I voted for you in November, 2008. I don’t apologize for being a big fan of your style, intelligence, and your dedication to being a good President. A lot of people, including some in my own family, think I’ve lost my mind or gone over to the “Dark Side” because I support you most of the time.

You have a particular talent as a public speaker. I won’t offer any advice to you on how you might improve your delivery, pronunciation, enunciation, or other presentational skills. I personally think that you are the best public speaker to live in the White House since President Ronald Reagan. Reagan had some professional training as an actor and TV host. I think your skill comes from the heart.

Let’s face the facts. If you had managed your presidential campaign like you have the Office of the President, you’d still be a junior Senator from Illinois. Hillary Clinton would probably be president this term – or, heaven forbid, John McCain. We’d all have remembered you only as “that good-looking young African-American fellow from Chicago that ran for President, but lost the primaries to John Edwards.”

Where is the fire in your belly? What happened to your insistence on sticking to the facts? Why won’t you immediately counter-punch whenever someone goes on Fox News and tells a bald-faced lie? When Representative Stupak comes out and says that the new Senate version of the healthcare bill “allows federal money to pay for abortions” – make him prove it.

Don’t just make a sissified statement like, “I’m sure that the Congressman is sincere in his beliefs, but we don’t want to hold up healthcare for the majority of Americans.” Make Stupak quote the chapter and verse in the Senate bill that supports his statement. Don’t avoid the issue to keep from hurting his feelings, attack the falsehood! Make him prove the facts of his statements!

It’s already been proven numerous times by several TV, radio, and newspaper commentators, House Leader Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent House and Senate leaders that the new bill specifically does not include any allowance for payments for abortions using federal money. However, a fair majority of American voters DO BELIEVE what Stupak is asserting. Why? It’s because you’ve avoided calling him out on the issue. You’ve lost the battle before it started because you refuse to shoot back or defuse the bomb that Stupak has dropped on healthcare reform.

All this does is to make voters like me, who have continued to support you all this time, wonder if your hands are also in the pockets of the big insurance cartel. If not, why won’t you speak up – loud and clear?

Instead of appealing for the support of the vast majority of people who voted for you and supported your plans to reform government, provide universal healthcare, and bring the war in Iraq to a close — you’ve been in Washington negotiating with special interest groups and wasting your time trying to appease the Republicans in Congress. They have made no secret that they despise you and have vowed to oppose you at every turn. Your choosing to ignore them has put the brakes on all the momentum you had when you were elected our President. By trying to be “Mr. Nice Guy” you’re barely treading water at this stage of your first term.

Well-funded opponents of health reform continue to gain ground by convincing the American middle-class that your plan is a false choice: Keep the healthcare plans they have now, or gamble on “Obama’s government takeover of healthcare with his socialist ideals and lose everything.”

You’re losing the battle because you’re still wasting your time trying to appeal to members of the Republican Party who hate you. Quit trying to be friends with the enemy. The truth is that they will not play your game and they don’t play fair. They don’t give a damn about America’s middle or low-income classes, only the insurance companies and their lobbyists who are financing their next election. You must take control and directly confront their cynicism and deceptions. Don’t be afraid to call them out on their lies and ties to the insurance industry, Mr. President.

If roles were reversed and the Republicans were still in power, do you think they would be playing nice with a minority of Democrats? Well? Did they play nice during the Bush Administration? How many bills did they pass using “Reconciliation” in the Senate?

Mr. President – you must explain clearly and forthrightly that a financially secure future for middle-class families, and for the entire nation, depends on reforming the entire health care industry and finding ways to control its runaway costs before it bankrupts the country and each and every individual.

It’s ironic that middle-class families have the most to lose if healthcare reform fails to pass. The problem is that most of them have yet to realize that fact. You’ve got to impress upon them what personal and financial pain they have to look forward to if you fail in your quest for universal, low-cost healthcare.

Without reform, it has been estimated that in ten years premiums for the average family’s health insurance coverage will cost nearly $25,000 per annum, and that’s based on current low inflationary rates. According to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, rates could reach as high as $30,000, pricing all but the wealthiest families completely out of the health insurance market. With costs that high, most medium and small businesses will be unable to afford to contribute anything toward subsidized health insurance plans for their employees.

The very rich can afford the best available health care with or without private or public insurance. Unfortunately, the American middle class, even those who are comfortable with their present insurance coverage, could soon find themselves under-insured or unable to get any affordable insurance coverage.

Your Republican and Fox News opponents are buying hundreds of daily sound bites accusing your program of being “socialized medicine” and allowing a “government takeover” of the “best healthcare system in the world!” They accuse you of wanting to set up “death panels” and using government bureaucrats to deny quality healthcare to the elderly and the sickest among us. They present this as a future probability under your plan, while at this very moment insurance companies are doing this every day in every state to every class of patient. Insurance companies are already making decisions about patients’ health care with only one objective: increasing insurance company profits.

I hate to admit it, but the Republican Party and Fox News’ decision to promote lies and half-truths are working – and continue to destroy your standing with American voters in all parts of the country. Why? Because so far you’ve refused to take a stand for truth and justice for middle-class and average working families. So far you have done far too little to effectively counter those charges. I sometimes wonder if you really care. Is your heart really in the fight?

Mr. President – now is the time to speak out forcefully against the liars and propagandists in and out of the political arena. Make it clear that simply because they wrap an American flag around their shoulders and carry a King James Bible in their hands, that does not make everything your opponents say “The Truth.” They have to realize that it’s not just for the maintenance of your political reputation that you should come out and force the truth to be told. After all, healthcare reform is for the benefit of those very same Bible-thumping, flag-waving, tea-bagging Republicans – and for the rest of us who depend on affordable access to doctors, clinics, and hospitals when the need arises.

If your healthcare reform programs fail, it will be the middle-class and low-income families, the very people who tend to believe most of the Republican Party’s lies, who will ultimately pay the highest price for the least amount of healthcare.

Help them. Help us all. Fight for us, Mr. President!

When we were stationed in Kampala, Uganda, I had two neighbors. On my right was an East Indian couple. The wife could only speak her native tongue so we never could never really talk to each other. I had not yet learned how to play bridge or tennis so was at home a lot. We would wave to each other and we would go to each others’ homes and usually ended up in the kitchen teaching and cooking for each other. She had a big kitchen but completely without furniture, so we sat on the floor on straw mats. On one side of the kitchen there was a huge stack of shelves divided by many little cabinets where she kept her Indian spices to make curry. She also had a heavy stone mortar and pestle. I realized then that curry powder was a little different in each Indian home, depending on the cook’s choice of ingredients. She would mix a little of this and a little of that and throw it in the mortar and then with her pestle she would pound it into powder for the delicious curry she was preparing that day. Certainly not the same as buying curry paste or powder in a bottle! She taught me how to make Naan, Puri, and Indian deserts. We had a wonderful time gesturing and laughing. Some days she would come to my house and I would show her how to use my Chinese cleaver to slice and dice the ingredients that go into Chinese cooking. I even showed her how to make Chinese spring roll skins. We would leave my kitchen in one big mess which did not make John, my houseboy, very happy. This lasted for over two years; I have not forgotten her and I am sure she thinks of me when cooking Chinese meals.

On our left was an American couple who also worked for the embassy. One summer their son, Danny, who was 17 years old, came to visit. We became good friends immediately. When the men went to the Embassy, Danny would come over and visit me. He had rented a beautiful Harley-Davidson for his means of transportation. One day he took me for a ride. At 75 mph, I felt that my head would fall off or I would lose all my hair. It was scary but lots of fun. I had a brand new gold convertible Corvair, and when I went shopping I would put the top down, and Danny would ride his cycle behind me acting as my security guard. Everyone would stop to stare at us, which we found very amusing. When Kasalina, the nanny for my two small children, Jeffrey and Leslie, had to take the day off, Danny would come over and be their baby sitter. He was always so patient with them, playing hide and seek, riding Leslie’s tricycle, making funny faces and joking until the kids would be giggling with delight. Of course Danny left when the summer was over to go back to the USA to begin college.

When we were in Chile, we decided to take a vacation in Barilochi, a famous and very beautiful resort area in Argentina. With both children in tow, we drove from Puerto Montt, Chile to San Carlos de Barolochi in our Pontiac Firebird. It was the custom of truck drivers to take a break by parking the truck under any one of the large shade trees that lined the dirt road between the Argentine and Chilean customs posts, a distance of about ten miles of open countryside. The driver would chock the truck wheels with a couple of rocks, then just drive off. Unfortunately for us, it was very difficult to see the rocks in the shade of the tree and we had the misfortune to drive our low-slung car over a couple of them. A horrible screeching sound coming from the underside of the car brought us to an immediate halt. It was around five in the afternoon and the shadows were growing long. We knew that we had damaged something, as we could see a little oil leaking onto the dirt. As twilight fell there was no sound other than from a few birds and there was not a car in sight. We were getting very nervous and really did not know what to do next. I thought I heard the sound of a vehicle approaching, so I hopped out of the car and prayed that somebody would come by and help us out, since the next town was quite far away. It seemed like an eternity before I saw a Volkswagen bus coming towards us. I stuck my thumb out and struck the hitchhiker pose. The Volkswagen pulled to a stop and out jumped four young German men. One of them could speak some English. They talked among themselves for a few minutes and then seemed quite happy with their decision. In the bus they had a small kitchen and under the stove they had a rectangular linoleum rug. They pulled it out of the bus, together with some cord. One of them then managed to crawl under the car and made a temporary blanket to cover the leak and pulled the damaged sheet metal away from the flywheel. We started our car and drove slowly into Chile and on to Puerto Montt, where we could have proper repairs done and find a place to eat and sleep. The young men followed us all the way into town, but declined our offer of a meal. They wanted to drive on to a destination nearer Santiago. We thanked these kind young men and gave them our address in Santiago, but unfortunately we never saw them again. I have many German friends now, a very special one is a director at my duplicate bridge club, and when I see him every week, I am always always reminded of our saviors of long ago.

When we were in Guatemala, Dick was kidnapped by Marxist guerillas. He was at a senior staff meeting at INCAP campus, part of the World Health installation, when four young men came bursting into the room with sub-machine guns. One pointed it to his forehead, and another man tied his arms behind him with shoelaces around his thumbs and they took him away. I did not know if he was dead or alive until I got a photo of him looking like a prisoner of war. My children were back in the United States so I was alone to deal with this dreadful situation. It was then that I realized how kind people were. My Guatemalan friends took me to their fincas on weekends, others would bring me food, trays laden with everything from soup to nuts. A wealthy American lady married to a Guatemalan, offered me her tennis court from eight to ten every morning and the American Ambassador promised that the Embassy would be watching over me. One of the ladies who worked with Dick offered to come and live with me. Marilu had cancer, but she forgot her problems, left her family and moved right in. My German landlord had me over many times for dinner and served me sausages, black bread and other specialties from his country. After Dick was released, we had to leave Guatemala the next day with forged passports. A month later we went back to pack up our belongings and were overwhelmed at the welcome we received.

Ten years later, after we were already settled in Tucson, Arizona, we got a long distance call from our Guatemalan friend, Dorothy, and her German husband Hanno, inviting us to return to Guatemala to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Dick’s release. They were going to Germany to visit Hanno”s family, and we stayed in their fabulous house for three weeks. The next house was where the Vice President of Guatemala lived. They left us a Mercedes to drive, memberships to the German and American Clubs to play tennis and bridge, and a maid, cook and gardener to cater to our every need.

I could circle the world and write about all the wonderful people we met and loved, but it would take forever. One thing I know for sure, people are people and love and understanding is in all of us. I will write about the latest incident that happened right here in Tucson, Arizona, with a most adorable lady.

One of my favorite pastimes is reading cook books. About six months ago, I found a recipe in a one book that called for pie crust mix and I was determined to try it out. I went to my favorite Fry’s on 1st Avenue, and was told to go to the aisle where they sold the Bisquick Mix. Two store workers were helping me. We looked and looked but no luck. Standing nearby was a very cute older lady and she was determined to help me find it. Her name is Nancy North. She said she had been baking and cooking forever. She took me to all the counters where we might find the mix, but again with no success. I thanked her for being so helpful and went home. I forgot about the incident. Several days later, Nancy called me,saying that she had three boxes of the pie crust mix and that I should meet her the next morning before ten at the same Fry’s. She explained that she was in the middle of looking for a place to rent and was very busy with rental agents. I asked her where she had located the mix and she told me that she had telephoned her daughter, Cheryl, in Bay City, Michigan. She said that Bay City was a small town and that Cheryl knew almost everyone who worked in the town supermarkets. One was able to supply the pie crust mix, and Cheryl had it sent it by overnight mail. I met Nancy the next morning and she handed me the crust mix and would not allow me to pay her. We will be getting together as soon as her family leaves after Halloween. I will tell her about China and she will tell me about life back in the good old days, a half century or more ago. By the way, Nancy has four daughters, ten granddaughters, and ten great granddaughters – and one pit bull dog. I can’t wait to see her again.

What a life! What a world!

[Photo credits: "Connected Hands," Julia Freeman-Woolpert, USA; "Two Hands Reaching," Charlotte Na, USA; "Sharing Her Harvest," Sava Marinkovic, Serbia.]

Our teacher, Mr. Robert Phillips, a man whom I admired greatly then and remember fondly now, stood before our class and made a statement that I still recall quite well. After he was finished, everyone in the class sat quietly in their seats. All of us there that day were either confused, scared, or just plain angry when he finished his little speech to us. He did not ask for comments and did not entertain any questions. He simply went back to supervising the production of the next issue of our school newspaper, the “Poly Spotlight.”

Because of its particular timing and its warning of trouble ahead for America, I think what Mr. Phillips said to us that day might be instructive and of interest to the readers of Just One Opinion.

Please realize that it’s been nearly fifty years since I heard Mr. Phillips give this speech. I have trouble remembering what someone said to me yesterday – so trying to recall exactly what was said in my high school classroom forty-nine years ago will not be the easiest thing for me to do. But I’m going to try my best to present his words as accurately as I can, while preserving his message and intent. It’s true, I can’t remember exactly every word he said, but I sure remember his message. Here it is paraphrased to the best of my ability:

Mr. Robert Phillips addressing the students of his Journalism class, Riverside (CA) Poly High School, November 9, 1960 (reconstructed from memory):

“You know me – I don’t usually bring up politics in this class except as part of your training on how to present a subject when you write a news article. You know that I believe in being fair and impartial as a reporter, and that I tend to grade you harshly whenever I see your personal bias or opinion sneaking into one of your assignments.

“But this is a sad day for me because I think that it is a sad day for America. As you know, John F. Kennedy was elected to be our next President last night. I have nothing against Catholics and I know that many of you belong to that faith, as are many of my own friends and some of my relations. That’s not the point.

“My point is that Democrat John Kennedy is young and immature and comes from a very dedicated Roman Catholic family from liberal Massachusetts. As our President, I can not see how he can serve both his religion and his country at the same time.

“What choice will he have if the Pope tells him to take a particular stand or orders him to do something that would favor the Catholic Church over other religions in this country? How can he possibly say ‘no’ to the head of his church?

“We’ve always had Protestant presidents in this country and there is a reason for that. Protestants don’t answer to one man in the Vatican. John Kennedy will have no choice but to do what he is told by the Pope or face excommunication from the Catholic Church.

“Yes, he’s young and good looking – he’s very bright and has written a best seller (Profiles in Courage), but he hasn’t faced the real test of leadership in America. Do we want America to become a Catholic country like France, Spain or Italy? Do we want the Inquisition to be instituted in this country like it was in Europe for over 300 years? Do we want the Catholic Church to become our national religion like it is in Mexico?

“That, my students, is what we face in the next four years. Maybe not – he may play it safe his first four years and then allow Rome to take over and dictate our future during his second term. I don’t know how it will happen – but I know that our country is in deep trouble and we have only seen the very tip of the iceberg.

“Richard Nixon had more votes than John Kennedy. By all rights he should be our next President. But Kennedy manipulated the system so that he only had to win the Electoral College votes, not the vote of the people. Richard Nixon could be the greatest president in this country’s history if he ever gets the chance. He is honest, a good Quaker from California who believes in religious freedom, and an active anti-Communist who loves America. He served under President Eisenhower, so he has been trained by the very best President to serve in your lifetime.

“Kennedy is a good looking man with a pretty wife and cute little girl. He could become very popular among those who like movie stars but don’t really care about what happens to America. My guess is that after four years, if he doesn’t set up a Roman Catholic dictatorship in America during his first term, that he will be voted out of office and the Pope will find someone else to try and take over America.  If good Americans stand up for what is right, John Kennedy will not be reelected and instead will become just a footnote in our history as the first – and hopefully the last – Catholic to be elected president in our country.”

Looking back at history, Mr. Phillips, in his soft-spoken but deeply felt rhetoric, got one thing absolutely right:

No other Catholic has been elected President since John Kennedy. Surprisingly, Joseph Biden is the first Catholic ever to be elected to the office of Vice-President.

But Mr. Phillips also misread the course of both John Kennedy’s presidency and the next fifty years of our country’s history:

John Kennedy did not take any action to give the Catholic Church an advantage within United States politics or culture.

The first Pope to make an official visit to the United States was Pius VI in October, 1965 during the term of President Lyndon Johnson (Disciples of Christ).

Pope John Paul II was was invited six times to visit the United States: the term of Jimmy Carter (Baptist); Ronald Reagan (Presbyterian) – three times; and Bill Clinton (Baptist) – twice.

President Kennedy’s administration was noted for effective management of the federal government, for taking on both the Mafia and the corrupt Teamsters Union, and his intelligent dealings with European and South American countries. His general popularity among all groups, except for extreme southern state right-wing Republicans, continued to rise until his assassination in 1963.

Richard Nixon, despite landslide victories in 1968 and 1972, mishandled the economy by freezing wages and increasing taxes, allowed the Viet Nam War to continue for another five years, and abolished the gold standard. His popularity evaporated quickly after his second election among all voter categories. He completely destroyed his reputation and presidency by lying and trying to cover-up the scandal of the Watergate break-in. He only avoided sure impeachment by resigning during the second year of his second term. Even his hand-picked Vice President, Spiro Agnew, was forced to resign in disgrace to face criminal charges in his home state of Maryland. In spite of some impressive diplomatic gains with Europe and especially China, Richard Nixon’s presidency is generally considered to have been scandalous and badly mismanaged.

After I graduated from high school in 1961, I only saw Mr. Phillips one more time when I happened to see him several years later while shopping in a hardware store. He was still as friendly and soft-spoken as I remembered him and he seemed truly happy to see me again. It never occurred to me to ask him if he ever changed his mind about John Kennedy.

I don’t know if Mr. Phillips is still alive, but if he somehow happens to read this, I hope that he understands that I was pretty much a conservative Republican for many years because of what he said that day. I also want him to know that I understood that his words were supposed to help us to understand his view of our country’s direction at that particular moment in time and that he did not mean any disrespect to the office of the president.

History seems to repeat itself, no matter our good intentions. Some of the same attitudes that Mr. Phillips expressed about John Kennedy are now being directed toward President Obama.

It is clear that the far right in the United States is doing everything it can to paint Obama with the same broad brush of slanderous lies and rumors. They say that he is trying to overthrow constitutional American government, steal our freedoms away from us, and that he is really a Muslim in disguise. They assert that he is trying to turn our government into a communist or socialist state – some even claiming that he is a “Manchurian Candidate” born in Kenya, trained in Indonesia, and put into power by New Age, One World Government, Priory of Sion internationalists who want to make slaves out of “freedom loving true Americans.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K1iYEobR6I

The sad thing is that so many patriotic, god-fearing Americans – and others like Mr. Phillips in 1960 – sincerely believe these lies and false rumors to be true and are afraid of what might be in their future. Fear makes people take shameful and self-destructive actions that would not normally be a part of their daily lives. The far right-wing element in this country is doing everything they can to fan those flames of fear – just as they did during John Kennedy’s campaign and presidency.

How will those sincere, but deluded Americans feel about Obama after he leaves office in eight years? All I can say is that I hope to live long enough to be able to answer that question.

[Read a followup article about Mr. Robert Phillips. Click here...]

Ever since Charles Darwin introduced the world to the evolution of life forms by means of natural selection, debate has centered upon the perceived challenge to one’s faith by the theory of evolution. Now the debate has expanded to the public school classroom where religious fundamentalists advocate that “alternative theories to evolution” be taught. The candidate usually proposed for such “alternatives” is intelligent design creationism, albeit the term creationism is usually omitted from the moniker by its proponents so as to avoid challenging the Establishment Clause of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The basic tenant of Intelligent Design is that some biological structures (e.g., the vertebrate eye, the bacterial flagellum, bird’s wings) or some biological processes (e.g., blood clotting mechanisms, cellular replication) are too complex to have been produced by natural processes (natural selection) alone; therefore, these structures must have been “intelligently designed.” Although ID supporters ultimately have to acknowledge that to be intelligently designed, there must be an intelligent “designer.” And that this too represents a challenge to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. So strategically, most ID advocates cautiously avoid such obvious extensions of their claim.

So is ID an alternative scientific theory to evolution? No! Theories are “…in science, well-substantiated explanations of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate tested facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” (National Academy of Sciences, 1998) And, ID proponents provide no testable hypotheses to substantiate their claims nor do they provide a model that meets the stringent criteria of scientific theory. Therefore, calling ID (creationism) a theory is inappropriate, as it doesn’t begin to approach the robustness of scientific theory. Furthermore, cloaking ID in the language of science by using “theory” does not make it scientific; science has higher standards than mere assertion.

ID has as its basic tenant, a fallacy of false alternative; that those biological structures and processes that science hasn’t been able to adequately explain must be the result of a supernatural intelligent design force or agent (designer). What ID proponents fail to recognize is that currently unexplained does not mean always inexplicable. Science is dynamic and answers may be on the horizon for those questions that remain unanswered. By the very nature of science, there will always be questions that remain unanswered because in the process of answering a question or solving a problem, more questions arise. This is the very nature and a most admirable quality of science. New questions will always be formulated.

If ID proponents want to present their ideas in the science classroom, they must first submit testable hypotheses to the scientific community for evaluation and validation, or, per a contemporary version of Francis Bacon’s quote: “Scientific validation must precede what is taught in the science classroom; we do not teach as science what we hope will be validated in the future.”

Here is a video of Dr. Forbes lecture on “Intelligent Design.” It is long, so clear your schedule, but it is very interesting and well presented.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcBs0ZxQ9VY

[Photo credits: "Baby World" photo by Felix Atsoram, Argentina; "3D Earth" graphic by Jamie Woods, Brisbane, Australia]

Like millions of others, my in-box was flooded with patriotic pieces about soldiers during the recent Memorial Day weekend.  One of them stood out for me, not so much for the poignant singing and the historical photos that were featured, but because of the fact that it was made more significant by the man who introduced the singers.

USMC Lieutenant, Andrew Kinard, is a marine who was wounded in Iraq.  He lost both of his legs, and he made the introduction from his wheelchair after an extended standing ovation from the huge audience at the Academy of Country Music Awards.  He concluded his introduction of Trace Adkins and the West Point Glee Club, who were singing to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project, by saying, “Remember, it’s not about the war…it’s about the warrior.”

His statement may have been some time-honored tribute to soldiers, but it was new to me, and it hit close to home.

The star-studded audience was transfixed and emotional as Trace and the Glee Club sang and accompanying photos were flashed upon a large screen.

The video touched me because I know a young soldier – a young warrior.  He’s a young man I have known since he was born, and I am so proud of him that I feel tears welling up almost every time I think of him.  By the grace of god, and the incredible training an Army Ranger goes through, he has not been wounded, even though he was part of the first wave into Baghdad.

He will not talk about the things he saw and did as they fought their way into the heart of Iraq, engaged in mortal combat with people who don’t place the same value on human life Americans do.  Hints he has given me tell me it was a physically and emotionally draining experience that most people can’t even imagine.

Now, as he prepares to leave this summer for a tour of Afghanistan, I am even more proud of him.  He has a young family that he has to leave behind.  He is not intimidated by what he has to do – he is saddened about leaving his family.  He is stoic in his belief that it his duty to make another year long commitment to go to a war zone.  We have an all volunteer army, and he made the choice to become an Army Ranger, just like every other soldier who made it their choice to join the military.

The media tends to ignore it, because it is not deemed to be politically correct in today’s climate of change, but there are thousands of soldiers who return to battle voluntarily.  There are quiet young men like the one I am talking about, who could rip your heart out of your chest in an instant, who are committed to causes that are not supported by a significant faction of Americans.  You may get tired of hearing the mantra that they are fighting so you don’t have to, or so you and your family can live in safety and comfort – but it is true.

I understand that war is a very sensitive issue because young men and young women are being wounded and they are dying.  It is understandable that it is so emotional to so many people.  In spite of that, I believe in what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I also realize that only half of the people in this country are with me.  To me, the country’s division is really not a political issue, although it is heavily influenced by politics.  It’s an ideological issue, and how I or anyone else arrived at our ideological stomping ground is something I’ve never been able to figure out.  It’s obviously complicated, and influenced by age, social surroundings, parental influence, peer pressure, and world and national happenings.

As an early stage Baby Boomer who grew up in a small town in western South Dakota, I am a dreamer who was surrounded by fiercely patriotic, hard-working, honest people who never hesitated to fight for what they believed in.  Most of the people I know with a similar background believe as I do.

My dilemma in trying to understand all of this is that I know some people with the same background as mine who are so far left of me I can barely see them.  It’s probably not that simple because our personal beliefs can be influenced by one particular life circumstance, or a combination of circumstances.

When that young warrior said, “It’s not about the war…it’s about the warrior,”  here is the thing that grabbed me:  The young soldier I know recently turned to me, after looking both directions to make sure nobody else could hear him, and said, “You know Craig, I believe in what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I believe we are doing the right thing.”

This proud, young, American warrior, who is not afraid to engage an enemy soldier in hand-to-hand combat, was afraid of what people around him would think if they heard him say that he believed in what we are doing.  He is heading off for another year away from his family in a horrid and dangerous environment because he believes he is doing the right thing for our country – and he knows only half of us agree with him.  He knows his family members love him and are proud of him.  He knows they worry about him and pray for his safety. But he also knows that many of them are so idealistically against what he is doing that he doesn’t want them to know how he really feels.

No matter what position you take, the next time you are sitting in the comfortable and safe place of your choice, having a glass of wine or a cold beer, take a moment and search your heart for the gratitude and support the young men and women who have chosen to make a sacrifice for you deserve.  Think about them crawling around unfamiliar desert terrain in 120 degree temperatures, praying they don’t find a bullet or an explosive device with their name on it.  Think about how many of them have to go without the things you take for granted: every day a warm shower, a hot meal, a hug from a child, or a walk in the park.

I’m not going to close with, “God bless our soldiers,” because they are blessed.  They are blessed with a type of pride in and commitment to our country that I hope will one day help close the ideological gap that has torn America apart.

In fact the White House has clearly stated that it won’t stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it will not hear any current motions before the Court because it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

The White House stated that the Court ruled correctly in this regard and then referred requests for comment to the Justice Department. It did issue this brief comment:

“The law requires the Department of Defense to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex.”

A spokesman representing gay and lesbian members of the military stated that there are no studies showing unit cohesion, morale and order have been harmed by openly gay people. He pointed out that attitudes among troops and society as a whole are far different than they were in decade of the 1990s when the policy was formulated and first instituted. Our military members who are actually serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have much more liberal attitudes about gay people are very different than some of the high ranking generals and policy makers who are now in their 50s and 60s.

It’s a travesty that several valuable members of the military, both male and female, who have served well and loyally for many years, are now being forced out of military because they refuse to deny or hide their sexual orientation. Some of these people in service have earned medals for bravery under fire, have taken on dangerous assignments, and have provided their branch of service with their special skills and talents.

None of the military members who have recently been forced out, or have been told that they will soon have to leave, have had any reports of misbehavior or disloyal acts during their service.

Some of these gay and lesbian soldiers and sailors have stated that some members of their unit did not realize that they were homosexual, and when they finally learned of that fact they either didn’t care or were vocal in their support of their gay comrades. Yes, there are some in the military who dislike homosexuals and will harass or bully them when given the opportunity. With very few exceptions most members of military units are judged by their peers for how they handle their duties, carry out their orders, and how they treat their subordinates – not whether they are gay or straight – the same as anyone else in service.

President Obama is Commander-in-chief and has the power to take action to stop this injustice from continuing. Even if his preference is to let Congress create laws and regulations as to how to handle specific problems in the military that arise due to some one’s sexual preferences, he should still suspend current enforcement of the policy until that happens. As Commander-in-chief he can reinstate the policy at any time that he feels that it is needed or that military discipline and security might be compromised.

The presence of gays serving in American military units has been documented going back to the French and Indian Wars of the early 18th Century. Many of the officers of both the British and American forces during the Revolution were known to be “dandies,” yet they led their troops and made battle plans with the same skills and sense of duty as their peers.

In the past, one reason for not allowing  homosexuals to serve in the military, or as spies, or in connection with critical secret projects, was that they might be compromised because of their fear of being blackmailed with the threat of public disclosure because of their sexual orientation.  Because of the shame and and public scandal that such a revelation could create, this was probably the right policy for past generations and past wars.  Yet history tells us that many people who were privately gay served well in the most critical secret projects, including development of the atom bomb, jet aircraft, and code deciphering. In fact, all of the major breaches of security that were made public after World War 2 involved heterosexual men and women, many of whom were married and had children.

The presence of homosexuals in the navy was common knowledge among American sailors and officers during the major wars of the 20th century. “Don’t drop the soap in the showers” was a common humorous warning shared between American sailors serving in the Pacific during World War 2. Yet those sailors and soldiers who were gay served just as faithfully in every military unit and in every capacity, were wounded, maimed, and killed just as often as their straight companions.

2007 Senate hearings discussing gays in the military

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe2bJmMKZ5k

This is the 21st Century: Let’s face it folks – gays and lesbians will eventually get their constitutional rights returned to them sometime before this century is over. Are we going to make them sweat it out for several more years, suffering and continuing to be discriminated against like the blacks, Hispanics, and Asians did during the 19th and 20th centuries? Or are we finally going to do the right thing for once and act now to eliminate all discrimination and finally let the Equal Rights Amendment be fully implemented?

I call upon President Obama to take the lead and fulfill his campaign promise to end the unfair and unconstitutional “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rules and guidelines NOW! He has the power to do that under his authority as Commander-in-chief. Do it now, Mr. President, and then let Congress take the time they need to work out the details of any new regulations – or hopefully they will realize that there should not be special rules for homosexual Americans and simply ban all discrimination in the American military once and for all.

[Photo credits: Lou Clarke, UK (Bronze statue- Tankies); Gabriella Fabbri, Italy (Color graphic - Three Soldiers)]

As it turns out, that’s not what’s taught in mainstream Christian seminaries. Scholars have made significant progress in understanding the Bible over the last 200 years and the results of their studies are regularly and routinely taught to university graduate students and prospective pastors.

In Bart D. Ehrman’s book, Jesus, Interrupted – Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them), the author reports that not only are most Americans ignorant about the contents of the Bible, they are completely in the dark about what scholars have been saying about it for the past two centuries. This is what motivated Ehrman to write this book.

With this bold claim driving me, I decided to check it out. Ehrman’s excellent writing skills make his book easy to read and it’s definitely an eye opener. But still, it gnawed at me as to why this information is not more widely known; it gives credence to Will Rogers’ quote, “It’s not what we don’t know that gives us trouble; it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

So I’ve decided to share with our readers some of what I’ve learned from Ehrman’s book in this and future articles.

The first thing you need to know is that I personally don’t believe this information is a threat to anyone espousing true Christianity; I think it should actually enhance their faith. The Bible makes better sense if readers acknowledge its inconsistencies, instead of staunchly insisting that there absolutely are none within its pages.

All of the books in the Bible are distinct and shouldn’t be read as if they’re all saying the same thing—even when talking about the same subject.

So what are some of the things we think we know about the Bible that ain’t so?

• We don’t know for sure who wrote the four Gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. These books were originally written anonymously and not by any of the apostles because they were all illiterate and couldn’t read or write.
• The authors of the New Testament actually have differing views about Jesus and how salvation works.
• The New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later.
• Established Christian doctrines—such as “the suffering messiah,” “the divinity of Jesus,” and “the Trinity”—were actually the inventions of still later theologians.
• There are other books that did not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical— including other Gospels  allegedly written by Jesus’ followers, Peter, Thomas, and Mary.
• The account of Creation in Genesis 1 is very different from the account in Genesis 2. Not only is the wording and writing style different (particularly when read in Hebrew), the two chapters actually use different names for God, and the content of the chapters differs greatly.

This is just a small sample of the many interesting, well-researched new facts that I’ve learned about the Bible from reading Ehrman’s book, Jesus, Interrupted. I’ll be sharing more with our readers in the near future.

[Photo credits: Dave Hiebert (feature graphic, Bible verse closeup); Piotr Bizior (Man with book)]

If we want energy security here in the United States (I think we need it) and not remain dependent on foreign oil, then why do we appear to be overlooking natural gas?

These questions beg for a logical response. Natural gas is far more cost effective than either oil or coal, and America’s known resource base exceeds 100 years of supply based on current U.S. consumption levels.

My son Keith is a chemical engineer and plant manager for Total Petrochemicals in Houston, Texas. He recently shared with me what I think is a thought-provoking lecture from Keith Rattie, president of Questar Corp, one of the fastest-growing producers of natural gas in America. You can read his speech in its entirety HERE.

This ten-page transcript of Rattie’s lecture is loaded with lots of irrefutable facts about our energy needs. In my opinion it makes an overpowering case for using natural gas—a significantly cleaner fossil fuel—to help wean our country away from gasoline and coal.

Unfortunately, many of the kernels of wisdom could be lost in the misinformation Mr. Rattie also cites about the ice cap in the Arctic and a “green” Greenland, along with some of his assertions about global warming (I prefer “climate change”). And the messenger does not help the cause with his subjective forecast for alternative fuels.

Perhaps that’s how he thinks the game is played. There is currently no accountability system existing to challenge hard-core environmentalists who willingly or naively misrepresent the facts or use doctored-up pictures to garner support for their doom and gloom views. Many Al Gore clones have successfully demonized everything and everyone associated with fossil fuel industries by using these methods.

Far too many in the public treat oil companies like the enemy, forcing them to defend themselves needlessly and to spend their valuable time and resources to satisfy poorly thought-out regulations. Yes – and it doesn’t help oil people when their cause is championed by Dick Cheney or radio personality Rush Limbaugh, someone who has turned the use of misinformation into an art form. But it also doesn’t invalidate what the “ditto heads” know to be the truth.

And so it is with Mr. Rattie. His use of misinformation doesn’t change the enormous opportunity for America to use more natural gas as an energy source. We’ll make a huge mistake by minimizing our staggering, 24-hours-a-day dependency on fossil fuel producers who are supporting our standard of living. Nor should we fantasize about how simple it would be to completely replace petroleum with energy from the sun, wind, and other natural resources.

Natural Gas: Pros and cons as a fuel for automobiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGaA7r2Y70I

I for one am grateful for Mr. Rattie’s motives. I feel that if he wants to make a case for natural gas – a really good one – a case that will be supported by the majority of the public and key politicians, then he needs to limit his speech writing to areas in which he is supremely qualified. Rattie isn’t a scientist, but I think he’s a damn good salesman who understands the potential for natural gas. And, I like his tenacity.

That part of the world is about as far from our homeland as is geographically possible, and yet a great deal of commerce flows through those waters that directly affect the American economy.

The international aspect is shown by the hijacking of the ship Maersk Alabama, a container ship owned by Denmark-based A. P. Moller-Maersk Group and operated from Norfolk, Virginia, by United States-based Maersk Line Limited. The crew was made up of mostly American sailors and the captain, Richard Phillips, also an American, was from Underhill, Vermont. The ship was bound for Kenya to deliver food, medical supplies and other humanitarian material for eastern African nations, including Somalia.

A close look at a map of that area shows that the oil rich countries of Yemen and Saudi Arabia lay just across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia. Their oil tankers pass through these straits hourly, but ships using this major artery fly flags of all nations, are of all types, and are manned by sailors from every part of the world. So far, only a few affected countries have taken any decisive action, primarily France and the United States.

Operation Atlanta, a campaign by the European Union to stop the piracy, has been announced. The EU will provide joint naval patrols with ships from Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands – replacing NATO patrols.

Surprisingly, President Obama has been relatively silent on his plans to fight piracy or to provide patrols in the area. On the other hand, it was on his order that Navy SEALS shot and killed three of the pirates holding Captain Phillips.

The far right wing of the Republican Party has taken the position that President Obama is afraid to deal with the pirates and by giving a polite bow to the Saudi King, has essentially given the them the “green light” to continue with their criminal acts.

This is not the first time in our history that our President has had to deal with pirates based in an African Muslim nation. The First Barbary War (1801–1805), was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America (briefly joined by a small Swedish fleet) and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States. These included the Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.

Pirates based in those countries were enjoying the protection of the local political leaders. They harassed ships from all nations passing along the northwestern African coast and within the Mediterranean Sea. Piracy was the main external force that was damaging the economies of several European countries.

Just as shipping companies and nations have been doing recently with the Somali pirates, Britain and France chose to use a combination of military might, diplomacy, and the payment of ransoms to keep their ships more or less safe from attack.

In 1783, the newly freed colonies of America became solely responsible for the safety of their own commerce and citizens. Without a naval force capable of protecting our ships in the Mediterranean, like Britain and France the U.S. government was forced to make pragmatic, but ultimately self-destructive choices.

In 1784, Congress allocated money for payment of tribute to the Barbary pirates and instructed our British and French ambassadors (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) to try to negotiate peace treaties with the Barbary nations. The price demanded for these treaties by the Muslim rulers far exceeded the amount that Congress had made available.

In 1786, Jefferson and Adams tried to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London. When they asked him why his country was allowing the pirates to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, the ambassador replied:

“It is written the Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave. Every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.” The envoy stated that any man who was first to board a vessel would receive a slave over and above his share, and that when the pirates jumped onto the deck of an enemy ship, they each held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth. The ship’s crew would become so afraid that they would surrender at once.

Jefferson argued to Congress that paying tribute would encourage even more attacks. John Adams agreed with Jefferson, but he believed that circumstances forced the United States to continue to pay tribute until a fully equipped navy could be built. At the same time, the nation was deep in debt and there was little or no money to pay for tributes to the Muslim pirates or to build enough ships to fight them.

Finally in 1801, newly elected President Thomas Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean. Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, but they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of the armed vessels of the United States to seize all ships and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli “and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.”

Under the command of Commodore Edward Preble, the USS Argus, USS Chesapeake, USS Constellation, USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, USS Intrepid, USS Philadelphia and USS Syren all saw service during the war. By 1803 the United States Navy had blockaded all of the Barbary ports and were regularly attacking the pirate fleets.

In October 1803, Tripoli’s pirates were able to capture USS Philadelphia intact within Tripoli harbor. The ship, its captain, William Bainbridge, and all officers and crew were taken ashore and held as hostages. The pirates turned the Philadelphia against the Americans and anchored it in the harbor to be used as a gun battery.

The rescue mission to save Captain Phillips was led by the USS Bainbridge, a Navy guided missile destroyer. The Navy SEALS fired from its deck to kill three of the hijackers. She is the fifth ship to carry that name, and the 46th destroyer of a planned 62-ship class. The USS Bainbridge is named in honor of Commodore William Bainbridge, the captain of the ill-fated USS Philadelphia in the Tripoli War. Later, as commander of the frigate USS Constitution, he and his crew distinguished themselves in the War of 1812.

The turning point in the war came in 1805 during the Battle of Derna. General William Eaton and US Marine First Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon led a mixed force of eight United States Marines and an international force of 500 Greek, Arab and Berber mercenaries. They marched across the desert from Alexandria, Egypt to assault and to capture the Tripolitan city of Derna. This was the first time in history that the United States flag was raised in victory on foreign soil. This action was memorialized in a line from the Marines’ Hymn — “the shores of Tripoli.”

Wearied of the blockade and raids, and now under threat of a continued advance on the main city, Tripoli’s ruler ,Yussif Karamanli, signed a peace treaty on June 10, 1805.

The Tripoli Monument, the oldest military monument in the U.S. located at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, honors the heroes of the First Barbary War.

President Obama is facing the issue much like his historic predecessor, Thomas Jefferson. It is clear that piracy on the high seas can not be allowed to continue – any more than air piracy. This presents an opportunity for our president to take the lead and form an effective international naval police force led by our Navy and its Marines.

Several suggestions have been made by military and commercial shipping experts. One excellent idea is to create a shipping lane from the Gulf of Aden to the southern end of Kenya that is heavily patrolled by an international flotilla of small navy ships and helicopters that are supported by aircraft carriers and jets from Britain, France and the United States. Merchant ships would have to stay within the corridor moving in both directions. Any small vessels or ships not registered to be within the corridor would be subject to boarding, inspection and seizure by the international coalition. Anyone found committing acts of piracy would be captured, charged and placed on trial in one of the coalition nations.

Another good idea is to effectively seal the borders of Somalia both physically and electronically. All international banking transactions would be filtered and any accounts owned by pirates or their sponsors would be seized. If there is no money to be made or paid, then the reason for pirates to exist would disappear.

Some critics will argue that this international blockade of Somalian commerce is illegal and violates the right of the sovereignty of the Somalian government. But just like the situation that existed in 1801, the Somali pirates are like the Barbary pirates, paying off the rulers of the local governments for protection. Somalia has no effective government, no national military, and no public services. It is essentially a “no man’s land” run by war lords and well armed bandits.

At the same time we must remember the lessons learned the last time we put our military into Somalia. We sent in far too few Marines and soldiers who were totally unprepared and under-equipped. Their primary backup support was from a small United Nations military police force that had orders not to fire their weapons. The Marines faced thousands of freelance soldiers armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers. We do not want to find ourselves in another “Blackhawk Down” situation. No, never again.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, a Republican icon, blasted the President because Obama ordered the pirates to be killed — and the pirates were “only teenagers.” In the days and hours before the rescue, other right-wing critics painted the Somali pirate stalemate as a metaphor for the weakness of the Obama administration’s national security policy. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich blamed the pirate attacks on a lack of “will” by the White House, which seeks a “magical solution” that “doesn’t involve risk and doesn’t involve making hard decisions.” Another Republican blogger wrote that the Somali pirates have been encouraged by Obama’s “touchy feely” military posture.

President Obama needs to look back at the situation that President Jefferson faced and how he handled it. He also needs to look at the mistakes made by the Clinton Administration’s handling of Somalia in the 1990s. See if there are lessons to be learned and new approaches that can be taken. We know that the pirates do not read or understand our history, and our president should use their lack of knowledge against them. Cut off the head of the snake and the body will die…

In 1995 and 1996, my wife Claire and I rode a tandem bicycle 14,000 miles around America. We wanted to experience an adventure and to discover what our fellow Americans were really like. During our travels we met hundreds of caring, sharing people who made us proud to be Americans.

We also discovered that many of them are fearful - and sometimes, because of that fear, they dislike each other. Fear seems to breed antipathy, even hate.

People thought we were either brave or stupid to try to undertake such a journey. We figured it was a little of both – but it was our choice.  As Americans we are blessed to have the freedom to do with our lives as we please. After nearly forty thousand miles of pedaling around the world, we’ve learned that many others are not so fortunate. They do not have the freedom to even learn about their own culture, let alone travel the world and learn about other lifestyles.

As thousands of miles passed under our wheels, we were driven by our increasingly powerful muscles and sharper, more questioning minds - and we wondered why so many Americans seemed so afraid. What was causing their fear?

In rural Washington state we passed a sign on a driveway that said, “WARNING: Don’t Come Around Here After Dark, Or You’ll Be Found Here In The Morning.” We realized that locking one’s door is not necessarily being fearful, just prudent. But what was it that would motivate someone to threaten everyone passing his house?

A retired fighter pilot in Texas, an Hispanic trucker in Nevada, a pickup-driving cowboy in Montana, a Cajun sheriff’s deputy - along with many other folks of all colors with their own political and religious persuasions – all asked us: “What do you carry for protection?”

We settled on a vague answer: “We don’t talk about that.” Our response seemed to satisfy most everyone except the Cajun deputy sheriff who insisted I take his heavy-duty pepper spray.

We were invited for dinner and a bed by a wonderful couple we met in Indiana. They were curious as to why we would do such a dangerous thing as riding a bicycle around America. They were followers of a preacher who told them Armageddon would come in the year 2000. They owned weapons and their house had bars on the windows and several locks on the doors. They couldn’t explain to us how any of this would help them during the great conflagration that we are told will come with Armageddon.

I respect other’s religious beliefs as long as they respect my lack thereof. But I found it to be strange that their god did not give them comfort, but fear. We explained to them that we had no fear because we were living our dream; if something were to happen to us, we would have fulfilled our lives. I hope our positive attitude about the dangers of our trip made them question their own excessive fears.

Mind you, none of these people had ever been attacked by anyone - or had even personally known someone who had been attacked – but they still felt the need for protection. This was years before 9/11; our government had not yet created within us the constant fear of terrorists and violent crimes were actually declining throughout most of the country.

I can only conclude that we Americans are fearful because it is in someone’s interest to keep us that way. Gun and ammunition manufacturers certainly gain, as do locksmiths and home security companies. But what about psychologists and ministers? And Hollywood movies and TV shows?

I’m not suggesting that these particular entities, or any other businesses or individuals, are engaged in a conspiracy to make us all fearful. But where are the voices speaking out for the opposing viewpoint, that we really have very little to fear in this country?

The obvious answer is that there’s no profit in helping Americans to feel secure, but plenty of money to be made by making us afraid.

The big downside is this: Fear breeds a distrust for those who are not like us, and that fact could eventually lead to the breakdown of our cohesiveness as a nation.

Isn’t that exactly what our enemies want – for Americans to be afraid? Could our fearfulness really be our worst enemy?