control after the upcoming elections.

Only a nation of buffoons would reward a party (that would be the GOP) who took this nation to war in Iraq on false pretenses, who never asked taxpayers to pay for that war, who year after year fought for deregulation of the financial sector until it was on the verge of total collapse, who then sat back and scoffed at Democrats for cleaning up their mess, and then have the unmitigated gall to blame the sorry state of our union on our President and his political party.

People who want to know who's responsible for our nation's mess should look in the mirror! They're the people who voted for the people (the GOP) who created the current economic crisis. They're the people who voted for the folks who, when the crisis occurred, wanted to sit back and do nothing - like Herbert Hoover, the same game plan that caused the Great Depression of the thirties. They're the ones who hemmed and hawed about liberty and freedom, but when push came to shove, were the loudest screamers demanding the trading of freedoms for public safety. And now, they fill the airwaves and media with rage and anger, demanding the end of deficits, like somehow, the money to pay off those public debts will magically appear out of thin air. Well, it won't.

The "Pledge to America" is the snake oil of a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards who don't have the stomach to take responsibility for the mess they created. Buy it at your own peril.

GOP: GAYS STRONGER THAN U.S. MILITARY

Republicans in the United States Senate today essentially called our military ranks a bunch of yellow-bellied cowards for being unable to carry out their assigned duties in the presence of openly homosexual individuals. That's why GOP senators defeated an attempt to discard the current "don't ask – don't tell" policy against homosexuals serving in the military.

I thought no enemy was too strong to defeat the forces of the United States military, but I guess I was wrong. According to the GOP, a small band of homosexuals is all that's needed.

PERSONAL CONSTITUTIONS

Much of what is wrong with American politics today is summarized in one lamentable fact: the constitution of a majority of Americans is not the American Constitution.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states as follows:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Are Americans today interested in forming a more perfect union? It's hard to see how that could be. Conservatives decry liberals and liberals decry conservatives with such ferocity that it is not hard to imagine one group wishing the other to be completely obliterated from the face of this Nation, or at the very least, with no measurable voice in our government. Extremists on both sides of the political aisle vilify the beliefs of their opponents and demonize the leaders of opposing parties to such an extent that one could not possibly tell the difference between those leaders and pure evil. Given the vitriol in the current political climate, it's a wonder the U.S. isn't overflowing with one political assassination after another.

Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution states, in pertinent part:

"…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

How many times do you hear on the radio or read in the newspaper the opinion that American was founded on Judeo-Christian values and only Christians or Jews are qualified for public office?

Despite today's widespread belief to the contrary, America was intended by our founding fathers to function as a secular, non-religious Nation, based upon the premise that all individuals were free to practice the religion of their choice, or no religion for that matter, without having an individual's religious beliefs being a matter of public concern so far as the functioning of government was concerned.

THE BRAVERY OF AFGHAN VOTERS

You've got to applaud the people in Afghanistan who showed up at the polls yesterday and voted. They did so at great personal risk, because the Taliban, ruthless as they are, had warned of bomb attacks on polling stations. In fact, several polling stations did come under rocket attack. Nevertheless, Afghans were undaunted and they showed their desire to make their voices heard by voting in the election to determine the future direction of their government.

The exact percentage of eligible voters who showed up at the Afghan polls yesterday has not yet been released, but that percentage is expected to be greater than the percentage of eligible American voters who showed up at this past season's primary elections.

Consider the words of our American National Anthem – "and the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there…"

In Afghanistan, you could replace the word "flag" with "voter" and still have a true statement.

ECONOMICS - 101

Economics 101 – a King summoned all his most trusted economic advisers and asked them to come up with the briefest statement possible that would summarize all a person needs to know about economic theory. After much deliberation, the advisers sent the king the following note:

"There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Any imaginable economic decision, no matter how large or small, follows that premise without exception, and it matters not whether the decision is one with national ramifications or one that concerns only one household. For example, how a nation decides to pay for a war is essentially no different than a couple's decision on how to pay for a more expensive house. A nation can decide to pay for the costs of war in any one of three ways: (1) by raising taxes, (2) by lowering spending in other areas to offset the war costs, or (3) by borrowing money to be repaid at a later date. A couple can pay for their more expensive house by (1) getting a second job, (2) lowering household spending in other areas of their life, or (3) by borrowing money to be repaid at a later date. In both examples, the available options are virtually identical, and all of those options require a corresponding sacrifice, whether it means more taxes paid, more hours worked, sacrificing things we care about in our lives, or paying interest on our debts if we choose the borrowing option. There is no escaping the economic axiom that every benefit requires a corresponding sacrifice.

That notion, that there is no such thing as a free lunch, acts as a kind of economic balance. When sacrifice equals benefit, economic harmony prevails. It is only where a nation or an individual attempts to reap greater benefits than the sacrifice they are willing to bear, that economic chaos occurs, and once that happens, the only way to return economic chaos to a state of equilibrium is to pay the corresponding sacrifice.

Following the events of September 11th, 2001, our nation commenced two wars, one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. To date, the price tag attached to those war efforts comes to almost two trillion dollars. How much have American taxpayers sacrificed to pay for those wars? Not one red cent! Every single dollar spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been appropriated through supplemental appropriation bills, which simply add the costs directly to the national debt, including the interest on those debts. Taxes were never raised to cover that debt. Spending was not decreased to cover that debt. The government simply borrowed the money. Eventually, the economy sank into recession.

During the same time as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were occupying the focus of the federal government, moving into a new or more expensive home was occupying the focus of tens of millions of Americans. As folks have sadly come to realize, millions of those home buyers were purchasing more expensive homes than they could actually afford, and with little or no down payment to give them equity in their property, millions of home owners quickly fell under when the economy went south and unemployment skyrocketed. As a result, the housing market collapsed.

America as a Nation, and Americans as individuals are now faced with the painful reality that only national and individual sacrifice can bring our national economy and our household economies back into economic equilibrium. We can choose between sacrifices, but we cannot avoid making them forever.

There is no such thing as a free lunch…never has been; never will be!

NORMALIZING RELATIONS WITH CUBA

It's time for the Obama Administration to lift the decades-long embargo of our island neighbor, Cuba. The embargo, dating back to the early sixties when Fidel Castro imposed Communist rule upon the tiny island, has outlived its purpose. In fact, a good argument can be made that the continuation of the embargo in today's world is actually counter-productive.

Over the past year and a half, Fidel Castro's brother, Raul, who now rules Cuba, has been attempting to initiate a series of free-market reforms to transform the Cuban economy from a strictly controlled government system to one that functions under free-market principles, albeit with government oversight. That's because, as Fidel Castro recently confided to a writer from "The Atlantic", Cuba's current government-controlled system is simply not working and cannot keep pace with the demands of the 21st century global economy.

The most recent example of the Castro government's free-market reform was the decision to lay off almost half a million workers from government financed jobs. To deal with that expected tidal wave of unemployed workers, the Cuban government recently enacted a series of laws that made private ownership of many businesses legal, so that unemployed workers could choose to go into business for themselves or seek employment in newly created businesses. The opening of Cuban markets to foreign investors also creates employment opportunities that heretofore did not exist. There is no reason why American investors should not be allowed to share in the development of Cuban markets too.

Both Raul and Fidel Castro recognize that for the vitality of their political revolution to remain strong, the Cuban economy must provide a sufficient standard of living for the island's residents; otherwise, their movement will be viewed from within as a complete failure. If that occurs, a certain-to-be-bloody insurrection would follow.

There are many in American neo-conservative circles who advocate maintaining the embargo in the hope that such an insurrection will occur and the Castro regime will be overthrown, but 48 years of waiting for that occurrence has not yielded any dividends, and there's something troubling about our praying for bloodshed so we can feel vindicated about our failed foreign policy.

The sensible thing for us to do is normalize relations with Cuba and allow free market forces to affect the kind of changes in the Cuban economy, and maybe even the Cuban government, that our foreign policy has never been able to do. It is not only the right thing to do from a humanitarian perspective; it's also the right thing to do from a political and economic view.

America regularly trades with authoritarian and Communist regimes that are far more repressive than the Cuban regime, so to single out an island neighbor to continue with an embargo on the basis of government repression of citizens makes our foreign policy appear arbitrary. When that occurs, foreign countries lose respect for America. It doesn't have to be that way.

Many Americans have relatives in Cuba, and the re-establishment of family ties would greatly help in healing the political rift between our countries. We'll never agree on everything, but at least we'd be talking to each other, and that would be a step in the right direction.