The Right to Survive: My comment appears on the Newsweek blog (with a couple of typos). I dashed it off the top of my head so it is not perfect. Some may not like what I have to say. I do not care. It is what I believe.


My mother had a saying. You lie with dogs and you get up with well you know. It astounds me that the violence plagued Arab world sits mainly silent when time after time after time after time atrocities and the most bestial of acts are committed by Islamic fanatics. Think about it for a second. IF the Arab world had let Israel be, just let it be in 1948 and more than that just think if it took the opportunity to work together and to use Israeli brilliance and western advancement just think they just might be living and working together in a good place for humans to be; in a place that everyone would want to visit. Their families might just be thriving.

Instead, no way, they just could NOT let the Jews be. And to this day the world especially the left wing (of which I consider myself a part) stays silent about the brutality the Arab world visits not ONLY on Israel but on their own people! If there were NO Jewish Israel do you think Israel would be at peace? NO WAY. Hamas would be splitting Fatah's head, or some other fanatical group's head who think they have the truth.

Where were the crowds in the street with fury about Mumbai, or Spain or suicide bombings EVERYWHERE? The silence is deafening. But holy cow when Israel tries to say no more and defend itself wanting simply to be left alone the world suddenly is screaming what they think is their righteous indignation.

The Jewish people will NEVER NEVER again submit to the world's onslaught. NEVER! You will reap what you sew. Believe it. The game has changed and the Jewish people changed it for themselves.

Beyond Our Differences: I was absorbed yet again by Bill Moyers Journal. Beyond Our Differences presented a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak religious scene. Just when I thought there was some hope I checked the news in the morning, as I always do, only to see that Gaza was in flames again. This time Israel struck in significant fashion. So far nearly 200 Palestinians are dead and 400 wounded. There are Israeli dead too. Hamas has been striking Israel consistently breaking the cease fire time after time after time. They must know the Israelis will not sit back and take an onslaught. So the beat goes on. Tit for tat again and again and again people’s bodies are dismembered and death reigns supreme. Nothing gets resolved except the willingness of each side to inflict more death and more destruction on each other ad infinitum until, I suppose, the end of time if necessary.

The hopeful aura of Bill Moyers Journal of “Beyond our Differences” showing the commonality of the religions of man to me this morning was rescinded as reality spoke otherwise. I know the voices of peace are out there. I know it because I am one and am no less a Jew than many who are more militant. Our voices though soften with the reality of the tears we shed, and by the incredulity and powerlessness we feel. How many more, for what and for whom? Is a life worth land, dirt, stone, pebbles, a 5000 year old text or a less than 2000 year old text? What is a life worth and who says so? Who wrote these edicts? Did a sky god come down from on high? Each group claims that He did and claims He did for that particular group and no other.

The criticism I have of this episode of The Journal is that for every sentence of peace in the Torah, the New Testament or the Koran one can find an equal and opposite sentence of violence. Those sentences of violence serve as justification for the never-ending mayhem inflicted by religionists. The Journal in its effort to seek common ground fails to state the very elements of those texts which are NOT non-violent and from which fundamentalism gets its fuel.
One of the statements on this part of the Journal said that 95% of humans on this planet believe in a Creator of our universe. 95% is very high. I must be among the five lonely percent who does not believe in a Creator who personifies himself and takes one side of man over the other. I am sure in the Middle Ages one could say 95% of all men thought the earth was the center of the galaxy and the sun revolved around it. They were consummately wrong. So what does 95% mean? As an agnostic I labor about the question of the first cause and as Bill Maher says in his wonderful film “Religulous” I don’t know. I just don’t know what the first cause for the creation of the universe was.

What I do know is one can pray until infinity and no god is going to answer your particular prayer. Why would He answer your prayer and not the other fellow’s? Why would he save one five year old from Israel and not another from Gaza? Could there have been some all powerful something that began our universe? I suppose there could have been but is that all powerful something going to reserve particular plots of land for certain people and not for others? Most emphatically NO He, She or It will not. That, man will have to do either by taking the land or blowing someone’s head apart for it and he does that very well, indeed, on his very own.

No Doubt about “Doubt” I saw the newly released film “Doubt” yesterday and loved it. This serious multi-faceted enigmatic film starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams was, in my opinion, extraordinarily thought provocative and perfectly cast. The film was excellent.

The movie takes place in a private Catholic school – perhaps in Boston -- shortly after the death of President Kennedy. It involves Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), the strict, sour, humorless nun and principal of the elementary school, who makes accusation against a humane and likable parish priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman). She accuses him of committing an immoral act and mortal sin with the lonely and lone African American student and, perhaps, somewhat effeminate, church altar boy whom Father Flynn has befriended.

It is thought that by the younger, sweeter, more innocent Sister James (Amy Adams) on Sister Aloysius’s order to “keep an eye on Father Flynn” because of his sermon on the subject of doubt. Sister James believes, on circumstantial evidence, that Father Flynn may have committed an immoral act with the boy. She has, though, no concrete proof of its occurrence. Sister Aloysius is happy to do the obligatory assault on Father Flynn’s character when Sister James provides her with this salacious ammunition however flimsy it may be.

As I watched this, other excellent films came to mind. I thought about Lillian Hellman’s “The Children’s Hour,” a film about a child’s lie and the suicidal consequences of that lie as well as that lie’s element of truth. I thought about Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” and its false accusation of immorality when people see things even when they don’t see them and what they will confess to seeing even when it is not there. I thought about how easy it is to bear false witness, to think we see what we do not and to believe false witness testimony, holding the fate of others (perhaps innocent others) in our hands. I finally thought of the Christian element of this film. It is about the possible accusation against a humane and potentially innocent man. It is about the surety of his accuser (Rome) and the torment of the accessory to the punishment (Pilot) because he knows he is condemning an innocent man.

This film, though, is not about certainty it is about doubt. Sister Aloysius is, perhaps, the most interesting character. What made her the Dickensian menacing character she was? It is hard to tell but we are told she had a married past -- a nun with a married past? That’s all we are told. Sister Aloysius is hard pressed to show an ounce of humanity and in true Dickensian fashion derives glee from whatever gossip she can acquire.

She, however, shows us another side. She shows us doubt. What does she, though, have doubts about? I do not know. That is one of the enigmas of the film and that is what the viewer must weigh. Does she doubt her own possibly false consequential accusations against Father Flynn or does she have her OWN personal doubts about her faith, the church and the existence of God. When she puts up "any old pope" on the blackboard despite the fact that it is not the right one she says oh who cares you just want to use it as a reflective mirror to watch the kids and "make them think you have eyes on the back of your head." This is not exactly what one would expect from one who is supposed to love the church and its hierarchy. She is really quite cynical about church hierarchy and knows how the power game is played. She is shrewd and smart as she lies to Father Flynn about her knowledge of his allegedly sordid past in other parishes. She has none but she told him she did. He never questions it. Why would an innocent man not question that? More room for doubt this time of Father Flynn’s innocence. We never really do know if he is truly innocent even though I rooted for him to be so.

The once innocent Sister James says she now never sleeps. I have no doubt that she does not. Sister Aloysius cries with doubt at the end. Why? I do not know. I have my own doubts. This film is about good and about evil, truth and lies and shades of gray. It is above all, I think, about doubt of all that we are and all that we know. There is no doubt in MY mind that “Doubt” is a film not to be missed.

This is an exchange between people in the Metro West Blog. It refers to an editorial in which the person chastised those who voted for Obama. We exchanged heated opinions....well theirs was heated .... and I responded again.


Yes, Iona you are right...the problem is there are so many who believe as I do such as you but they do not usually write responses so I get the ones whose ire I provoke and I DO provoke it. It's futile of course. No matter it's fun to see the fervor. That's why I write it. I KNOW what it's going to provoke and I find it enjoyable. Of course, I know we were ALL fetuses. Guess what I don't seem to recall that in utero experience do they?

They are right all those horrendous tyrants were atheists but for all those I can relate hundreds of thousands who were believers who were the most barbaric tyrants and did and DO the most despicable things. In fact, Hitlerian Germany while it was a perverted paganism, grew out of two thousand years of Christian Anti-Semitic brutality. Christian behavior brutal and extreme was a NECESSARY precondition for the Holocaust. It cannot be denied in any way as the Gospels especially the latter ones place decide at the feet of the Jews. There is no getting around it I do not care how much it is twisted. Six million full term human beings, men, women and ONE MILLION children went to their deaths because early Christianity fostered a poisonous creed. Without the illustrious history of Christian inhuman behavior toward the Jew the Holocaust would never have happened.

In addition, preeminent scientists who were and are atheists have brought the most advanced discoveries so religionists see what they want to see. MOST I say MOST scientists are agnostics and do not subscribe to a sky god or Biblical myth. We all need to feel good and we all fear illness, old age and death. As my atheist social worker humanitarian supreme friend said just because you want it to be so does not make it so. It's hard to be an agnostic or an atheist absolutely but I am a TRUTH person and I am a science person. I will ONLY believe what can be shown to work and be true. Other than that it's faith and I'm not good at nor do I buy that.

They ask ME why I am afraid of god believers I am NOT afraid of the god believers except if they try to destroy my rights which they have for decades. The question, I think, is why THEY are afraid of people who doubt or who have no belief or question belief through logic. It obviously threatens their entire system. If somehow god flew down from on high, showed his existence and eliminated immense human and other suffering THEN I would be happy -- MORE than happy -- to reverse course. Until then I am a confirmed doubter.

To my good buddy Jennie: Our country, while those who set foot on its shores in 1620 were of a self flagellating grim Calvinist Christian witchcraft believing variety, thank fate by the time our Founders arrived most were emphatic in church state separation for the very reason that exists in our exchanges. Religion spells anger and historically often war. They knew it as evident in Europe's religiously violent past. Sure religionists do some good, no doubt about it. So do Hindus, Buddists and oh yes so do atheists. It is in the human DNA to do good. It is better for the advancement of one's DNA to ensure the species survives. I will agree with you on one thing Christopher Hitchens would do well to eschew his profanity. It does, however, NOT make him wrong it simply makes him profane. Well, violence among religionists IS profane but of a different variety.

And by the way, Sheila, please do NOT waste your time praying for my sister or me for that matter. The answer your question is a RESOUNDING NO if the situation were reversed, I believe, I would have NO idea NONE, NIL, NADA, NOTHING about what occurred less than 10 days after birth. My very first memory of self is at age 3. Praying, I believe, does nothing. As Dawkins said in his email to me one day, it is too bad one cannot find joy and ecstasy in the universe as it is. Gloomy is NOT a word he uses to describe the awesome nature of its existence. However enjoyable, this, happily I am sure for some, is the final installment of the debate. I rest my case.

This was written on the Middlesex News editorial page by someone whose beloved cat, Mittens, was killed by a car recently at Christmas time just as the family was sitting down to enjoy the beauty of the decorations and tree. Her story is at this link: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x758547324/Berry-Prayers-of-thanks-for-a-good-cat-and-more.

It prompted my response which I placed on the Metro West News blog:


The Mortality of Mittens: THAT editorial is a profoundly beautiful, ever-so-sad and touching story which has my tears staining the keyboard as I type. We have two cats one (Sugar) who is 17 and the other (Sky) who is 5. Since we have no children, the cats are the two joys of our lives and foci of our attention. We see in them their intrinsic beauty and gentleness every day. They are a source of continual comfort and humor in an often humorless world which has seen fit to visit some tough times on us. It is a world which shows us its razors edge all too often and because of which I am all too often prone to gnash my teeth. The cats seem to obviate that.

We know the reality, as you do now, that death will soon pay an unwelcome visit to our 17 year old Sugar, a loyal, loving and beautiful friend with us for nearly all that time. My hands hesitate to even type those words.

How, though, can we experience the beauty of life if we do not accept its opposite? To me it is the conundrum of existence with which I always will, I know, grapple. Although I am a very secular person, I believe certain Biblical texts have profundity. The one I always love which many rabbis read at funerals is Psalm 90 verse 10: "The days of our lives are three score and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away".

This is true for all living things on earth no matter their biological life span. We all fly away. It seems to be the natural order of things. With life there is risk and uncertainty. The labor and sorrow is a fact, I think, we must endure to be able to experience the beauty and joy life has to offer as well. A lifespan is, we so often know too, not equal to all. It varies with time and circumstance. I hope, though, your grief is tempered by how much joy the animal you knew and loved brought to you. Perhaps, when you are ready, you can experience the love of yet another furry friend again who needs your love and attention in return. My thoughts and hope are with you!

This was written in response to an article written by a Doris Cadigen in the Metro West News where a great deal of my writing has either been printed or appears on the blog. Ms. Cadigen was quite critical of the Israeli blockade of Gaza and both Mr. Rosenberg and I took issue with that.

Yes, Mr. Rosenberg, I saw the Doris Cadigen letter and I wrote an opposition to it. I simply cannot understand why so many who claim humanitarian viewpoints are not equal opportunity employers . They do not and will not condemn the utter mind boggling atrocities committed by so many in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, America and against the State of Israel. If Israel were guilty of what Islamic political violence has done, the world would be at its throat. It already is no matter what the nuance of Israeli policy is.

I part company with much of the left when they wax critical about the brutality of the State of Israel and saccharine about the plight of Palestinians. I feel for many of the innocent Palestinians who suffer horribly. I am for a two state solution. Somehow, though, the left does not see the cacophony, brutality, and barbarity that exists in so much of the Islamic world. If the State of Israel never existed do you think there would be peace in Jerusalem? I suspect not. This does NOT for one second mean that I am blinded to the inhumanities of democratic states. I am not. I condemn that as well. Truly, though, I hear little outcry for the Mumbai attacks, the attacks in Madrid, the London bombings or the continual bombs flying over the wall Israel has erected to protect its people. What state would not do the same to ensure its security?

Hamas despite having been elected still represents an EXISTENTIAL threat to the Jewish state. There is NO disputing the fact that most of those who comprise the power arm of Hamas want to eradicate the Jew from the land, throw him into the Mediterranean Sea and have said so countless times. I, curiously, believe them. It would be suicide for the Jewish people to think they are empty threats. As I recall they thought that once before about a tyranny which nearly eradicated them.

What would have been wrong with one humanity seeing that another part of humanity during the years of the Jewish catastrophe needed help and make room for those who tried to survive its onslaught? Why is humanitarian policy observed by some on the left but when it comes to Jews and Israel well not so much.

I can never forget the fate of the six million during those brutal years. It is not for one day out of my memory. Could the Arab population have helped the Jewish people at that time instead of playing up to Mr. Hitler? A RESOUNDING YES. Sadly, no one was interested. To the contrary they picked up the Nazi baton, ran with it and still do even to this day. Funny, I thought a humanitarian philosophy was supposed to work all ways! Among Arabs and the Axis powers of that era and many on the left in THIS era it does not. Jewish destiny once again must be mainly in Jewish hands or at some point the Jewish people could see that existential threat come true.

This is an email I exchanged with a professor friend of mine who was raised in the Mormon church but considers herself a feminist and a gay rights supporter. Her article which appeared in the Globe is linked at:

http://webmail.aol.com/40627/aol/en-us/Mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=1.22321289&folder=OldMail&partId=2&saveAs=20081216084043.pdf

My answer to her is as follows:

I felt the disappointment I thought you feel by the Mormon church's behavior having been raised in a culture which gave you great support. Being a Jew I surely can relate to that. I suspect that your viewpoint now and those who criticize the church now are probably in a distinct minority as are orthodox Jews some of whom actually are trying to debate some form of accommodation with and rationalization of innate sexual orientation. Probably most will have no debate on it but at least some are trying and the other sects of Judaism especially reform perform homosexual marriages. Judaism lends itself to debate which, I believe, is one of its pluses. Some say it's woven into the Jewish DNA.

Religious orthodoxy no matter which genre is, in my opinion, uncompromising and extreme. Change represents a threat to not only the veracity of what they believe (which is usually based on gargantuan myth) but a threat to losing the huge money from the corporate entities they are and oh yes a threat to male control. Bill Maher's "Religulous" said it all. The money making scheme of religion -- all religion -- is really well nothing short of brilliant. They make BILLIONS! Between the Catholic Church, the Fundamentalist Church, the Mormon Church and other orthodoxies together they could probably pay down the national debt or certainly bail out the big three auto companies and save some jobs.

In my opinion religion -- ALL religion -- is utterly phantasmagoric. There is not usually one ounce of truth or very very little, perhaps, historical truth but mostly it relies on faith for its oxygen. What angers me, though, is it puts across that FAITH as truth. Ridiculous. It prays (pardon the pun) on the weaknesses we all feel about the why of things, sickness, old age and ultimately death. Who among us does not fear sickness, old age and death? But fearing it and saying one has the truth about it are, indeed, two different things. I had and still do have an atheist friend who said to me during a time I had my own war with religion, just because you want it to be so does not make it so. She is absolutely right. I also communicated at one time via email with Richard Dawkins who wrote "The God Delusion" -- an astounding and great work by an astounding and great evolutionary biologist and steadfast atheist. I said in my email that I completely accepted what he had to say in the book but that I envied religionists who bathed in great comfort against the vicissitudes of life. He said to me that it was too bad I could not look at the grandiosity of the universe in all its forms and have that be enough.

I saw what he meant. However, when I was in mortal pain after my three femur fractures the last thing I was thinking about was the grandeur of the universe. I was thinking god get me out of this situation. Of course, while I was in the hospital I had so many "praying for me" and, naturally, I said sure why not, okay, pray. Did it do anything .... NOPE. It took as long as it was going take to heal (a year for each fracture) as biology dictated. No god, no supreme being did one thing to ease my pain, my psychic pain or my anger. Hell if it did I would have wondered why didn't it save me from my fate in the first place. Time, biology and I had to do it all. Anything that denies truth, denies science which really DOES tell us the truth. Denying science stifles the beauty of the human brain and its ability to improve and explain man's condition which makes me see red ... well maybe purple. Man's mind to me is the absolute essence of what separates us from everything else. It is the ONLY thing that can look at the universe and seek the answers to why and, indeed, postpone the onslaught of illness and the eventuality of death. Beyond that we are at the mercy of our telomeric DNA and that's the truth.

An Insult: I am angry at President-Elect Obama today. The Democratic Party takes the gay community for granted. When WILL Democrats understand that they will NEVER NEVER NEVER capture that Christian Fundamentalist Republican vote NOR should they. Why should I give $120 bucks of my cash that I have to be so careful with to President Elect Obama who has millions IF he is going to insult gay people by having a non-gay-friendly pastor give the benediction. I resent it. Rick Warren is, I will admit, a bit different than Pat Robertson, et al. He has a small amount more humanity and does not condemn gays to hell but, still, many in the gay community are FURIOUS with the President-Elect that he did this and so am I. SURELY there was a neutral minister who could give the benediction who is perhaps a Unitarian or a Congregationalist like the President-Elect is. Barack Obama is supposed to be about everyone.

I do NOT want him to repeat George Bush's presidential inauguration where Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's son but worse) the right wing fundamentalist fanatic gave the benediction. It was EXACTLY representative of what George Bush's corrupt and inhumane administration was about. Barack Obama was elected for CHANGE. I want to see some!!! I wondered WHO he was going to get for the benediction at the inaugural because it says something about what his administration will be like. Now I know what he is saying. His inaugural may be about some Americans but it's not about everyone.

The Madness of Madoff: See Steven Pearlstein -- Madoff's Lesson for the Market -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR2008121602875.html?hpid=topnews
This is an EXCELLENT article to which I wrote a response:

Mr. Pearlstein I surely could not have written a better editorial myself. Your article is, pardon the pun, right on the money. It is so well written. After hearing about the Madoff scandal I remembered my mother's echoes "Sha (quiet), do not talk about the Rosenbergs." I wonder, a generation later because I am a Jew, why did I want to run and hide after reading about the Madoff disreputable and illegal behaviors. After all it had nothing to do with me as, unfortunately, I am NOT one of those stereotypical Jews who anti Semites say is bathing in bucks. Still, I felt mud splattered on my face by his egregious behavior simply because I am a Jew even though I didn't even make (or lose) a cent from it.

When one truly reflects on its substance, I submit, this simply is a reflection of who we are as a nation. When history is written of this sad time, long after I am gone, it will be said that not only the financial markets were corrupt but EVERYTHING was corrupt. America, probably for much of our history,could be bought. Whether it was slavery, trust busting, Boss Tweed, Tameny Hall, the Keating Savings and Loan, Enron, Iraq, Blackwater, crony no bid contracts, multiple Congressional scandals, Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Stevens, Wall Street credit default swaps, Standard & Poors and Moody conflict of interest rating systems, no strings attached 700 billion dollar loans floating in the breeze, Blagovich and now Madoff (the list goes on), simply put NO ONE but NO ONE ran the store or cared as long as people made money. The proverbial foxes in our political and financial sectors guard the chicken coops while the taxpayers go like lambs to their slaughter.

I believe it is intrinsic in the very nature of our country. People are slightly envious when other people make big bucks even IF they make it in dubious ways. Perhaps, most especially when they beat the system. I think there are some who secretly wish they could have gotten away with it too. They continually elect the all powerful to advance that system. Mayor Curley one of the most corrupt mayors in Boston history ruled from his jail cell and people to this day have a spark of admiration for him. Even Al Capone shares a mythic grandeur. George Bush is exemplar supreme but surely he is not the only one.

Will this ever become a better country? Maybe Barack Obama is the answer. I hope so. I surely do know it is not the fault of the Jews. Unfortunately, I believe it is in the country's soul. Americans have a very very short memory. Unless this hits home in their pocketbooks for generational time -- and it just may -- then I submit, it will be forgotten when the Dow reaches 11,000 once again.

The two rights but one egregious wrong: The following is an exchange I had with a blogger on the Metro West site in response to a pro Hamas anti Israel opinion. The link to the opinion of a person named Cardigain prompting the disagreement is: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/letters/x281387996/Cadigan-Blockade-of-Gaza-a-disgrace

One man wrote:

Cutting off food and supplies to 1.5 million people is barbaric -period. There is no justification on Earth to cut off water, food, and medical supplies, unless you want to ignite a new round of war. The genocide of Jews was not carried out by Arabs...but by Europeans. Jews and Arabs have NOT been fighting for 2000 years....but Jews and Europeans have. Since the Romans invaded it just has not been a very pleasant experience for most Jews and Europeans to mix. In England thousands of Jews were expelled from the kingdom long before the 1492 inquisition. I don't consider Hamas any better or worse than the right wing Jews who supported the assassination of Rabin at the hands of another Jew. More than 80% of all Jews and Palestinians want peace and a peaceful solution to the ongoing blood bath. There are over 1.5 million Israelite Arabs...who live every day within the state of Israel. It is not Arabs that is our enemy. The enemy is ongoing justification of warmongering -demonetization- ignorance of history, and the thinking that any one side can live without the other..They can not. A successful Middle east--political and economic and social-will exist when all groups decide enough people have been murdered. In Europe the price has been high for a fragile peace of today. During the past 100 years 50 million or more Europeans have died in brainless war. Accomplishing little but to invest in new weapons more destructive than the last. I reject the violence and I reject the hatred. More than ever I reject the notion Jews and Arabs are enemies. The day the British and French thought they could determine peoples lives without consulting them has lead the world down a path justifying empire and colonialism instead of what America stands for. Palestinians deserve to be free and safe as well as a Jewish State has its right to be free and safe. There is no other path for either side..the respect and dignity the Israelis want -they should receive but-can never stop being shown toward the Palestinian people as well.
Jewish, American, and hungry--time to get some chips.
LK

I responded

Believe it or not LK I agree with some of what you say. There is no question inhumanity on both sides is an egregious fact. However, where I part company with much of the left is that Hamas, despite having been elected, still represents and EXISTENTIAL threat to the Jewish state. That is simply a fact irrespective of the rationale of the Holocaust for the state of Israel. No, Arabs were not to blame for that BUT I really must take issue with what you say a bit. Arabs in the body of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem were squarely on the Axis side and moreover Muslim troops in the Baltic countries volunteered for the Nazi Wafen SS during WWII. Why? Perhaps they could agree with their policy of the 'Jewish question.' Little is known about that.

Jews have ALWAYS been in Israel as Arabs have as well but it was not until the UN partition of it , because no one wanted Jewish refugees in THEIR countries, that the State of Israel was born. It was not only then given to Jews in 1948 but it made provisions for Arabs too. But that wasn't enough for the Arab population. Before that, Jews bought land from Arabs who gladly sold it to them. After the UN mandate all of a sudden they wanted it back and the 1948 war ultimately broke out. Peace has been elusive ever since.

There is NO disputing the fact that most of those who comprise the power arm of Hamas want to eradicate the Jew from the land and have said so countless times. I, curiously, believe them. Perhaps the majority of Palestinians want a two state solution but the public policy of Hamas does NOT. It would be suicide for the Jewish people , yet again, to not make damn well sure they will NOT face another annihilation attempt.

In addition, what is wrong with humanity seeing that another part of humanity -- THE SIX MILLION -- could be a rationale to have made room for those who survived. Why is humanitarian policy so observed by some on the left but when it comes to Jews, well, no one cares. Oh sure it's not an Arab problem. Well, it became everyone's problem ... sorry. That cannot be denied and Arabs at that moment in history were perfectly okay with a Hitlerian alignment before World War II's end.

You will forgive me if I am sick of five thousand years of getting bounced around in nearly every corner of the globe including the Middle East after the rise of Islam in the 8th century. Arabs in many lands at various times unpredictably were not accepting of Jews either. Sure, maybe they were not exactly responsible for the Holocaust but who of them would have shed a tear if it was entirely successful which it almost was.

I once read the phrase years ago "Jewish destiny is in Jewish hands." I still believe it to this day. That does not mean I countenance cruelty but when Hamas is willing to agree to a two-state solution recognizing the safety and security of State of Israel then I will be more discerningly critical.

I can never forget, I always remember every day, every minute the beyond belief destruction of the Jewish people -- the Shoah -- during those fateful years. It is NEVER out of my mind for even a day. It is the rationale for all that I am. Should Europeans feel bad for what they have done? A resounding YES -- for as long as man resides on this planet. Could the Arab population have helped at that time? A RESOUNDING YES, as well. Humanitarian behavior works both ways.

Shoe Heard Round the World: I Polished up my viewpoint by making some small changes and sent it on to the Globe and Metro West News.


Some have said that the shoe thrower should have voiced his opposition to US policy by verbally registering his anger instead of throwing a shoe. Do those who would suggest that really think that the Iraqi journalist who opposes an occupier and an invader under false pretenses has any hope of vociferously uttering disagreement of US policy? How would we feel if we were god forbid invaded by a foreign country with massive weaponry equipped with shock and awe deployment and then that foreign power stayed unwanted in our country for an undetermined amount of time?

That journalist was making an insulting statement loud and clear by Arab standards NOT American standards, the only way he could and be observed and heard by the entire world. Bush was right he wanted attention and attention he got. He wanted attention to shout that he hated the US violent invasion and occupation of his country. He hated an invasion which was directly responsible for the sectarian violence and killing that followed. He hated the ruination of what stability that country had, and he hated most probably the elevation of Iran and the entrance of Al Qaeda into his country where it never existed before. Without US interference, for better or worse, Sadam, who knew how to control that country, would probably still be in power today. It, indeed, may not have been heaven but may have been a hell of a lot better then what ensued after his fall. Better is a relative term. The hubris of the unnecessary preemptive US invasion promulgated through lies might make one just a little bit irritated. How effective would a verbal or written objection by that journalist be? Let's face it it would have meant nothing. One might say this was the shoe throw that was heard round the world.

So which is worse to that journalist, Sadam's hammer-like but relatively stable rule or the US invasion which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, sent millions into exile, decimated and tortured families creating what is now really a failed state? Some said what the journalist did is a joke to the American people. I don't think so and I do not think it is a joke in the Arab world. It is far too serious and the symbolism too great to be a joke and certainly that is no joke to me!

This is a response to Chris Matthews's interview of an Arab female journalist about the shoe throwing of an Iraqi journalist directed at George Bush. He called it a joke and asked why don't they verbally state their opposition instead of reacting violently like they do.


Chris, I love your show and watch it faithfully. I must take issue with you about the shoe throwing episode of the Iraqi journalist at George Bush. Do you really think that the Iraqi people who oppose an occupier and an invader under false pretenses have any hope of vociferously uttering disagreement of US policy? How would we feel if we were god forbid invaded by a foreign country with massive weaponry equipped with shock and awe policies and then stay uninvited in our country for who knows how long?

That journalist was making an insulting statement loud and clear by Arab standards NOT American standards, the only way he could and be observed and heard by the entire world. Bush was right he wanted attention and attention he got. He wanted attention to shout that he hated the US violent invasion and occupation of his country. He hated an invasion which was DIRECTLY responsible for the sectarian violence that followed. He hated the ruination of what stability that country had, and he hated most probably the elevation of Iran. Without US interference, for better or worse, Sadam, who knew how to control that country, would probably still be in power. It, indeed, may not have been heaven but may have been a hell of a lot better then what ensued after his fall. Better is a relative term.

So which is worse to that journalist, Sadam's hammer-like rule or the US invasion which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, sent millions into exile, decimated and tortured families creating what is now really a failed state? You said what the journalist did is a joke to the American people? I don't think so and I do not think it is a joke in the Arab world. It is far too serious to be a joke and certainly it is NO joke to me!

If you do nothing else today read Frank Rich's New York Times article (link below) and then forward that on to everyone you know. It states better than anyone has ever described the nature of the cultural corruption and rancid milieu in which we all have lived. His article is -- pardon the pun -- RIGHT ON THE MONEY. I submit you will never read a better analysis of the quagmiric sewer of corruption in which may sink us all.

Then after that read http://yomamaforobama.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/no-more-carte-blanche/#comment-227 another blog I frequent dealing with thoughts on the same issue. It is entitled "No More Carte Blanche." Never have I read a more precise analysis of the disgusting politics which could bring down a nation and what we can all do about it.

Frank Rich's article is entitled:
Two Cheers for Rod Blagojevich

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/opinion/14rich.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

Washing Machine Clean: I simply hope, as appears so far, that President-Elect Obama is as he says he is, an agent for change and that he did not play in this pay-for-play corruption scheme of Illinois Governor Blagojevich. His record appears clean. The fact that I woke up, though, and the first thing on my mind was I hope there are no negative Obama headlines about the Blagovevich mess, is dismaying and distracting to the amelioration of the country's serious issues which Barack Obama was elected to solve. President-Elect Obama, indeed, was instrumental in pushing for Illinois ethics legislation which, by overriding a Blagojevich veto, passed. Blagojevich was trying feverishly to shake down as much cash, jobs, and goodies as he could before this legislation was due to go into effect after January 1, 2009.

No matter what career one chooses one has to interact with a variety of human beings. Behaviors and character on the human spectrum are diverse. This is especially true in things political, a career which, by its very nature, is defined as the accumulation and distribution of power. One, in that endeavor, will often be in the mix with some less than savory characters. It cannot be avoided.

However, a society whereby merely associating with someone at some time in one's life or career becomes cause for indictment is a hallmark of tyranny. We cannot let that happen. Obama was unfortunate enough to pick Chicago -- the South Side -- as his base to sprint to the presidency. Illinois politics is a small world and corruption is part of its tapestry. Guilt by association, though, should be no yardstick with which to judge anyone. They must be judged by the evidence of what they do or say not with whom they share a political milieu. My advice to the President-Elect is tell the truth and do so quickly. In this age of technology, wiretaps, cell phone records and cameras photographing every move one can be sure it all will come out in the wash anyway!

The Case for Impeachment: A response to a Metro West News blogger. His link below

Greenwoodtea, I could not agree with you more. People who do not see what you have said, to use a phrase used on me often, have their head in the sand or elsewhere. There is NO question on planet earth that this president has committed the most EGREGIOUS acts probably since the tyrannies of World War II. He has killed, plundered, and bludgeoned hundreds of thousands of innocent people by his phony, trumped up war. He and his cronies have bankrupted this country. He says he received "faulty" information. Isn't HE the one who is supposed to make SURE information is correct? Sure, blame everything on George Tenet and then give him a medal of honor to shut him up. What a joke.

We all know unequivocally and have evidence to prove that he got the correct information that Sadam had no WMD and was NOT responsible for 9/11 as Bush has finally admitted. He chose to cherry pick the faux evidence he wanted. People have died and continue to do so en masse because of his lunacy.

If that travesty were not enough he destabilized the Middle East. There are bombings EVERY single day in Baghdad, Mosul and many other areas of Iraq. Hundreds of people are still dying and MILLIONS are displaced. Two more of our soldiers died yesterday. Iraq is STILL not a safe place. In fact, it is a mess. He created a civil war because he had NO idea how Iraq functioned, who comprised it and what their blood feuds for centuries were. He did not know a Shia, Sunni or Kurd from apples, oranges or grapefruit. Moreover, he wiped out the Sunnis, left the Shia and handed Shia Iran the hegemony in that part of the world. His crony contractors like Blackwater are alleged to have committed cold blooded murder. Some are currently being tried for that as well. War does that to people. It makes them killers.

Perhaps even worse than the death, life long injuries, displacement of humanity, return to heinous treatment of women in Iraq that the Iraq war promoted is that other entities such as Pakistan and Indian have decided this might be a very good time to confront each other. They both have nuclear weapons and nuke infused Pakistan is on the brink of collapse. Mumbai is a direct result of the explosive atmosphere that Iraq created. The Taliban in Afghanistan reemerge to work their bestial magic. They enslave the Afghanis people and crush women. Bin Laden, the REAL perpetrator of 9/11 runs free. How sickening. Terrorism has a loud voice and legions of terrorists it is said are now signing up to vent their anger at US policy.This serves NO ONE's advantage. It hurts democracies and open societies everywhere including the US, Israel, Europe and elsewhere. The correct and prescient response to 9/11 to ensure it does not happen again would have been to, as President Elect Obama so presciently said, concentrate on where the perpetrators REALLY are. Our efforts were squandered by George W. Bush. Our army is weakened and not only a few know that. Bush kept us safe? Really? By whose standards? 9/11 happened on HIS watch even though he was warned, the economy tanked on HIS watch, unnecessary deaths from Katrina happened on HIS watch, collapses of US infrastructure happened on HIS watch the world stands at the brink of chaos on HIS watch. Anyone in this country whether they are guilty or not can be grabbed off the street, tortured and imprisoned on HIS watch. Abu Graib happened on HIS watch. Guantanamo happened on HIS watch. So some ignorants feel safe? I wonder how they manage to do it.

Bush's whacked out policy was nothing short of disaster, was based on complete lies and the ignorance of a so called "Decider" so he could kick someone's posterior to prove something -- anything -- to someone. Why not land on Iraq. It was an easy target and "Shock and Awe" looks so very good like the Fourth of July. He could show his daddy what a big man the he really is and how much more of a man George is than he. This folly put our country not at less risk but more and those who do not see this are either insipid, in denial or just plain barbaric. Bush, etals 's abridgments of civil liberties and advocacy of torture are well known. A solid case to impeach and trial for war crimes exists. If what he and his administration have done is not worthy of that then NOTHING is and Nuremberg means not a thing. Impeachment and trial of George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and others, if you will forgive George Tenet's fateful phrase, is a slam dunk!!


See: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/letters/x1303763055/Hathaway-Bush-must-be-prosecuted

In response to a Joan Vennochi Boston Globe opinion article of December 4, 2008 entitled "A bitter brew for Kerry" I said:

I give you high points for your editorial assessments of President-Elect Obama's failure to choose Senator John Kerry for Secretary of State Yes, he was a supporter of Obama from the very beginning. It is a difficult yet enviable thing when the Democratic Party's problem is that it has too many candidates of excellence from which to choose for positions of the utmost strategic and national security importance. Truly, I have always loved both Hillary Clinton AND John Kerry. What DOES one do with so much talent?

I believe, so far, the President-Elect has chosen wisely. While it is true Senator Kerry supported President-Elect Obama from the very beginning it is also true that, at this time, I think, Hillary Clinton is the better choice for Secretary of State. She carries to the international scene a well-honed international recognition. Although Senator Kerry has served his country with great distinction in both war and peace and has foreign policy credentials to boot, Hillary Clinton presents a razor-like sharpness of intellect and piercing aura that, I believe, Senator Kerry does not have. I believe her image and intellect will serve our country well. It is clear, so far, to me that President-Elect Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. While some choices may appear political and perhaps they somewhat are, they are also very practical. I think Hillary Clinton reflects not only phenomenal sharpness and toughness but also has, even at the beginning, garnered the necessary international respect someone occupying that office so importantly needs. I believe Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State is exactly the right choice at exactly the right time.

The Face of Competence: What a joy it is to see the face of competence. The teams of advisers President-Elect Obama has formed have been, I think, extraordinary. Their composition proves this fact. Clearly he is changing the tone of the national music and so far I love the sounds.

The introduction of his National Security team is a line up of quality. His chosen advisers are pragmatic, thoughtful and inclusive. Some such as Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State were even his adversaries. This is both prudent and wise as the President-Elect seeks both affirmation of what he believes and challenges to those beliefs. He wants this time to get US policy right. Clearly though, it will be he who is doing the synthesizing of the sound.

In an always dangerous world the US needs a strong national defense. His team reflects that view. When that defense is used, though, to surreptitiously and aggressively change regimes in other countries, as US policy has done many times, problems arise. It gives our enemies the very excuse they need to vociferously and sometimes violently oppose us. Secretary of Defense Webb has talked about a strong diplomatic effort as a necessity for a strong defense so war does not become the first most expensive option. It becomes the last option. The so-called “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes should be the rarity and not the rule. We cannot police or mold the world for our own aggrandizement any longer. The US does not have the manpower, the economic ability or the popular inclination to do that.

I think and hope President-Elect Obama will change the nature of US foreign policy. He knows our actions have consequences especially in this threatening era of nuclear capability. The risk is too great. He knows, too, we need security. There is so much to do and undo. So far, though, I am greatly impressed by the team he has selected to make the attempt!

This is a blog and exchange with another blogger I wrote in response to an editorial by Morton Kondracke, the conservative columnist who wrote a piece about discarding the likes of Rush Limbaugh and reforming the Republican party. I wrote:

Knowing Kondracke is a conservative, I was surprised by his editorial. I thought Limbaugh and those like he were the Holy Grail of conservative politics not to be touched. It shows there are SOME conservatives with a brain who truly want their party to return. I thought twice about writing this because far be it from me to give tips to conservatives. Knowing the extent of my influence and importance, however, which is nil, I think I can write a couple of thoughts about the conservative dilemma as IF I were one. Yes, I can put myself in the other guy's shoes. If I were conservative I would believe that the essence of true conservatism is limited government. I would be fiscally restrained, militarily very prudent and libertarian in my cultural opinions. What REALLY matters to the conservative agenda, in my opinion, should be what is important. Whether a man spends his life with another man in wedded bliss or a woman with a woman has absolutely NO, NONE, NIL relevance to anyone's life except the people involved in the relationship. Ditto for abortion. If you do not like any of the aforementioned cultural realities do NOT participate in them. The people who account for those phenomina are a minute percentage of the American populous. The so called base of the Republican party is infinitely small. It, as Kondracke suggests, represents mostly the solid religious south and perhaps a few other states. Elections will not be won with just that. What IS important is whether we have a fiscally healthy, educationally advanced and militarily safe country. If I were conservative I would run on those issues and nothing else. The party's tent needs to be broadened and one does not do that by voting people out but by bringing people in. I hope I did not give away the keys to the 2012 electoral kingdom!

Response from blogger

Limbaugh is one of the biggest phonies in the US. A faux-hawk. Student deferments in the 60's during Vietnam. Anti drug in the 80's, busted for drugs and addicted to opiates in the 90's. Compassionate conservative who makes fun of Michael J Fox and those with Parkinson's.

Any party that bys his neocon hypocracy deserves what they get. Do the research into his personal life. How could you take him seriously?

Hannaty? another faux hawk. A phony, macho, Beaver Cleaver. At least with left wing loons like Al Franken what you see is what you get.

My response to him

js,323, points extremely well taken. You are absolutely correct. They are hypocrites of the worst order and we do know how much combat our inebriated drug addled spoiled brat presidential 'Decider' really saw. Without daddy that man would probably have ended up in a drunk tank instead of the White House enacting his murderous destructive politics.

I think, though, one cannot deny the realities of what 'conservative' politics became nor can one deny who the effective mouthpieces were and still are no matter who they truly are in practice. From the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1996 through the Bush onslaught and debacle their Rovian/Limbaugh/Hannity brand attained power and lots of it. It took decades and many presidencies to do this beginning with the so called 'moral majority' of Nixon, through government-is-not-the-solution-it-is-the-problem Reagan, to the insipid Bush II to work their hypocritical magic walking away, while they did this, with billions. They did it by co-opting the extremely religious mainly in the south and the mid-west into thinking Republican politics was about them. It wasn't. The poor of the south, Appalachia and some mid-western states voted AGAINST their own interests just so their perceived Christian social agenda and dogma had a voice even if they had to starve in the process. The southern strategy of 51% worked even though it divided the country right down the middle. Bush II would not have been elected without all of it. It took years to finally show their underbelly, hypocrisy and how that party is NOT about Joe Six Pack. It is, as we know, about huge corporate white collar power and tremendous Wall Street wealth which cares nothing about anyone but hoarding the wealth for themselves no matter who or what they have to hurt in the process.

Finally, the Democratic party learned how to organize, hit the airways and play their own game too and play it better. We now have legions of journalists, writers, IMPORTANT online liberal bloggers, radio talk show hosts and television programming such as Keith Olbermann's Countdown, the Rachel Maddow Show and Chris Matthews's Hardball to give voice to progressives and to those who would question power. All of these things hold the opposition's feet to the fire. Let's hope that defeated so called 'conservative' snake does not recoil to strike again with their hypocritical mouthpieces of lies, fear and hate. The miraculous election of Barack Obama is not the end. It is the beginning. We must always be vigilant, always be organized and never let up while showing the American public what truth REALLY is.

In his November 23, 2008 editorial "A Question of Faith" Jeff Jacoby sees the word love at the end of religious faith and death symbolically at the end of Bill Maher's film Religulous? I see the word reality and truth as the substance of the agnostic's view and I see religion, throughout the ages, responsible for much division, hate, war, and death. Yes, sure, religion has created some humanitarian thought and action. It has given the world some ethical systems too. The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians and other ancient civilizations, gave the world all those things as well. One does not need the monotheistic faiths or any faith for that matter to do good in the world. Man, indeed, survives better when he cooperates with his adversary no matter what his belief systems are.

Since when, historically, has religion been a force for such extreme good? In my world view religion has been has been awash in a sea of blood and implicated in an orgy of war as religious texts give a permission slip for one man to kill the other over five thousand year old text repleat with scientific impossibilities which subvert natural law. Religion, further, espouses different things to different people. If six billion people adhere to a religious text then there will be six billion different interpretations of what that text is. Organized religion is responsible, I submit, for more discord than harmony, more division than unity and more hate than love. Moreover, might I add, having seen Bill Maher's film Religulous, seen its truth, and listened to Maher for years, I never have heard him say even once that the polio vaccine was unnecessary. Having suffered from polio myself before the vaccine was available I would have paid particular attention to anyone who said that.

Another letter to the Boston Globe's conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby:

Jeff, referencing your November 16, 2008 editorial "Palin's Political Potential," unlike many on the right I have no problem admitting fear. Do I fear Sarah Palin? The answer to that is a resounding yes! Why shouldn't I? I have just waded through the eight-year quicksand of a George W. Bush. All one has to do in Republican Party land is play dumb, waive a flag, hate a gay and say Jesus told you to do it all. Clark Clifford was right about the lack of scholastic aptitude of Ronald Reagan and Andrew Sullivan is right about less-than-high-school-intellect of Sarah Palin. Let's hope the American public is smarter than to get stuck again in all-image-and-no-substance candidates. Watching American politics for forty years, however, I know anything is possible.

A Universal Right: It is my opinion that the gay rights movement for years has thought it sometimes unnecessary to project homosexuality as an ascribed status. Some in the movement thought it not advantageous to talk about being homosexual as something innate. A few said if it were a choice people should have that right to choose too. Sure, that is true. They should. The opposition, however, will say if it is a choice, then, why not choose the opposite? I think, it is NOT a choice and I believe the gay community would be more successful if it argues that point. I believe most gay people are born gay. No amount of therapy, prayer or just plain force-of-will can alter that fact. Would one withdraw marital rights from Indians, Asians, Africans or even two disabled people?

Black rights were won on the fundamental truth that one is born black. Therefore, discriminating in any way is simply unfair because the only rationale for one's ethnicity is through birth. It is unchangeable assuming anyone would want to change it in the first place. Furthermore, the Biblical mandate, as many other Biblical mandates, does not withstand the test of time. Things proscribed in Biblical infancy are eschewed in modernity. Proscriptions for animal sacrifice, stoning of prostitutes, killing of blasphemers, can be found in Biblical text. None of those prohibitions is, in this country, practiced today. Divorce in Medieval Europe was forbidden. Divorce is obviously a common occurrence today. The anti-bellum south used many Biblical passages to reinforce slavery itself. As justifications for white supremacy blacks were called the children of Ham, inherently evil, infused with the devil, fallen angels and other such nonsensical appellations. We know ALL of these views are considered obscurantist now but even after the institution of slavery, its servant cruelty took thousands of years to erase. Indeed, we are still trying.

So, it is the same, I believe, of homosexuality. There are numerous scientific studies which seem to support the nature of homosexuality as inherent and unchanging within the species probably occurring in utero before the fetus even emerges from the mother's womb. Perhaps, further, most homosexuals would support that view since many say they are able to remember at the earliest age being attracted to members of their own sex. Given that and assuming the sex is between, of course, consenting adults, who would find it difficult to understand why homosexuals want their rights? It is not contagious as it is endemic to the species and, I submit, part of human sexual variation. I believe if homosexuals argue from that venue more success would be gained with respect to the gay marriage issue. Homosexuals want rights because they are owed rights like everyone else. Homosexuality is not good and is not bad. It simply is. In 1983 I once saw a movie entitled "Parting Glances" which was about the revelation of a gay young man's sexuality. The protagonist in the story responded to his parents' question as to how could he could choose this lifestyle. He answered "Hey, guys, I didn't choose it. It chose me! " I think that says it all.

Take a Breath: Here is an excellent article by Andrew Sullivan. He is a CALM voice on gay marriage. We need it. He is a true conservative AND MOST IMPORTANTLY he is a gay conservative. He is brilliant, a great writer for the Atlantic and has been supportive vociferously of gay rights for twenty years. His article, I think, is worth reading if nothing else then to douse the fires of our anger. It is a clam, reasoned, cool and collected article as to why this is NO time for despair. He looks at the glass half full instead of empty. We truly have come a long way and CA does still have domestic partnerships as do other states. I even read where Utah is considering certain rights without marriage...okay it's Utah..that's huge if it's true. It's the word "marriage" that gets the wing nuts. Personally, I can live without it happily. Rights can be ensured in other ways but others want it and they should obviously have it. This article though, helps us to take a breath, relax, go on and not give up. It can only be a good thing to read it. Click or cut and paste into your browser OR Google Andrew Sullivan.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-chill.html

It Ain't Over Yet: The passage of Prop 8 in CA was a disappointment to an otherwise, in my opinion, flawless November 4. From anti-abortion questions which were struck down, to animal rights, to the right to die -- most progressive measures were, thankfully, given the nod.

The civil rights struggle of homosexuals goes on. Before you conservatives out there in joyless land throw a party, the measure, until the very end when the Mormon Church infused a gazillion bucks to hit the airwaves, Prop 8 was headed for defeat. Gays may not have won this time but the percentage of the vote was MUCH improved from the time before. They nearly won despite the oodles of cash the religious zealots poured into the vote. The fault lies with the seriousness -- or lack of it of -- with which the gay community and its allies brought to the cause. They underestimated the determined well-financed hateful efforts of the Mormon Church with its fundamentalist co-conspirators and the lengths to which they would go to perpetrate their lies to deny to others that which THEY themselves take for granted.

Tomorrow is another day. Herculean efforts will be employed to overrule this patently unfair and obviously unconstitutional vote. Civil rights should NOT up for a vote and, hopefully, a modern, aware, and humane judiciary which has some understanding of biological realities and human genetic sexual variation will FINALLY put the matter to rest as it did for other civil rights struggles. It takes time and it takes money. Stay tuned. It ain't over til its over and it aint over yet!

Wrote this on the Metro west blog in response to those who think I am not thinking clearly about religion:

Yes, I see all your points that evil knows no boundary. It's been committed by believers and non believers alike. I agree with that. What I was addressing was contemporary events. I know weaponry has been designed and used by non believers too. I was speaking about the political events of this era and most particularly about the religious right's and the Fundamentalists assumption of huge amounts of power in this country and what effect that has had.

In THIS country at THIS time and moment in history it is the believers and non who are juxtaposed one against the another as they vie for supremacy, power and wealth. It is they who in the name of religion may in fact annihilate the human race and enact inhumane and destructive policies. I cannot argue though violence and catastrophic invention surely have been designed and committed by all. It is religious belief NOW, though, which has been responsible for so much discord, destruction and mayhem. I might further add a note of understanding. I do not have a closed mind and debate different angles of different issues always or at least I try.

I truly envy those who believe. You may think I do not but I do. It is a MUCH easier life and a MUCH easier world to endure if one accepts a higher power. I have had wars with belief systems all of my life. Life for me has been difficult at best. So naturally I wondered why and looked for answers. They never came for me no matter how fervent the asking over decades. Things simply stayed the same in fact they really got worse. So if people pray and they get solace or their life changes for the better I envy that. I wish mine had. It didn't no matter how hard I prayed or how much I asked. You may say it's the religion but I have had flirtations with several religions. None helped. I think one does not need religion to be moral. I think one does not need to believe in something else to know, for example, killing or stealing is wrong. A society functions best, I believe, when it works cooperatively.

I wrote to Richard Dawkins the physicist, confirmed atheist and author of 'The God Delusion.' I said to him even though I subscribe to most of what he says I wrote to him about how difficult it is if one does not believe in god. He said to me that he thought it odd that I could not get joy in the wonder of the universe, in the construct and evolutionary progression over trillions of years. He said that and that alone should inspire awe. Well, it does. It just doesn't help if one gets ill, or if one looses loved ones OR, most importantly, when one contemplates one's OWN death. That's the problem as I see it which he really could not address. Science cannot address that. Religion can address that BUT is it TRUTH? That is the real question as I see it and one which each individual must make a determination for him or herself but the truth of it cannot and probably will never be proven. As I said before just because you want it to be so does not make it so. That hurdle I could never surmount.

President-Elect Obama -- Guardian of History: What can I say that has not been already said about the historic nature of this election? This was, as has been repeatedly uttered, an historic moment and I am forever grateful that I am witness to it. I feel like the burden of George Bush and divisive Republican politics has been lifted from my shoulders. I feel like the dawn of hope has emerged. I wake up every morning and my first thought is that Barack Obama is president and the chill of a new November day is warmed. I still have to pinch myself to make sure that this is not a dream and that those who poisoned the Washington well really have been driven from power. Kudos to the American people who chose to reverse the titanically disastrous course the iceberg of which our nation was poised to hit.

There have been other particularly notable moments in our nation's story. As stated by a news source "When President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in January, he'll be standing on stone that was laid by more than 400 African slaves who helped build the structure from 1792 to 1800." That is history. When he takes his seat in the oval office, January 20, 2009 he will be the first African American to do so in our nation's history. That is monumental history. He stands, of course, on the shoulders of many other giants who risked their lives and often gave their lives to ensure this moment occurred. That is history.

From Frederick Douglas, from the abolitionists, from Harriet Tubman, from Abraham Lincoln, from Medgar Evers, from Rosa Parks, from James Meredith from Martin Luther King from the slane civil rights workers Schwerner, Goodman, Chaney and countless others black and white, men and women, rich and poor who resisted and illuminated the strange fruit hanging from so many southern poplar trees, we must understand our history. Barack Obama knows he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Now he is the giant and must be the guardian of that history so others may stand upon his.

A tinge of sadness: As the days go on I am even more thrilled, if that is possible, about Barack's Obama's victory. But, too, my glee is tinged with a bit of sadness about the California Proposition 8 vote to amend its state Constitution to bar gay marriage. It is clear that homosexual people are the last vestige to whom it is permissible to deny the civil rights everyone else takes for granted. I do not hear much outrage from the media about its passage. The passage of Proposition 8 and its attendant permission slip to amend the California Constitution will be yet another battle for homosexuals to secure their rights through the judicial branch if that is even possible. If it is not it will mean discrimination will be woven into yet another state Constitution and all those who married before the vote in California MAY have their marriages annulled depending upon the legal settlement of that issue. Imagine if the state came to everyone else and annulled their marriage. This behavior to me is predictable in Mississippi ... maybe .. but not predicable in California. I expected better.

What disheartens me most, however, is how the vote broke. Sure, religious Evangelicals everywhere were for the amendment that is to be expected. There were many against it such as the higher educated, half of Hispanics, Asians and most whites in general. So, who added to the religious Evangelicals obvious support of it? A majority of African Americans voted for the amendment. In the gay community I do not think I have EVER encountered anyone who was against African American civil rights. The gay community, quite naturally, has always marched along side black people trying to secure their rights. It is dismaying to me that gay people gave support but when push came to shove and when it was so important it was not given to them on the Prop 8 vote. That is infuriating to me.

Sure, I am happy Democrats secured huge wins in nearly every domain. In addition, all the questions around the country broke the liberal way on abortion, the right to die, medical marijuana, no criminal penalties for small amounts of marijuana, no elimination of Mass. state income tax, EVEN the greyhounds got their rights in Massachusetts. But when it comes to gay people who cares about them? I hear little indignation and not much outcry except within the gay community and some of its loyal friends. Well, I am crying out. Perhaps, the gay community would do well to take a page from a more militant black man at a different time in our nation's history by adopting a more Malcom X attitude -- Either you give us our rights or we will take them by any means necessary. Maybe next time we will.

A Witness to History: Our nation is on the brink of history. For so many years I yearned for a better nation. For years I wondered where the era from which I was politically born, had gone. I wondered what happened to those values which promised the eternal flame of justice, truth, humanitarian ideals and no more war. I worried and even cried that our nation could be so divided and thought it eternally doomed so that I would never see what my parents loved about the FDR of their time. I worried that I would never again be inspired with hope and never again see the inherent humanity of our nation which I knew I saw once in America. I began to think we were eternally relegated to never-ending fear, never ending anger, never ending division, and never ending conflict.

It has been a long hard road traveled and we are not quite there yet, but, finally, if my suspicion is correct, those of us who care about the welfare of the many, the humanitarian rights of the powerless and the inherent decency of this nation, will be on the precipice of greatness once again. We are at the doorstep of hope just when I thought all hope was lost. Over the past, seemingly eternal, eight years, our country fell precipitously from its heights. Its principles were shattered, its Constitutional genius wasted, and an isolated America dug itself deeper in the hole of injustice every minute it could not shake off this tyranny.

A possibility, though, of renewal and reverse-course is at hand. The genius of America still exists and this is the moment I have lived for all of my life. The book of centuries of the cruelest and saddest moments in American history is turning a page into a new era. It is a new New Deal, a new New Frontier and a new Great Society. We are, indeed, a new nation of Americans united and standing up for and in love with our great American experiment.

Our nation, plagued by a stubborn racism which digs its heels into our DNA and contaminates our body politic by forces which pander to hatred and by ideologues who take advantage of its festering sore for their own enrichment, is rising from its simmering embers once again.

I believe Barack Obama will be our nation’s first black president and the 44th president of these United States. It is about time. I hope he stays safe and I hope his policies are wise for, I believe, he is not the great BLACK hope, he is not the great WHITE hope but he is the hope of ALL of us. We are, I believe, on the brink of history, the world is watching and I am ever so thankful I am witness to it.

Questioning Power: I offer two criticisms of the Catholic Church. It is not Catholicism itself I criticize. I criticize always the policies and tyranny of the few who are given power over the lives of many. There are two church policy issues with which I take exception today:

First: Today Pope Benedict suggested that a "test" should be given to future prospects for the priesthood which would look for any psychopathology before priests are accepted for ordination. The worrisome psychopathology about which the church ruminates since the costly sex scandals has to do with, obviously, sex. The church wants to see how intrinsic is a prospective priest's sexuality and, of course, most importantly, it wants to know if he harbors any homosexual inclinations. It especially wants to know if he has exhibited homosexual behavior within the past three years. Three is the magic number. If one can hold off on one's homosexual appetites for three years from when an application for the priesthood is received then the all clear whistle apparently sounds.

The utter ridiculousness of this prospect staggers the imagination. One would think, obviously enough, the very nature of sexuality IS intrinsic i.e. once one has determined one is homosexual he will be homosexual all of his life. Conversely, when one determines one is heterosexual one is heterosexual all of his life as well. One cannot pray homosexuality away as study after study shows and after legions of testimony exist from homosexuals to that fact. One can cover it up and one can overrule it but one cannot never erase it. Many have tried to overrule their bodily inclinations and failed. What is sexuality if it is not intrinsic to the core one's being? It is by its very nature intrinsic. The church's thought processes are disturbing. Sexual proclivity is SO strong and so all encompassing that it is inconceivable to expect a human being would deny its overwhelming and undeniable call. To do so, I submit, is difficult and, indeed, rare. A unisex institution with no opportunity for the adult male to appropriately channel his desires with other adults I submit fosters aberrant behavior sometimes of the most heinous and illegal kind.

Second: The beatification of Pius the XII, the pope who during World War II failed to shout out vociferously his opposition to the Nazi perpetration of its genocidal policies which would implement murderous remedies for the so called "Jewish question," has now been suspended. The Vatican today said it is putting on hold attempts to make Pius the XII (Giovanni Pacelli) a saint until it has enough time to "study" the papers relating to his era as Pope during the Nazi period. It does, however, still refuse to open up for public scrutiny ALL documents of that era it holds in its archives.

I become suspicious when a government, a church or any other institution of great power fails in transparency. I believe there is a right of its populous or -- in the case of a religious institution -- its parishioners to view its machinations as its adherents give it strong belief and mountains of money in support. When an institution hides documents, I believe, the institution has something to hide. If there is nothing to hide then why would the Vatican not want to show the papers for all to see reinforcing the Vatican's desire to make Pius XII a saint? I also wonder IF that institution would plod through those very documents with its own biased staff in order to dispose, shred or burn evidence which could be harmful to it. The many should harbor much suspicion of power as those in power have much control over the many.

The science of safe: It has been, throughout the centuries, a long hard slog to eschew the dark forces of superstition, untrue assumptions and reactionary often religious thought which kept man down. I have always thought this journey was a progressive one and that he would not regress. This administration and the development of its arm of religious fundamentalist extremists have proven my assumption false. In an instant, centuries of human progress can vanish as if it never existed at all. Mystical, mythological, superstitious and unproven reasons passed off as truth can kill.

The Bush administration has not only been guilty of denying science but of falsifying it. Whether it is through blocked out passages of scientific memos clearly identifying the relationship between green house gases and global warming or the treatment of the belief of creationism the same as evolutionary fact, the Bush administration has tried to deceive the masses. This should be an abomination to all when science can actually SEE and prove evolution at work. It can see DNA and it can see how DNA morphs over time. It can see the DNA of the AIDS virus as it changes no matter what chemicals are thrown against it. Science can see and actually calculate the age of the earth. It can prove the billions of years of the earth’s evolution.

Scientific truth is in front of our eyes but some would rather believe myths and superstition over truth simply because it makes them feel good. Religion is religion and science is science. The two are not the same and can never meet. Religion should be separate from the state for all time as, I believe, most of our Founders would have desired. Science will free us, cure us from disease, and make our lives easier. Religion will make us FEEL we are safe when in fact if we deny science “safe” could not be further from the truth.

PERFECTION: The link below by Jane Smaley in Huffington Post is possibly one of the best, most cogent, correct and spot on articles I have EVER read. It says it all. I agree with every single paragraph 100% and then some. Smaley is a wonderful popular writer as well as a terrific analyzer of contemporary events. I urge you to read it and savor EVERY paragraph. She is EXACTLY correct in everything she says. I could have written (perhaps not as wonderfully as she) the same thing and wish I had!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/goodbye-cruel-world_b_138755.html

OOPS: I must have missed the very end of H.D.S. Greenway's editorial when he stated that perhaps Barack Obama is more like Mr. Smith. Now that's more like it. I concur!

Emperor's No Clothes: H.D.S. Greenway's October 28th article Character Trumping Experience comparing Sarah Palin to James Stewart's clean Gene character in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is ridiculous. While Mr. Smith and Ms. Palin's words may find a home on the populist ear, Mr. Smith really WAS clean. Sarah Palin is a sham. She lies, divides, eschews pork and then takes a big barrel full. She accepts a bridge to nowhere but when it becomes unpopular returns it but keeps the money. Sarah Palin is about glitz with no substance. Mr. Smith was about substance minus the glitz. He stood for something. Sarah Palin's words mean nothing and, therefore, she doesn't really stand for anything. Sarah Palin is much like the rest of her party. She is the, in this case, woman behind the curtain along side the emperor wearing no clothes.

The Tide Is Turning: Today, I stood in rather chilly weather aside a busy highway in my town with others carrying signs supporting Barack Obama. By my estimate, I believe, we heard fifty car honks and thumbs up approvals for Obama to one thumbs down against him. It was, to say the least, for me, gratifying. I, however, do not want to be overconfident, know about October surprises, national nightmares and even the press miscall of the 1948 Dewey/Truman contest. I cannot help now thinking, though, my long dark national nightmare of Republican rule may finally be coming to an end.

If Barack wins it will be for a multitude of reasons. At the top of rationale list is, of course, the nosedive of an unregulated economy gone haywire, government bailouts of huge corporate entitles and an administration which says one thing about the little guy but offers that little guy no relief from foreclosed homes, tanking 401Ks and healthcare burdens while the corporate giants fly away with humongous golden parachutes in hand to California resorts.

Republican candidates never have been about Joe the Plumber. They have always been about AIG and Lehman big wigs and their Senate mouthpieces like John McCain, his good pal Phil Grahm deregulator supreme and Bush & Co. jogging right along side. The genius of the Republican strategy since Nixon has been the brilliant scheme of getting the American public to believe the Republican Party is about the majority of them. The Party convinced them by wrapping itself in the American flag, telling the public that no one is as patriotic as Republicans and that Joe Six Pack and patriotic hockey moms everywhere should come along with them for the morality ride. Many marched to the tune of that cacophonous beat for over thirty years.

Sarah Palin is a metaphor for that party. Her beauty pageant adorable image and her so seemingly patriotic aura is a sham. In reality the woman behind the curtain and her party are incompetent unreflective unqualified hypocrites as they march off, seemingly under the public purview, to Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales and other high-end stores to dutifully spend $150,000 bucks on clothing for her and her family about which the average American can only dream.

Add to the Republican malfeasance a war on terror gone sour, wasted lives in Iraq and the scandal plagued presidency of George W. Bush the brew has been a toxic Republican stew. For all those reasons and so many more, barring any unforeseen circumstances, I believe the tide is finally turning. I can only fervently hope Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States.

This is a response I gave to a friend who had written on her blog which talked about the 'material girl' who is none other than Sarah Poor Palin and her $150,000 wardrobe. She says in her blog 'I do not yet have clarity as to why this woman grates on me so.' I understood her feeling.

http://yomamaforobama.wordpress.com

My response: I share with you an unmitigated disdain for that woman. Its NOT her beauty as I have met plenty of beautiful women and not disdained them. I suppose, if I had to search my soul for the rationale behind my fever it is that the one thing above anything else I value is intellect. I would, if given a choice, pick intellectual ability and a Faustian knowledge of everything over gobs of cash any day. Sarah Palin has less intellectual ability than the third grader whose question of just what a VP does she could not answer. It is shameful. I would be ashamed NOT to have a McCain sign on my lawn with HIS name on it but to have a sign with the name of know nothing Palin right underneath.

McCain's Choice of Palin as VP, as conservative intellectual Peggy Noonan so presciently alluded, has sealed his fate. He will never be President of the United States and I predict Palin's return to ignominious hockey mom governor of a distant state and to the primordial ooze from whence she came.

The Exceptionally Unacceptable: Wonderful article by H.D.S. Greenway in the October 21, 2008 edition of The Globe entitled "The Grand Illusion of American Power." He refers to BU educator, historian, military man and conservative, Andrew Bacevich, who now takes exception to the prevailing myth in American culture of American exceptionalism. Even Sarah Palin, perhaps albeit coached, still talks about American exceptionalism. She, of course, unequivocally believes in it and so do her followers.

I have long had a tug of war with my own conscience as to whether I do. Howard Zinn, historian and eminent professor at Boston University, in the late 60's, first introduced me to the concept of American exceptionalism and its folly when I listened to lectures by him in the late 1960's critical of US policy in Vietnam and elsewhere. His influence never left me. I was shocked at that time that American government policy could even be questioned. I assumed the US was always right in everything it did domestically and, most especially, internationally. I believed it was, indeed, exceptional. Professor Zinn , however, encouraged me, to possess an omnipresent doubt NOT of our country's values but of government policy which carries out its own interpretation of those values.

Vietnam, in that era, was the first time I conscientiously asked if our government was doing the right and moral thing. Since then other policies in many other areas of the world including the present day bombing of Iraq I deem not only questionable but immoral. My stint at Boston University at that time began my sojourn which prompted me to question government and speak my truth to power. The United States of America has done much good in the world that, I believe, cannot be denied but its government policy has often fallen short. When the heretofore exceptional becomes unacceptable it is time to reevaluate it and change course.

Worst of the Worst: Responding to Alex Beam's front page question in the Living & Arts Section of The Globe: Is it possible that George W. Bush isn't the worst president in our nation's history?

The answer is NO it is not possible. George Bush has been responsible for killing thousands, horrifically wounding tens of thousands of soldiers some for life, killing and wounding perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqi innocents, displacing another million, ruining a country which did nothing to us thereby destabilizing the entire Middle East. He ran up trillions of dollars in debt while taking our country to a war based on lies, giving no bid wasteful contracts to cronies who were failures at doing much of their work, failing to attend to our veterans health issues including the scandals at Walter Reed Army Hospital, failing to prevent 9/11, failing to capture Osama bin Laden, failing to create a prescient foreign policy with which to attend to the war on terror, diverting our attention away from Afghanistan, failing to promote an Israeli/Palestinian peace, losing US stature in the world, employing torture and weakening if not eliminating the Geneva Conventions, spying on innocent Americans wasting taxpayer money, failing to fix problems of infrastructure, failing to act during one of the worst hurricane devastation in US history, failing to change the US health care system -- one of the worst systems in the western world --, presiding over a Republican controlled Congress rife with scandal, using the Department of Justice for political purposes, destroying the concept of habeas corpus the pinnacle of a free society, expanding the powers of the presidency to monarchical proportions, and he is responsible for one of the worst economic catastrophes since the Great Depression plunging our country and the world into significant recession. Add to those indictments the numerous scandals within the administration, the guilt of exposing the identity of a CIA agent to ramp up an unnecessary war and, oh yes, lest one forget, the dubious handling of the anthrax attacks, the 43rd president of the United States has been responsible for the deaths and misery of thousands. George Bush's paucity of intellect, stubbornness and inability to weigh options, make George W. Bush, in my opinion, the worst president in US history bar none!

Palin, Patriotism and Perfection: Sure, if one loves utterly empty-headed mindless blather hiding behind the national anthem and the American flag, Sarah know-nothing and say-nothing Palin is your candidate of choice. I have more qualifications to be president than she and I have none.

That cerebrally vapid, vacuous and meaningless blabbering she utters is responsible for the domestic and international catastrophes we find ourselves in today. The trillion buck debt she talks about was ushered in by her party. Her bridge to nowhere was accepted by her before it was rejected but she kept the money anyway and built a road to nowhere. She is a hypocrite supreme. As long as she says things we love to hear, though, and she looks great saying them she'll get some ardent fans. Could we think for 1 and 1/2 seconds before accepting everything someone says because it sounds and makes us feel oh so good?

Some like her because they don't like to self reflect and critically examine the history and policy of this country. They want the country to be Leave it to Beaver land. Well, reality speaks. The country is not Leave it to Beaver land and it never was. It surely never was if one was black or Indian or female living a second class citizen life for centuries. Maybe patriotism is tinged with a bit more cynicism when those of us who understand history really examine its substance and objectively look at its truth without all the soothing glitter.

If one looks at Sarah Palin and John McCain's audiences they are nearly all older and white. This country, though, is changing its hue and I suspect that group does not like what it sees. So Sarah Palin's rhetoric calms their palpitating hearts and makes them feel so much better. Sure cotton candy looks so good but in truth its empty calories are bad for you. Patriotism without critical reflection is easy but it is distinctly toxic as it values mindless superficialities over substantive analysis. The right wing patriotic supremes had their chance for the past eight years. Their imperfect platitudinous policies are why we are in the mess we are in, that is why picture perfect Palin will not prevail, and that is why Barack Obama with a new kind of patriotism will win in November!

A Divided Nation: I believe we are a profoundly divided nation and have been for a very long time. It took a civil war of decidedly Herculean proportions to unite -- albeit reluctantly -- two sides of the slavery and its secessionist states rights issues. Lincoln's true genius, I believe, resided in his determination not only to keep the country together but his ability, after the Civil War, to try to unite the divide. His plans for renewal and healing during the reconstruction period were dashed, of course, upon his assassination. The elimination of white supremacy and eradication of the sentiments of interposition and nullification died with him. History has meaning and, thus, I believe we pay the price, still, for President Lincoln's untimely death. Race continues to be the Achilles heel, the sore that festers, and the ugliness which shows its face through a democratic facade.

It has been, I think, the tragedy of this nation that leadership in the modern era never emerged which had the ability to galvanize our nation to ameliorate this rancid division and concentrate on the issues of our time. Not only did leadership not have the ability to rectify our seemingly eternal divide it, indeed, exacerbated it by using it to capture one group to gain the power of the presidency. Beginning most extraordinarily with the presidency of Richard Nixon who used his euphemistic moral majority law and order code words against the black civil rights uprisings of the late 60's and ending now with the campaign of John McCain trying assiduously to tie Barack Obama preposterously to a man named Ayers, a sixties radical who committed his misdeeds when Obama was eight years old, Republicans have lassoed and hog tied one-half of a mostly white southern and Midwestern electorate to hoodwink them into thinking the Republican Party is about them. They dupe them to believe only they will save them from the black menace and the BLACK man possibly entering the WHITE house. They do not say that outright, of course, but the message is evident all the same. Just who is Barack Obama John McCain asks stealthily. Sarah Palin, a woman of ethical mishaps and a paucity of intelligence screams, too, in her inimitable way with a wink and a beauty contestant smile, and raises suspicions that Barack Obama cannot be trusted. People at their rallies yell, scream terrorist and ask for Obama's life. His life mind you.

Finally, John McCain has raised his voice against the cacophonous hate -filled rants. Perhaps, he does not want to be accused, if God forbid, there is an attempt on Obama's life, of being responsible for inciting a horrific violence which could end this nation as we know it. Nonetheless, he continues his media ads. His unqualified vice presidential choice piercingly suggests ad nauseum the ridiculous suspicions about Obama.

As patriotic as the right wing would have us believe it is, it is a stew of extraordinarily violent unconscionable beliefs where someone somewhere possibly exists who will be encouraged by a mob -like mentality to commit a dastardly violent act to eliminate a perceived threat and consider himself a patriot by doing so. Our leaders often play with our lives and then think a few words can erase all the damage they have done.

Instead, wouldn't it be nice to finally put our national malady to rest and have a leader emerge to resurrect Abraham Lincoln's quest to erase our racial divide which has paralyzed our nation? It would be nice in our perilous time if a John McCain would emulate his so called "party of Lincoln" and say what Lincoln said in his second inaugural address in 1865: "with charity for all and malice toward none let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds ... ." Wouldn't that be nice?

The Second Debate -- Another Home Run: It was so clear and so evident by last night's debate who is the better candidate to be president of the United States. Now, in our perilous times, electing Barack Obama, is the most important occurrence in the history of our country and, indeed, for the survival of our planet. Government, as entrusted by our Founders in our Constitution, is to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. Without effective government we will not have safety and security, a functioning economy, a healthy population, an intact infrastructure or even a planet. Without government none of these life sustaining mandates will be possible. I submit government has NOT been the problem it has been and is a necessary solution to the huge imperatives of our time.

These problems are so huge that government is the only vehicle we have which can make a difference. Senator Obama was firm, Senator Obama was decisive, Senator Obama was most of all acutely intelligent and correct. He provided clear statements of purpose, did not not ramble in vague generalities and give us an empty cheerleader pep talk as, I believe, Senator McCain did.

Those generations who succeed us and depend upon us to solve the problems of our day will thank us if we elect Barack Obama. By employing government policies in partnership with and oversight of our economic system, we can construct policies that work. A change in leadership through Barack Obama has not only the ability but necessary and, I believe, correct philosophy that will determine our survival. It is THAT important. Our time awaits a new New Deal and I believe Senator Obama can provide it.