The Question of Love

How to write of flowers
opening in winter, gray and cold;
the world on verge of war;
you: unfolding with touch of lip
and hand - delicate, yet firm -
tiny, first buds of spring, rising to push
back snow; then the rose, lustrous in full bloom,
opening, receiving, responding!

Ours: this journey to be here; embraced
against this winter - this war that rages round
and would be in us, were it not for love
we shelter here, beating heart to heart,
lips brushing, exchanging breath for breath.

A Guide Dog for Peace

My guide dog, Reggie is a virtual ambassador of peace. Perhaps the most beautiful part of this attribute is that Reggie probably has no idea of his contribution; he simply does what he does. I became increasingly aware of this wonderful quality of his nature only as I began to contemplate the idea of peace while preparing to write this article.

I initially filled page after page with intellectualized explorations of the idea of peace, while becoming increasingly conscious that I was missing the great heart of peace that other writers communicate so fully. I then realized that my beautiful dog guide communicates peace in his every action, even in his aggressive play.

Reggie is a three year old black Labrador retriever who began his life at Guide Dogs for the Blind in San Raphael, California. I first met Reggie at their Boring, Oregon, campus when he was twenty months old. To me, Reggie initially appeared to be a rather non-descript black Lab, and I have to confess I felt disappointed at first. I wanted a big shepherd: a power symbol! It took observations from my classmates and comments from trainers who had housed him and cared for Reggie before and during his training before I began to raise my estimations. Even then I failed to come even close to understanding the depth of his true nature. Perhaps I am not close even yet!

I had to deal with what I quickly recognized were my own issues before Reggie and I began training together. I was succumbing to qualities that were largely visual in valuing a dog guide, when I mostly operate in a non-visual environment with my restricted sight. I also realized that whatever I thought about this dog, he wanted to succeed as much as I did, and he deserved every chance. I was the one who could give him his chance, and he would also give me mine.

We left Guide Dogs for the Blind three weeks later with the promise of becoming a great team, and after a little more than a year of working together, we have lived up to that promise. We have become a smoothly working duo, thanks mostly to Reggie, sharing a deep communication I would never have thought possible between human and dog. We are together nearly every moment of the day, sharing more time together than my human partner and I can share. Fortunately, Ruth loves Reggie too, and he is happiest when we are all three together.

Reggie brings peace through his calmness and his quietness. Like most dog guides, he seldom, if ever, barks; he is never aggressive toward people. But I now sense these well-trained behaviors as only the gateway to something deeper within his nature. Whenever we encounter exuberant or aggressive dogs while on a route, Reggie simply stands, without response, until excessive barking and frenetic activity subsides. I intervene whenever possible, of course, but Reggie has taught me by example to keep it calm, friendly and positive, never returning aggression for aggression, but simply maintaining a calm stance that allows no compromise. This is the ideal to strive for, even if not perfectly achieved every time. Reggie's constant example provides me with an unerring model.

People invariably respond to Reggie, wanting to talk both with him and about him, sharing treasured feelings they have about either their own dogs, dogs from their past, or other dogs they know. Recently, while we visited my mother, who now lives in an Atlanta nursing home, Reggie elicited response from a man with brain injury who usually refused to talk with anyone. We had several extended conversations together in Reggie's quiet presence.

We go everywhere now with an accompanying chorus of appreciation for Reggie's handsome beauty. I sense those offering such enthusiastic responses are attempting to credit observed canine qualities for something arising within themselves during the encounter. Reggie causes the critical, complaining mind to release its grip on the responsive heart and the natural love within each person is set free. Suddenly there is an interrelatedness with the surrounding world where before there was a sense of otherness. Awareness of our essential interrelatedness provides us both the foundation and the necessity for peace.

Some people ignore Reggie, of course, and he appropriately ignores them in return, forcing his presence on no one. He responds to people when allowed, and then only when he senses they want contact. He is aware when anyone is afraid and chooses to confront fear with quiet presence. He never overstays a welcome or asks for more attention than he senses a person wants to give. He gives attention to others when asked and allowed, and then returns to work.

Essential to Reggie's message of peace, then, are his calmness, quietness and sense of inner composure and balance, energizing his entire presence with a perceived feeling of peace. He is fully centered within himself as he greets the world, having the composure to know that disturbances can swirl around him without his needing to react in self defense. His balanced composure in the midst of stress gives him ultimate control so that peace prevails. Such qualities are prevalent among dog guides of course, and Reggie is certainly not at all an atypical canine in his profession in terms of attracting public interest. However, like all dog guides and well trained service dogs, Reggie brings peace anc comfort to our world in his own special way.

Play time allows Reggie an outlet for aggression, and then he reveals his alpha-male personality to the full. He is an aggressive chewer, capable of destroying any chew toy known in the civilized world while never touching a household article. He is really undefeatable playing "tug " in a direct trial of strength, susceptible only the first time to any new trickery. His most aggressive game is what I describe as "football," when he runs circles and then charges to crash against me with all his strength, growling like a Rottweiler (he was raised with two) and with his teeth bared as though my life has reached its end. A short bout of this combat will usually suffice for his energy release, and he will always stop immediately with the command: "that's enough!"

I sense, then, that Reggie teaches me to greet the world with inner composure and calm no matter what agitation outside circumstances might otherwise provoke. I can only do this by remaining centered within myself so as not to be drawn unwittingly into conflict. Most of all, my experience with Reggie reminds me on a daily basis that all beings are interconnected, and we are all therefore part of one family. Personal and community growth are possible when we recognize our interdependent relationships with each other and work together to solve common problems.

Peace brings us together, allowing us to pool creative energy for the common good. Conflict tears us apart, alienates us from one another to the extent that we believe separateness is normal. We can achieve comparatively little when we hold ourselves in isolation from each other.

And what about the power symbol I wanted my guide dog to be? There can be no greater power than calmness in the midst of any stress, especially when that calmness shows the ability to exert its influence on all disturbances around it. An influence like Reggie helps us to focus on who we really are as beings within this world rather than focusing on what we fear in the world around us.

Gateway to Heaven Radio Interview with Nancy Lockhart

Nancy Lockhart was interviewed by Raphael Louis on his Sunday, November 16 Internet Radio program, "Gateway to Heaven" in a webcast entitled "The Wrongful Conviction of Jamie and Gladys Scott." Nancy came across clearly in the webcast, as did the girls' mother, Evelyn Rasco and a niece who was also present.

Nancy forthrightly presents her views on this case during the interview as she does in her written articles. She is emphatic in her desire to concentrate on the quickest possible release for Jamie and Gladys Scott, allowing other concerns to be addressed afterwards according to the family's wishes.

For those unfamiliar with their case: Jamie and Gladys Scott were wrongfully convicted in a Scott county Mississippi trial in 1994 for a double armed robbery involving at most ten or eleven dollars. Though sworn affidavits state the sisters were not involved, Gladys and Jamie each received double life sentences. They have now served fourteen years in prison for a crime they did not commit.

Nancy asks especially for trained legal assistance in handling details of the case as well as public assistance in spreading the word about the plight of Jamie and Gladys while they remain in prison.

Specifically, Nancy needs the assistance of people from the general public who will follow her lead, using their particular abilities in accordance with the direction she sets. This approach is understandable, as Nancy has devoted herself extensively to this case for over four years now.

Momentum seems to be growing to resolve this case, Nancy reported. She has an interview with a Washington D. C. radio station scheduled to air on Monday, November 24. A colleague is petitioning members of the Harvard Law faculty to review the case. More and more members of the public are signing the petition to free Gladys and Jamie. Possibilities grow for wider media attention to the case: as Nancy says, "Media gets media!

The interview is informative for anyone, whether or not the listener is familiar with the case. It can be heard by selecting the following link:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/FAAVM-Canada

Please sign the Petition to Free Jamie and Gladys Scott by following the link below and encourage everyone you know to do the same. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Free-Jamie-Gladys/index.html

For more information concerning this case and Nancy Lockhart's work please follow the link below: http://www.squidoo.com/WRONGFUL-CONVICTION-OF-JAMIE-AND-GLADYS-SCOTT

“OBAMA – Leadership for the 21st Century”

I want to introduce an opportunity for readers to access online and then purchase if they wish an exceptional book by Victoria DePaul: Obama -Leadership for the 21st Century. The extended quotation below will indicate to all how fully the author has captured the significance of the new leadership exhibited by Obama and the world shaping change it is likely to produce. 

I am still reading the book on line at this point but I find it so exceptional that I am unable to wait longer before sharing it with others. 

Please access this site quickly as the opportunity may not linger. Purchasing options for the book are found there.

Doug Robinson

FROM: OBAMA Leadership for the 21st Century

By Victoria DePaul

 
"In the past eighteen months we have watched as Barack Obama has inspired and motivated millions throughout the United States and across the globe. This inspiration has been the backbone of a grassroots movement previously unseen in our political history. Citizens of all ages, religions, races, economic status and gender have claimed a piece of the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign in unprecedented numbers. 

As of September 30, 2008 the campaign had raised 605 million dollars with over two million donors. Barack Obama has launched a successful primary campaign by mobilizing first time voters through nation-wide voter registration drives. He has demanded our attention with promises of change and has restored the legacy of hope in baby boomers, long lost in the cynicism of the late 60's and 70's.

The pages that follow describe how Barack Obama has etched his place in American history. Here you will find essays, anecdotes and quotes on leadership, contribution and hope. Leadership experts will offer their perspectives on how Barack Obam and Joe Biden serve as sterling examples of some of the emerging leadership strategies of the 21st century. Some of these words will come from Obama himself; many from ordinary citizens that have been moved from complacency to action. 

This book, this chronicle, indeed this story, is a historical event- not just the story of one individual but the collective voice of a nation. This is not a book of facts and numbers but an attempt to document a movement of empowerment, change and personal accountability, the true essence of leadership … "

Site Link: http://www.ebookobama.com/index.html

 

 

 
 

Marriage: Challenging Proposition 8

Below are two links to powerful comments on mounting public reaction to California's Proposition 8 and successful ballot initiatives in several states revoking the legality of same-sex marriage within their jurisdictions. One is a special comment by Keith Olberman from Monday night's Countdown. The other a section from the Rachael Maddow Show, seen also on November 10.

I confess to being too stunned to comment on these ballot initiatives, most notably in California, disallowing same sex marriage. The California decision surprised me especially because the state went so decidedly for Obama in the Presidential election. While Obama took no positive position on this issue, support for Obama would outwardly indicate a more liberal attitude to this concern, those supporting the Republican side being more easily envisioned as opposing same-sex marriage.

Obviously, my presumptions were incorrect, tarnishing any sense I had of overall victory for good on November 4, but affecting numerous couples directly involved far more deeply. These measures represent the intolerant imposition of one group's sense of propriety over the entire population, resulting in a growing polarization that threatens new attempts to create a genuinely holistic and pluralistic community. Eight years of fear based national and regional government led primarily by politicians and spiritual leaders who sought to divide one group against another perhaps provides sufficient inertia for what seems a backward move in contrast to other positive change. However, the point really is not whether any one of us agrees with the idea of same-sex marriage. Each of us can choose for not to participate. The point is to acknowledge the deep need of couples, whether of same or differing sex, to express the validity or their mutual commitment in terms of the traditional marriage institution.

Many of us find value in committed partnerships we choose not to define in terms of marriage. We choose this rout for reasons individual to ourselves, and we find these committed unions more or less easily accepted and understood from one community to another. Like those seeking the identity of marriage for committed, same-sex relationships, partnerships such as ours are outside the norm for most communities and are therefore frowned upon by some within any community for not conforming to specific moral concepts. But our sense of exclusion is nothing to what those seeking same-sex marriage must now feel.

Tradition defines marriage in its generally accepted composition simply because the institution was previously needed only to create and legitimize offspring as genuine community members. There is no wonder then that the union between woman and man could be regarded as sacred since it secured the community's authentic continuum. Any love relationship between same sex individuals would be regarded as abhorrent, as it represented wasted energy that could otherwise provide progeny. Such an exclusive marriage concept can be considered understandable during past eras, where community survival was constantly threatened, especially by the comparative brevity of individual life-span. Presently, in an age of comparative longevity in which we generally find ourselves more concerned with global over-population than with ancestral community survival, we place at least as much value on the enriching nature of relationship for participating individuals as for possible children. Our modern world situation at least gives us the communal opportunity to allow for alternative unions without undue threat to community survival.

Our relative views of tradition define our since of community identity and origin. These relative views of tradition also serve to guide us as we develop. Thus, our since of tradition can serve as a guide pointing the way forward rather than confining us to previous concepts. Couples seeking same-sex marriage presently show a sense of tradition as guide when they express their strong need to define love relationships within traditional marriage terms, declaring the essential sacredness of their mutual love. They carry on the essential values developed over time within the conventional marriage relationship. Steadfast commitment between the partners may always have been a essential, but the concept of abiding love between the partners may be comparatively new when placed against the entire span of human development.

Tolerance for differing views and shared willingness to co-exist with those of differing persuasions and outlooks may be more important than overall agreement on this and other issues however. Perhaps this is why the Judeo-Christian tradition has usually recognized the principal: "treat others as you wish them to treat you!" as overriding all other principals. All other world faith communities recognize this overriding principal as well, even though the language and emphisis varies. Each tradition thus has the ideal of mutual tolerance as its overriding regulator, so long as followers view faith teachings in a hierarchical fashion within which this principal envelops all other teaching, imbuing all legality with its essence.

First, "love one another!" - that is: "get along with each other without being overcome with disagreement!" Keith Olberman got it right in his special comment – the rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" trumps all others and shows us even now how to live together in peace and mutual understanding.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27652792

 

 

 

 

Lessons from William Ayers

This article is not written to condone William Ayres 1960s Weather Underground involvement. It is written to emphasize that Ayers is no longer a terrorist, no matter how his words and actions may have been described forty plus years ago. It is also written to clarify that Ayers never said "I wish we had bombed more!" Finally, this article is written to underline the fact that William Ayers and Barack Obama are not and never have been close associates.

Fact Check will give a good summation of misrepresentations concerning William Ayers and Barack Obama presently employed by the McCain campaign (see Fact check: Obama and Ayers). A further discussion of Obama’s relationship with Ayers, with supporting articles, can be .ound at the following link: Obama Ayers Connection?. These sources show any claims of close association, especially "palling around" to be false. They also disprove the assertion that Obama began his political career at a fund raiser hosted by Ayers. Obama and Ayers do know each other and have served together on the board of directors for a Chicago based charity. Ayers also contributed $200 to Obama's 2001 state senate reelection campaign. Regardless of his Weathermen background during the Vietnam era, William Ayers has since earned the titles of "Senior University Scholar" and "Distinguished Professor" at the University of Illinois. He is also the author of fourteen books.

On September 15, 2001, William Ayers addressed a letter to the New York Times in response to a September 11, 2001 article concerning his upcoming book Fugitive Days, contributed by Times writer Dinitia Smith with the subtitle: "No regrets for a love of explosives." Clearly the Times writer misunderstood Ayers book and his comments during their interview to mean he still condoned Weathermen bombing attempts during the sixties. The coincidental date of the of the article's publication has led to the current McCain campaign charge that Ayers regretted that "we didn't bomb more" on the day of the 9/11 tragedy.

Ayers' Sept 15, 2001 objection to Dinitia Smith's 9/11 misinterpretation of his writing and interview comments makes it clear Ayers then and now opposes terrorism in any form. He explicitly describes his book, Fugitive Days, as "from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism." His writing does point out how violence can lead to violence, however, and the following description has led to the misconstrued idea that Ayers regrets limited results from Weathermen bombing attempts. "I told her (Smith) that in light of the indiscriminate murder of millions of Vietnamese, we showed remarkable restraint, and that while we tried to sound a piercing alarm in those years, in fact we didn't do enough to stop the war." This comment does not mention, much less extol Weathermen bombing activity, carried out by the way with prior warning and with concern for protecting human life. Though regrettable in themselves, the only deaths from Weathermen bombing activity were those of supporters injured while handling explosive material.

Without condoning Weathermen activity, we may still recognize the group's members as feeling driven to extreme acts by the ever mounting horrors of the Vietnam War. Quoting another passage misconstrued by Dinitia Smith in her Times article: "
How could we understand it? How could we take it in? Most important, what should we do about it?"

Smith misconstrued the following passage to indicate a love of explosives: "There is a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance. The rhythm of B-52s dropping bombs over Viet Nam, a deceptive calm at 40,000 feet as the doors ease open and millennial eggs are delivered on the green canopy below, the relentless thud of indiscriminate destruction and death without pause on the ground. Nothing subtle or syncopated. Not a happy rhythm."

This is the awful quiet following a wartime air attack on a clear and otherwise beautiful day as portrayed in William Soutar's WWII era poem, The Children:

Upon the street they lie
Beside the broken stone:
The blood of children stares from the broken stone.

Death came out of the sky
In the bright afternoon:
Darkness slanted over the bright afternoon.

Again the sky is clear
But upon earth a stain:
The earth is darkened with a darkening stain:

A wound which everywhere
Corrupts the hearts of men:
The blood of children corrupts the hearts of men.

Silence is in the air:
The stars move in their places:
Silent and serene the stars move in their places.

But from earth the children stare
With blind and fearful faces:
And our charity is in the children's faces.

Thus Ayers expresses the terror felt by so many contemporary Americans confronting the moral horror of Vietnam: "Three million Vietnamese lives were extinguished. …. Three million—each with a mother and a father, a distinct name, a mind and a body and a spirit, someone who knew him well or cared for her or counted on her for something or was annoyed or burdened or irritated by him; each knew something of joy or sadness or beauty or pain. Each was ripped out of this world, a little red dampness staining the earth, drying up, fading, and gone. Bodies torn apart, blown away, smudged out, lost forever."

Such horror demanded response, and, as now with events in Iraq and Afghanistan – not to mention African holocausts with which we feel uninvolved, most US citizens went about their daily lives showing little concern. Many of us protested as best we could in that time. Students were indiscriminately gunned down on the Kent State campus; was this not terrorism in its own right? Eventually the nation united in such anguish that its citizens collectively failed to honor the courage of those citizens who fought for their country in a misguided cause. This also is regrettable.

In the September 15, 2001 Times letter, Ayers describes his book in the following way: "My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. It begins literally in the shadow of Hiroshima and comes of age in the killing fields of Southeast Asia. My book criticizes the American obsession with a clean and distanced violence, and the culture of thoughtlessness and carelessness that results from it."

His concluding words in this passage are no less telling now than they were in September 2001: "We are now witnessing crimes against humanity in our own land on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we might soon see innocent people in other parts of the world as well as in the U.S. dying and suffering in response." These are not the words of one who espouses terror. They are rather those of one who seeks peace and who strives to do everything possible to achieve it.

As citizens of a nation where freedom of thought and expression is cherished, we may need to learn to experience and offer understanding and forgiveness to others regardless of whether or not it is asked. We are often quick to demand repentance from those we consider wrong. We also demand rejection and repudiation of all who express differing views. We seem to no longer find value in a community of competing ideas that wrestle together to achieve a greater understanding than any one individual might reach. Instead, we increasingly isolate ourselves from any challenge to our chosen views, gaining information and even defining truth from the pronouncements of selected individuals and institutions. Our discourse becomes steadily reduced to competing assertions that deny all veracity to opposing views without weight of merit. We shout our preconceived views at each other without listening to hear what anyone else has to offer. Our society is in danger of becoming as polarized as FOX News and MSNBC presently reflect it to be, each presenting a differing world view to be swallowed whole each day by their respective audiences.

Now more than ever we need tolerance for those among us who offer a different approach than what we consider normal. Tolerance for differing views and experiences can help each of us to expand personal horizons, thus promoting individual growth and enrichment. Without the influence of differing ideas we all will only become increasingly narrow in our views over time, growing correspondingly limited in our ability to respond to the wonder of life around us. Above all, peace requires tolerance, conflict denies tolerance. While there are certainly things no democratic society should condone, we must also be judicious in where we place these restrictions lest we harm our own freedom and ultimate humanity in the process.

Concluding his September 15, 2001 New York Times letter, William Ayers has the following wisdom to share: "All that we witnessed September 11—the awful carnage and pain, the heroism of ordinary people—may drive us mad with grief and anger, or it may open us to hope in new ways. Perhaps precisely because we have suffered we can embrace the suffering of others and gather the necessary wisdom to resist the impulse to lash out randomly. The lessons of the anti-war movements of the 1960s and 70s may be more urgent now than ever."

Spreading the Wealth

John McCain recently ridiculed Barack Obama for telling “Joe the Plumber” – in reality “Sam the Contractor,” behind on paying his taxes – he wanted to “spread the wealth.” McCain said he wanted “Joe” to keep his wealth – actually much less than reported – to himself. McCain insisted that Obama’s tax plan would hurt Joe’s goal of buying his employer’s plumbing business when all indications are that Sam would actually benefit from Obama’s plan. Such is the continued misrepresentation that has become a hallmark of the McCain campaign. Obama’s desire to “spread the wealth” deserves more consideration.

Spreading the wealth is actually what we should be doing individually and as a society, rather than hoarding wealth as John McCain and the Republicans suggest. Those who suggest McCain is uncomfortable with his own message may have merit to their position, judging by his campaign demeanor. The accuracy of this observation will become obvious following the election. Our best response now, however, is to treat the Arizona senator with compassion for the entrapped position he may have provided for himself and to address the overriding morality of the issue he now presents as an attack on the Obama campaign.

Hoarding wealth simply flies in the face of all accepted human wisdom, no matter what the culture may be. Some strands of Jewish teaching value wealth as a sign of divine favor, but good stewardship and generosity are required of the worthy recipient. Some aspects of modern Buddhist teaching seem to reflect wealth possession and creation as a value, but classic Buddhist teaching focuses more on avoiding material wealth as a spiritual distraction. Still, as with Jewish teaching, stewardship and generosity are valued qualities. Personal blessings are to be shared with others in the community.

Christians specifically are urged not to hoard up treasure on earth but rather to gather spiritual treasure. While Christian teaching and its Jewish antecedents may provide the most cogent admonition against John McCain’s campaign position, it is certain that his call for individuals to hoard wealth contradicts the deepest strands of world moral teaching. No spiritual teaching views wealth hoarding as a value.

The dragon in western culture hoards wealth but has no idea what to do with it. He imprisons the virgin but has no idea what to do but frighten her. His obsession with the goal of possession inhibits knowledge. He can only learn by releasing his self-absorbed concentration on the tantalizing beauty he hoards to become a part of the larger community, no longer threatening civilization by fiery annihilation. He then becomes the oriental dragon, a source of communal wisdom and an expression of communal wealth. The oriental dragon brings blessing, in essence spreading the wealth.

The responsibility of tithing is the principle behind communal contribution through taxation. The object is to show concern for and stewardship of the community by giving back a portion of personal income to support community needs. This commitment acknowledges that religious and also civil communities sustain personal activity and well being. Contributions to supporting communities are therefore as much acts of self interest as they are of generosity.

Personal philanthropy is quite a different thing. Here generosity is shown to chosen people, organizations or communities by generous benefactors. Philanthropy is implicit in Republican ideas that high financial achievers should keep their wealth to dole out to worthy causes as they choose. This is the principle of “trickle down” economics. While this attitude values personal generosity, it provides little or no sustenance for the larger community.

Philanthropy is selective and limited in its scope by the awareness and generosity of contributors. Philanthropic individuals and organizations tend to address immediate rather than chronic conditions and overall maintenance concerns. Through the shared tithe-like contribution of general taxation, governments are able to distribute resources over the broad range of concerns affecting civil and social wellbeing.

Shared representation in governing bodies, such as congress, state legislatures, county and municipal councils, provides the broad consensus needed to identify shared concerns. While no one citizen may agree with all areas of social concern, each individual has power to express opinion through persuasion and ultimately through the ballot. This is, in essence, the social contract underlying our democracy. The “bottom up” economics modeled in Obama’s proposed tax plan reflects the idea that we will all contribute most effectively from positions of well-being.

Starving animals or people may eat any proffered morsel but they will still die of starvation unless the overall lack of resources is addressed. While we may each offer food to an individual through personal generosity, world hunger can only be effectively addressed by our concerted action as individuals within a world community. This simple example demonstrates the difference between philanthropic contribution, no matter how laudable, and united social action.

The past eight years have provided sufficient evidence of the ineffectiveness of “trickle down” economics in addressing civil and social issues. Our physical and social structures are crumbling from fiscal neglect as a result. The “bottom up” approach of sharing wealth through responsible taxation is the only means to effectively address these issues.

Hoarding is never a good idea. For this reason McCain’s idea of reducing taxes and freezing spending will only serve to cripple our economy more effectively than ever. Paul Krugman’s recent New York Times article encouraging infrastructure investment as a means of job creation and economic renewal in response to the current crisis is an example of creating and spreading wealth from the bottom up, the only way wealth creation can effectively work for the good of all.

Positive response to taxation does in fact become an act of patriotism as Joe Biden recently suggested. While qualifications may be applied to provide overall fairness in tax assessment, depending upon individual circumstances, tax loopholes allowing those with means to avoid contribution are harmful to the social structure. Anyone choosing to use such loopholes to avoid the shared civic duty of contributing through tax assessment is as unpatriotic as religious observers refusing to pay for the upkeep of religious institutions are unfaithful.

We all benefit from the society in which we live. Here in America we pride ourselves on living in what we consider the greatest nation on earth. But America will only be great as long as we unite to make it what it is. It is simply a matter of giving back to the society that sustains us so that we all experience wealth together without deprivation.

McCain’s Choice and Our Response

To borrow a football metaphor presented by MSNBC's Chuck Todd, the ball is in the air, thrown from the thirty-yard line in the closing seconds of the game. The result will be either a winning touchdown or a disaster for which the quarterback will be praised or vilified. John McCain's move in choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate is either daring or reckless, and opinions fly on both sides of the question. Her performance in debates and campaign appearances will show McCain's choice to be either wise or irresponsible. There seems to be little room here for a middle ground, certainly none if Palin does not continue to boost McCain's ranking in the polls.

Scurrying to avoid the mounting charge of tokenism, McCain campaign spokes-people now rush to downplay Palin's status as a woman, emphasizing instead her professed record as a "maverick." This tactic has been successful to the extent that McCain once again finds himself referred to as a maverick who seems to be slipping clear of the clinging Bush specter at least for the next few days.

The ominous possibility of McCain's selling out to the religious right in making this choice may soon eclipse any newfound maverick appellation, however, and the senator might best enjoy a fleeting sense of freedom while it lasts. Constraints imposed upon him by the religious right coalition can hardly be described as anything like liberation. In linking himself so strongly with this group, it is possible that McCain has constrained any freedom to follow his individual nature even more than did his predecessor.

His new running mate supports the teaching of creationist theory in schools and proposes legislation to have creationist ideas taught alongside evolution. Palin opposes abortion in any circumstance. Her selection seems designed to shift the upcoming debate toward these hot-button issues so treasured by the religious right and away from economic and international issues where McCain risks losing ground. Right wing supporters responded to Palin's appearance on the Republican ticket with a four million dollar contribution day for the McCain campaign, even though Palin remains virtually unknown as a political figure. Mere word of her creationist pro-gun and anti-choice stances seemed sufficient to finally gather flagging religious right supporters around McCain.

At the very least, McCain's Friday announcement provided him with a few day's breathing space. The unexpected choice took press attention away from Obama's stunning speech delivered the previous night, halting tendencies by some commentators virtually to award Obama the election with no further contest. The announcement came just in time for McCain and Palin to head off toward Mississippi to look presidential in surveying preparations for Hurricane Gustav's imminent arrival. Perhaps memories of McCain's sharing his birthday cake with President Bush while Katrina crashed into the Gulf coast three years ago can be covered over by this attempted show of active leadership.

Palin's selection will certainly provide ample fodder for press discussion during the coming week, taking attention away from the Obama campaign and from a steadily mounting sense of economic, energy and foreign policy crises upon which it is centered. Issues supported by the religious right may appear simplistic, and they are certainly treated as such by their supporters in debate. However, assertions of an inalienable right to bear arms, assertions that life begins at conception and that the fetus has rights that supplant those of the mother, and assertions that creationism deserves equal time with accepted scientific theory in our nation's classrooms are far from simple issues.

We are indeed in jeopardy as a nation when an unsubstantiated assertion: "Life begins at conception!" seems more indicative of leadership than a considered response reflecting the inability of philosophers and scientists throughout history to specify the specific point where individual life begins. Obama's calls for unity in addressing the causes of unwanted pregnancy rather than arguing over differing views on abortion; his suggestion that community conditions may mandate differing legislation regulating weapons; and his support of a wider view of community that embraces a multiplicity of religious, political and cultural backgrounds may seem too complex for a public hungry for immediate answers.

We pride ourselves on living in a democracy, but democracy brings responsibility to each of us to become fully involved in the process of government. Each member of the public has the responsibility to consider issues with care in deciding how he or she might vote for anyone seeking office as our elected representatives. We all lose to the extent that we abrogate this responsibility in favor of simplistic explanations or when we prefer to abstain from the voting process. Life is not composed of simplistic answers on any level, and political campaigns bring our entire life experience to bear on issues and electoral decisions. To revert to oversimplification, slander, misrepresentation and, finally, tokenism to sway public opinion is reprehensible in itself. Such tactics, however, are effective only to the extent the public remains ready and willing to accept them.

The Choice in this Election

The choice of the American people in this election is clear.

Do you want a responsible end to the Iraq war, with clear objectives and an agreed upon timeframe for withdrawal? Or do you want to prolong the war with no goal in sight, while Americans and Iraqis continue to die with no clear objective?

Do you want to continue squandering our national wealth and the lives and energy of our youth on an unending war while we ignore the roots of terrorism? Or do you want to recreate a nation whose wealth and energy are focused on the wellbeing and prosperity of all people both here and around the world?

Do you want our national debt to continue to mount, making us ever more beholding to nations who do not have our interests at heart? Or do you desire that as a nation we behave in a physically responsible way, bringing our budget back into balance at last and strengthening not only our economy but the world economy as well.

Do you desire middle class taxation to further increase, while those with higher income receive mounting tax breaks? Or do you want those with higher income to pay taxes commensurate with greater wealth, so that all pay a responsible share?

Do you want an energy policy that continues to rely on fossil fuels and the dubious hope of safe nuclear power, depending on the very companies who have prospered from conventional energy to solve the challenge of global warming? Or do you want to promote possibilities for new, environmentally friendly energy creation that may bring breakthroughs beyond our wildest dreams?

Do you want scientific research hindered by misinformed and misguided opinion so that our brightest researchers are forced to work in other countries? Or do you want to see lives saved by responsible and knowledgeable stem cell research that already has promise of cure for innumerable health conditions?

Finally, do you want a president who is thoughtful and who considers the genuine interests of the American people and of the environment? Or do you want a president who constantly changes his position in response to pressure groups and who has consequently proven himself to be only reactionary?

Were John McCain still the maverick he presented himself to be in his 2000 campaign, it would be one thing. Instead, McCain has sold out to the neo-conservatives, to big oil interests, and to those who cannot accept the proposition that our involvement in Iraq was a misguided adventure. He follows a path he once professed to abhor; one initiated by an administration that could find no immediate way to capture Osama Bin Laden, led by a president who wanted only to prove that he could succeed at bringing down Saddam Husain when his father had failed. Our entire economy has been ruined for this endeavor during the past eight years, and many Americans, Iraqis and others from many nations have lost their lives as a result.

Now McCain, rather than having a positive cause on which to run, mounts a campaign based solely on falsehood and misrepresentation of his opponent's positions. This, after his pledge to wage a positive campaign!

We are now in danger of losing sight of what it truly means to be American.

Do you want to see more of this? Then vote for John McCain.

Values, Statesmanship, Competency, Infrastructure - A Shared Vision for a New America

These four principals highlighted tonight's Grass Roots Democratic Platform forum in Great Falls. Eight people, assisted by an able moderator, Chuck Tyler wove together an effective tapestry of issues in their discussion of primary concerns they would like to see addressed by the Democratic Party and its Presidential Nominee during the next four years. Though the overall discussion centered on domestic policy, the group was unanimous that foreign policy was of equal importance, one of its members pointing out that a balanced concern between domestic and foreign policy was indicative of a truly successful and responsible nation.

Topics ranging from disability rights through health care and on through concerns for foreclosures and clean energy proved interrelated, with strands connecting them together into an amazing tapestry that no member of the group could have imagined possible. The group was unanimous in expression of the need for effective change in our government from local to national level and in conviction that positive change could happen only with the shared conviction and combined energy and commitment of all.

Everyone there was excited to have an opportunity to voice their concerns as part of Democratic National Platform development and to be included in this process even though from such a thinly populated state as Montana with only three electoral votes at stake. Though the group was small, it was large in conviction and imaginative approaches to problems that presently face our nation. All members were together in appreciation of America's new opportunity to regain a positive role in the world community and take once again a position of real leadership in the areas of economic development, climate change and global cooperation.

Values emerged as the fundamental principal behind all initiatives, whether foreign or domestic. The essential question: "What values does this initiative show or represent?" was regarded as the essential first step in determining the worthiness of any undertaking. The group agreed there was a great yearning in America and in the world for a return to core values found in Barack Obama's Berlin speech as in other speeches during the campaign process.

The group further agreed that Obama's Berlin speech represented a true statesmanship not seen in a presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. The group also agreed that a return to real statesmanship was the necessary ingredient for a successful American foreign policy, in contrast to the belligerent approach of the Bush administration. A foreign policy relying on statesmanship and diplomacy rather than intimidation, emphasizing America's role as a global partner rather than the sole surviving superpower was seen as essential for a positive American contribution to the world community.

Competency was seen as the essential requirement for administration members from the Presidential level on down whether in foreign or domestic policy. The group quickly agreed that competency and experience were not always synonymous. Though both incompetence and inexperience contributed to President Bush's leadership failures, incompetency alone plagued other administration figures despite their considerable experience.

The group agreed that a wise and competent President must surround him or herself with advisors and administrators that are fully knowledgeable and able to speak the truth as they see it. Evidence that incompetency has been the hallmark of the Bush administration concerning domestic management is shown by persistent economic mismanagement, natural disaster mismanagement, economic mismanagement and educational decline caused by insufficient support for educational institutions and initiatives. Potentially helpful initiatives like "No Child Left Behind" and, most notably, "Homeland Security" have languished for inadequate funding.

Bush administration foreign policy has centered largely on pursuing an unnecessary war that served to divert public attention from its inability to address complex global concerns in terms of specific issues. Instead, the Bush administration has persisted in a single-minded obsession with protracting the Iraq conflict while attempting to spread its particular brand of democracy. An agreement with North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons and the recent renewal of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are positive signs of an improved attitude during this administration's closing days.

Infrastructure was seen as the watch-word for future domestic policy. The group interpreted infrastructure in the broadest possible sense, extending from bricks and mortar to personnel. Whether we talk of crumbling bridges, declining educational or scientific institutions, declining health care and medical facilities, or shrinking expertise in all fields extending from scientific to philosophical and moral development, the group saw repairing and enhancing our infrastructure in all areas as essential to a healthy society.

Noting that all civilizations have prospered so long as their institutions remain healthy, innovative and productive, the group saw a healthy infrastructure as the primary indicator of a vital nation. Sadly, our infrastructure in all areas is presently in grave need of renovation. Crumbling highway bridges are significant not only for their sign of physical infrastructure decay but also as symbolic of intellectual, institutional and moral decline. The very fact that Obama's Berlin speech could sound as refreshing as it did speaks for an abiding hunger for a reemergence of these great ideals.

As well as supporting initiatives liable to be included in contributions to the '08 Democratic Platform based on their importance during the recent campaign, this group of eight people raised the following issues that may be unique either in their inclusion or in the particular way the group addressed them. Overall, the group saw resolution of issues of domestic and global concern as interrelated and equally beneficial to all.

Group members raised concern for disability issues as essential for this new platform as the Americans with Disability Act is presently under congressional review. Typically, people with disabilities are marginalized in American communities, while the Democratic Party stands for equal opportunity for all. Charity, together with minimal social assistance, often difficult to obtain and complicated to maintain are insufficient responses to the aspirations of those with disabilities wishing for a meaningful life of contribution and economic security. A nation-wide system of public transportation extending from viable local public transportation options to statewide and nationwide transportation networks is essential to meet not only the growing needs of those with disabilities but also to serve the growing needs of the American population as a whole. Expanding local and statewide bus service and expanding Amtrak to be the national passenger rail system it was intended to be may provide specific starting points for this local, state and national undertaking. This effort will require federal leadership to make it possible and to unite the pieces of the puzzle together into a whole.

The maturing baby boomer generation provides a growing population of elderly people who will need public transportation as their increasing numbers exponentially grow, reflecting those unable or unwilling to drive because of age related conditions that often include individuals within the ranks of those with disabilities. Improved and enhanced public transportation will be of immeasurable benefit to improved energy efficiency, reducing our overall energy burden and lessening our impact on the national environment and global climate. Finally, people with disabilities deserve recognition as a group making significant contributions to our society.

The group also saw improved public transportation as the most effective and immediate way to address rising energy costs and effects of global warming. Funding cuts during the Bush administration have crippled local public transportation initiatives while further crippling the already underfunded Amtrak system. Viable public transportation on local, state and national levels can insure effective communication for everyone in the future, equalizing opportunity regardless of circumstance and enhancing possibilities for shared prosperity for the greater benefit of all, not to mention the improved health of every community.

Rising energy costs mandate that we look to improved public transportation as an essential alternative to private automobile transportation, whether or not energy efficiency improves to the point that automobile emissions no longer threaten our climate. The possible dissolution of the airline industry because of higher fuel costs increases the imperative of improved ground level public transportation networks nationwide.

Meeting the global climate challenge posed by such innovators as Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens was seen as the overriding priority of the group's discussion. The Bush administration has delayed progress in meeting this challenge because of its addiction to oil and associated profit. We now have only a few remaining years of viable opportunity for meaningful reduction in fossil fuel emissions before uncontrollable climate change may be irreversible. We therefore need to take immediate action to begin worthwhile national initiatives and then supply leadership and resources for world involvement.

We as a group call for the Democratic Party to harness American energy and ingenuity behind initiatives to meet the global climate challenge that will galvanize the American people in the way other great American initiatives have done in the past. This is not a time for half measures; we must fully accept this global climate challenge for the sake of all humanity.

Other issues that received priority attention were improved support for educational opportunity and increased funding for educational institutions from kindergarten through university levels. Equal opportunity for health care was considered vital for a healthy and productive society, with no possibility for denial of health needs and a consensus view of proactive health care approach as essential in a caring society. The group further supports an end to the present federal moratorium on stem cell research. Presently, individuals suffer who might have found cure because of government policy borne of ignorance alone. The present moratorium on stem cell research has also led to a national brain drain to other nations where productive research is encouraged.

The group was also united in support of a foreclosure moratorium for those unwittingly caught in the housing and mortgage crisis and in support of institutions that acted in good faith to support a sound market. Declining stock values combined with a declining dollar are not only damaging to our national economy but to world prosperity as well. These trends should not be allowed to continue without appropriate oversight and regulation, especially when a few stand to profit while many suffer from unforeseen consequences.

It was a wonderful experience to be with this group as part of the open platform developed by the Democratic Party this year. There are also several other groups meeting in Montana and numerous groups convening throughout the United States to pool their insight into making a truly national contribution to this exciting new movement. The level of insight shown by this small group of people in a rather small Montana city gives testimony to the great wisdom present within the American population as a whole.

Growls

I felt consumed by anger all day today, no matter what I tried to do to rid myself of the feeling. First, I was cross with Reggie, who gave me a leadership contest on the way to work. I immediately became the authoritative master - not relenting until the end of the afternoon - delivering crisp commands and demanding immediate obedience.

I was then cross with a client for leaving a message to which I had no time to respond, requesting a later appointment on a day when I had everything tightly scheduled, with his appointment first. I was then cross with myself for not finding a software program I needed for an afternoon appointment I knew would be difficult. All-in-all, I wasn't tracking smoothly, and I failed to stop and take time to discover what issue may have been the real source for my frustration.

Anger with Reggie bubbled up all day. It was a control issue, and like most control issues, I had to realize and accept that I was the one responsible, not Reggie. I had unwittingly done something in a way that led him to have unwarranted expectations. A "brilliant" idea of mine had gone awry and now bad patterning was occurring to mar his usual attentive performance. His attention was now so much on reward that he was totally ignoring his task whenever we reached a curb.

We fixed it, but I never took the chance to laugh at myself for making such a mess of things – I just demanded perfect performance from Reggie. Fortunately, I kept my temper, and fortunately, he was spot on in his performance once he got things back in balance with better leadership from me.

I adjusted my schedule to compensate for the client's wish for a later appointment, leaving him a message to confirm an early afternoon time. He never called back, and though I realized early on that my morning schedule and then even my afternoon one were much easier without seeing him, I still growled about it to my work colleagues whenever I got the chance.

I found the software still in the computer CD drive where I had last used it. Fortunately in this instance I was just so glad to have discovered it that I felt a little relief.

That afternoon, I met with an elderly client and his wife, both of whom I knew could get into difficulties and misunderstandings with each other over things that concern them. They are both highly intelligent and also intense – nothing like Ruth and me of course, especially not in being old! I advised the gentleman to try to work patiently with this new equipment and not lose his temper. His response was, "I never lose my temper!" and his wife started in on a lecture about the destructive nature of anger. I finally got an inner laugh at least, mostly at myself. It felt good to tell them I certainly did lose my temper!

Returning to the office, I blasted off a cryptic e-mail to my program director for unfairly criticizing one of my employees. At least I felt I could give some self-righteous growls here, but somehow I remained unconvinced the excuse was sufficient.

I came home to growl about a neighbor who is again refusing to pick up after her cute border-collie puppy, trying to slip the puppy out at night and early morning when she thinks no one notices. Even more than that, she is also trying to fool the absentee owner of her apartment and everyone else that she has no dog there at all. My rational for anger here was what I considered her dishonesty, not to mention my concern that Reggie might consume some of these daily tidbits if I failed to notice. I wonder though whether I was perhaps begrudging the discipline of being honest and of always, without exception, picking up after Reggie no matter what the circumstance.

Before going to bed tonight, I finally gave myself time to ask what the trouble really was. A little voice inside said it was because I had given myself no time to write for the past two days. I growled, "Well, I've had to work for the past two days and I haven't had time! – You know I like to write in the morning, but I also need some sleep!" Then, when the voice persisted I said, "OK, I'll get up early and write tomorrow morning!"

Then I couldn't sleep. My stomach felt tight and my legs were restless. I thought, "there's nothing here that a good love session wouldn't cure!" - but it seemed unfair to awaken the sleeping beauty beside me. I felt sure to be considered worse than a frog if I did. I got up and ate some peanut butter with a spoon instead. Well, that was good! Then I sat down at the computer to see how it would work to publish a blog post directly from MS Word. Title: "New Post," message text: "Test message." Low and behold, it worked like a charm!

Then the voice said, "OK, sucker, why not just sit there and write about being angry all day! So I did, and now I feel much better.

Good Night!