Where's home?

We live in such a mobile society these days that the question "where's home?" no longer necessarily means "where is your house located?" I'll be 57 later this year and I have (as best I can remember) lived in 15 different houses/ apartments in 6 different states. Where's home? Facebook provides a place to indicate the current city in which you live as well as a declaration of your hometown so, I guess, those aren't necessarily the same thing (not that what Facebook thinks carries that much weight mind you...) Growing up in a military family, some of the places we lived were rental or military housing so, I never really got overly attached to houses. Still don't. Carol's maternal grandparents owned farm land in north Georgia and that house was always thought of as the "home place." It held great emotional value to her family for many years. Today that house looks pretty broken down and we don't even know who owns it now.

What makes a place home? There is a saying "home is where the heart is." I've never really understood exactly what that means, though. When we travel, we normally refer to the return trip as "heading home." So, the logical answer is that home is where you currently live. Right now, home for my daughter and son-in-law is a foreign country 7,000 miles away. Certainly they can't feel like they are at home can they? I mean, home must be our house or our son-in-law's parent's house...right?

They have a very nice, very new and modern apartment with some nice furnishings. After a long day of teaching (her) and flying helicopters (him) I am sure they both look forward to heading to their home. But they admit that they get homesick from time to time. So, where's home?

I think all of us have a longing for "home." But a street address can't be all there is to it. There is something more powerful than that to describe "home."

Carol and I are having an interesting conversation (debate) about what to do when we retire. I have floated the idea of selling the house, buying a motor home and hitting the road. We would certainly need to test this lifestyle out for a few months before making any long term decisions but, that's my idea. Carol's not diggin' my idea though...she isn't willing to not have a house of our own that doesn't have wheels under it. The idea that the location of "home" may be written in pencil is just not something she is prepared to do. (I figure I have about 5-6 more years to work on this plan to win her over...  I estimate my odds are 70/30 AGAINST)

As I have gotten older my longing for "home" has not diminished. It, in fact, has become more acute. But I now realize that my longing for home has everything to do with "who" and a lot less to do with "where." For me the who is Carol. Where she is is home to me. But there is another "who" that I long to be with. As beautiful a home as God has created for us here on earth, this is not "home" to me. There is a groaning I experience. Mark Buchanan, in his book "Things Unseen" attempts to describe it. He says that "groaning is holy speech." He says that "groaning is homesickness."

He recalls Emerson's words "[w]hen God wants to carry a point with his children, He plants His argument into the instincts."

Buchanan further writes:

"You want to go home. The instinct for heaven is just that: "homesickness, ancient as night, urgent as daybreak. All your longings--for the place you grew up, for the taste of raspberry tarts that your mother once pulled hot from the oven, for that bend in the river where your father took you fishing as a child, where the water was dark and swirling and the caddis flies hovered in the deep shade-- all these longings are a homesickness, a wanting in full what all these things only hint at, only prick you with. These are the things seen that conjure up in our emotions the Things Unseen. 'He has set eternity in the hearts of men' the writer of Ecclesiastes said; 'yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end' (3:11). Groaning is the lexicon and grammar of our dis-location, our sense of being in the wrong place. It is our mother tongue, the speech we fall back on when we can't recall the words to speak in earthly language, that foreign tongue we're trying to learn to speak fluently but keep garbling."

So, where's home? We were designed by our Creator to be in relationship. Where we go to experience and nurture those relationships...that's home. In the meantime, I groan.

Things Unseen by Mark Buchanan- Multnomah Publishers Copyright 2002 by Mark Buchanan

I am woman!

Helen Reddy's 1971 classic song by the same title was embraced as a song of solidarity for women's rights and the feminist movement. "I am woman hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore. And I know too much to go back an' pretend..." I am never surprised by the issues that make it into the presidential election rhetoric. We have heard about contraception, gas prices, wealth, taxes, unemployment, the economy, citizenship, immigration, GSA spending, and a host of other topics.

Now the discussion is centered on the "war on women." I don't know which party is actually waging this war but it doesn't seem to be limited to the opposite sex waging the war (as you would expect.) Seems as though some women have issues with other women's "woman-ness."

For centuries, women were dominated by men. Religions allowed or even required it; cultures embraced and practiced it; and, even in modern times, we see evidence of inequality between men and women practiced and condoned. Laws have been passed in the US disallowing gender discrimination but, the dirty little reality is that it still exits today. While I would love to delve into this aspect of the conversation, this isn't what I want to discuss in this post. Maybe next time.

Hilary Rosen, lobbyist, Democrat strategist and pundit, made a comment about Ann Romney, the wife of the likely Republican candidate that has stirred up the conversation concerning women. Mitt Romney stated that he sought his wife's counsel on economic issues. Ms. Rosen took issue with this by saying, "Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day of her life. She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future."

Ms. Rosen eventually apologized for her poor choice of words and the seeming attack on Ann Romney who is generally perceived as a non-controversial figure. The talking heads on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum have chimed in on the issue. So, I might as well join in.

Rosen may have had a legitimate argument that Mitt's wife may not really know what it is like to be in the economic shoes of most American women simply because the Romneys are very wealthy (I don't believe the Romneys have always lived the opulent lifestyle, however, the memories of Ramen Noodles for supper are probably a distant memory.) But that's not the point from which she qualified her remarks. She said that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life. Wow. One should be skeptical when you hear people use words like all, never, always, everyone, etc. because these absolute words are often used in an inaccurate, adolescent fashion. "Mom, you never let me go anywhere!" Of course we expect more from people like Hilary Rosen...she is, after all, a professional.

Is there a perception by some women that a woman who has not pursued a professional career is somehow a lesser woman? Are people simply being patronizing when they say that they applaud stay-at-home wives or moms? What about some other possible qualifiers. Do "real women" need to eventually marry? Can you be a "real woman" if you never have children? We know that these stereotypes also exist.

In my view, the crux of Hilary Rosen's remarks were that a woman must have a career in order to be qualified to participate in "serious" conversations. Oh sure, non-career woman can discuss their favorite brand of vacuum cleaner, best spray starch and  most effective laundry detergent but don't you dare have anything to say about the federal deficit or the problem with mortgage backed securities. Sure, you stay-at-home moms can discuss poopy diapers, the best remedy for colic and sibling rivalry but you should just butt out of the adult discussions about world politics and national security. Unfortunately, feminine elitism is alive and well.

I'm a guy so, it is obvious that I am not really qualified to say what it takes to be a woman. But, I have been surrounded by many remarkable women my entire life. My grandmother was a nursing home owner and was like a mother to me, my sister is an executive with an insurance company, my daughter is a certified schoolteacher, my wife Carol was a self-employed master barber before she became a 20+ year stay-at-home Mom who also home schooled both our children and is now a media clerk at a middle school. Carol's value and standing as a competent, smart woman was not and is not determined by her marital status, her occupation or her childbearing. Being married to me simply gave her the additional titles of "wife and partner." Having Jessica and Michael added "Mama" to her titles. But, she is 100% woman with no further accreditation required by either you or me because that's what God made her to be. And she has every bit as much right to engage in any discussion she feels competent to participate in.

ATTENTION: Turn signals do not lower your MPG

If you have filled your car up with gasoline lately, you have probably experienced sticker shock. Gasoline prices are near or, in some states, over $4.00 per gallon. My truck holds 22 gallons of gas. Do the math. The first new car I ever bought ( that came with a payment coupon book) was a 1974 aqua blue Chevrolet Camaro. My monthly payments were $134 a month. I now spend more in gas for my truck each month than what I used to pay to buy an entire car.

People are concerned with their fuel mileage. Some have traded in their older vehicles for newer models or hybrids or electric cars to lower their fuel costs.

Apparently, some drivers think they can conserve fuel by not using some of the comfort features of their cars. We all know that using your air conditioner puts added strain on the engine, thereby using more fuel. Now, I'm no electrical or mechanical engineer but I am pretty certain that not using you radio won't do much to help your car's fuel efficiency. Based on the extremely loud thumping sounds I hear from some vehicles with very tall, shiny rims, most folks continue to "turn it up."

But, did anyone advise people to not use their turn signals?

What the heck is up with people and turn signals? I know that it is incredibly inconvenient to use them. I mean, you have to lean across the seat, open the glove box and push a button to activate them. Oh wait, that's not right...the turn signal lever is on the steering column 1.786 inches from your hand. Gee, what an effort that requires.

Many drivers today have no common courtesy (or common sense.) Georgia law requires that you turn on your headlights when it is raining. The law also requires that you use your turn signals when you turn or change lanes. I think the reason that many drivers ignore these two mandates is because headlights when raining and turn signals don't actually benefit them...it is for the benefit of other drivers. And really, who gives a rat's chapeau about other drivers anymore?

Have you ever been at a stop sign trying to make a right hand turn and had to wait for the traffic coming from your left to pass so that you could make your move? Of course you have. But there is always that car approaching from your left that is moving fast enough that you believe that it is going straight so you wait. And then the car (with no turn signal on) turns right onto your street. Had you known, you could have already turned. But you didn't and now there are more cars coming and you still can't turn. Maybe they didn't put turn signals on that particular model of car. Sure.

I asked someone one time why they didn't use their turn signals (I still call them blinkers)...told me they were saving gas by using less electricity. You know, there should be some intelligence testing element to the driving test.

Hey, if you are going to turn your vehicle, how about letting us know about it...and not just 2 yards before you actually do it? Also, don't ride around with your turn signals on if you are NOT turning. That's even worse.

Thank you. I feel better

Well, it's springtime in the valley...

Dave Loggins wrote a song in 1981 about Augusta Georgia's most famous event. I have always wondered in the years since whether he gets paid every time CBS breaks for a commercial and returns because the music to that song is always played. That's a lot of airtime. When the song was first released, I can't say that I was a fan of the song...thought the lyrics were pretty corny. I certainly didn't think it was as good as his 1974 hit "Please come to Boston." Over the years (and after hearing the instrumental thousands of times during the Masters telecasts) it has grown on me. After all, it is about the place I have called home for the last 40 years.

There is something unique about the first week of April in Augusta, Georgia. I know that other places go through transformations getting prepared for marquee events. But what happens in Augusta is something to behold. First, Mother Nature gets involved with an explosion of color from dogwoods and azaleas and a host of other flowering beauty. Sometimes, if the timing hits just right (or better stated...wrong ) we also get a dose of pine pollen that covers our landscape, cars, pets and homes like a yellow blanket of volcanic ash. Allergy sufferers beware.

Augustans love Masters Week. The local school systems always align their spring break with Masters Week. That week is always the first full week of April. Monday practice rounds always start between April 2 and April 8. The Augusta National hires so many high school students to work the concession stands, outdoor pro shops, to pick up trash, work in the warehouses and a host of other duties, that the schools would be partially empty anyway if school wasn't on break. Some small businesses close that week because the store owners can make more money doing Masters related work. Augustans work at the National as scorers, gallery guards, drivers and media runners.

People have also been renting their homes out to Masters guests for years. Lifelong friendships have been forged by these longstanding arrangements. Some people trade the use of their homes with Masters patrons that have homes at the beach or near ski resorts. They come and watch golf, we leave and go ski.

Folks in Augusta have always taken a lot of pride in their homes and properties but, the coming of Masters Week brings on an unprecedented amount of landscaping and remodeling activity. Flowers are planted, new mulch is put down and lawns are perfectly manicured. Augusta gets all dressed up for this special event.

From 1983 until 2008, we owned a home that was right in the middle of the Masters bustle. There are now two primary patron walk-in gates into the tournament...Gate 6 and Gate 9, both on Berkmans Road. Our house was about 150 yards from Gate 9. For years, our neighborhood was some of the most sought after parking near the Augusta National. Living on Heath Drive during Masters Week was an invigorating experience. It was like a huge block party. People everywhere. We saw some of the same people come back and park in the same spots every year. Neighbors were outside waving cars into their front and back yards all the while stuffing cash into their pockets....you have to love the free enterprise system.

Over the years, the Augusta National began buying up property in the neighborhood around Berkmans Rd, Heath Drive, Cherry Lane and Stanley Drive. At first, nobody really knew what was going on...just some obscure home purchases by companies with names like Berkmans Limited Partners or something resembling that. Eventually it became known that it was actually the Augusta National buying the properties and things got quite interesting. Slowly, more and more homes were bought and more and more homes were torn down since the National's intent for the property was free patron parking space. Years later, looking out across the street from our old house we no longer saw the homes formerly occupied by old friends named Slick and Sim and Red but, rather, beautiful pastoral land that resembled the rolling landscape at the next-door golf course. No surprise...this land is adjacent to the former Fruitland Nurseries, which is the property that eventually became the Augusta National Golf Club. But, sadly, it marked the end of a 60 year old neighborhood.

Masters Week in Augusta is a very big deal. This relatively small town takes on a much more cosmopolitan flavor one week each year. Parties, charity concerts, hospitality events, prayer breakfasts, and so many more wonderful activities occur this special week. Oh, and I understand that there is a golf tournament that takes place too.

"Well, it's springtime in the valley on Magnolia Lane..."

That's not the point

For the last three days, President Obama's signature legislation has been argued in front of the nine Supreme Court justices as to the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate. The mandate essentially requires every American that can fog a mirror to either purchase health insurance or be forced to pay a penalty to the federal government if they don't purchase a policy. Congress has stated that 40 million Americans are without health insurance. Not all 40 million are incapable of purchasing insurance, mind you; some number just choose not to participate and the reasons for not buying it are varied. Some of that number are young, healthy people that are likely not incurring much, if any, medical cost now or in the foreseeable future so...why would they pay for insurance they don't need yet? Because Congress needs more folks to buy insurance who are going to pay in far more than they will consume in the near future.

Congress also expanded the coverage people are afforded. People with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy insurance. Young people under age 26 can now remain on their parent's policies (it used to be a lower age in most states.) Someone has to pay for this expanded coverage. So let's make healthy people pay for something they don't want or need now.

We also have laws that state that people cannot be turned away from receiving emergency medical care even if they have no insurance or are otherwise unable to pay the bill. We don't let people just die at the doors of emergency rooms. But, because people can receive "free" medical care, there is a cost shifting that takes place and has to be borne by somebody. Forcing every American to buy health insurance was Congress' solution to this problem.

So for the first time in the country's history, citizens will be forced to buy something just because they are alive. The logic is that just because a person is not a healthcare consumer now, they eventually will be so they need to pay into the system now.

OK, I get it. I understand the logic in the whole insurance/risk/cost sharing, scheme. I can see the financial justification here.

But that's not the point.

Congress decided that every American must be given access to medical treatments, even if they have no way to pay for it.  Congress says that people with pre-existing conditions must not be turned away because of the known financial exposure involved in covering them. Congress has decided to expand coverage people must be afforded. Congress has mandated that young people be allowed to stay on their parents' policies until they are 26. These are all, for the most part, good things. But Congress can't create a  new financial exposure then decide to trample the Constitution in order to pay for it. Either quit writing checks your body can't cash or find another way to get these changes paid.

Liberty is more important than this healthcare funding scheme. Fundamental freedoms are at risk here. Once Congress is allowed to force Americans to participate in something just because they breathe with the reasoning that "but we need the money to pay for this program we decided to start" then there is no limit on the federal government's power. Justice Kennedy said "And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a fundamental way." He is exactly correct. This power grab is unprecedented...at least not since the New Deal initiatives of the 1930s which saw major changes in the Federal Government's authority over the economy and people's lives. Some programs that were attempted to be implemented by Franklin Roosevelt's administration were deemed unconstitutional. This one should be as well.

Some people try to draw analogies here. There is no analogy of an existing precedent that applies. One of the justices equated medical costs to burial costs. Everyone is going to utilize this service at some point. And if you die without the means to pay for your burial and you don't have burial insurance, the taxpayers are going to foot the bill. So why not make all adults pay for burial insurance regardless of their age?

Some have used Social Security as an example of how everyone participates and pays into the system. That is actually not true. Unless you have wages and salary, you don't pay Social Security taxes. And if you do not earn enough credits over your working career, you are ineligible to receive benefits. So this isn't an accurate analogy.

I am all for Congress solving problems. That's not the point. I have no problem with a state imposing an individual mandate. I believe that states have that right. I see nothing in the Constitution, however, that gives the Federal Government that kind of authority.

Let's hope and pray that the Supreme Court comes to the correct conclusion.

Movie night

I have to confess, I am a movie junkie. Since Carol and I started dating almost 30 years ago, it would be hard to estimate how many movies we have attended. Friday night for the last three decades has, more times than not, involved going to the movie theater. We have seen our share of good movies, great movies, so-so movies and just plain awful ones. Have you ever walked out of a bad movie? We have a few times. One time we walked out of a pretty funny, but unbelievably crude movie. Another time we left because of the foul language. I can handle some amount of bad language but, the movie had better be really good. This one was just not good enough to tolerate the dialog.

After the kids came along, going to the movies involved an investment in a babysitter. A night out got a wee bit more expensive. Our pediatrician confessed to Carol that when he and his wife did their movie night they decided that, since they were paying for the babysitter anyway, they might as well make full use of the time. So they started going to two movies in the same night. Well, we thought that was a great idea so, for many years we followed their example. Some people, however, would look at us with a skeptical eye when we shared our Friday night ritual and asked if we just sneaked into the second movie without paying (we never did..we always walked back outside and bought tickets.) We learned never to buy tickets to both movies up front. Sometimes after sitting through one movie we would opt out of seeing a second one due to rear-end fatigue or any number of other reasons. Middle-age (and the $7.50-$11.00 ticket prices) ended our two-a-night marathon movie sessions.

Did you ever take your parents to the movies with you and discover that the movie was not one that you wanted to watch with your parents sitting next to you?  Uh, awkward. You have to be careful who you have accompany you to a movie. Carol and I have weirdly similar senses of humor. One time we were at a movie with another couple and realized all the while we were cackling like a couple of idiots, the other couple wasn't laughing...at all. So we felt a little constrained and determined that we needed to start behaving more like grown-ups. Boring.

I have realized over all these years that one of my biggest reasons for going to the movies is to eat the popcorn. There are some rules of the universe that involve movie going and what is appropriate to eat while in a movie theater. Popcorn, candy and soft drinks. That's it. If you want to eat a hot dog, go to a baseball game. Pizza? In the movie? That would be like eating an Oreo cookie...with a Guinness. And tortilla chips drizzled in molten cheese whiz? Are you serious? I'm not sure you should ever eat that anywhere.






I remember back in ancient days when an order of popcorn came in only one size. It was a white box with red lettering about 12 inches tall by 8 inches wide by 2 inches thick. That was it. No paper bags and no 7 quart cardboard tubs. As a kid I would almost bust a gut forcing myself to not start eating my popcorn until after the cartoons and previews were over. I wanted my popcorn to last at least past the opening credits. Alas, I often broke down and began devouring the fluffy, salty, buttery goodness before the movie even started.

Which brings me to my main point. I read today that popcorn is really good for you. Seems that researchers at the University of  Scranton (PA) have deduced that the husks of popcorn (which I assume is the part that you dig out of your teeth/gums for the next 24 hours) are loaded with polyphenols. And of course, you know what those are right? Neither did I. I think they are good for you since they are also found in fruits and vegetables. Popcorn is also loaded with the antioxidant ferulic acid and you know what that means. Cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and neuro-degenerative diseases (like Alzheimer's) may be less likely to occur thanks to these beneficial components of popcorn**.

** "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease" (Have to keep the pesky food police lawyers off my back.)


I knew that popcorn was good for you! I mean, just the benefits of the fiber and roughage has to have some positive effect in keeping you a "regular" movie-goer. Sorry...bathroom humor.

So, go ahead and order that large tub of popcorn. That way when you finish it all by the time the movie starts, you can always go back and get that free refill. See you at the movies...and pass the popcorn.

Church Tourism

I read an article in the newspaper today about an interesting phenomenon going on in the New York City neighborhood of Harlem. It seems that the historic African American churches have become the Sunday destination for...tourists. For $55, you can take the "Harlem Gospel Tour-Sunday" run by tour operator Harlem Spirituals- Gospel and Jazz Tours (this is just one of several available tour operators.) You will get to attend a worship service in one of the churches in Harlem, North Harlem or the Bronx. You are asked to not bring a camera or video camera and not to wear shorts, tank tops or flip-flops and not to leave the church once the sermon starts (the visitors regularly violate the no camera and no leaving early policy.) In many cases, the tourists outnumber the congregation members. Some of the participating churches receive monetary benefits from the tour operators in addition to whatever the visitors leave in the offering plate. For many of these churches, this additional source of revenue is deemed essential.

Mother African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the oldest church in New York State, admits that they need the financial assistance the tourists provide. "Our building is in need of repair," church member Paul Henderson said after the service. "We need assistance. They are helping to sustain us."

Watch video

The Abyssinian Baptist Church, founded in 1808 is one of the favorite tourist destinations, although their website states that it is "not aligned with any third-party Tour Companies." It also has a written policy concerning tourists [link] Tourists are not allowed to attend the 9:00 AM service, only the 11:00 service. It further states that visitors should be prepared to stay for a 2-1/2 hour worship service. There are eight Sundays, including Christmas, Palm Sunday, Easter, and Mothers Day, when no tourists are admitted.

People from many different countries participate in these tours. These Harlem churches have rich traditions and beautiful architecture so there is nothing uncommon about folks wanting to see them. I am sure the reasons for attending are just as varied as the tourist themselves.

Tourists in church. Some are there to be able to say that they have been there...another travel destination notch in the belt. Some attend for the music. Many of these churches have gospel choirs that powerfully sing the spirituals that are well known in these church traditions. Some come out of curiosity. This might be their first time in a church or at least a church that looks and sounds quite different from what they know back home. Some may want to hear a preaching style that they have heard stories about and now want to hear first hand. Some of these New York visitors may simply want to attend a church service while they are visiting and decide.. why not attend in Harlem? I'm not sure you need to join a tour group for that though...you could just call a cab.

Do we have tourist in our own churches? April in Augusta, GA certainly sees its share of visitors in churches. Thousands of people descend on this city to attend the Masters golf tournament and some will attend Sunday services while they are in town. But that's not the kind of tourist I'm talking about.

Do we have tourists in our own churches? Are there folks that attend week in and week out because they just want to watch what's going on? Do some folks attend because it is considered the place to be on Sunday morning? Are they there primarily because they want to hang out with people they enjoy and maybe only get to see that one day of the week? Are they there mainly because they love the music? If confronted with whether they would like to become a part of that church, they might give the same answer as they would give to the retail store clerk... "no thanks, I'm just looking." Are there some folks there that think, because they have "paid their fare" by being generous in the offering plate that they have earned the privilege of not only being there but offering their critical opinion as to the quality of that tourist destination? Some will say "I've seen better." They will tell you about all the other churches they've "toured" and describe all the ways that it was a better experience than what they experience in their own church. Some may be tourists because they want to hear what they perceive to be the celebrity preacher. "I go to ABC Church because of Pastor So and So. That guy preaches an awesome sermon."

All churches should openly embrace all that come...members, visitors and  yes, even tourists. But I really don't think church should be a tourist destination. What I mean is that folks that attend church should not attend as if they were only tourists. Worship is not something to observe...it is something to do. A worship service shouldn't be judged by how the people in attendance enjoyed it...only the true audience gets that privilege (and it is an audience of One.) Put the guidebook down and forget what time you are supposed to get back on the bus. Forget about where the tour is taking you for lunch. Stop gawking at the architecture and listening to the choir. Rather, be amazed at the majesty of the the One who is truly Beautiful and sing your heart out with the choir; lifting up words of praise and adoration to the King of Kings.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you will look straight ahead you will see the whole reason we are here. This is Jesus the Christ. If you look carefully, on the left you will see the scars on His right hand and the place where He was pierced. If you look to the right, you can see the nail scar on His left hand. Look into His face and you can see the love that He has for all of us, the forgiveness He purchased for you and me and the grace and mercy He hands each of us as a parting gift on our tour today. That's the tour bus to get on.

An apology to all sailors

Yeah, you heard me. I think we need to apologize to all the sailors out there. First off, there must be a certain population of maritime workers known as drunken sailors and, apparently, these sailors have some consistently bad habits. One of those habits has to do with their willingness to part with their money. You've heard the term "spend like a drunken sailor" haven't you? She spends money like a drunken sailor... huh? Do inebriated sailors have some unique spending habits? Seems so.

The term probably comes from the fact that when sailors would finally get shore leave (which could often times be quite infrequently) they would take those rare opportunities to indulge in all sorts of activities that involve the separation of their cash from themselves. This could involve everything from excessive souvenir shopping (yeah sure); to overindulgence of food and drink; to the activity that coined the phrase "a girl in every port." But this isn't the "____ like a sailor" I wanted to focus on.

A second phrase is commonly known: "cuss like a sailor." This would imply that sailors have another bad habit not directly attributable to excessive alcohol consumption. It appears that sailors have a colorful vocabulary. I've never heard the term "she cusses like a Coast Guard diver" or "he cusses like an Army infantryman." No..... it seems that those donning the white or denim bell bottoms have cornered the market on swearing.

I guess it has its origination in the early days of sailing. Days, weeks or months cramped together in less-than-optimum quarters probably brought out the worst in these old salts...and add in the stereotypical "boys will be boys" (since nearly all the sailors of the early days were men and boys.) So the language could get....well, salty. I don't think the foul language of sailors was necessarily something that was condoned or encouraged; it just was what it was.

On a more serious note, though. Back in 1972, a well known (now deceased) comedian pushed the envelope of decency by itemizing words that, he said, could never be used on television. It ultimately led to the US Supreme Court ruling on the prohibition of indecent dialog between the hours of 6am and 10pm (when children would be likely listening/watching) over the public airwaves. Of course, that was in the days prior to cable, satellite and internet television and satellite radio.

Coarse, vulgar, indecent and obscene language now pervades all sorts of mediums. Language used in today's music, broadcasting, social media, internet, and day-to-day conversations have devolved to a pretty nasty level. It seems like folks are trying to take it as far as possible in the direction of disgusting.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is in a heap of trouble for his calling a female college student a four letter word on his radio broadcast. He's not in trouble for saying the word; he's in trouble because he called this young lady this word multiple times in a crude attempt to make a political/ cultural point. But this is the same word that Dan Akroyd used to call Jane Curtin in the Saturday Night Live comedy routine satirizing the news show "Point/Counterpoint." Akroyd even added that she was ignorant. But that was OK, I guess, because it was comedy.

We can't seem to agree on what is vulgar and what is not. Certain words are "OK" in one instance but not in another. Bill Maher used a vulgar four letter word in describing Sarah Palin a while back but nobody seemed to get too upset about it (except maybe Sarah Palin and her family.) And, it was as vulgar as it gets.

As far as I know, for every vulgar word, there is a non-vulgar alternative that is available. Human body parts have actual grown-up words to describe them...we probably even have them in Latin (or maybe I'm thinking about plant species.) For every human "function" there is a real, mature word available to use (if you actually ever need to refer to it.) But coarse, vulgar speech is becoming more and more the norm and that is a great shame. Children used to say cuss words to make them feel more grown up. Today, I think adults use many of these words to make themselves feel like younger people. Adults trying to become teenagers again. It really is a sad situation. I used to have some folks that I was "friends" with on Facebook but I either de-friended them or blocked them from my news feed because I just got tired of reading all their potty mouth comments.

There was a time in my younger days when my language was pretty foul. It was a very bad habit. And yes, it is a habit. But, you can break a habit if you put your mind to it. Does an inappropriate word ever come out of my mouth on occasion? Of course it does. Maybe worse, I have said some ugly things about people and used hurtful words and made cutting remarks. Have you ever said "he's worthless" or "she's an idiot." To me, that's just as bad as dropping a bomb. You unfortunately know what I'm referring to when I say that.

Let's do 2 things...let's try to clean up our written and spoken language....show some common decency. And, I think we owe all the sailors out there an apology.

kon-truh-sep-shuhn

If I was smart, I would probably avoid this topic. I guess that answers that question.

Who would have ever thought that the subject of contraception would ever dominate the airwaves? Nothing really surprises me anymore, however, when it comes to things to argue about. And this topic has become a great source of argument lately (and here I am writing about it....) Here's the current situation as best I understand it.

1. The Catholic Church embraces the position that contraception is wrong and it is against their teachings. Prior to 1930, nearly all Protestant religions agreed with the Catholic Church's longstanding position on this subject. The primary Biblical justification for this is Genesis 38: 8-10. The Anglican Church at its 1930 Lambeth Conference announced that contraception would be allowed under certain circumstances. Over time they and all other Protestant religions changed their position to "allow" contraception across the board. In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued the landmark encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae (Latin- "Human Life") reaffirming the Catholic Church's historic position that contraception is wrong. And the Catholic Church's position on abortion is well known.

2. In 1965, the US Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The Court, by a 7-2 margin, ruled that a Connecticut law, prohibiting the use of contraceptives, to be invalid on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy." 

3. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010 requires that insurance plans cover female contraceptives and contraceptive counseling without cost-sharing. Churches and houses of worship could choose to opt out of offering this coverage on religious grounds. The Obama administration decided that Catholic hospitals and universities, however, were not exempt from this mandate. After a significant backlash from the Catholic Church and others who posit that this is a violation of religious liberty, the administration offered a compromise position that the insurance companies themselves (not the Catholic institution employer) be required to cover the cost of this coverage to allow the Catholic Church to "not have to pay" for something they held as being against their teachings. The controversy remains active, especially since the presidential primary season is in full swing. I'm sure the insurance companies may have something to say about this new cost but, we'll leave that alone for now.

So, just what is meant by "contraception?" ...contra (meaning against) and [con]ception (meaning fertilization) Contraception is used to prevent sperm from fertilizing the female egg. This can be accomplished by the physical barrier method including the condom, cervical cap, and diaphragm. Hormonal barriers inhibit ovulation and fertilization and include injectable and oral contraceptives. "The Pill" is the most common form of hormonal contraceptive. The methods listed are not intended to be exhaustive.

Then there is contragestion. Contra (against) and gestation (generally meaning the implantation of the fertilized egg) This method of preventing a fertilized egg from normally implanting into the uterus includes intrauterine devices (IUD) as well as some "emergency" hormonal treatments. Certain methods and devices can be either contraceptive or contragestive depending on when they are used. Again, the ones mentioned are not intended to be an exhaustive list. I assume these are also included in the administration's mandate since they are typically referred to as contraceptives.

Then there are abortifacients. These are substances intended to end gestation by terminating the pregnancy. RU-486 (aka the abortion pill) is one of the pharmaceuticals used. It's ingredient is mifepristone which, when administered in a 600 mg dose up to 49 days gestation, (without getting overly graphic) causes the embryo to shed. If "successful" it is followed two days later by a dose of misoprostol which causes contractions. No need to elaborate.

Mifespristone in a 10 mg dose is also used as an emergency contraceptive. It is believed that it prevents ovulation (the production of the egg) rather than preventing implantation. So, this drug, in differing doses, can both prevent pregnancy as well as end pregnancy. Is this drug also covered? In what dose?

My simple conclusion is:

Contraceptives are intended to prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg (or preventing the egg production itself)
Contragestives are intended to prevent or interrupt a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus
Abortifacients are intended to terminate an implanted embryo/fetus

Most people (including the majority of Catholics) don't have issues concerning the use of contraceptives. People might disagree on who should pay for it, though. Despite the position of the Catholic Church, the majority of Americans approve of the common methods used to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

But what is pregnancy? Is it when the sperm penetrates the egg, when the fertilized egg implants or some time after that?

Not to deliver a biology lesson (since I am not qualified) ...here is my understanding of the process:

1. Sperm penetrates the outer layer of the egg and egg releases cortical granules preventing any other sperm from penetrating
2. Sperm and egg nuclei fuse and a single cell zygote is formed
3. Day 1- cell splits into 2 cells
4. Day 2- 2 cells split into 4 cells
5. Day 3- now at the 6-12 cell stage
6. Day 4- now at the 16-32 cell stage
7. Day 6-7- "blastocyst" attaches to the endometrium and burrows in (implants) and it begins secreting HGC (hello morning sickness)
8. Day 7-10- major cellular reorganization into ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm
9. Day 10-14- fluid amniotic cavity starts to form, yolk sack starts to form, embryo starts to form from embryonic disc, placenta starts to form
10. Day 15-21- emergence of vertebrate body plan
11. Week 3 to week 8- development of all organ systems (day 22 - heart begins to beat)

Is one of the issues central to both the contraception issue and the abortion issue the question of when life begins? Is it at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg? Is it when the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall? Is it after 3 weeks? Is it when a fetus is viable outside the womb? I think many of us just want to put our hands over our ears and make that loud humming sound...we just don't want to have to hear the question and certainly don't want to answer it. In addition to the concern of the Catholic Church, many people have concerns that the federal government is trying to blur the line between contraception and abortion.

I think part of what gets people confused and upset about all this is the polarizing jargon. Is it birth control or pregnancy control? Is it pro-choice and anti-choice or pro-abortion and anti-abortion or pro-life and ....what? Is it contraception or contragestion or does it even matter? Is it "access to contraception" or is it "contraception paid for by someone else"? Is it women's rights or protection of the unborn? Is pregnancy a woman's health issue or the beginning of a new life, created by God? Is it providing affordable preventive care or infringing on religious liberty? Can the answer be yes to all of them? Probably not.

I met a young lady many years ago who came to a small, high school discussion group I was leading at church. We were discussing the topic of abortion (their chosen topic, not mine.) The discussion was lively and heated. Arguments for and against, justification because of medical necessity, rape, and incest were tossed into the mix. In the middle of all the shouting, this young lady, who was an out-of-town guest of one of our members, raised her hand and asked if she could say something. All eyes turned to this stranger. My paraphrase of what she said is this: "When my mother was a teenager, she was raped and she decided the best thing to do was to have an abortion. The drug they gave her didn't do what it was supposed to do and, for whatever reason, it didn't end the pregnancy. When the doctor told her what had happened (or didn't happen) she got scared and asked if she could still go through with the pregnancy. The doctor warned her of the possible medical issues for her and the baby but, said it was her decision. Nine months later she ended up giving birth to a healthy little girl. That little girl is me."

You could  have heard a pin drop. To this day I don't know if that story she told was true. I have never seen her again. I have no reason to believe her story wasn't true. It had a profound impact on those dozen or so teenagers. And it had a profound impact on me. Here was a beautiful young lady sitting in front of us who came very close to never being born. What a tragedy that would have been.

People are passionate about many things. When our passions conflict, like they do on topics like this, society fractures more and more. What is the right answer? Who says so?

Are you somebody?

Seems like an innocent enough question doesn't it? The answer is obvious...of course you are. But what about all those people that make the headlines and the nightly news? Aren't they the real somebodies in the world? They get all the attention; they are the people that everyone notices...if even for only a brief time.

Rick Santorum, Jeremy Lin, Rush Limbaugh, Mitt Romney, Rory McIlroy, Benjamin Netanyahu, Justin Bieber, Newt Gingrich, Kate Middleton, Kobe Bryant, Charlie Sheen, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Danika Patrick...all well known, all making the headlines. Somebodies. Politicians, athletes, business leaders, celebrities. In our culture, these are some of the most important people around.

Remember Paris Hilton, Anthony Wiener, Floyd Landis, Rob Blagojevich, John Ashcroft, Lindsey Lohan, Glenn Beck, Barry Bonds, Dennis Hastert, the Jonas Brothers, Roger Clemons?...I could go on and on. These folks were pretty famous too...for a while. Now they are either no longer in the limelight or even worse, have become infamous for all the wrong reasons.

In August 1997, Princess Diana was killed in an automobile accident in Paris. The wife of Prince Charles, Diana was one of the most famous and beloved women in all the world. She certainly was famous as the beautiful bride of the heir to the throne of England. She was young and beautiful. She was involved in several worthy causes including the work to eradicate leftover land mines in various places around the world where wars had been fought.

Five days later, Mother Teresa died in Calcutta, India at the age of 87. Mother Teresa was a Catholic nun who spent 45 years serving the poorest of poor in India. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979.

What was remarkable to me was the difference in the reaction to the deaths of these two women. Thousands of people wept and placed flowers, teddy bears and other tributes at Kensington Palace making a pile nearly 5 feet deep as a show of sympathy to Diana. There was nothing resembling this outpouring of adoration for Mother Teresa. I wonder why?

By the world's standards, Diana was beautiful...Mother Teresa was not. Diana was royalty, enjoying all the benefit and entrapments that provided. Mother Teresa lived among and served the poorest and most sick and downtrodden in India.

Who decides if you are somebody? The world around you? The news media? Your boss? Your friends? Your bank? Your spouse? Your family? Your resume? I don't think so. Besides, if those were the ones that determined your somebody-ness, they could easily take that away. Just think about all the somebodies that have eventually been declared nobodies (by the same folks that once said they were somebody.)

My net worth and your net worth are not measured on a spreadsheet. Your net worth is determined by the One that made you. You and I are somebody because God says so.

The old familiar sing-a-long says- "I am somebody because God loves me and I'm accepted just the way that I am. His love is higher; it's deeper and wider, than you and I will, ever understand." That was true in the 1990's when people still actually sang that song. And it is true today. And it will be true tomorrow.

Saturday

It's Saturday. Probably the most longed for day on our calendar. For most people, Monday through Friday are the days of the week that comprise our work week or school week. We like Saturday. We like it so much we begin our celebrating on Friday. Just look at the Twitter tweets and Facebook status updates on Friday. Definitely TGIF. Casual clothes allowed at work on Fridays....getting us ready for Saturday.

Saturday...named after the planet Saturn. According to ISO 8601, it is the 6th day of the week. For the three Abrahamic religions, based on their original languages, Saturday is considered the 7th day of the week. Sunday is generally considered the beginning of the new week. All I know is that it's the start of the weekend! (that does sound a bit oxymoronic...if that's even a word)

What do you think about when you consider..Saturday? For me, it means the only day of the week when I usually don't set my alarm clock. A relaxing cup (or two) of coffee and reading the newspaper. When Jessica and Michael were young, it was the morning sound of cartoons or Disney programs on TV. Afternoon matinee at the movie theater, bike rides, lawn mowed/raked/edged, oil changed, the bulk of the laundry done, honey-do list whittled down, visit out-of-town friends or relatives, swimming at the lake/pool/ocean/creek/river (well, maybe when it warms up), wash the car, afternoon baseball games, camping, get the dogs' nails trimmed, cook something on the grill/smoker/Big Green Egg, parties, weddings... (and for my Augusta, GA friends...it means a worship service under a bridge)

Do you have any Saturday traditions? Is there any kind of routine for you on Saturday or is every Saturday different from the one before? We pack a lot of stuff into Saturday. Saturday has some big shoulders. It can handle a lot of chores, a lot of fun, ...and sometimes, a lot of nothing... except maybe a good book and the sound of the wind chimes outside the window.

Saturdays even have their own special smells....the smell of cut grass....leaves burning, laundry detergent, Pine-Sol, bread baking, meat on the grill, dog shampoo... Saturday.

Saturday is a big deal in our culture...we have the Saturday Evening Post, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Saturday Night Live, Saturday Night Fever, Saturday in the Park (Chicago), Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting (Elton John). Like I said, we like Saturday.

OK, now it's your turn...add your comments about what you love about Saturdays (and you know you do.)

(For the record, I'm a bigger fan of Sunday...but that is a different blog for later)

If you give a mouse a cookie...

...he's going to ask for glass of milk. This 1985 children's book carries a humorous, yet powerful message of the nature of mice. Or maybe it is really talking about something else.

If you asked me for a Top 10 list of Best Foods Ever Created, the Oreo cookie would definitely be on that list. There is nothing particularly fancy about the Oreo. It is a pretty simple little cookie with 2 chocolate wafers with icing in between. But they are perfect. Not too sweet wafers with a delectable sweetness in the middle. Others have tried in vain to copy them. Did your parents ever buy Hydrox cookies and try to pawn them off as Oreos? Who did they think they were fooling? Counterfeit cookies.

On the other hand, I don't think Oreos are especially good for you but, I don't think that is the intent for their existence. The ingredient list is as follows:

Ingredients: SUGAR, ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE {VITAMIN B1}, RIBOFLAVIN {VITAMIN B2}, FOLIC ACID), HIGH OLEIC CANOLA OIL AND/OR PALM OIL AND/OR CANOLA OIL, AND/OR SOYBEAN OIL, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CORNSTARCH, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, SOY LECITHIN (EMULSIFIER), VANILLIN - AN ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, CHOCOLATE. CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY.

The list starts with...SUGAR. That means it is the main ingredient. I'm OK with that. The Nutrition Facts on the package state that the "Serving Size" for all the statistics is 34 grams. I think this is 2 cookies. That almost made me laugh out loud. That would be like eating one potato chip. Those 34 grams of Oreos harness 7g of total fat, 10g of saturated fat, 160mg of sodium, 25g of total carbohydrates, 1g of dietary fiber, 14g of sugars and 1g of protein. Clearly, the Oreo is not a staple of a health food diet. But they are good and we enjoy eating them (OK maybe "enjoy" is not a strong enough word but, we'll stick with enjoy for now.)

But don't you dare pack any Oreos in your kid's lunchbox. I seriously doubt that the Oreo meets the USDA standards for what can be a part of a "healthy lunch." There was a news report on Feb 14th about a 4-year old pre-schooler in North Carolina that had her home packed lunch deemed nutritionally unacceptable by "the person who was inspecting all lunch boxes" and was given the cafeteria meal to eat instead (she ended up eating only 3 chicken nuggets.) Her mother had packed her a turkey and cheese sandwich on white wheat bread, a banana, potato chips and apple juice. My gosh, what was her Mom thinking? She might just as well packed her some Slim Jims, a stick of margarine, six pieces of bacon, candy corn, a Budweiser and a pack of Camel cigarettes.

If you don't believe me read the article: Read for yourself

So, there really is a governmental department that has the authority to inspect your kid's lunchbox and determine whether you are a fit enough parent to prepare your child an acceptable lunch. If you fail, the cafeteria Nazis will just tell your child he or she must eat the government's gruel.

We want our government to solve our problems. Sure, there is a need for government agencies but, whenever we give them authority over parts of our lives, that authority is ALWAYS going to move in the direction of assuming more and more say. There are always people out there (and many are government employees) that are absolutely sure that they know so much more of what is in your best interest. They can't stand people making choices or behaving in such a way that they disagree with. So, they overstep what is probably already too much authority.

I doubt the USDA intends for their henchmen to do things like what occurred in North Carolina. But that is what happens. It is the nature of power and authority.

It's like that mouse in the story. You give him a cookie and he is going to ransack your lunchbox to see if there are any more Oreos in there.

It's for your own good

We've all watched the Cold War era movies showing  armed guards approaching ordinary citizens and demanding to see their "papers." The "security forces" were there checking paperwork to make sure everything was in order. In the US, American (legal) citizens scoff at the thought of that sort of thing happening here since we don't have to answer to government authorities as we move about and enjoy our day-to-day life. Oh, sure we have our driver's licenses, other forms of identification and that Social Security card we have locked away back home but, we rarely have to show them to anybody. Our government respects our freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to move about and freedom to live the way we like so long as we do not harm others in the process. Of course, that would never change, right?

There are at least three areas where we seem more and more willing to cede our freedoms for "the greater good":

Our health
Our "safety"
Our environment

At least three major efforts have been underway for some time now by the government limiting our freedoms in the name of saving us from ourselves, saving us from terrorists/ other general bad guys and saving the environment. They all sound altruistic..after all, the government is providing salvation and that must always be a good thing. We hear phrases like "it is for your own good" as if we really don't need any say in the matter. We're told, "we are doing this to protect you." And finally, "we are doing this to keep you from harming the planet" (or harming some little obscure amphibian that isn't winning the survival-of-the-fittest-contest.) Our government feels obligated to provide us more and more protection and security...

The Dept of Health and Human Services...FDA...Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare)
The Department of Homeland Security...Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
The Environmental Protection Agency

Sure, we need reasonable regulations and government oversight to prevent abuses and unnecessary dangers. It is not unreasonable to ask people when voting to show that they are registered voters. Certainly there are times when showing an ID is reasonable. But what is happening to our freedoms? TSA agents rifle through our belongings and grope our children and senior citizens to make absolutely sure that no terrorist gets on an airplane. There must be lots of dastardly 80 year-old Lutheran women from Wisconsin that have been hijacking airplanes in recent years so we better X-ray them or pat them down in case one is wearing an explosive girdle. We are prodded along like mindless goats in the gate area line and, admit it, you feel like you are under suspicion simply because you purchased an airline ticket. I keep waiting to hear "show me ze papers."

I also can't be trusted to not buy / eat food that meets some government expert's opinion of what is "unhealthy for me." I used to eat eggs because my grandmother said they were good for me but then the experts said that eggs were bad for me so I stopped eating them as much but then the experts changed their minds and said it was OK for me to eat eggs again but just don't eat 12 at a time. Darn, I love eating that 12-egg cheese omelet four times a week. I wait on pins and needles for the next food alert that will keep me from dying before I can collect my Social Security check. If the government can't convince me to change my eating habits, they just turn around and pound the food providers into submission and make them remove all those nasty ingredients that will do me harm. Hey McDonalds, you want to put those toys in the Happy meal bags? Well, you better change your recipes to conform with what McGovernment says. When bacon makes it onto the banned list, I'm personally marching on Washington. You'll see what a million man march looks like for sure. And Obamacare? Since when did you think you had a choice about your health insurance?

The big government groupies gush and clap and say, "Oh, look how the government (Republican or Democrat government...doesn't really matter) is watching out for us!"

If we could only find that guy that invented the internal combustion engine we could drag him into a Senate oversight hearing and ask him where did he get the crazy notion that he could invent something that was going to use up all that dead dinosaur goop that is buried beneath the ocean floor and under those Polar bears up in the frozen Palin land. Didn't he also know that all the exhaust gas from those engines was going to cause more problems for the ozone layer than even those volcanic eruptions and methane filled cow farts? If the government could just figure out how to eliminate all that bovine flatulence then we could go back to using our Homelite weed whackers. But no...those cows are sacred and deserve to be treated without prejudice. They have as much right to pass gas as you do. And don't even get me started on the environmental and social impact of "BS", while we are on the topic of the southbound output of a northbound boy cow.

Hey, I've got an idea... let's just take the corn crop...you know the stuff we used to grow to feed animals, make grits and to make Orville Redenbacher's 300 flavors of popcorn and now use it to put in our automobile fuel tanks. We can just feed the additional starving people all that crude oil we are no longer turning into gasoline. Sure, food prices will skyrocket but we will feel good about how ethanol is going to keep the ice caps from melting and changing that movie "The Day After Tomorrow" from a riveting action film into a real life prophetic documentary. Whew, saving the planet is hard work. But we sleep well at night knowing that the government has it under control. Oh, and these are the people that brought you the US Postal Service, Freddie and Fannie and dozens of other government success stories.

Our Declaration of Independence (oh, by the way those old guys in bad wigs were trying to break free from an overbearing government that trampled on freedoms) says that I am endowed by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights that, among them, are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My Constitution spells out all the ways that my federal government has NO SAY over my life and liberties.

Do you feel safer, healthier, more secure and more protected? What liberties are you willing to give up for that? Whatever the government decides? If we stay on this course, the storm troopers at the checkpoints will be asking to see your papers. After all, you might be one of those weed-whacking, bacon eating, SUV driving troublemakers. You wanna see my papers? They are on display at the Library of Congress.

Naïveté

The English language is chock full of interesting words derived from many different languages. It has always interested me how certain French words have been incorporated as-is into the English language with little or no attempt to "English-ize" them (OK, I know that isn't a real word.) Say what you want about the French language, it certainly is beautiful, as are the other Latin languages.

Naivete. Definitely a French word. Without considering the definition, the very sound of the word is so....appealing. But, this isn't a trait you would want  to be described as possessing. Being naive, while understood to be something limited to the young and innocent, certainly is not exclusive to that demographic. Being naive regarding some things can be relatively harmless. We usually believe that, in time,  that naivete will eventually be replaced by some base level of wisdom and worldliness.

I can accept the naivete of young boys and girls as something to almost expect. But, I have a real problem when it is possessed by the president of our country or other high ranking governmental leaders. Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not desirous of leaders that are full of cynicism, pessimism or unwillingness to trust. I would however, hope for a pragmatic, non-ideologue, experienced person with an acute leadership acumen.

In 1976, we elected Jimmy Carter, a former Georgia governor, as president. I understand that his victory was, in large part, a backlash to the corrupted Nixon/ Watergate, scandalous years. My impression, however, of Jimmy Carter was based on his years as governor and his rhetoric throughout his presidential campaign. I believed him to be a naive ideologue (nowadays he just seems to be a mean-spirited, petty, ideologue.) That impression was proven to be true based on his performance in almost all facets of his presidency, especially his economic and foreign policy. His lack of understanding of the real world or his belief that his leadership could cause that world to stop behaving the way it had predictably behaved was a significant problem. The "why can't we all just get along" sentiment while impressively optimistic, was dangerously naive.

Fast forward to today. I believe that the current president suffers from similar attributes as Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama believed (and maybe still believes) that if America had a leader that would extend the olive branch to other world leaders/countries that had historically demonstrated a hatred of America, that they would realize the error of their ways and embrace him and our country as a friend. Naive.

Beginning in December of 2010, uprisings began in several Arab countries. The people of Tunisia, Egypt and Libya overthrew their dictatorial regimes in the so-called Arab Spring. Because of overtures communicated even before he was elected, I think Barack Obama believed that these and other countries would embrace the US and implement western style democracies when the opportunity presented itself. Why? Because he believed that by pulling US troops out of Iraq and saying the "right" things like he did in his Cairo speech, these nations would change their anti-American sentiment. At the end of the day, these nations are becoming more unfriendly to the US.

In Syria, for nearly a year now, the regime of Bashar al-Assad has been slaughtering its own people by the thousands. Just this week, the US Embassy in Damascus was ordered closed by the State Department because of the violence. In the UN, the US has twice been unable to get a resolution passed against Syria by the Security Council because of vetoes by Russia and China. And I believe that the Obama administration was surprised by that...both times.

In Egypt, 19 Americans working with pro-democracy groups are being threatened with prosecution and may be ordered to stand trial. All the while Obama's administration is reeling because of the rapidly deteriorating relationship between our two countries. One of the affected Americans is the son of Republican Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The administration has grossly miscalculated these very complex world affairs.



Granted, these are incredibly explosive times right now. We need a president and leadership team that can quickly outgrow whatever naivete that they may have possessed. There is just too much at stake.

Soul Train

Don Cornelius- Soul Train

Music is an incredibly powerful thing. Every culture has music traditions and, just in my lifetime, I have witnessed the way that music can influence the world around us. Yesterday, we heard that Don Cornelius had died, apparently from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. For those of us that grew up during the 60's and 70's, we will forever remember Don Cornelius as the creator of the TV show "Soul Train."

Soul Train was certainly not the first nationwide TV show focused on music. Other shows existed in the earlier days of television. We had shows like "Name that tune", "Sing along with Mitch", and the "Lawrence Welk Show" but they catered mainly to the over-40 crowd. Shows like "American Bandstand", "Shindig!", and "Hullabaloo" were geared more towards the younger folks and, in addition to musical acts, featured dancers showing off the latest dance steps. Later we had MTV and VH1. Now we have Glee, American Idol and several others. Music in America is a big deal.

But Soul Train was the first prime-time TV show that featured, almost exclusively, African-American musical artists. Modeled after the very popular "American Bandstand", which featured predominantly white artists and dancers, Soul Train became a favorite of many young Americans, black and white.

The segregated American society that made up a large part of the 20th century is an historical fact, painful though it is to be reminded of. But there has been one thing that seems to have transcended the racial divide that existed and, in some ways, still exists today...and that is music. From the white, Celtic-influenced Appalachian music that birthed bluegrass, rockabilly, and country music....to the gospel music sung in rural churches, to the black, rhythm and blues music from the Delta, Memphis, St. Louis, Chicago and Detroit...the combination of all which birthed what we call Rock and Roll music. The soul music sound of African-American Detroit artists, on Barry Gordy's Motown Records kept the dance halls rocking and swaying to some incredible music and vocal harmonies.

The older, white generation didn't embrace much of this music...sometimes because it was just so different from the music they enjoyed but also because of racial prejudice. Sadly, many included the "N-word" in describing this new music. But for the younger Baby Boomer generation, I believe the blending of these musical genres and the appreciation for and enjoyment of these new musical sounds went a long way in bridging the racial divide.

As a white kid that loved the likes of Elvis, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, and the Everly Brothers; I also loved the sounds of the Coasters, the Drifters, Sam and Dave, Ray Charles, James Brown, The Four Tops, The Temptations, The Supremes, Wilson Pickett, and Marvin Gaye. And just when rock and roll seemed to be losing its way, along came the mid-60's British invasion of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dave Clark Five, The Animals, The Kinks and dozens of others that had listened to all that America had blended together musically, and reintroduced it to us.

Then in 1971, Don Cornelius' Soul Train was syndicated and white (and black) teenagers not only heard some great music but also were able to see some of the dance moves that were sometimes only popular in the cities where it was filmed. Soon enough, those dance moves went viral across the country (at least in the areas where it was broadcast.)

In many ways, Don Cornelius did as much to bring folks of all colors together as anyone in those decades. And it was done through the power of music.

In the words of the New Seeker's song popularized by Coca-Cola's famous 1971 commercial:

"I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony...." I think Don Cornelius helped us do that.