This week Elton John said the world would be better off without organized religion. I'm involved in organized religion, but I think Elton has a good point. The world might be better off if everyone practiced "disorganized religion".
Generally speaking, religion is about defining the relationship between us humans and God. Over the last few millennia we humans have developed a few major organized religions that, in total, have produced some millions of pages that attempt to define the relationship between the two (or more) parties, and their respective rights and responsibilities. God, however, has not seen fit to conclusively ratify any of these organizations or their literary output, despite the protests of the faithful to the contrary. This lack of clarity has caused a lot of problems, but God seems determined not to get involved in resolving them directly.
In the absence of clarity and direct involvement from God, we as a race seem determined to make all kinds of assumptions about the divine relationship and the rules for our own behavior. With the best of intentions, our religons begin with generalities that often seem fairly similar: for example, God wants us to recognize God's being and God's superiority in the nature of things, and God expects us to assist in the execution of God's good plan for creation. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.
For Elton John, the painful detail is religion's penchant to reject those who practice homosexuality. For the unfortunate Sunni or Shiite in Iraq, the painful detail has something to do with whichever Imam should have been Mohammad's successor. For the dead bystander in Belfast, it is something about a Pope. For many Mormons who fled in terror to Utah, it is about whether or not one wife is the limit. Organized religions have a way of making rules that result in groups of people being rejected, killed, or chased to remote locations. Each sect seems a lot more focused on enforcing their version of the details than on improving their own relationship with the rather elusive deity.
I just happen to be a United Presbyterian, one of several "Presbyterian" churches that fall under the general category of "reformed" Christians, i.e., those who have returned to the true Christianity that was ruined by the Roman Catholics (who have also since "reformed"). All of us Christians, of course, are different from the many flavors of Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, et cetera. Even God must have some difficulty keeping all this differentiation straight! (I wonder how God is feeling about the potential split of United Presbyterians, again over differing versions of the details?)
So, today I'm calling for religion to get disorganized. If it's too difficult to just put aside the details, perhaps we humans need to minimize the organizations that put muscle behind enforcing them. Tax religious real estate like private property! Criminalize hate speech from the pulpits! Eliminate special tax breaks for clergy! Enforce religious neutrality in the public sector! I have a feeling we United Presbyterians would do just fine if we downsized enough that the details got a lot less attention, and so would all the rest of God's militant minions. Amen.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Veteran's Day Ruminations
I'm a veteran, but not a combat veteran. Many years ago I had an opportunity to volunteer for duty in Vietnam. I would have been a forward observer with an infantry unit. My boss, a captain who had done 3-4 tours in Vietnam with Special Forces in the 50's and early 60's, called me into his office. He strongly advised me to complete my obligation to Uncle Sam, get out, finish college, and take care of my family. He said that Vietnam was not a country worth dying for. I took his advice. Not too many years later I was a successful businessman.
Before I checked out of the 101st Airborne Division I had the honor of speaking with friends who had volunteered and had already completed their first Vietnam tour. They were changed men. Some had become emaciated from bouts with malaria. Some were bitter over the gung-ho early tactics that resulted in obscene casualties, and some of the West Point grads were resigning their commissions. Some were going back for more. All of them had experienced something that I could never in my life relate to: a fight to the death. So I am not one of them.
In the years that followed my goodbye to my warrior friends, I've been fortunate to have had quite a number of business associates and friends who, by conventional standards, were the cream of the crop - intelligent, motivated, sensitive to others, and ethical. Yet, looking back, among my top role models were the senior officers who somehow coped with us young lieutenants, and the great NCO's who saved us from ourselves. Calm, forceful, experienced, honorable, dedicated. These are the characteristics I have remembered and attempted to emulate all these years. I will always be grateful for the years I worked and played with them, and I have always been confident in their ability and their willingness to protect our country.
The Vietnam War turned out to be a tragic error. It was not the fault of those brave men. The Iraq War is a tragic error in progress. It is not the fault of the troops who are fighting there under the American flag. Our military is answerable to the civilian Commander in Chief, and to the civilian Secretary of Defense, and then to the military chain of command. They have the opportunity to speak their mind, but in the end they follow orders. The great majority fight only those who wish to fight them, and they abide by the rules of war even in difficult circumstances. They have a job to do, and they do it to the best of their considerable ability. I may grieve over the assigments some of them are given, but I support them all the way.
At the end of the day, it is the citizens of our country who choose the wars we fight. In our electoral process we select men and women who have told us quite a bit about how they will govern, and the President - Commander in Chief is the most important of these. However, we often fail to consider that critical aspect of the President's job until it is too late to change our minds about the person we have elected.
In 2000 a slim majority of electoral votes elevated George Bush, a self-professed Christian man, to the presidency. Mr. Bush had stated he had no appetite for "nation-building", and the voters paid little attention to the neo-conservatives like Dick Cheney who followed him with briefcases full of war plans for Iraq. Then came the tragedy of 9/11. The anger and fear generated by the terrorists provided perfect cover for initiating the neocon plan, which concluded with the pitiful "coalition of the willing" invading Iraq. In no time the man who had purported to follow the Prince of Peace morphed into an acolyte of Mars, God of War. Our military has suffered 2,900 deaths and 21,000 injuries since that fateful day, and untold numbers of Iraqis have perished. We would like to put the blame on George Bush, but we gave him the job and the power. The fault lies with the American people who made a bad choice.
So, on this day I salute the veterans who have done their job, following the orders of our democratically elected government. On this day I mourn all those, friend and foe, combatant and civilian, who have perished in ill-advised wars started by presidents from Texas. May our memories last forever, so that we never again give presidential power to men or women who resort to war before exhausting every opportunity for peace.
Before I checked out of the 101st Airborne Division I had the honor of speaking with friends who had volunteered and had already completed their first Vietnam tour. They were changed men. Some had become emaciated from bouts with malaria. Some were bitter over the gung-ho early tactics that resulted in obscene casualties, and some of the West Point grads were resigning their commissions. Some were going back for more. All of them had experienced something that I could never in my life relate to: a fight to the death. So I am not one of them.
In the years that followed my goodbye to my warrior friends, I've been fortunate to have had quite a number of business associates and friends who, by conventional standards, were the cream of the crop - intelligent, motivated, sensitive to others, and ethical. Yet, looking back, among my top role models were the senior officers who somehow coped with us young lieutenants, and the great NCO's who saved us from ourselves. Calm, forceful, experienced, honorable, dedicated. These are the characteristics I have remembered and attempted to emulate all these years. I will always be grateful for the years I worked and played with them, and I have always been confident in their ability and their willingness to protect our country.
The Vietnam War turned out to be a tragic error. It was not the fault of those brave men. The Iraq War is a tragic error in progress. It is not the fault of the troops who are fighting there under the American flag. Our military is answerable to the civilian Commander in Chief, and to the civilian Secretary of Defense, and then to the military chain of command. They have the opportunity to speak their mind, but in the end they follow orders. The great majority fight only those who wish to fight them, and they abide by the rules of war even in difficult circumstances. They have a job to do, and they do it to the best of their considerable ability. I may grieve over the assigments some of them are given, but I support them all the way.
At the end of the day, it is the citizens of our country who choose the wars we fight. In our electoral process we select men and women who have told us quite a bit about how they will govern, and the President - Commander in Chief is the most important of these. However, we often fail to consider that critical aspect of the President's job until it is too late to change our minds about the person we have elected.
In 2000 a slim majority of electoral votes elevated George Bush, a self-professed Christian man, to the presidency. Mr. Bush had stated he had no appetite for "nation-building", and the voters paid little attention to the neo-conservatives like Dick Cheney who followed him with briefcases full of war plans for Iraq. Then came the tragedy of 9/11. The anger and fear generated by the terrorists provided perfect cover for initiating the neocon plan, which concluded with the pitiful "coalition of the willing" invading Iraq. In no time the man who had purported to follow the Prince of Peace morphed into an acolyte of Mars, God of War. Our military has suffered 2,900 deaths and 21,000 injuries since that fateful day, and untold numbers of Iraqis have perished. We would like to put the blame on George Bush, but we gave him the job and the power. The fault lies with the American people who made a bad choice.
So, on this day I salute the veterans who have done their job, following the orders of our democratically elected government. On this day I mourn all those, friend and foe, combatant and civilian, who have perished in ill-advised wars started by presidents from Texas. May our memories last forever, so that we never again give presidential power to men or women who resort to war before exhausting every opportunity for peace.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Victory is Only a Beginning
Karl Rove has been slapped down. Tom DeLay is replaced by a democrat. Rumsfeld is walking the perp walk to oblivion. Bush has been reduced to lunching with the devil incarnate - Nancy Pelosi, that is. Christmas in November! The American people have once again proved they cannot be fooled forever. My faith was not in vain.
Now it's time for the democrats to prove they can govern, not simply snipe. Pelosi sounds like she's ready to go. Murtha sounds like a sour old man out for vengeance. Now is not the time for looking back. The American people know all about the darkness of the past six years, and they don't want to spend the next year rehashing that grim time. Hearings won't change the minds of the republican faithful, nor will they give the critics any true satisfaction. Now is the time to move on, for the democrats to introduce and pass the legislation needed to get this country's problems solved.
The problem is that introducing and passing this legislation is not going to be painless. Every change creates winners and losers. Fixing Social Security is going to require more taxes and less payouts just to keep the program afloat, assuming the democrats don't flip over and embrace the myth of job growth somehow generating the required tax revenue. Medicare reform will require higher taxes, curbs on procedures available to the very old or very sick, and some serious negotiation with the drug companies. Dealing with the trade imbalance will generate higher prices at Wal-Mart. Energy independence will require some democrats to bend over for nuclear energy and new refineries, and some consumers will have to accept less go-power when they push on the gas pedal. Going forward on stem cell research will alienate some who voted for the overthrow of Bush Jr. All of these issues are touchy. In fact, the only no-brainer is voting to increase the minimum wage to a higher amount that is still under the poverty line.
Will the democrats have the guts to follow through and deal with the big issues, or will they succumb to the pressures of running again in 2008? Right now I give them the benefit of the doubt, and a few suggestions: operate in the open, let all interested parties have their say in public, and make choices based on clear criteria that the 2008 voters can understand. That's democracy. Can the democrats practice it?
Now it's time for the democrats to prove they can govern, not simply snipe. Pelosi sounds like she's ready to go. Murtha sounds like a sour old man out for vengeance. Now is not the time for looking back. The American people know all about the darkness of the past six years, and they don't want to spend the next year rehashing that grim time. Hearings won't change the minds of the republican faithful, nor will they give the critics any true satisfaction. Now is the time to move on, for the democrats to introduce and pass the legislation needed to get this country's problems solved.
The problem is that introducing and passing this legislation is not going to be painless. Every change creates winners and losers. Fixing Social Security is going to require more taxes and less payouts just to keep the program afloat, assuming the democrats don't flip over and embrace the myth of job growth somehow generating the required tax revenue. Medicare reform will require higher taxes, curbs on procedures available to the very old or very sick, and some serious negotiation with the drug companies. Dealing with the trade imbalance will generate higher prices at Wal-Mart. Energy independence will require some democrats to bend over for nuclear energy and new refineries, and some consumers will have to accept less go-power when they push on the gas pedal. Going forward on stem cell research will alienate some who voted for the overthrow of Bush Jr. All of these issues are touchy. In fact, the only no-brainer is voting to increase the minimum wage to a higher amount that is still under the poverty line.
Will the democrats have the guts to follow through and deal with the big issues, or will they succumb to the pressures of running again in 2008? Right now I give them the benefit of the doubt, and a few suggestions: operate in the open, let all interested parties have their say in public, and make choices based on clear criteria that the 2008 voters can understand. That's democracy. Can the democrats practice it?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Self-Inflicted Wounds Bleed Republicans
In the end it came down to sins of comission, not omission, that cost the republicans the House and perhaps the Senate. The GOP lawmakers were held accountable for supporting the administration's unsuccessful war of choice in Iraq, and they were hammered for losing the moral high ground in scandal after scandal. It's fair to say that the republicans lost rather than saying that the democrats won. But practically speaking, it doesn't matter. The president will now dance to a compromise tune or he won't dance at all.
The election also identified some key trends in social issues.
The election also identified some key trends in social issues.
- Gay marriages were soundly rejected in (almost) every state where it was on the ballot. Gay couples will continue to have only a few states where they can count on civil protections equal to heterosexuals.
- The federal minimum wage will be raised. Every state that voted on it, including the red states, chose to increase their state minimum wage. Republicans were smacked on this one.
- The evangelicals lost ground on abortion and stem cell research. South Dakota did not ban abortion, Missouri OK'd stem cell research, and Santorum got slaughtered in Pennsylvania.
- Arizona went for an official language - look for many more intiatives and statutes on this issue, most of which will pass.
The republican party should give John Kerry its "Motivator of the Campaign" award. He fanned the fury that was only smoldering in many of the red congressional districts, likely costing several democrats their chance to move to DC. The democrats should require Kerry to wear a dunce cap in the senate chambers. (Likewise, the democrats need to fete Rush Limbaugh for his important last minute assistance in Missouri.)
Will the democrat win result in an onslaught of liberal initiatives in congress? I think not. Nancy Pelosi will go centrist in order to keep her flock together. By forcing the administration to either accept compromise legislation it doesn't like or make unpopular vetoes, she will begin the differentiation process needed to hold the congress in 2008.
Meanwhile, the democrats will sit back and let President Bush simmer in his Iraq stew. They have no incentive to grab the reins on this one, since every new death or tactical setback takes another ounce of flesh off the Commander in Chief. Rummy is history, though, and soon. It's unlikely he will stomach explaining his actions to a new congressional committee every week.
As an "old-time moderate republican", I'm pretty happy with the outcome. Like Bush One, I oppose wars aimed at regime change. I believe two-party rule will curb the outrageous spending that threatens America's long-term viability. Threats to personal freedom will be curbed because the "religious right" lost some key battles. Moderates will take center stage for 2008, and I can live with any of those who have a brain, a little charisma, and the toughness to take on the crucial issues facing our country.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
I Was Right to be Afraid
The airwaves and phonelines have been spewing Republican political vomit for months now, but especially during these last days before the election. When I see the commercials or hear the robo-phone message, I sense Karl Rove lurking in the background, smiling at how effective he believes his misinformation wil be. And I think it will be effective. The question is, will it be effective enough?
Some robot called this morning to inform me that the congressional candidate I'm working for will raise my taxes. The caller knows exactly nothing about my taxes (I hope!), and my candidate has stated publically that he will not support raising middle class taxes. None of this matters to the robo-phone; it only wants to find the few voters out of the many it contacts who will vote Republican due to tax fear. Those votes could make the difference.
It really pisses me off that the robo-phone message does not open with an identification of the calling organization. Before the next election we need a law to require this. There is something about a voice that begins "Let me tell you something about Candidate X", that makes my stomach turn.
So, Mr. Rove, I sincerely hope that there are election laws that you can be convicted of breaking. I would celebrate your perp walk like I celebrated Saddam's capture, because I believe you, more than anyone else, are responsible for the breakdown of civil discourse in American politics. Your potent money machine is indeed as powerful as the smug right-wing commentators say it is. You really have the potential to shut down American democracy with your shameless propaganda, repeated ad nauseum.
I was right to be afraid. Please, Americans, use your vote put this guy back in the sewer he came from! Let's all feel more free tomorrow.
Some robot called this morning to inform me that the congressional candidate I'm working for will raise my taxes. The caller knows exactly nothing about my taxes (I hope!), and my candidate has stated publically that he will not support raising middle class taxes. None of this matters to the robo-phone; it only wants to find the few voters out of the many it contacts who will vote Republican due to tax fear. Those votes could make the difference.
It really pisses me off that the robo-phone message does not open with an identification of the calling organization. Before the next election we need a law to require this. There is something about a voice that begins "Let me tell you something about Candidate X", that makes my stomach turn.
So, Mr. Rove, I sincerely hope that there are election laws that you can be convicted of breaking. I would celebrate your perp walk like I celebrated Saddam's capture, because I believe you, more than anyone else, are responsible for the breakdown of civil discourse in American politics. Your potent money machine is indeed as powerful as the smug right-wing commentators say it is. You really have the potential to shut down American democracy with your shameless propaganda, repeated ad nauseum.
I was right to be afraid. Please, Americans, use your vote put this guy back in the sewer he came from! Let's all feel more free tomorrow.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Have Americans Finally Seen the Light?
There's only one more day until the mid-term elections begin, and in two days we'll know the outcome except in districts where non-trackable electronic voting has failed. Will my faith in the American people be restored? The suspense is killing me!
I don't blame Americans for being fooled about our invasion of Iraq. We are a trusting people. We truly believe our leaders would not lie to us on a topic so consequential as a decision to go to war, or about the status of that war or the country where we are now engaged in battle. Our trust is a lasting trust; it takes clear evidence to shake it. We want to believe our country is doing the right thing because, by and large, we are a righteous people. But the evidence is now overwhelming. We were fooled into supporting the Iraq war, and we've been deceived since the day our victorious troops stood by, dumbfounded, as the infrastructure of Bahgdad was trashed by the Iraqis they had just "liberated". Will the voters continue to stand by those who have so foolishly squandered our country's young men, our treasure, and our standing in the world?
I don't blame Americans for not understanding that debt, not tax cuts, has fueled whatever economic recovery we are now enjoying. The fact that our national debt has increased 45% under the current administration is not headline news. But the truth is that every American owes $7,000 more to creditors of our goverment than they did in the year 2000, and our country is far more subject to economic blackmail by our enemies than we were six years ago. Will the voters decide to reject this administration because its financial Katrina is overflowing our economic levees?
I don't blame Americans for supporting those who profess the religious beliefs that many think underlie our country's freedoms. Underneath all the simplistic theology that evangelicals blindly accept is a deep concern for the values outlined in the Ten Commandments. They prefer that the recipe for a proper life be laid out in a straightforward manner, no "pinches of this or that", no optional adjustments for differing flavors or textures. Have they come to realize that the leaders they elected for religious reasons are no more genuine than Ron Haggard? Will the voters reject supporters of the George Bush whose hired gun, Karl Rove, uses "false witness" as his primary campaign tool?
I don't blame Americans for thinking a goverment of one party could finally enact new laws to solve the looming issues of Social Security and Medicare, and to simplify the labyrinthine tax laws that support a huge but inefficient industry and drive us all crazy at the same time. Will the voters strike back because their candidates bypassed these substantive issues in favor of pushing "loser" laws regarding gay marriage, abortion, and flag burning?
As President Bush famously said, "You can fool me once -golly, how does that go again?" Have Americans got to the point where they realize the Republicans are trying to fool them again? My antennae tell me that the time has come for true realization, and that the people will speak clearly in this election. They will speak out against a fraudulent war, spendthrift economics, phony religion, and do-nothing debates in congress. If they don't, they will have been fooled twice and deserve whatever carnage the new "old" government will certainly inflict on them.
I don't blame Americans for being fooled about our invasion of Iraq. We are a trusting people. We truly believe our leaders would not lie to us on a topic so consequential as a decision to go to war, or about the status of that war or the country where we are now engaged in battle. Our trust is a lasting trust; it takes clear evidence to shake it. We want to believe our country is doing the right thing because, by and large, we are a righteous people. But the evidence is now overwhelming. We were fooled into supporting the Iraq war, and we've been deceived since the day our victorious troops stood by, dumbfounded, as the infrastructure of Bahgdad was trashed by the Iraqis they had just "liberated". Will the voters continue to stand by those who have so foolishly squandered our country's young men, our treasure, and our standing in the world?
I don't blame Americans for not understanding that debt, not tax cuts, has fueled whatever economic recovery we are now enjoying. The fact that our national debt has increased 45% under the current administration is not headline news. But the truth is that every American owes $7,000 more to creditors of our goverment than they did in the year 2000, and our country is far more subject to economic blackmail by our enemies than we were six years ago. Will the voters decide to reject this administration because its financial Katrina is overflowing our economic levees?
I don't blame Americans for supporting those who profess the religious beliefs that many think underlie our country's freedoms. Underneath all the simplistic theology that evangelicals blindly accept is a deep concern for the values outlined in the Ten Commandments. They prefer that the recipe for a proper life be laid out in a straightforward manner, no "pinches of this or that", no optional adjustments for differing flavors or textures. Have they come to realize that the leaders they elected for religious reasons are no more genuine than Ron Haggard? Will the voters reject supporters of the George Bush whose hired gun, Karl Rove, uses "false witness" as his primary campaign tool?
I don't blame Americans for thinking a goverment of one party could finally enact new laws to solve the looming issues of Social Security and Medicare, and to simplify the labyrinthine tax laws that support a huge but inefficient industry and drive us all crazy at the same time. Will the voters strike back because their candidates bypassed these substantive issues in favor of pushing "loser" laws regarding gay marriage, abortion, and flag burning?
As President Bush famously said, "You can fool me once -golly, how does that go again?" Have Americans got to the point where they realize the Republicans are trying to fool them again? My antennae tell me that the time has come for true realization, and that the people will speak clearly in this election. They will speak out against a fraudulent war, spendthrift economics, phony religion, and do-nothing debates in congress. If they don't, they will have been fooled twice and deserve whatever carnage the new "old" government will certainly inflict on them.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
New Life Church Acts!
Good for them! New Life Church in Colorado Springs has dismissed its founding pastor, Ron Haggard, for "immoral conduct". They must be very sad, and I don't blame them. Haggard has been their shepherd for twenty years, but he has been proved to be someone they really didn't know very well at all. They have found out a key truth that Christians must keep in mind at all times - that the church is not a person, nor a building, nor even a rigid theology. Rather, the church is a whole bunch of individuals striving for a relationship with a God who says "my thoughts are not your thoughts". Even pastors do not have the same thoughts as God, much as they would like to convince their congregations otherwise.
Hopefully the Haggard mess will trigger the evangelical movement to become a bit less pastor-centered and a bit more open to the Jesus of the gospels. That Jesus was not enamored with big temples and self-righteous religious leaders, and he did not preach the gospel of success in this world. That Jesus commended praying in secret and said that the poor will inherit the kingdom of God. That Jesus died on a cross, rejecting power and prestige in this world.
As far as I'm concerned, Warren Buffett in his little house and old car and cheap suits is far more of a minister than every TV pastor who looks as though he or she stepped out of a fashion magazine. Warren Buffett has lived right and given his riches to the poorest and most needy of our world, while the TV pastors ask you to live right and give your riches to them!
Ex-reverend Haggard, I pray that the humiliation of this experience will help you renew your striving for God and give you a new heart for the poor and the fallen. I sincerely hope that you have not accumulated wealth and possessions that will keep you from being the servant you were called to be. Your story is not over yet.
Hopefully the Haggard mess will trigger the evangelical movement to become a bit less pastor-centered and a bit more open to the Jesus of the gospels. That Jesus was not enamored with big temples and self-righteous religious leaders, and he did not preach the gospel of success in this world. That Jesus commended praying in secret and said that the poor will inherit the kingdom of God. That Jesus died on a cross, rejecting power and prestige in this world.
As far as I'm concerned, Warren Buffett in his little house and old car and cheap suits is far more of a minister than every TV pastor who looks as though he or she stepped out of a fashion magazine. Warren Buffett has lived right and given his riches to the poorest and most needy of our world, while the TV pastors ask you to live right and give your riches to them!
Ex-reverend Haggard, I pray that the humiliation of this experience will help you renew your striving for God and give you a new heart for the poor and the fallen. I sincerely hope that you have not accumulated wealth and possessions that will keep you from being the servant you were called to be. Your story is not over yet.
Friday, November 03, 2006
"But I Didn't Inhale", Redux Courtesy of Ted Haggard
Rev. Ted Haggard went to a gay prostitute for a "massage", and he bought chrystal meth "but he threw it away". Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, sounds a lot like Bill Clinton but his parishoners are sticking with him so far. I guess that just getting a massage from a gay prostitute and simply buying chrystal meth doesn't cross the line for these conservative Christians. But this story is not over yet.
Ted Haggard will not be arrested or face a trial in court. Rather, he will be subject to an internal investigation by his church, and he will get a lot of unwelcome scrutiny from the press. The latter will likely fill out the details of the life lived by Ted Haggard, and judgment will be rendered by the public and his congregation. What should their rules be for judging powerful people like Haggard?
First, they must hold powerful people to a high standard of conduct. Like us, powerful people are fallible. CEO's can be honest or steal, police can be squeeky clean or take bribes, and presidents can go to war for the right or the wrong reasons. The difference between the bad choices made by powerful people and average people is often in the scope of the impact.
Ken Lay wrecked the lives of thousands when he trashed Enron; crooked cops facilitate the crimes of those they take bribes from; and, Lyndon Johnson divided a nation and spent its youth for nothing in Vietnam. These examples show that oversight of powerful people is especially important because their bad choices tend to have powerful conseqences. And when oversight fails to identify or deter these bad choices prior to the damage being done, the punishment of powerful people should be stiff.
Ted Haggard held others to a strict standard of morality when he spoke from the pulpit. If he is guilty only of the behavior he has already admitted, his role in the pulpit and the administration of that church should be over. Harsh punishment? Not. Contrition, to be realistic, must have self-imposed penalties - "sackcloth and ashes", for example. If Haggard does not volunteer for exile, he should be exiled by his flock to a new occupation and a considerably reduced lifestyle. He must live by his own rules if they are to have any meaning for his followers.
Is there a parallel between Haggard and Clinton? Perhaps in terms of the level of embarassment they caused their constituencies the cases are similar. But on another level, the cases are very different. Clinton was elected president by people who knew he boasted of having a carpet in the back of his pickup truck. People were aware of Jennifer Flowers. Clinton never claimed to be pure. Haggard, on the other hand, set himself up as an example for all. That makes his claim of "I bought the meth but threw it away" ring rather hollow. He crossed his own line, and that makes him subject to his own rules. More to come on this one, for sure.
Ted Haggard will not be arrested or face a trial in court. Rather, he will be subject to an internal investigation by his church, and he will get a lot of unwelcome scrutiny from the press. The latter will likely fill out the details of the life lived by Ted Haggard, and judgment will be rendered by the public and his congregation. What should their rules be for judging powerful people like Haggard?
First, they must hold powerful people to a high standard of conduct. Like us, powerful people are fallible. CEO's can be honest or steal, police can be squeeky clean or take bribes, and presidents can go to war for the right or the wrong reasons. The difference between the bad choices made by powerful people and average people is often in the scope of the impact.
Ken Lay wrecked the lives of thousands when he trashed Enron; crooked cops facilitate the crimes of those they take bribes from; and, Lyndon Johnson divided a nation and spent its youth for nothing in Vietnam. These examples show that oversight of powerful people is especially important because their bad choices tend to have powerful conseqences. And when oversight fails to identify or deter these bad choices prior to the damage being done, the punishment of powerful people should be stiff.
Ted Haggard held others to a strict standard of morality when he spoke from the pulpit. If he is guilty only of the behavior he has already admitted, his role in the pulpit and the administration of that church should be over. Harsh punishment? Not. Contrition, to be realistic, must have self-imposed penalties - "sackcloth and ashes", for example. If Haggard does not volunteer for exile, he should be exiled by his flock to a new occupation and a considerably reduced lifestyle. He must live by his own rules if they are to have any meaning for his followers.
Is there a parallel between Haggard and Clinton? Perhaps in terms of the level of embarassment they caused their constituencies the cases are similar. But on another level, the cases are very different. Clinton was elected president by people who knew he boasted of having a carpet in the back of his pickup truck. People were aware of Jennifer Flowers. Clinton never claimed to be pure. Haggard, on the other hand, set himself up as an example for all. That makes his claim of "I bought the meth but threw it away" ring rather hollow. He crossed his own line, and that makes him subject to his own rules. More to come on this one, for sure.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Ambulance Man
It's 12:10 p.m. in Pittsford, NY, and all is quiet at the volunteer ambulance. I'm the medic tonight. My driver is watching one TV, my dispatcher the other. In a moment all that can change. The horn goes off, my pager goes off, and then my jacket and stethoscope go on. In about one minute we'll be opening the garage doors and heading out with lights flashing and siren also blaring if there's any traffic.
Since I retired at age 53 back in 1998, I've volunteered about 8,000 hours at our local ambulance corps. We get about six calls every day on average, and I've answered about 1,275 of them over the years. Most calls are not too challenging because the patient's condition is not unstable (unstable means they could possibly die). We comfort those patients and their families, provide whatever emergency medical care they need, and deliver them safely to one of the four emergency rooms in our town. Mostly, that's what EMT's do.
On more rare occasions the patient's condition is unstable, and we work pretty hard to keep them alive. If I'm lucky, a paramedic is close by to join my driver and me on serious calls. Sometimes we fend for ourselves during anxious minutes when things are happening fast. The minutes may be anxious, but we are trained to not look anxious. We do what we have to do, quickly and efficiently. Most of the time we get these patients safely to the ER, but sometimes (mostly due to major heart attacks or car accidents) the patients are not so lucky. We do our best, and soon we are back at the base waiting to go out on our next call.
You might think that dealing with death is a tough job, but most times it is not. "We are all terminal", as the saying goes. We deal with the death of an older person in a respectful way, but we accept it for what it is. But the death of a younger person is very hard to take - so much life is now gone. Similarly, some people have major injuries or sudden illnesses that we know will affect the entire rest of their life in a most negative way. Even a badly smashed wrist can be life-changing. The "bad calls" generate traumatic stress, and often the next week is not so good.
It's now 9:45 a.m., and I got 1 1/2 hours of sleep last night. Three calls, two fairly serious but not life-threatening. Those two serious ones were people with medical issues causing "10 on 10" pain - more than they have ever had in their life. I found one person balled up and shivering on the floor of the upstairs bathroom shower stall. Some of the details are too unpleasant to write about. That's the kind of thing EMT's deal with on a regular basis.
If you've got a few hours of free time each week, think about volunteering for your local ambulance or fire department. There are few better opportunities to serve your neighbor and follow the commands of Jesus or whatever deity you recognize. You will soon find out that plenty of other people have it worse off than you do, even on your worst day, and you will wake up every morning thanking God for the good life you've been given.
Since I retired at age 53 back in 1998, I've volunteered about 8,000 hours at our local ambulance corps. We get about six calls every day on average, and I've answered about 1,275 of them over the years. Most calls are not too challenging because the patient's condition is not unstable (unstable means they could possibly die). We comfort those patients and their families, provide whatever emergency medical care they need, and deliver them safely to one of the four emergency rooms in our town. Mostly, that's what EMT's do.
On more rare occasions the patient's condition is unstable, and we work pretty hard to keep them alive. If I'm lucky, a paramedic is close by to join my driver and me on serious calls. Sometimes we fend for ourselves during anxious minutes when things are happening fast. The minutes may be anxious, but we are trained to not look anxious. We do what we have to do, quickly and efficiently. Most of the time we get these patients safely to the ER, but sometimes (mostly due to major heart attacks or car accidents) the patients are not so lucky. We do our best, and soon we are back at the base waiting to go out on our next call.
You might think that dealing with death is a tough job, but most times it is not. "We are all terminal", as the saying goes. We deal with the death of an older person in a respectful way, but we accept it for what it is. But the death of a younger person is very hard to take - so much life is now gone. Similarly, some people have major injuries or sudden illnesses that we know will affect the entire rest of their life in a most negative way. Even a badly smashed wrist can be life-changing. The "bad calls" generate traumatic stress, and often the next week is not so good.
It's now 9:45 a.m., and I got 1 1/2 hours of sleep last night. Three calls, two fairly serious but not life-threatening. Those two serious ones were people with medical issues causing "10 on 10" pain - more than they have ever had in their life. I found one person balled up and shivering on the floor of the upstairs bathroom shower stall. Some of the details are too unpleasant to write about. That's the kind of thing EMT's deal with on a regular basis.
If you've got a few hours of free time each week, think about volunteering for your local ambulance or fire department. There are few better opportunities to serve your neighbor and follow the commands of Jesus or whatever deity you recognize. You will soon find out that plenty of other people have it worse off than you do, even on your worst day, and you will wake up every morning thanking God for the good life you've been given.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
I'm Really Afraid
I've always been viewed as kind of a tough guy. I've got an athletic build, a few prominent muscles, and a blocky chin. After concluding a rather timid childhood, I did the contact sports and later became an army officer in a paratroop division. After I got my education, years of leadership roles in stressful jobs cultivated a rather stern countenance and a strong voice. After retiring early from the working world I soon became operations director for a large volunteer ambulance corps where I worked as a medic when I wasn't taking my annual solo hike on the Appalachian Trail. I'm happy that I've learned to smile, laugh, and hug during my later adulthood, but underneath it all the killer paratrooper still lurks - and quite a few deer would agree with that! So why would a guy like me be afraid?
I'm afraid because I have watched the Republican Party's campaign commercials on TV, and they lead me to fear that the America whose uniform I proudly wore is in jeopardy from within. The commercials shamelessly distort truth in order to elicit a fearful response from the watcher. These commercials go for the gut level fear - fear of the person not of your race, fear of losing your family's money when you die, fear of your Social Security being taken away, fear of a terrorist shooting up your town, fear of a homosexual stalking your kids (this only worked before Foley - now it's a congressman stalking your kids).
These new Republicans (no relation to the honorable Republicans of pre-Clinton times) know that real gut level fear paralyses many people's brains to the extent that they will choose "protection" over their real societal and economic interests. Consequently, they resort to fear-mongering whenever they feel they can't win by any other means. In their culture, winning is the only thing that matters...winning is the means to achieve their goals, whatever they really are. (I question what their goals are because I never hear them stated coherently.)
Why do these commercials indicate that America is in jeopardy? Because people who would use distortions and fear to win an election would use distortions and fear to lead the country. Could this be true? One need not look farther than the current administration to know it is true. Their enemies are "evil"; they must "fight them there or we'll have to fight them here"; they call the estate tax the death tax, changing the entire tone of the discussion around it. They try to legalize torture while they purport to worship the Christ who said "love your enemies". Could they go from torturing accused terrorists to torturing their political enemies - maybe that's not so far-fetched an idea. Have Americans seen through this win-by-fear strategy of Cheney, Rove, and the rest of these despicable guys? If they haven't, I'm afraid there are some scary times ahead.
I'm afraid because I have watched the Republican Party's campaign commercials on TV, and they lead me to fear that the America whose uniform I proudly wore is in jeopardy from within. The commercials shamelessly distort truth in order to elicit a fearful response from the watcher. These commercials go for the gut level fear - fear of the person not of your race, fear of losing your family's money when you die, fear of your Social Security being taken away, fear of a terrorist shooting up your town, fear of a homosexual stalking your kids (this only worked before Foley - now it's a congressman stalking your kids).
These new Republicans (no relation to the honorable Republicans of pre-Clinton times) know that real gut level fear paralyses many people's brains to the extent that they will choose "protection" over their real societal and economic interests. Consequently, they resort to fear-mongering whenever they feel they can't win by any other means. In their culture, winning is the only thing that matters...winning is the means to achieve their goals, whatever they really are. (I question what their goals are because I never hear them stated coherently.)
Why do these commercials indicate that America is in jeopardy? Because people who would use distortions and fear to win an election would use distortions and fear to lead the country. Could this be true? One need not look farther than the current administration to know it is true. Their enemies are "evil"; they must "fight them there or we'll have to fight them here"; they call the estate tax the death tax, changing the entire tone of the discussion around it. They try to legalize torture while they purport to worship the Christ who said "love your enemies". Could they go from torturing accused terrorists to torturing their political enemies - maybe that's not so far-fetched an idea. Have Americans seen through this win-by-fear strategy of Cheney, Rove, and the rest of these despicable guys? If they haven't, I'm afraid there are some scary times ahead.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
PC-Based Democracy
At a time when media ownership has become so consolidated that the average citizen is exposed to only a few points of view (and which drone on and on, repeating the same mantras ad nauseam), the PC has taken over the role of primary information provider for many of us.
Yes, I still listen to NPR and even Michael Savage, and I read several newspapers every day, including the Christian Science Monitor (excellent!). And I watch CNN and even, occasionally, Fox. But today, the established news outlets are only part of the story.
OK. I admit I must be one of the last people on the planet to realize that blogs are taking over, even though I've had my own for some time now. The "big" blogs stay close to the news, reporting and correcting and editorializing about everything under the sun. But the little blogs take the temperature of the country in a way never before possible.
I go to Blogger, hit "random blogs", and begin to march through America and the rest of the world (most of which is unintelligible due to language). There I find the most honest and comprehensive expressions of fellow citizens' hopes, fears and opinions - expressions that I would never hear if I met these people face to face. There is something about the keyboard that frees people to be themselves...it must be that cyberspace is not yet considered to be real space. But I find it to be very real, and very revealing.
The blogs show how really different each individual is from every other. The designs differ, the topics differ, and the lifestyles differ (and how!), but the passion for expression seems universal. In just a few minutes I go from a mom's lament about her Caesarian-scarred belly, to a pastor's beautiful and helpful site, to a young man's aspirations to do something special with his life. If more people surfed the blogs they would encounter slices of life that open new vistas to their understanding, and more people are doing just that every day.
It used to be that people's horizons were broadened by traveling to new and different places, but only the fortunate or extra-adventurous could afford the time or make the effort. Now it's possible to be broadened in the privacy of your own PC-space, quickly and simply. Most everyone agrees that the world needs to change if we are to survive as a species, but disseminating the call to arms, getting some kind of general agreement, and pushing the power bases has been difficult if not impossible. Not anymore. As long as the Web stays in an uncontrolled state the potential exists for the people to finally get the upper hand. PC-based democracy! We'll see where it leads us, and how fast.
Yes, I still listen to NPR and even Michael Savage, and I read several newspapers every day, including the Christian Science Monitor (excellent!). And I watch CNN and even, occasionally, Fox. But today, the established news outlets are only part of the story.
OK. I admit I must be one of the last people on the planet to realize that blogs are taking over, even though I've had my own for some time now. The "big" blogs stay close to the news, reporting and correcting and editorializing about everything under the sun. But the little blogs take the temperature of the country in a way never before possible.
I go to Blogger, hit "random blogs", and begin to march through America and the rest of the world (most of which is unintelligible due to language). There I find the most honest and comprehensive expressions of fellow citizens' hopes, fears and opinions - expressions that I would never hear if I met these people face to face. There is something about the keyboard that frees people to be themselves...it must be that cyberspace is not yet considered to be real space. But I find it to be very real, and very revealing.
The blogs show how really different each individual is from every other. The designs differ, the topics differ, and the lifestyles differ (and how!), but the passion for expression seems universal. In just a few minutes I go from a mom's lament about her Caesarian-scarred belly, to a pastor's beautiful and helpful site, to a young man's aspirations to do something special with his life. If more people surfed the blogs they would encounter slices of life that open new vistas to their understanding, and more people are doing just that every day.
It used to be that people's horizons were broadened by traveling to new and different places, but only the fortunate or extra-adventurous could afford the time or make the effort. Now it's possible to be broadened in the privacy of your own PC-space, quickly and simply. Most everyone agrees that the world needs to change if we are to survive as a species, but disseminating the call to arms, getting some kind of general agreement, and pushing the power bases has been difficult if not impossible. Not anymore. As long as the Web stays in an uncontrolled state the potential exists for the people to finally get the upper hand. PC-based democracy! We'll see where it leads us, and how fast.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The End of the Line for Bush
Al Queda in Iraq is parading in the streets of Ramadi. Al Sadr's militia is blowing up police stations. The Iraqi government is impotent, and clerics have discussions about issuing "fatwa's" condemning the incessant violence. A state department functionary goes on Al Jazzera and talks about our government's "stupidity and arrogance." Iran is overjoyed that its neighbor is in chaos and ripe for the picking. All this signals the end of the line for President Bush...there is nothing that can save him now.
On November 7, 2006, the American people will remove the Republican party from at least the lower house of congress, and possibly the Senate. The primary reason for the devastating defeat will be the failure of Bush's grand plan for Iraq after years of his denying the obvious - that the plan was doomed from the day Iraqis rioted in Bahgdad while unprepared American soldiers watched in amazement. Bush had a plan for the war, but he had no plan for the peace. The post-war chaos gave America's enemies plenty of room and time to develop and implement their strategy for thwarting Bush's ambitions. It is now clear that they have succeeded, and a phased withdrawal from Iraq is now the only option other than staying to face an unsatisfactory war of attrition with an enemy that has all the advantages.
What does this mean for Bush? Basically, he's finished. His credibility is gone, thanks to his and his staff's unwarranted optimism on Iraq over several years...the great majority of Americans finally realized they were being hoodwinked. Now comes the humiliation of the withdrawal amidst the crowing of enemies Bush vowed to destroy. Even Americans who opposed Bush will be embarassed by the catcalls of the Muslim extremists, who now feel more empowered than ever. Will Bush be able to lead America on any front, domestic or foreign? Not likely...
What can Bush do in order to leave office in 2009 with any legacy at all? His only option is to put a hand out to the Democrats on one or more of the big domestic issues - Social Security, Medicare, immigration, or trade. If he can be seen as a pragmatic "pusher" toward solutions the Amercan people will accept, perhaps one or more breakthroughs can be accomplished. These successes ultimately will be balanced against the Iraq failure in calculations that judge his legacy.
Does Bush really have the ability to be a uniter instead of a divider? It's doubtful, but miracles can happen. November 7th is not far away, and by April of 2007 the pattern of politics for the next two years will be settled. Bush, as a power president, is history. We'll find out if he has any other persona.
On November 7, 2006, the American people will remove the Republican party from at least the lower house of congress, and possibly the Senate. The primary reason for the devastating defeat will be the failure of Bush's grand plan for Iraq after years of his denying the obvious - that the plan was doomed from the day Iraqis rioted in Bahgdad while unprepared American soldiers watched in amazement. Bush had a plan for the war, but he had no plan for the peace. The post-war chaos gave America's enemies plenty of room and time to develop and implement their strategy for thwarting Bush's ambitions. It is now clear that they have succeeded, and a phased withdrawal from Iraq is now the only option other than staying to face an unsatisfactory war of attrition with an enemy that has all the advantages.
What does this mean for Bush? Basically, he's finished. His credibility is gone, thanks to his and his staff's unwarranted optimism on Iraq over several years...the great majority of Americans finally realized they were being hoodwinked. Now comes the humiliation of the withdrawal amidst the crowing of enemies Bush vowed to destroy. Even Americans who opposed Bush will be embarassed by the catcalls of the Muslim extremists, who now feel more empowered than ever. Will Bush be able to lead America on any front, domestic or foreign? Not likely...
What can Bush do in order to leave office in 2009 with any legacy at all? His only option is to put a hand out to the Democrats on one or more of the big domestic issues - Social Security, Medicare, immigration, or trade. If he can be seen as a pragmatic "pusher" toward solutions the Amercan people will accept, perhaps one or more breakthroughs can be accomplished. These successes ultimately will be balanced against the Iraq failure in calculations that judge his legacy.
Does Bush really have the ability to be a uniter instead of a divider? It's doubtful, but miracles can happen. November 7th is not far away, and by April of 2007 the pattern of politics for the next two years will be settled. Bush, as a power president, is history. We'll find out if he has any other persona.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
US Should File for Bankruptcy?
I've been a little more curious about the state of our nation during this political season, and the more I learn the more I become concerned. And my concern is largely about the financial health of our country.
Since September, 2001, our national debt has increased $2.6 trillion, which converts to more than $6,600 for every person in the United States. The total debt is $8.5 trillion, or over $26,000 for every person. Interest on this debt, at a low rate of only 4%, is $340 billion every year.
To put the debt in perspective, the 2006 budget for the United States is $2.3 trillion, which makes the debt about four times the annual spending. This is would be like a family that made $100,000 per year having a net long term debt of $400,000 - that is, liabilities exceed assets by $400,000. This family would never be able to get a loan. It's a miracle that President Bush and the congress can borrow more money while our country's debt continues to grow.
The major U.S. social programs, Social Security and Medicare, are also under water. President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, reports that Social Security will begin spending more than it earns in 2017, and will be completely unfunded by 2040. Medicare, however, is in much deeper trouble - virually hopeless, in fact. With the national debt being so large, the U.S. government cannot bail out either Social Security or Medicare. Tragedy lurks ahead!
It's amazing that our elected officials seldom mention these problems, and in many cases they pooh-pooh them. There is no magical solution for them, however, and every year our country becomes more at risk for bankruptcy. If the U.S. defaults, the entire world economy will fail and we will have the greatest depression in history. It would probably be better, therefore, if we got on top of our annual budget deficits and our entitlements. Nobody loves a deadbeat, especially if it's our old friend Uncle Sam.
Since September, 2001, our national debt has increased $2.6 trillion, which converts to more than $6,600 for every person in the United States. The total debt is $8.5 trillion, or over $26,000 for every person. Interest on this debt, at a low rate of only 4%, is $340 billion every year.
To put the debt in perspective, the 2006 budget for the United States is $2.3 trillion, which makes the debt about four times the annual spending. This is would be like a family that made $100,000 per year having a net long term debt of $400,000 - that is, liabilities exceed assets by $400,000. This family would never be able to get a loan. It's a miracle that President Bush and the congress can borrow more money while our country's debt continues to grow.
The major U.S. social programs, Social Security and Medicare, are also under water. President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, reports that Social Security will begin spending more than it earns in 2017, and will be completely unfunded by 2040. Medicare, however, is in much deeper trouble - virually hopeless, in fact. With the national debt being so large, the U.S. government cannot bail out either Social Security or Medicare. Tragedy lurks ahead!
It's amazing that our elected officials seldom mention these problems, and in many cases they pooh-pooh them. There is no magical solution for them, however, and every year our country becomes more at risk for bankruptcy. If the U.S. defaults, the entire world economy will fail and we will have the greatest depression in history. It would probably be better, therefore, if we got on top of our annual budget deficits and our entitlements. Nobody loves a deadbeat, especially if it's our old friend Uncle Sam.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Hiking for Massa
I've been busy lately pounding the pavement for Eric Massa, who is a Democrat running for congress in the 29th district of New York. Even on weekends, many homes are not populated - the residents are out and about - so I leave my little flyer and a letter for them to look at. This is grass roots democracy at its lowest level. One thing about campaigning in a wealthy suburb is that it's a long walk between houses!
Massa's opponent, Republican Randy Kuhl, has no grass roots organization walking the streets, but he has twice the money of my man. Kuhl is already flooding the mailboxes and airwaves with the Karl Rove formula - attack, attack, attack. Rove's winning tactic has been to accuse opponents of being "for" things that the average voter fears at the gut level, such as terrorists in every home, taxes that put his/her family in the poorhouse, and either an abortion clinic or a gay married couple on every street. The sad thing is, this kind of campaign often works. I'm out walking against it.
Tonight we had a little neighborhood campaign meeting. Everyone except the host was retired from somewhere. We had an ex-FBI man, a retired lady schoolteacher, an ex-Xerox systems person, and a bearded professor-like gentleman who was also a Republican like me. Only one of the attendees was a card-carrying left winger. So, times have changed. As we went around the room, it was clear that people of all stripes felt that the current Republican administration and congress were taking our country down the wrong road at warp speed. It was especially interesting to hear the FBI guy talk about how the Bush administration is gutting our freedom with invasive wiretapping and other assaults on personal privacy. Seeing the diversity of people who are supporting my candidate made me feel really good...if they represent the mainstream, perhaps we will win!
I felt even better after arriving home and checking the internet. The head of the British Army now says that they (and us) should leave Iraq and that our presence is exacerbating the bad situation there. How many experts need to tell this virtually self-evident truth before Bush & Co. are forced to change course? Hopefully, not too many more.
It's cold here - about 40 degrees. That means the hike down my assigned streets in Pittsford tomorrow will be not just long but also nippy. I'm hoping my passion for good government will keep me warm. But just in case, maybe I'll take along a thermos of hot chocolate!
Massa's opponent, Republican Randy Kuhl, has no grass roots organization walking the streets, but he has twice the money of my man. Kuhl is already flooding the mailboxes and airwaves with the Karl Rove formula - attack, attack, attack. Rove's winning tactic has been to accuse opponents of being "for" things that the average voter fears at the gut level, such as terrorists in every home, taxes that put his/her family in the poorhouse, and either an abortion clinic or a gay married couple on every street. The sad thing is, this kind of campaign often works. I'm out walking against it.
Tonight we had a little neighborhood campaign meeting. Everyone except the host was retired from somewhere. We had an ex-FBI man, a retired lady schoolteacher, an ex-Xerox systems person, and a bearded professor-like gentleman who was also a Republican like me. Only one of the attendees was a card-carrying left winger. So, times have changed. As we went around the room, it was clear that people of all stripes felt that the current Republican administration and congress were taking our country down the wrong road at warp speed. It was especially interesting to hear the FBI guy talk about how the Bush administration is gutting our freedom with invasive wiretapping and other assaults on personal privacy. Seeing the diversity of people who are supporting my candidate made me feel really good...if they represent the mainstream, perhaps we will win!
I felt even better after arriving home and checking the internet. The head of the British Army now says that they (and us) should leave Iraq and that our presence is exacerbating the bad situation there. How many experts need to tell this virtually self-evident truth before Bush & Co. are forced to change course? Hopefully, not too many more.
It's cold here - about 40 degrees. That means the hike down my assigned streets in Pittsford tomorrow will be not just long but also nippy. I'm hoping my passion for good government will keep me warm. But just in case, maybe I'll take along a thermos of hot chocolate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
