A Libertarian-Conservative Viewpoint

Our Fallen Heroes Deserve Better - Part 2

2010-10-23T16:33:00.000-07:00

On October 4, 2010, a member of our church, Private First Class Cody A. Board, was killed in action in Afghanistan. His funeral was held on October 16 as indicated in my blog below. Since Cody had been born at Fort Sill, Oklahoma where his father, then an Army Captain, was stationed at the time, the family planned his interment with military honors at Fort Sill National Cemetery near Lawton, Oklahoma. In order to reach the cemetery from our church in McKinney, Texas, the funeral procession, expected to include about 300 vehicles, had to travel over about 50 miles of an Oklahoma toll road. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority refused to grant free toll road access to the funeral procession. The expected $400 plus toll would have to be paid by the family. Typically, the funeral home is billed for these charges, and then they are passed along to the family. To be fair to the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority and the State of Oklahoma, the State of Texas, and probably most states having toll roads, do not grant free access either, except to emergency vehicles and the police. Justifiably, an outcry from citizens living in Texas and other states ensued.

Over a period of two days, after countless phone calls and e-mails, the planned toll charges to the family were rescinded. The situation prompted one Oklahoma legislator, Republican Representative Mike Reynolds, to help find a solution. The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority’s spokesman, Doug Damrill, is quoted saying that he fielded more than 150 angry calls in the wake of media reports about the toll policy, some highly unpleasant, some threatening. In addition, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority received numerous e-mails. Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry’s office also received phone calls. In an e-mail to the Director of the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, one Gold Star Mother [those who have lost a loved one in the military] said, “I am so disgusted and sorry that there are people in our free country who care that little for our freedom to not respect and honor those families and those heroes who sacrificed so you could be total idiots about this issue...We’ve paid enough of a toll and so did PFC Cody Board and his family…” Around 11:00 a.m. on October 15, the day before the funeral, a Patriot Guard Rider officer stated: “...You, the individuals, the riders and the many new friends of Pfc. Cody Board stepped up and started the phone calls and e-mails to state representatives, senators and congressmen, FaceBook, the Internet, and calls to the local and national media. The positive nationwide response was incredible and the showing of support was tremendous. Within hours of the posting of the e-mail, there were individual riders, private companies and private individuals from around the nation stepping up and offering to pay the fee. [One offer was from Washington State.] Due in large part to your response to this injustice, the Director of Transportation for the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority has now offered to pay the toll himself. He advised us that his phone lines were tied up for over six hours with people calling to voice their anger over the disrespect shown to the family of a fallen soldier. The charging of a toll for the funeral of a soldier who has given his life for this country is being waived for this one young man. The problem still exists for the next fallen soldier; there is still a need for changes nationwide. Other states, including Texas, also charge the families of fallen soldiers whose funerals use a toll road. Public funds build these roads and the public needs to step up and change the rules. Respect needs to replace greed.”

This situation is about respect and honor. Respect and honor owed to a fallen military member and his family. They paid the ultimate price in the defense of America and its citizens! Unfortunately, this kind of disrespect for a fallen hero and his/her family will be repeated, perhaps countless times in the future without changes in the law. The least we can do as citizens and a country is to grant free access when our toll roads and/or bridges are used for a fallen hero’s funeral procession. They and their families have already more than paid any road/bridge toll due!

What can you and I do to see this situation is never repeated? If you live in a state that has toll roads and/or bridges, you should write your state legislators and request they support legislation to grant free access on toll roads and bridges to the funeral procession of any fallen hero within the state or from out of the state as was the case with Cody Board’s funeral procession. In addition, you should write your congressman/woman and your two senators requesting similar legislation at the federal level. Highways/bridges, even those with tolls, are in almost every case funded in total or in part with federal tax dollars. Also, please feel free to e-mail this blog or the information in it to friends and relatives living in states that have toll roads/bridges so they can also make legislative contacts at the state and federal levels. Changes in the law are warranted. This situation should never be repeated! Grieving families and our fallen heroes do not deserve this.

Our fallen heroes deserve better!

Copyright 2010 by Don Emerson

Our Fallen Heroes Deserve Better

2010-10-18T12:11:00.000-07:00

On Saturday, October 16th, I attended the funeral of Private First Class Cody A. Board, a 19 year-old member of our church, who was killed in action in Mirwais, Afghanistan on October 4. While I do not know the family, I did thank Cody for his service the last time he was in uniform in church, shortly before he was shipped to Germany and then on to Afghanistan. I was honored and blessed to have had the opportunity to thank him.

I have been to other military funerals, but never to one as touching or moving as this one. It was my honor to attend a service for one of our fallen American heroes. America is blessed to have young men and women willing to lay down their lives to defend the country and our freedoms. We mourn with his family in their loss. Their loss is our loss. It is indeed America's loss!

An article in our local newspaper on October 15, the day before the funeral, stated that the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas planned a protest at Cody’s funeral. And the church website also seemed to indicate a protest was planned at the funeral. Most of us have no doubt heard about this church and their protests at funerals of gay men or more likely at the funerals of our fallen military heroes.

If the Westboro Baptist Church did in fact have people present Saturday to protest, they were thankfully kept well away from the church and view by the McKinney Police and/or the Patriot Guard. I did not see any protesters, and neither did any one with whom I have talked. There were a large number of people who lined the street in front of our church, many no doubt present in case a counter protest was warranted.

While I was somewhat familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church and their protest activities, I had never gone to their website. That I did after the funeral. I was shocked! I will not print the despicable garbage I found there, but I would encourage each of you to Google the Westboro Baptist Church yourself. Look at the protest/picket schedule, but also look at the press releases. Under “press releases” one will find the names of military personnel (or that was all I saw). I scrolled down to Cody A. Board’s name and clicked on it. I found the press release on that service simply horrifying. I assume all the other press releases are the same. I can hardly attach a label to people who would spout such garbage. The first label that came to mind was “kooks,” then words such as “crackpot, loony, cuckoo, nut, weirdo,” and “wacko” came to mind. In the final analysis, the only label that really seemed to accurately reflect my view of these people is something that I won't utter aloud or write. Only after you look at the Westboro Baptist Church website and what is there, can you fully understand. Then, I am sure an appropriate label will come to your own mind.

The Westboro Baptist Church was established in 1955 by one Pastor Fred Phelps. How many members belong to the church is questionable, but one estimate I read indicated there were 71 members in 2007, mostly members of Phelps’ family. One estimate indicated that the church spent about $250,000 annually on travel and picketing. I wonder what the accurate figure is. After looking at their picket schedule, one can only conclude a lot of money is needed to finance this activity alone. Who is the financial source? Do these people have jobs? And if so, how can they always be running around the country picketing? I am curious as to why the major news media has not provided answers to these and other questions about this group.

The Westboro church picketed at the funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Mathew A. Snyder a number of years ago. Mathew Snyder’s father filed a lawsuit against Fred W. Phelps, Sr., Rebekah Phelps-Davis, and Shirley Phelps-Roper. On October 31, 2007, they were found liable for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Albert Snyder, Mathew’s father, was awarded 2.9 million in compensatory damages. Later, six million was added for punitive damages and an additional two million for emotional distress. In February 2008, the verdict was upheld, but damages were reduced to a total of five million. In September 2009, a federal appeals court reversed the lower court’s award. On March 2010, Albert Snyder was ordered to pay the church $16,000 for its legal fees. There were 3,000 promises for donations to offset this cost, and commentator Bill O’Reilly offered to pay the costs on March 30, 2010. The American Legion raised $17,000 to help pay Snyder’s court costs. On March 8, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted judicial review of Snyder’s case. On March 28, Senator Harry Reid (to his credit), along with 42 senators (where the heck were the other 57?), filed a brief with the Supreme Court in support of Snyder. On June 1, the Kansas Attorney General filed a separate brief in support of Snyder. This brief was joined by the AG’s of 47 other states and the District of Columbia, only Maine and Virginia being the two exceptions (why did they not join?). The full Supreme Court has just recently heard the case, and a decision is due next year. Our fallen military fought for the American way of life and our rights, including the freedom of speech. I fully realize that churches have the right to freedom of speech. I also realize that there are some limits to our freedom of speech. For instance, one cannot yell, “Fire” in a theatre. I think grieving families have a right to privacy at the funerals of loved ones. Grieving families should not have to witness protesters, especially when they have vile messages such as the signs the Westboro Baptist Church protesters carry. What is the purpose of inflicting more pain on these grieving families? This is Christian? They proclaim their protests are a warning to citizens and other churches! Sheer nonsense. I, along with most other people, find this behavior appalling and a turn-off. I learn nothing from insane messages. Are these church members missing a number of cards from the full deck, or worse? I know my answer to that question and probably yours.

Who can rationally explain this church members' rudeness, deliberate infliction of additional pain, and lack of respect directed toward grieving families at the funeral of cherished loved ones? My Christianity tells me to love my neighbor. It does not tell me to deny love to those with whom I might have religious differences. Further, my Christianity CERTAINLY does not tell me to protest at funerals of anyone, especially of our fallen military heroes. This church may call itself a Christian church, but their beliefs are not the mainstream Christianity I know.

Love doesn’t leave, nor does love die. Memories of lost loved ones live on. The members of Westboro church, with their evil protests, drive a painful stake in the hearts of already grieving families. The grief-stricken do not deserve this. The deceased do not deserve this. Our fallen military heroes deserve better!

Copyright 2010 by Don Emerson

Like Dandelion Dust

2010-09-27T13:30:00.000-07:00

Thoughts on the Movie Like Dandelion Dust

I assume that I am not a unique parent of an adopted child. Prior to my wife and I adopting, we had done research and knew about the potential adoption troubles that sometimes turned a story of lifelong love into a painful and ugly adoption nightmare. In any adoption, there are always two stories (three if the child is counted), one the love story of a biological parent or parents who surrender a child in its best interest and the other love story of a couple adopting that child as their own to love and cherish. Even though there is pain in both stories, hopefully over time the pain is replaced by deep love and/or acceptance.

Of all the uncertainties and fears surrounding an adoption, none were as overwhelming for me as an adoptive father than the lingering fear that at some point the birthparents would rise out of nowhere to reclaim MY child. That fear does not diminish your love for the child, nor does it cause you to withhold love, but it is often overwhelming.

We adopted our son in 1969. We knew from the biological family backgrounds provided us at the time of adoption that our son was not born to poverty-stricken parents. Without going into details, I will simply say the parents were not married. And while we knew that both biological parents had agreed to the adoption plan for their child, I nonetheless always had a fear that one or both of them might someday return to reclaim OUR son. That thought was particularly acute during that first year before the adoption was finalized. While the fear was unfounded and highly remote in our case, it was present. I have often wondered in the years since, if those thoughts are typical of most adopted parents or if I were alone in that fear.

In 1980, the year our son was to turn eleven, we left the state in which we lived and had adopted him. In the weeks before we moved, the newscasts were filled with the story of a three-year old adopted girl. As I recall, the child had been placed in her adopted home at birth, surrendered by the mother. The father was out of the picture at the time, but did not sign the surrender agreement for whatever reason. Eventually, as I recall, the couple reunited, married, and filed suit to reclaim the child. Following a number of appeals, the case came before the state’s Supreme Court who awarded the child to the birthparents whom the child had never seen. The television news coverage was heart wrenching as we watched a panic-stricken child, struggling to hold on, being taken from the arms of her loving adopted parents, the only parents she had ever known, and handed to strangers, the birthparents. Your heart breaks at such a sight, especially as adoptive parents. While I realize this was a wrongful adoption from the outset, as an adoptive parent, it also seemed a wrongful solution for the child involved. It certainly did not seem a “wisdom of Solomon” solution to me.

That background brings me now to Like Dandelion Dust, a recently released movie dealing with a similar adoption story. Having read all of Karen Kingsbury’s novels, this one probably would not have been my personal choice as the first of her novels to be filmed. However, I am glad to see that one of her novels is now a completed and released movie.

A few days ago I attended a screening of Like Dandelion Dust . I had found the novel an emotional read, but the movie was a more emotional trip. As the father of an adopted son, both the novel and movie were personal, at times almost too personal as I relived our own adoption experience and fears. Thoughts and fears that had crossed my mind so long ago when we adopted returned as hauntingly emotional and painful, a kick in my gut. The little horror movie of my fears from so long ago played in my mind alongside the story unfolding as I watched the movie, just as it had when I read the novel.

The novel is an inspirational Christian book, but the movie is not overtly Christian, unlike other Bobby and Kevin Downes’s films I have seen. However, I had anticipated that before seeing the movie. Nonetheless, the results are as inspirational and emotional as the book. The movie appeals to anyone, regardless of beliefs, and it works well. It is touching, compelling, hopeful, and redemptive. It is well directed, acted, edited, scripted, and filmed. So much is conveyed without words, an interesting appeal in and of itself. Starring in the movie are Mira Sorvino and Barry Pepper as the birthparents, Cole Hauser and Kate Levering as the adopted parents, and Maxwell Perry Cotton as the boy. Your heart breaks for all of the characters regardless with whom you most clearly identify. The film has won over 30 awards in film festivals around the world since being finished in 2008 and before its nationwide opening on September 24. If the movie is playing at a theatre near you, it is one I would highly recommend. Even though a highly emotional journey, it is one worth taking. Faith in the basic goodness of people is refreshed.

Copyright by Don Emerson 2010

Our Elderly: The New Expendable?

2010-05-11T14:30:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I read an article, "A 'Duty to Die?'?", by one of my favorite columnists, Thomas Sowell. He says, “One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have “a duty to die,” rather than become a burden to others. This is more than an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government. ... Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values, and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which “a duty to die” is just one. These efforts at changing values used to be called “values clarification,” though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed “clarification” had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this “clarification.” Nor are we better people because of it.” And I might add, nor are we a better country because of it!

This idea of our elderly being expendable has troubled me for a number of years. A society can be judged by how well it treats its young and elderly populations. It is clear to me that by this judgment standard alone, American society is woefully deficient. Abortions, performed at developmental ages when babies could sustain life on their own, are only one way we ill-treat our young. And they ARE babies! The fashionable term “fetus” must be used by the pro-choice (an oxymoron to me) crowd to frame the moral issue involved so as to seem more distant and less onerous. The care our elderly receive in most nursing homes leaves much to be desired. We have just observed the passage of a healthcare reform package that is going to eventually lead to total government-run health care in America and to the denial of treatment and medication to the elderly. Those who think otherwise are living in a dream world, they have little or no understanding of how government-run systems all over the world function, or they have fallen in love with the erroneous idea that they are going to get something for nothing.

Yes, my wife and I are among the elderly. I fully understand the sacrifice (financial and otherwise) that our younger citizens might make in order to care for the elderly. There is always a cost of some type to doing what is right! While I do not expect extra-ordinary measures to be used in order to sustain elderly lives, neither do I believe that measures such as denying treatment or medications should be used to hasten death. What has happened to morality when ideas such as “a duty to die” and “denial of care to hasten death” become pervasive and main stream? Where is our country headed? Are some of us now expendable? Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? I have no interest in my country venturing into that “brave new world,” but obviously that is where the country is headed. When a government official/board/commission/entity decides our fate, all citizens, and our entire society, are in grave danger. Rest assured, someone or some group having that kind of power is going to eventually have an “enemies list” or an "axe to grind"!

I am probably no different than other members of the elderly population in hoping to live a long and productive life. Like many, my wife and I have prepared as best we can for our long-term care, but neither we nor anyone else can prepare for every eventuality. When the time comes to need someone else to help care for us, I am sure we, like all the elderly, think, hope, and pray that we have families who will assist in providing the best possible care, regardless of the inconvenience or sacrifice they may have to make. Is that too much to ask? I fear that maybe it is in the America we see unfolding before us. In addition to the changing values and political winds, our society is also a highly mobile one. The elderly may live great distances from their loved ones. Long-distance care is difficult and can be more expensive. Younger family members have their own financial and family burdens/needs to consider. Having an elderly relative/parent living in ones’ home is something many would refuse to accept. Aiding elderly loved ones often becomes only an afterthought, if a thought at all.

So ... back to my original question, “Are our elderly “the new expendable”? I think maybe we are, and that is not a comforting thought!

Copyright 2010 by Don Emerson. All rights reserved.

Reflections On Being a Suicide Survivor

2010-05-04T10:57:00.000-07:00

Recently, there have been a number of news stories regarding teens who have committed suicide, many because of bullying. That is a very troubling trend for me, a retired educator. Suicide causes about 32,000 deaths yearly in the United States, about one every 16 seconds. It is the eleventh leading cause of death, with firearms being used most often. Women attempt suicide more often; men complete the act four times that of women.

As a son whose 69-year-old father committed suicide in 1982, almost 28 years ago now, I think in many ways my experience is similar to that of many others who also are now suicide survivors. The rates of suicide in the 65 and over age bracket is seven times higher in men than in women. In men, suicide rates rise with age, most significantly after age 65. Why? Maybe, it is because men seem to have weaker social support than women.

While talking with a church friend on that fateful sunny afternoon almost 28 years ago, I suddenly and unexplicably felt drained and nauseous. Seeing my distress, Greg inquired, "Is there something wrong?" Even though I responded, "No," I knew something was strange and terribly wrong. He suggested a cup of coffee. After the coffee and our short visit, the feeling eased somewhat. I had no way of knowing that at the moment I experienced that strange feeling an event had occurred over two thousand miles away which would forever impact my life.

Later in the day, my sister called to say our father had shot himself that afternoon, been transferred to a hospital having a trauma center, and that doctors said he could linger a few hours or possibly months or years. After cancelling my next week's appointments, I made flight reservations to my hometown and left my office.

Sleep did not come easily that evening, only memories of a relationship with my father whom I had often felt I never really knew. Around 3:00 a.m. the next morning, my sister called again to say that Dad had died.

Arnold Toynbee has written, "There are always two parties to a death, the person who dies and the survivors who are bereaved." Suicide leaves from 180,000 to 250,000 survivors yearly. Survivors usually do not get over suicide, the loss often does not heal, and it may be felt forever. My family and I were now among the "suicide survivors," members of that group at highest risk for suicide themselves.

My long flight home was a lonely and dreary one. All I could think about was what could have been so terrible that Dad would shoot himself. Those of us remaining, especially Mom, would always have to live with that decision of his. Memories of my childhood and my relationship with my father flooded my thoughts and hounded me during my many hours on that plane.

In Why People Die of Suicide, psychologist Thomas Jointer has said that the completion of suicide requires both a desire for death and a capability for lethal self-harm. A desire for death arises from the perception of being a burden to family members or others and of having a low sense of belonging. Such feelings may not be valid, but individuals believe them. These conditions occur when someone experiences extreme hopelessness, helplessness, and comes to feel that nothing or no one can help them. Suicide may seem sudden and impulsive, but most are the result of a process that happens over many weeks, months, or even years.

I have concluded the stroke my father suffered two weeks before his death, and from which he had almost completely recovered, lead him to suicide. My best guess is that he feared future strokes would mean incapacitation such as he had witnessed with his brother years earlier. It was obvious Dad had planned his death and did exactly what he intended. He fired two shots about five minutes apart, both heard by a neighbor. He seldom carried lots of cash, but he had cash in his wallet, no doubt knowing that the bank account would be sealed for a time. His keys, wallet, insurance and other important papers were neatly arranged, all placed where they would easily be found.

Almost all suicide survivors ask, "Why?" I was no exception. Without a note being left, I could only make the educated guess. Also for many survivors, unresolved relationship issues with the victim remain after the suicide, never to have any satisfactory resolution.

Research indicates that after a husband's suicide a widow may feel isolated from friends and family. This was my mother's experience. She was the person who found my father in the garage when she returned from a shopping trip. Suicide is horible enough without having to be the one to find the victim, especially after a shooting. Mother always felt, and even mentioned a few times, there were those who blamed her for Dad's death. She may have had guilt feelings for whatever reason, yet she never expressed them. Also, there was and still is the social stigma of suicide with which she and other suicide survivors have to contend. Mother lived another 20 years after my father's death, but they were not happy years. To me, it was as if a part of Mom also died along with my father and likely did.

I found grieving difficult until I was able to shed tears. That did not happen until after my father's burial, and I was able to be alone. I see my tears now as not so much because of my father's death, as hurtful as that was, or the facts surrounding his death, but more for us having spent years together without any serious personal relationship. We had shared a life in the same house, yet had never known each other in so many ways. He was always working, followed by relaxing in front of the television. As a youngster, I remember wanting to do things with him such as fishing, but he never had time for that. Later in my life, certainly before I graduated from high school, he developed his own interest in hunting and fishing. When I was home, he always asked me to go along. I always declined. Whether declining was my way of punishing him for what I considered past neglect or whether it was more related to the fact that by then I had developed serious interests in books, music, movies, and theatre, I have never concluded. Maybe it was both. By then, my interests were as foreign to him as his were to me. In many ways as I grew up, we were "strangers passing in the night." "Strangers" living under the same roof! That happens in so many homes today, but family life now seems much more complicated than it was when I grew up.

In coping with my father's suicide I found my religious faith, my wife, our two children, work friends, and church friends helpful. Just allowing me to share my story and feelings, repeatedly, and without judgment or criticism, was beneficial. I must have exhausted them. All respected my religious faith. None told me that my father was crazy, would go to hell, or that I needed to be strong for someone; I was allowed to grieve in my own way and on my own timetable. One is always helped, I think, if allowed to become the "new you," someone changed because of another's suicide or death. Just being accorded the opporunity to talk freely was helpful some 28 years ago. Today, I find writing a much better outlet for my feelings.

Reflecting on my father's suicide and my relationship with him at this point in my life, I think my tears were not only a release of emotions, but also my final realization that a personal relationship with my father had now become a permanent loss, a sealed door, never to open again. I keep in mind though that many father-son relationships suffer, die, or become permanent losses, even without a suicide or death.

Sometime ago, I received for the third time an E-mail forward entitled, "Friends." It was the story of Kyle, a ninth grader, who planned to commit suicide. On the Friday of the weekend planned for his suicide, Kyle cleaned out his school locker and was taking everything home so his parents would not have to do it. On his way home, some students knocked his books out of his arms. Another student stopped and helped him pick them up. They walked home together, discovered they liked each other, and spent time together that weekend. They became close friends, and four years later at graduation, the friend heard the story of how he had prevented Kyle's planned suicide as Kyle delivered the valedictorian speech.

While this story is probably fiction, it clearly points out that we should never underestimate the power of our actions or how one gesture from us can change a person's life.

Copyright 2010 by Don Emerson. All rights reserved.

Dear John - More Than a Love Story

2010-02-20T08:16:00.000-08:00

Seldom do I read a book a second time, but having seen the recently released movie a few days earlier, I felt compelled to remove the novel from our bookshelf where it had been since my first reading and open it. There were tears in my eyes once again two days later as I finished reading the last page and closed the novel.

I recall how moved I was when I first read Nicholas Sparks' Dear John shortly after its publication in 2006. Having a career Army son may possibly be why the book (and movie) touched me so deeply. Or it may be because of the though-provoking question, "What does true love really mean?" which opens the novel's Epilogue. Or it may simply be impossible for me to accurately pinpoint or explain why I found the book and movie so moving.

Those in the military are said to be on average about 19 years old. We think of them as kids, not adults. These sons and daughters of ours have learned to obey orders and have become self-reliant. Many have personally faced more death and experienced more hardship than most of us will in our lifetimes. They will sacrifice their lives for comrades and for those of us sleeping comfortably in our own beds; they often sleep on sand in some far-away, lonely place. Many of us give no thought, and some of us are not even grateful, that we have freedom only because there are men and women willingly sacrificing so we can. These men and women weep for lost comrades in private and sometimes in public. How often do we? Many of us have no clue what to do or think when we hear "The Star Spangled Banner" being played, while they understand fully. I am continually amazed, yet grateful, that America has for over 200 years produced such dedicated, selfless, heroic young people. One of these military heroes is the main character of Dear John. Even as his personal love story disintegrates, he maintains his duty to comrades and country and illustrates at the end what true love really means.

Some would call Dear John both a chick-novel and a chick-flick. So be it. Women are not the only ones with emotions. I remain unashamed that I found both the novel and movie so deeply and personally emotional. Whether in real life or in fiction, that ability to deeply feel the pain, suffering, and anguish of others is one reason the human species is special. Even though a touching and tragic love story, I also found both the Dear John movie and novel a wonderful tribute to our self-sacrificing military men and women. In the novel and movie, just as in real life, duty and honor lead many to sacrifice a personal loving relationship, sacrifice being away from family and loved ones for lengthy periods, or make the ulitmate sacrifice. I thank God we have such men and women!

Read the book! See the movie! You will not regret either in my opinion.

Copyright 2010 by Don Emerson

"Love IS Never Having to Say You are Sorry"

2009-10-26T08:31:00.000-07:00

Years ago, I enjoyed Eric Segal’s novel Love Story and the movie which followed. The one line from the movie that has always stayed with me is, “Love is never having to say you are sorry.” Such a simple line but rather profound in many ways, I think. The death of loved ones over the past months reminds me of those lines. We all probably have relatives we are sorry are in our family or at least may feel that way periodically over the course of our lives. If I ever felt that way about my siblings at some point, I can honestly say with deep love now, I never have to say I am sorry for loving my two siblings and for the wonderful memories which will remain for the rest of my life.

We lost our father to suicide in 1982; our mother lived another 20 years. My sister was killed in an auto accident on December 23, 2008. My brother died of cancer on July 1, 2009. I had always expected that my brother, and especially my sister who was four years younger than I, would outlive me; however, there are very few certainties in life. I am still adjusting to being the only member of my immediate family alive. I still reach for the phone to call them and then remember there is no one there to call except my brother-in-law or sister-in-law. Perhaps I will never totally adjust to this new reality.

I have written before about my sister and feel compelled to say a few words about my brother. I think I can do that now more easily than would have been possible a few months ago. I have found that God, time, family, friends, and memories have a way of helping us heal. Given those factors, we all eventually heal or at least learn to cope with our losses.

Not only was I the big brother in size, I was the older by a year. As most big brothers are sometimes, I know I was always overbearing, at times to the point of angering him. He learned to defend himself rather well. I vividly recall a time when I my “orders” caused him to reach his limit. A piece of wire was on the ground near him, and he picked it up and hurled it at me. The wire went through my trousers and lodged in my thigh. Of course when I told mother, he got in trouble—the wire was rusty. I do not recall how or if mother also punished me. If not, it might have been wise to also punish the provoker. From that point on I learned to be more cautious. Such incidents have a way of teaching, don’t they?

While I may have been a better student in many ways than he, I certainly was not brighter, even when I might have thought otherwise. In high school, we once had a biology class together. I always took copious notes. Naturally, he did not. During that entire course, I would study my notes prior to a test; Kenneth would take my notes when I had finished, and while he had one eye on the television, he would review them. He always scored just a few points lower. That was always irritating to me. I think he may have listened in class much better than I, but that was probably not the only reason he did so well on those tests.

His interests were varied. We both enjoyed music, reading, politics, our children, and our grandchildren. While my tastes in music and books may have been a bit more varied, we enjoyed many of the same books and some of the same music. I could appreciate his musical tastes and learned a few years ago that he could tolerate, if not appreciate, my musical tastes, a nice surprise for me. He enjoyed his farm work, mechanical work and things, but I always hated to get my hands dirty. We both loved politics and discussing the topic, but when we disagreed, the “discussions” could become rather heated. Our tastes in food were very similar and leaned toward rather simple fare. We both loved hamburgers with no onions or pickles and eggs. We could eat eggs three times a day, seven days a week, and be content. I never realized how much alike we were until we moved to Texas in 2006 and saw each other more often.

My wife and I made three trips to Branson, Missouri with Kenneth and my sister-in-law. One included our sister. I have wonderful memories of those trips. In addition, we did other things together. I had always thought that we were so different, but once we were together more often, I saw we were more alike in so many ways.

In many ways he was one of a kind. He was always well liked and had many friends. He was kind, generous, but he could be blunt and sometimes seemingly harsh. He loved to tell stories and jokes and knew how to create attention. Kenneth was quick with the one-liners, quicker than I have ever been. He attended church regularly; I know enough about his beliefs to be confident that we will be together once again. Following the death of his first wife in an auto accident, he went through a period of depression. My sister and I worried about him often during that period. Then four years later he remarried. He and his second wife had a wonderful five years together. I am so thankful that his last years were happy ones with a loving wife, a wife who lovingly cared for him in his last months when he was bedridden. “Love IS never having to say you are sorry.”

He was also a prankster. He was a party to the prank my sister played on me regarding his second wife that I mentioned in the blog on my sister, “In Time of Need, Where’s Your Support?” posted early in the year and which appears below. He also loved Halloween pranks as a kid. One Halloween, he and some of his friends turned over someone’s outhouse. Unfortunately for him, he fell in and had to ask a lady who lived nearby to hose him off before he dared come home. I loved to tell that story over the years, but it was not one he cared to talk about. An overbearing big brother for you!

For years, I have laughed about a letter he wrote me in 1965. Our mother had told him I was getting married. He sent me a letter, the only letter I ever received from him. Among other things, he said, “I do hope you are marrying a Republican because if not, she will not function too well in this family.” Naturally, I did not make the mistake of marrying outside our “politics.” It has always been a source of pleasure for me to reflect on this being the only reason for him to ever write me a letter. I guess it proves we shared politics as perhaps more than just an interest; it was a passion.

We were alike in so many ways, but even with our differences, I loved him deeply. Some may have thought a little brother a burden, but he was never a burden; he was my brother, and I miss him.

Copyright 2009 by Don Emerson

Life in the Asylum

2009-10-10T11:56:00.000-07:00

According to Albert Einstein, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I can hardly believe what is happening in Washington, D. C. and with the American voter. Of course, we have problems needing solutions, but proposing government-run solutions is absurd. Government programs and government-run solutions hardly have a track record for inspiring faith in any government-run health care system. For example:

- Medicare and Social Security have problems and as baby boomers retire those problems will only multiply.
- The U.S. Postal Service lost about $7 billion last year.
- The Federal Reserve, created in 1913, to maintain a stable financial system, has not accomplished that goal.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were declared insolvent on September 7, 2008 but both continue to operate.
- Amtrak has never made a profit in its 39 years, yet it continues.
- The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty have accomplished little, except spending billions.

About twenty or so years ago, the government seized the Mustang Ranch in Nevada for tax evasion and then ran it. Of course it failed and eventually closed. Now, the government that could not operate a brothel and make money is going to run our banking and auto industries, and Congress and the President are proposing to add our health care system. Those in Washington, D.C. seem to be nuts, but do we also have to be nuts to tolerate and allow this?

One of the health care plans is supposed to come to a vote in the Senate this coming week. The chairman of another Senate committee with a health care plan admits he has not read his committee’s bill because he would not understand it anyway. Obviously, most legislators have not read these bills due to their length and the inability to understand what they contain, but the clowns are going to pass legislation anyway. Bills will not be posted on the Internet so we can read them for ourselves. That might clue us in to what nonsense the bills contain. Congress is exempted from the health care legislation; the “elites” have their own health care system. The proposed health care is good enough for the average taxpayer but not for themselves? The President has been saying all along that health care reform will not increase the deficit. Anyone who falls for this sham must be suffering from some delusional ailment. Supposedly, waste and fraud, especially in Medicare, will be eliminated so no addition to the deficit. If indeed that is true, this old man wonders why the waste and fraud cannot be eliminated now. Why must health care reform be passed before waste and fraud can be eliminated? None of this passes the smell test. Of course, fix the problems with health care, but not with a government-run solution.

I continue to hear noise about a third stimulus piece of legislation, so much noise in fact that I remove my hearing aids. The other two stimulus bills have worked out so well, haven’t they? Unemployment continues to rise. Do these clowns in Washington, D.C. want it to rise more and/or faster? Maybe they have a fourth stimulus bill in the planning stages.

While I still have some hope, I think this “change you can believe in” is not working out too well. I would ask, “How has living in this asylum we seem to have become worked out for you?”

The following quotes from Thomas Jefferson make sense to me:
“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Copyright 2009 by Don Emerson

In Time of Need, Where's Your Support?

2009-01-12T16:04:00.000-08:00

Where does one turn when that time comes that support is needed? We seem to be able to face life alone as long as things are going well. When life becomes difficult however, as it so often does, where does one turn for help? God? Church? Family? Friends? Neighbors? If fortunate, we are able to rely on them all in our time of need.

In early December, a family in our development suffered a tragedy no family should have to face. Their youngest son, who was a playmate of our grandson Jack, passed away as a result of an auto accident. He was about a month younger than Jack who will be five in the spring, and the two of them shared the same middle name, Alexander. The boy’s seven-year old brother suffered a serious leg injury in the accident. After three surgeries, he was released for his little brother’s funeral service but was back in the hospital early the next morning for his fourth surgery. On Tuesday, December 23, I checked my e-mail and received the update--he was to be released from the hospital around noon that day to have Christmas with his family. I was thrilled for him and his family.

As I was forwarding the update to others in the development, the phone rang. It was my brother calling to say that our only sister Glenda had been killed in an auto accident on icy roads an hour or so earlier. In less than a minute, my happiness for the boy and his family became sorrow over the loss of my only sister.

Glenda was a wonderful wife, mother, grandmother, great grandmother, and sister. She and my brother-in-law would have been married 47 years on January 20. Unlike so many marriages today, they shared a long, successful, and happy marriage. They had been high school sweethearts and were the love of each other’s life. For her, my brother-in-law and their children and grandchildren always came first; they were her life. She was much like our mother in that she always said what she thought, and too bad if you did not like it. As her pastor said during the funeral service, “Glenda always told you what she thought you needed to hear.” I fondly remember being the recipient of many of those words over the years. Glenda always enjoyed a good joke, but I seldom recall her telling many. I never knew her to be a practical joker either, until she pulled one on me. But at her funeral service, her pastor, who had gone through school since the second grade with her and my brother-in-law, told of another of her pranks. He said his mother always called Glenda that “mean girl,” but that he never knew why until later in life. On a school trip, Glenda had dumped a bucket of water over his mother’s head. My guess is there was a message to the pastor’s mother, something Glenda thought she needed to hear, in dumping that bucket of water over her head.

Of all the memories I will always have of my sister, the practical joke she pulled on me in the spring of 2005 will be a standout. My brother’s first wife had also been killed in an auto accident a number of years earlier, and we were all delighted when he decided to marry again. None of us had met his new wife, but they had planned to visit our sister and brother-in-law after a short trip. I had asked my sister to call me with her impressions after they left. She called while we were in Disneyland with our daughter and family.

Glenda told me that she liked our sister-in-law very much, but then asked that I guess to whom she was related. I found that rather odd, but obviously not odd enough. After I told her numerous times that I had no clue, she kept saying, “Guess.” Finally, I guessed Bill Clinton who did not even register on my favorite people list. Responding to my Clinton guess, she said, “No. It's worse.” From my perspective, what could possibly be worse? Finally, I said, “Not Hillary?” She replied, “Yea. She is Hillary’s first cousin; their mothers are sisters.” Hillary did not come from Arkansas as my new sister-in-law did, but in my shock did I think of that? Of course not! I could not even think. I just became unnerved with this blow to the family pride. I let out a few curse words, embarrassing my family and earning a few stares.

For two weeks my sister let me live with this. Still not thinking this through, I even told a friend whose response was, “That’s awful. I thought it bad enough that I share a birthday with Bill Clinton, but this is worse Don.” Now I had to plan how I would respond to this woman if I ever met her - ignore her, be nasty, or be pseudo-pleasant. Two weeks later, my sister called to say this tale was not true. Needless to say, I did not like being the butt of her prank, but when you are stupid enough to believe such a tale without thinking it through, you just smile and take it. I told her that if it took the rest of my life, she was going to receive her payback. All my payback attempts failed. And that is probably what I deserved. Anyone should have known better than to swallow such a tale, but I had never known Glenda to play a prank on anyone.

Glenda’s prank will be only one of my many happy memories of her. I will miss her terribly. She was always supposed to be there. Isn’t that the way we all feel about loved ones? They will always be there, thus we seldom take the time to truly enjoy each minute we spend with them. Life is all too short, and we do not always get second chances!

My cousin DeRenda said of my sister, “Glenda was just like a second mother to me when Mike, Jeff, and I were kids. Not to mention that while my mother was going through chemo and radiation, Glenda was a God-send to both of my parents. She cooked full meals for them every time, so that my mother didn’t have to worry about cooking. It was hard to say good-bye to her, but I also know that she is in a better place now.”

A friend in Washington State and her husband sent a sympathy card containing these words, “In your memories may you find comfort. In your friends and family may you find love. And in your heart may you find the strength to help you through this sorrowful time.” Enclosed was a business-type card that said, “God’s love does not exempt us from trials. God’s love walks with us through our trials.”

To paraphrase the Reverend Rickie Rush, pastor of Inspiring Body of Christ Church (Dallas, Texas), presiding over a recent fallen Dallas police officer’s funeral: Just as it is when tucking your children into bed, there comes a time when we have to know that God will take care of you. Good night, Glenda, we’ll see you in the morning.

In facing the death of my only and dearly loved sister, I found great comfort from God, my pastors, our family, church friends, friends from the past living far away, and neighbors. When tragedy happens, we all need support. I am fortunate and thankful to have had that support.

From where will your support come in your time of need?

Copyright 2009 by Don Emerson. All rights reserved.

To My Children and Grandchildren

2008-11-26T16:04:00.000-08:00

Many months ago I read Randy Pausch’s The Last Lecture. While I do not have a terminal illness as he did, I like the idea of leaving some thoughts, a “legacy” so to speak, before I depart this life, hopefully years from now. While I can wish you good health, wealth, and wisdom, I cannot leave you health or wealth, only some thoughts.

Wisdom comes from a relationship with God and from growing older, but whether there is any truth to the “growing older” part I am not sure. Hopefully, I gained a bit of wisdom just having been here for so long. That old saying, “Youth is wasted on the young,’ has meaning. Had I known all I know now as a youth, maybe my life would have been lived differently and perhaps better. Those little “bits of wisdom” I picked up on the bumpy journey to my old age I now share with all of you. Even though they are numbered, they are in no special order, except for #1, the most important.

#16. Be yourself; don't let others influence you to become someone you are not. #15. Accept the hand of cards you are dealt, and play them to the best of your ability as your life unfolds. Life isn’t fair, so dwelling on fairness is wasteful; just move on. #14. Respect your parents; they are not stupid, boring, or incompetent. Respecting your parents is an example for your children. After all, your kids may have to care for you in your old age. #13. Some of you attended “modern” schools where everyone wins, there is little discipline, there are no failing grades, there are no wrong answers, and you can take tests over until you pass. Unfortunately, this nonsense has no resemblance to the real world. Everyone does not win, there must be discipline and self-discipline, we all fail at something, there are wrong answers, and we aren’t allowed to keep “repeating.” #12. In the real world, you are not paid to get it together and you most certainly should not “bite the hand that feeds you.” Get your own act together, and ask those “stupid” parents to explain that last item should you not understand it. #11. Protect the environment, yet remember people live here. Creating economic havoc or hardships for people in some idealist (or wacko) attempt to save trees, the spotted owl, some crawling creature, or anything else is wrong. Where would we be today if we had saved the horse and buggy in some wild-eyed scheme to prevent damage from autos? Probably listening to lines such as, “The droppings of those animals pulling the wagons are going to kill us” We landed on the moon; surely we have the scientific knowledge to create a safe environment and still enjoy business and economic growth and advancements. #10. Life is from God, thus it has value. “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” When we do not value and protect the lives of a fetus or baby, the most innocent among us, we devalue the lives of all. Our society is dangerously perverted when the lives of animals and plants have more worth than the lives of our most innocent citizens. America’s “Holocaust” is the 48 million babies killed since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. God will surely, at some point, deal harshly with a society that permitted such an atrocity. There are many options available other than abortion; support them. #9. Treat people with respect. God created us all equal. #8. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so never trust in or depend on any government. The major lesson we should have learned from fascism, Nazism, socialism, communism, and our own federal government’s behavior in the last seventy years or so is that “any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.” Government can give us nothing unless it has first taken it away from someone else through taxation. That is as onerous and immoral as personal stealing! Government does not create wealth, it spends, or more accurately wastes, that which is the hard-earned wealth of its citizens. #7. Terrorism will be an American fact of life for years. This evil, as with all evil, must be opposed. One does not compromise with evil; one defeats it! If not, it will consume, overwhelm, and defeat you. #6. Be responsible for your own actions; actions have consequences. Think of the consequences before acting. Do not blame others for your actions. Be one of those who accepts personal responsibility. #5. Become an active citizen--take an interest in your country, in politics, in voting, and in government at all levels. Your life and that of your family are directly related to the well being of your nation. America, as imperfect as we may be, is still “man’s last and best hope.” When asked in the late 1780s by a woman passing him on the streets of Philadelphia after the Constitutional Convention, “What have we, a monarchy or a republic?” Ben Franklin replied, “A Republic Madam, if we can keep it.” And over 200 years later, the question still is, “Can we keep it?” Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, are man’s best attempt at freedom. Both are based on Judeo-Christian principles, and our laws reflect those principles. Individuals who tell you our nation has no religious foundation are dead wrong; either they have not read our founding history or intend to deceive. #4. There is a right and a wrong, so do what is right! Doing what is right is not always popular, and doing what is popular is not always right. General Sam Damon, the main character in the novel, Once an Eagle, has a great piece of advice, “You can’t help what you were born, and you may not have much to say about where you die, but you can and should try to pass the days in between as a good man.” To paraphrase my brother-in-law James’ great advice, “When you were born, your name came to you unblemished. It is yours for as long as you may live. Guard it wisely, and you will be glad the name is still spotless when you pass it along to your own children.” #3. Have firm moral beliefs. Nothing was sadder for me during my lengthy teaching career on the high school and college levels than to have students with no strong moral system, no firm belief in what is right or what is wrong. Society is in serious trouble when the line between right and wrong blurs, our country’s situation now. It is no longer politically correct to be judgmental; almost everything has become acceptable. Everything is not acceptable! Accepting everything cannot continue or our society, as we know it, will collapse. Be judgmental, be politically incorrect, and stand up for principles and for what is moral and right, regardless of what the world hurls your way! The sinful, secular world will definitely oppose you though! #2. Have dreams and purpose and strive to attain them. The great American, Black poet, Langston Hughes said, Hold onto your dreams, for if your dreams die, your life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly.” #1. There is a God; honor Him! God promises to be with us as we journey life’s road, but He does not promise there will be no bumps along the way. Early in our country’s history, William Penn said, “If men are not governed by God, they shall be ruled by tyrants.” And tyrants do not have to be government rulers; they can be habits, money, evil, or something else “ruling” your life.

I do not think my own death, whenever it may come, is the worst thing that can happen to me; I think the loss of a child or grandchild would be far worse. So, Rod and Dina, Randy and Cindy, Derek, Logan, Ellie, Jack, Evelyn, Jamie, and Michael, may you have long lives and enjoy your “bumpy road” to old age. Love God, love life, love family and others, and pass wisdom on to your own children and grandchildren.

Although I wonder if Nelson DeMille intended it in any religious sense, he closes his novel The Gate House, with a line that has personal meaning for me as a Christian, “Every journey has to end, and the end of the journey is always called Home.” For me, that “Home” is Heaven and an eternity with God and Jesus. May it also be yours!

Love, Dad and Granddad

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson. All rights reserved.

Regarding The Weavers blogs

2008-08-30T15:39:00.000-07:00

Shortly after publishing the Addition to The Weavers blog below, I received an e-mail from the Manager of Information Services for The Education and Research Institute in Washington, D. C. who had tried to post a comment to it but got an error. I will quote below the highlights of his correspondence.

"McCarthy never tried to impose any loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths first appeared in the United States in the 1930s in connection with President Franklin Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration. They became common and in some cases mandatory during World War II. In 1947, President Truman promulgated executive order 9835, requiring loyalty oaths for current and prospective employees of the Federal government, and Civil Service Commission rules extended this to include employees of institutions funded by the Federal government. McCarthy had nothing to do with the loyalty oath of 1947, and in fact did not even enter the fray until his infamous Wheeling speech of 1950.

"Several states had their own state laws requiring loyalty oaths for employees of state government and institutions funded by state government. Among these was California, which required that instructors at state universities such as the Universty of California, Berkeley, take loyalty oaths. Needless to say, McCarthy had nothing to do with any of this.

"It's a shame that McCarthy routinely gets falsely blamed for the acts not just of HUAC, but of Truman, while Truman himself is generally lionized as a good Cold War liberal, as opposed to an evil McCarthyite. I agree with you that Evans' book is a much-needed antidote for this sort of thing."

It is unfortunate that the true story of the McCarthy years has been mostly hidden all these years, intentionally I believe. The media and many others share the responsibility for that. M. Stanton Evans' book, referred to in the blog below, corrects that record. It is troubling that even today individuals, who continue to throw "McCarthy" labels so carelessly at others, are not better informed.

As a new teacher in the State of Washington in 1962, mentioned also in the blog below, I signed a loyalty oath. I never have considered it intrusive or a violation of my rights. Since the state was ultimately my employer, requiring my signature on a loyalty oath was well within its purview. I did not have to sign; I could have sought employment elsewhere. Obviously, many thought loyalty oaths were intrusive, a violation of their rights, and made another decision regarding signing. There are lots of employer requirements for prospective employees that may be or seem onerous, such as drug testing, but employers are in control and well within their rights to make such requirements. Loyalty oaths were/are only one such requirement. In sensitive positions, and that could include colleges and universities receiving federal funds for certain projects, they should be mandatory. Requiring them for other positions is another matter, although I had no problem at a much younger age with signing the loyalty oath--one did not teach in the State of Washington without signing in 1962. I do think they are intrusive, onerous, and a violation of personal rights.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Addition to The Weavers Blog

2008-08-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

Shortly after publishing my The Weavers--Erik Darling RIP blog, I received the following E-mail (used by permission) from my friend Jim Morrison in Munster, Indiana. Jim and I go back many years. We met over 40 years ago when we were both teaching in Aberdeen, Washington and have been friends ever since.

Jim wrote: "I tried to answer the blog, but it is so limiting that it would not accept this story that also needs to be told.

We have been and remain great friends, colleagues and politically compatible a great percentage of the time. That would be a rarity these days considering we were purveyors of the arts and teaching. Being a singer/musician I, of course, also remember and sang many of these artist's works. It does take me back.

However, I am also taken back to that McCarthy era. My uncle, Dr. Hubert Coffey, was a professor of clinical psychology and a pioneer in the field of group therapy and dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley. He was most assuredly a Democrat; not a Communist by any stretch. However, he refused to sign a loyalty oath McCarthy tried to impose, considering it a breach of freedom if not just plain infantile. He was one of a few who had the courage to stand up to McCarthy and the price he paid was to temporarily leave California for a position at Cambridge University. He later returned to teach until his death.

I remain a staunch economic conservative, and I suspect we differ only on a very few social issues. Nonetheless, to those of us who had family or friends wrongfully accused and unfairly affected by this Lenin-like paranoia and hysteria, this remains a sad moment in our history.

Unfortunately, being so limited in characters (300) by the rules, I could not get a meaningful response to your readers. I understand, but that is too bad. All truth needs to be recalled."

Jim, you are correct, "all truth needs to be recalled," and I appreciate your comments.

As my friend accurately points out, many academics were also victims of this 1950s period. Just as those in the entertainment industry paid the price for their personal beliefs, many in academia also paid dearly. That was a disgrace. Today, I see a pattern occurring, not really unlike that 1950s period. Of course, there is no committee of Congress behind the situation today; it is much more subtle, including not hiring in the entertainment industry and having your name and beliefs besmirched and ridiculed on college and university campuses, in television shows, and in newsprint by the mainstream media if you happen to be a conservative. The result is the same today for conservative entertainers, writers, and academics as it was in the 1950s for those on the left--employment and personal reputation suffer. This is not a pretty picture, and in the land of free speech, the free exchange of ideas should be available. I find it sad that conservatives did not defend those under attack on the left who were not in sensitive government positions during the 1950s and that those on the left do not defend conservatives under attack today. I am reminded that someone said of the Hitler years, "I did not speak out when the Nazis came for the Communists, I did not object when they came for the homosexuals, I did not object when they came for the disabled, I did not object when they came for the Jews, and when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me." Yea, I know these are not the exact words, but you get my point.

I still have no serious problems with the Senate committee headed by Senator Joseph McCarthy; it investigated Communist influence in the government and the Army. That is why Presidents Truman and Eisenhower disliked him so much and why Ike was instrumental in his downfall. M. Stanton Evans' Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Joseph McCarthy (2007), the most recent book on this era, is an informative read. However, I would be remiss if I did not also point out that the work of Senator McCarthy is almost always confused (and maybe deliberately by the press) with that of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC or HCUA). Senator McCarthy had no direct involvement with this committee; he was a member of the Senate not the House. The HCUA was the committee responsible for the Hollywood Blacklist and more than likely the suffering of academics during the period, not Joseph McCarthy. "Googleing" this committee for information on it, its activities, and the results of its work is enlightening. I would further recommend reading Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony of October 20, 1947 available at www.google.com by entering "Ayn Rand's October 20, 1947 testimony before HUAC."

I am well aware of those "loyalty oaths" Jim mentioned. I had to sign one when I first started teaching in the state of Washington in 1962. However, when I returned to employment in Aberdeen, Washington following graduate school at The University of Arizona in 1967, the things had disappeared. How they originated I am not sure, but I suspect they were not directly related to McCarthy but rather to the work of the HUAC. Regardless of how they originated, loyalty oaths in public schools, universities, or government were not something McCarthy could have required; instead, the various states and institutions involved required them. There was something onerous and invasive about them certainly, except when they were and are required in sensitive government positions.

The excesses and individual suffering and pain resulting from the hysteria of the 1950s era "remain a sad moment in our history."

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

The Weavers - Erik Darling RIP

2008-08-16T06:34:00.000-07:00

During the time we lived in California, my friend Glen was diagnosed with liver cancer. Around the time of his diagnosis, he purchased a house to remodel a few blocks from our home. I would go over to that remodel every few days to ask how he was doing. His reply to my question "How are you?" often was, "I got up this morning, read the obituaries, and was not listed, so I must be okay." Having never heard that line before, I always found it humorous and interesting, yet it also struck me as rather upbeat. After moving to Texas, shortly before my friend succumbed to cancer, I used "his phrase" a number of times myself when asked how I was doing. One person looked at me rather oddly and said, "In Texas, we say, 'I am above the grass.'" So, still being "above the grass," I read the obituaries this morning (8-11-08) to see if I were listed. I was not, but the obituary for one Erik Darling caught my eye in scanning one of the obit pages.

The name Erik Darling meant nothing to me, but the headline--"1960s Folk Music Singer-Writer"--lead me to read the obituary. Mr. Darling arranged the hits "Walk Right In" and "Tom Dooley." He also replaced Pete Seeger in The Weavers in 1958/59 after Seeger left to pursue a solo career. The Weavers will not be familiar to most of you, only to those of us as old as Moses.

The Weavers hit the popular music scene in the late 1940s and had their first national hit "Goodnight Irene" in 1950, followed by many other hits. It was "Goodnight Irene" which led me to become a huge fan of The Weavers at the age of 12, and I have remained a fan. I enjoyed their music until they disappeared in 1953. At the age of 15, I did not understand what happened to the group; however, many years later, I learned the group had been blacklisted after being named as members of the Communist Party USA. None of The Weavers ever used their entertainer platform to make political statements as so many artists do today. The accusation came from a dubious source. The best evidence rejects that charge of Communist Party USA membership. The group members may well have had leftist political views, which was their right as Americans. The freedom to hold personal political views, different though they may be from the mainstream, is a part of America's greatness. In the 1950s hysteria* over Communism many artists with leftist views were suspect, and their careers suffered or ended. That most certainly was a disgrace. While I am a political conservative (not a right-wing nut--there are differences), I most certainly would oppose blacklisting any individual or group because of political views, leftist or conservative. However, I respect individuals choosing to avoid entertainers with whom their disagree politically if they wish. There are a few I will not watch or listen to, but there are others, such as Harry Belafonte, Neil Diamond, Bruce Springsteen, Meryl Streep, and Elton John, with whom I disagree politically but still enjoy.

The Weavers staged a comeback concert at Carnegie Hall in 1955, concluded a farewell tour in 1964, and performed together again at a Carnegie Hall reunion in 1981. In some ways, they overcame the stigma of being blacklisted but probably never reached the stardom and popularity they might have enjoyed without that blemish. It was the Kingston Trio, The Brothers Four, and other folk groups who prospered during the era. Recordings of The Weavers' hits have been available on CDs for many years. And yes, I have some of those and still enjoy listening to them. Compared to most of the popular music today, those old stars, groups, and their music still thrill me. Music was music, and artists were artists in those days.

Erik Darling had a successful musical career. In addition to being a member of The Weavers, he at one time was also a member of the Tarriers known for its version of "The Banana Boat Song (Day O)"--the popular Harry Belafonte recording. Darling died of lymphoma at age 74 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

*(Note: Much of the concern about Communism during the 1950s was justified. The opening of the KBG files after the fall of the Soviet Union provides evidence for that, even though that differs sharply with what leftists wish us to believe about the period. There may well have been a "Witch Hunt" as liberals call it, but their were "witches" (communists with ties to the outlawed Communist Party USA) who were threats to our country in sensitive government positions.)

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Yes, Patriotism Matters!

2008-07-04T07:39:00.000-07:00

As we celebrate the 232nd birthday of America, I continue to be amazed that so many citizens are unpatriotic and/or think we do not live in the greatest nation on Earth. During my years in public education (1965 to 2002 --on all levels, including community college), I saw love for country and patriotism decline to the point that many "citizens" today seem to have hatred for their own country. It has become chic for the "sophisticated" to dislike their own country. Does that hatred or dislike originate from academia, parents, the deterioration of American values and culture, the entertainment industry, the media, other influences, or a combination of all of these?

Ben Shapiro said in a Townhall.com (July 2, 2008) article, "Why America is the Greatest Country on Earth," that "The typical liberal talking point states that patriotism is jingoism because America's founding principles are so much claptrap--modern values trump those old-fashioned ideas." I have heard that kind of thinking over and over myself as I have interacted with liberals in and out of education. Time-tested American values such as free enterprise, free elections, freedom of speech and religion, traditional moral values, and defending America are hardly values to so easily dismiss, yet many citizens do.

My mother instilled in me love of country and the greatness of America, but so did my teachers, especially history teachers, from elementary school through college. How times have changed. Love of country, patriotism, and the greatness of America are no longer taught in most schools based on my teaching experience. My mother attended public schools in Texas until she was sixteen, so she also had a love for Texas and its history. I feel fortunate now to have all my grandchildren in the Texas public schools where the day begins with a "moment of silence," where the words "under God" are still said in the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, and where students say the Pledge of Allegiance to the Texas flag which also contains the words "under God." Those things alone are not likely to instill love of country or state, but it is a vast improvement over what students on the West Coast (where I taught for all but 12 of my teaching years) are getting since the 9th Circuit Court ruled "under God" was unconstitutional. Many West Coast schools do not even require students to recite the Pledge. Other than Texas, I am not aware of any state that has a pledge to their state flag, let alone requires students to recite it daily.

So many citizens today characterize those who have a love for their country and American values as right-wing nuts, rednecks, or some other "put-down" term. So be it. However, this is a time of war, and has been since the first attack on us from Islamic terrorists in the 1980s, although many citizens wish to bury their heads in the sand about that. Patriotism and support of our troops are still necessary. It is our troops, past and present, who have always guaranteed our freedom. The mainstream media might want you to think they are responsible, but that is simply laughable.

Thomas Sowell in a July 2, 2008 article entitled "Does Patriotism Matter?" says patriotism matters, and I agree. In the article, he says that after World War I, and during the 20 plus years prior to World War II, patriotism was discouraged in France, especially in the schools. "Did it matter? France, when pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter. During World War I, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States put together. But during World War II, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany." Leading Frenchmen, "blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940." This is the legacy, and only one of them, of demeaning patriotism.

There is a lesson for Americans in this bit of French history. We as a country need to return to our roots--love of country, love of our traditional American values and culture, honoring our founders who gave us this great country, and honoring the past and present troops who guarantee our freedom.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Freedom, Athletes, and the Olympics

2008-06-27T06:44:00.000-07:00

The Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee recently released a document covering a number of items prior to hosting the August Olympics in China. Among them are: It is necessary to have Chinese government permission to stage a protest (a permit is needed in most cases in America also); some parts of the country are closed to visitors, including Tibet (America has also prevented travel to certain areas for some visitors in the past); and, Olympic ticket purchase is no guarantee a visa to enter China will be granted (seems reasonable to me). The document also warns against displays of insulting slogans or banners at any sport's venue and forbids any religious or political banner at an Olympic venue that "disturbs the public order." I wonder what the Committee considers "insulting" and what might "disturb the public order." Anything they do not approve? No doubt.

This document must be aimed at preventing pro-Tibetan rallies, protests over China's oil and arms agreement(s) with the Sudan, and/or protests in the Muslim regions of western China. All of these might be subjects worthy of protests, especially Tibet. Whether Olympic athletes should be openly protesting them is the question.

On June 3rd, Chinese police surrounded over 100 parents protesting shoddy construction and mourning the deaths of thousands of school children in schools which collapsed during the recent earthquakes. Several crying mothers were dragged away. Some journalists trying to report on the event were also removed. The lessons: citizens don't protest the wisdom of the government in building construction or probably anything else for that matter, and reporters don't report what the government does not want the public to hear. Anyone surprised about all this fails to understand the Communist government of China or any totalitarian government for that matter.

One of the things we in the "naive" and "uninformed" public heard about China hosting the 2008 Summer Olympics was that having the games there would help promote human rights. Likely? Most certainly not. Yet, there is something oddly familiar about the claim "it would promote human rights." I seem to have heard that before. Possibly that claim was made only in order to gain the votes needed for China's Olympic host selection. Countries ruled by dictatorships hardly seem the ideal place for hosting Olympic games. Of course, I am among the "naive and uninformed," not the "enlightened."

The International Olympic Committee has sent a letter to individual Olympic committees "clarifying" its policy on political, even nonverbal expressions, by athletes in Olympic venues. Rule 51.3 of the Olympic charter, the letter said, according to the Associated Press, provides that "no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted at Olympic sites, venues, or other areas. According to the letter that ban applies very broadly indeed, encompassing "conduct of participants at all sites, areas, and venues," and includes "all actions, reactions, attitudes or manifestations of any kind of a person or group of persons, including but not limited to their look, external appearance, clothing, gestures, and written or oral statements." This I suppose applies to athletes wearing orange to protest Chinese repression or French athletes wearing a patch saying "For a Better World." Neither the orange nor the patch seem extreme to me. But these "politically correct" types always seem to be bothered, offended, or upset about anything with which they disagree. "My way or the highway."

The British and New Zealand Olympic Committees at one point issued gag orders to their Olympic athletes, but then retreated because of the outrage. Hopefully, that outrage will prevent the United States Olympic Committee from issuing some type of ban on free speech and expression to American Olympic athletes

All of this seems to conflict with the pledge issued by International Olympic Committee President Jacque Rogge in Beijing in April who said athletes could exercise freedom of speech in China. He asked only that they refrain from making political statements at certain official Olympic venues. "Freedom of expression is something that is absolute," Rogge stated. "It's a human right. Athletes have it."

Athletes either have freedom of expression or they do not. Who is right? President Rogge, the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee, or the International Olympic Committee? Or will it depend on who says what, when, why, and/or where? While anyone visiting another country should be a gracious guest, there also are a large number of egregious Chinese government actions which freedom-loving people, including athletes, could protest, possibly even while there. Which is it going to be, freedom or restrictions, while Olympic athletes are in China?

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Frankenstein is Back?

2008-06-22T07:13:00.000-07:00

The Times (London) reported in the May 20, 2008 online issue, "British scientists will be allowed to research devastating diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's using human-animal embryos, after the House of Commons rejected a ban yesterday." The amendment to outlaw the creation of "human admixed embryos" for medical research was defeated by a majority of 160. Edward Leigh, Conservative MP for Gainsborough, moving the amendment to ban all admixed embryos, said that mingling animal and human DNA crossed an "ultimate boundary." Another vote on the evening of May 19 approved the use of embryo-screening to create "saviour siblings" suitable to donate umbilical cord blood to sick children.

According to the article, "the main kinds of admixed embryos permitted by the Bill are 'cytoplasmic hybrids' and 'cybrids,' which are made by moving a human nucleus into an empty animal egg. These are genetically 99.9 per cent human...[The Bill] also allows chimeras that combine human and animal cells, and transgenic human embryos that include a little animal DNA...Cybrids could carry the DNA of patients with genetic conditions to create stem-cell models of these diseases for studying their progress and testing new treatments...It is legal to culture admixed embryos up to 14 days and illegal to transfer them into a human or animal womb." And we are to believe that some (mad-?) researcher/scientist will not do that at some point? Come now. My lights are on, AND there IS someone home.

Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West, challenged those who accepted admixed embryos in principle but rejected "true hybrids" to explain the ethical difference between an embryo that was 99 per cent human and one that was 50 per cent human." I got the impression from the article that Mr. Harris probably also supported the latter research using 50 per cent human or "true hybrids." Just what is the ethical difference? I think both cross that "culimate boundary."

What are these legislators thinking? Or are they thinking? Are their feelings for the condition of the ill such that ethics and morality "go out the window"? Legislation based on feelings usually does not lead to positive results. I think most liberals, maybe not all, base their political thinking on feeling/compassion. Feeling and compassion are great, but let's not think feeling/compassion-inspired legislation always leads to what is good for society. A feeling/compassion-based federal program such as the U.S. War on Poverty spent billions yet did little to eliminate poverty. In fact, it probably contributed to the widespread "welfare mentality," ultimately being destructive to the human spirit and influencing trickle-down generational poverty. That is feeling/compassion-based legislation for you. It is necessary to point out also that conservative programs do not always work either. Legislation intended to spend the hard-earned money of taxpayers to help others must be thoroughly studied before enactment.

Even though I do not pretend to understand all of this British legislation scientifically or medically, it strikes me as a bit "frankensteinish." It is worthwhile and admirable to research diseases and seek cures and/or treatments; however, I think there is an ethical and moral line we dare not cross, and this goes far beyond that line. It also strikes me as "playing God," but there must be minds that think they can and desire to do so.

While not much of a betting man, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that in the near future America will be waking (as if we should sleep when Congress is in session) to hear one or more of our "learned" members of the House of Representatives or the Senate propose this kind of research on our side of the "pond." The "learned" among us never seem to be far behind what is in vogue among the "wise and more advanced" Europeans.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

VHEMT - Whatever Floats Your Boat?

2008-06-01T11:03:00.000-07:00

I suppose that I have been "out of the loop" for too long. Recently, I read about a movement called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT). The movement's spokesman, Les U. Knight, has been interviewed on at least two television shows in the past, Hannity and Colmes in 2001 and at some point by Tucker Carlson on MSNBC. How do I always seem to miss this kind of "entertaining" oddball interview, yet always seem to catch some politician pontificating the typical party lines on some problem. I am not sure which would be more of an "oddball" though. I wonder if that name Les U. Knight might not have some significance, Les U. or "less you" and me?

The movement seeks to improve the Earth's ecosystem by ensuring that the human species does not survive. Members/volunteers have made the decision to remain childless to benefit the Earth, thereby preventing the extinction of millions of plants and animals. I "Googled" this group and to my surprise found it has a website, http://www.vhemt.org/, and I discovered a host of items regarding the movement. Interesting to a limited extent? Yes. Kooky? Yes. Dangerous? Doubt it, but who knows about those kooky enough to become a "volunteer" in a movement such as this. It is one thing to personally reach a decision that one does not want children, but to become a member/volunteer in a movement? Wow.

We have PETA saying and doing some strange things in order to "save the animals." We have other environmental wackos committing terrorist-like acts in silly, and sometimes very dangerous, attempts to save the environment. We even have others chaining themselves to trees or staying in trees. All in somewhat futile attempts to help some environmental cause. Thus, who knows whether a movement such as VHEMT will grow and/or members/volunteers become radicalized to the point that they come up with dangerous means to hasten the accomplishment of their unofficial motto, "May we live long and die out."

Where do these movements come from? How do thinking people fall for this stuff? Is there something in the water? Is this the product of our educational systems? Are these people liberals, conservatives, or have some other label?

Maybe an expression of our daughter applies here, "Whatever floats your boat." There is nothing terribly wrong with being kooky (there are those who probably say I am) or belonging to some movement many may think kooky, provided of course, it never takes a dangerous direction.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Divorce

2008-05-19T10:48:00.000-07:00

A friend in California recently e-mailed us about her daughter, a university graduate student, attending a planning meeting at her advisor's house. During the meeting, some mention was made about her advisor's "current wife." Not only did the term "current wife" have a strange ring to our friend, but also to me. "Ex-wife" I have heard before, yet it does not have the same effect on me as "current wife." Isn't it a bit unusual to think of a spouse as some temporary or disposable item? Is it now common to think of marriage much like buying a car? When one gets tired of the car, it gets older, or has a lot of miles, it can simply be traded in for a new model, maybe a blonde with one of those great shapes or a fellow who seems more interesting.

Being what some today might call "old fashioned," I have always viewed marriage as a life-long commitment, not some arrangement to be discarded when those inevitable problems arise. I've been in one now for almost 43 years. Even though my view of divorce may no longer be popular, that does not mean it is wrong and should be considered out-dated. There have been numerous divorces in my extended family over the years; when one involved those close to us, the divorce was extremely painful.

Divorce is always a traumatic affair to the extended family, to the couple, but especially to any children involved. The idea today that children are resilient and can get through a divorce with it having little or no impact on them is most certainly false. How that silly view ever became acceptable is amazing to me. Was it the result of the feminist movement or some other factor?"

Gender, age, and developmental stage all have a bearing on how children are affected by divorce. A child's security and stability most certainly suffer, but among the many other responses children may have to divorce are the following: feeling abandoned, worrying parents do not love them, feeling like the parent who left divorced them, feeling helpless because they cannot bring parents together, feeling angry although they may show no signs of anger, feeling they are at fault, grieving much like grieving after a death, and having loyalty conflicts. Today, 40 percent of kids come from broken homes. Many will have life-long scars.

Even though there have not been any long-term studies on the effect of parent divorces on children 18 years and older, there is anecdotal evidence that parent divorces affect the child even if that "child" is an adult with a home and family of his/her own. In addition, there may be a correlation between the parents' divorce and divorce in their children's marriages.

Additionally, many behaviors may be evident in the children of divorce such as: acting out, having sleep problems, experiencing problems at school, developing nervous habits or repetitive physical behavior, bed wetting, becoming fearful, using comfort items, becoming clingy or whiny, needing more understanding for their moods and behaviors, having greater need to be nurtured, and feeling the need to give up childhood in order to care for troubled parents. More serious problems may occur also, such as suicide, drug abuse, and violence.

According to a recent study conducted by Georgia College and State University economist Ben Scfafidi divorce and out of wedlock childbearing costs taxpayers more than $112 billion a year. The study does not discuss which costs more nor does it make formal recommendations, instead suggesting that state and federal lawmakers consider investing more money in programs intended to improve marriages. A program such as this has been in place in Oklahoma since 2001, and last year Texas earmarked about $15 million in federal funds for marriage education. Some individuals not connected with the study say there is no evidence such programs work or that they are cost effective. Another expert not connected with the study suggested that bigger investments in education would pay long-term dividends, even improving economic prospects for children from fragmented and disadvantaged families. When almost one in two marriages end in divorce, many involving children, and about 40 percent of kids in America are born out-of-wedlock, this country has a problem needing immediate attention.

As a teacher on the elementary, middle school, high school, and college levels for almost 40 years, I personally have seen the devastating effects of divorce on young people. Where abuse is present, divorce may be the only option, but short of that, stronger marriages and less divorce would benefit our society. How best to achieve that ideal remains the question.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Energy Crisis Solutions: Stuck on Stupid?

2008-05-03T08:23:00.000-07:00

I am not surprised that our energy crisis never improves. We have seen mandated fuel efficiency in our automobile industry, the addition of ethanol to gasoline, and numerous subsidies going to develop and increase alternative energy sources. We have been told time and time again by our "leaders" that alternative energy sources would decrease our dependence on foreign oil and help make us energy independent. And are we better off today? No. Have we increased our own production of oil? No. Have we decreased our dependency on foreign oil? No. In fact, we have increased it. Have we spent billions? You bet. And where have those billions gone? Various businesses are wealthier, the American taxpayer fleeced, the national debt increased, and the energy crisis continues, just waiting for another government "solution."

In April 2006, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), now Speaker of the House of Representatives, said she had a common sense plan to decrease gas prices. Where is she hiding it? Gas prices have gone from $2.30 to $3.60, over a 50% increase, since the beginning of the Democrat-controlled Congress in January 2007. Energy exploration is handcuffed, and now they want to impose a tax increase of fifty cents per gallon of gasoline to discourage consumption. Stupid is as stupid does?

And what are we hearing from the presidential candidates? McCain and Clinton have proposed dropping the federal gas tax for the summer. How about real solutions? Obama rejects that to his credit but favors a windfall profits tax on the oil companies as does Clinton and most Democrats. What folly? We need more oil and we need it now. Some leaders would also help.

Just last week Republican Senators introduced the American Energy Production Act of 2008 to expand oil production off our coasts and in Alaska. This has the potential to increase domestic oil production enough to keep America moving for five years without foreign imports of oil. Good start on a real solution to the energy crisis, but I predict that it will go nowhere in the Democrat Congress. Stupid is as stupid does.

Robert Samuelson, journalist for Newsweek and The Washington Post has made the following points in his recent article "Start Drilling": We could be producing more oil, but Congress has put large areas of supply off-limits. These include both our Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, parts of Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico. What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies, and sheer stupidity. Members of Congress complain about high oil profits but frustrate the companies from using those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Environmentally, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy.

John R. Lott, Jr., writing on FoxNews.com said in an April 28, 2008 article, "Ethanol produces much less energy than gasoline. A car that gets 30 miles per gallon on gas would get only 20 miles per gallon on ethanol. Without the subsidies and the mandates, ethanol would have to cost two thirds less than the price of gas before it would pay for people to use it."

Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, recently told the Boise (Idaho) Metro Chamber of Commerce that the only viable solution to our energy problems is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century; there isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources."

Why have we not made more use of nuclear energy to generate electric power? Why were the ANWR area of Alaska and drilling off our coasts not approved years ago? Discovered in 1951, the Bakken Formation under portions of Montana and North Dakota has the largest known deposit of oil shale in the United States and according to the Bureau of Land Management holds potentially enough recoverable oil to meet America's oil needs at current use rates for 110 years. Why not develop? And can't we develop a safe and clean way to use coal? We have ample supplies. Why have we not built sufficient oil refineries? Why have more inland refineries not been built to protect them from our hurricane prone coastline? We have had this energy crisis for a minimum of three decades. We need energy and oil now. Where have our "leaders" been? Taking a holiday, asleep at the wheel, out to lunch, or "stuck on stupid"?

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Peacemaker, Idealist, Flawed, or simply Foolish?

2008-04-22T10:51:00.000-07:00

Ex-President Jimmy Carter's recent meetings with Hamas lead me to wonder about him. One can respect a desire for peace in a troubled part of the world; however, one cannot respect meeting with Hamas, a known terrorist organization, against the advice of the Department of State who basically told him that his meeting would not assist in peace between Israel and its neighbors but actually might harm the process. Carter ignored that advice and met anyway. After his meeting, he proudly announced that Hamas had agreed to let Israel "live as a neighbor." Then hours later, the same terrorist leader with whom he had met stated he would not recognize the Jewish state. Hamas also rejected Mr. Carter's proposal for a month's truce. What an utter waste of time.

I lived through the Carter presidency. And just what were his accomplishments? A peace agreement reached at Camp David between Egypt and Israel in 1979. The alleged peace has held up, but hostility toward Israel, even in Egypt, is the real result. Even a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his Middle East efforts does not make his efforts worthwhile. Carter's abandonment of Iran's Shah led to the Islamic revolution and all the threats coming from Iran today. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world. Sadly, that dangerous legacy will be with us for years. I recall long lines around gas stations due to the embargo on Iranian oil. I remember inflation (12.5%), unemployment (7.5%) and extremely high interest rates (prime rate - 20%). I remember the Panama Canal he "gave away."

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, said of Carter in 1980, "Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies, he has essentially adopted our enemies' view of the world." Attorney Alan Dershowitz has written about Carter's latest, much critized, book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, "Mr. Carter's book is so filled with simple mistakes of fact and deliberate omissions that were it a brief filed in a court of law, it would be struck and its author sanctioned for misleading the court."

Mr. Carter's years as an ex-president have not been any better than his years as president, except for Habitat for Humanity. In fact, his years since 1980 are worse, and his utterances and meddling may have caused great harm to our country. Can he not accept the fact that he is no longer president?

Is this man a peacemaker, an idealist, merely flawed, or a complete and utter fool? Because of all the facts available, I tend to believe the latter. Carter is said to be extremely intelligent, but intelligent people can also be very foolish. One does not make deals with terrorists. one does not accept their word, only their actions. These people are not to be believed; they are to be defeated. Then there will be a peace worth having.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson

Why Are We Here?

2008-03-30T15:35:00.000-07:00

General Sam Damon, a character in one of my favorite novels, Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer,
says in the novel, "You can't help what you were born and you may not have much to say about where you die, but you can and you should try to pass the days in between as a good man."
Albert Schweitzer once said, " I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I know, the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve."

A few weeks back, I heard Christopher Hitchens interviewed about his book, God is Not Great. He thinks that religion is man's wish, causes sexual repression, and distorts our orgins. Further, he thinks religion has caused great harm over the centuries. I enjoy reading a lot of Hitchens' writing and hearing him discuss his views, especially regarding Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11, and his views on the war against terrorists, especially the Iraq War. However, I simply cannot accept or understand his views regarding God, religion, and all the "harm" he says religion has caused. Listening to his interview, I could not help wondering what purpose Hitchens thought he had being here, if any, and why at this point in history. Does he really believe he is just some blob of cells that just happened to be in this place, at this time, and all by some accident?

I concluded when I was young that there was a God who created the universe and gave us life. Life just did not happen; that never made any sense to me. I did not need some proof in hand, but could accept it on faith. Later in life, I more clearly understood we must have been created for a number of purposes--to worship God, to help others find God/Jesus, and to assist others,
be they family, neighbors, or strangers. And maybe there are other purposes or fewer; I am not a theologian. I believe we should live in such a way as to depart this life having made a difference. That difference is not to gain material wealth, power, or a bigger ego, as much as we humans like and/or enjoy those things. However, they normally do not satisfy over the course of a lifetime, while service in a cause or causes bigger than self always brings personal satisfaction.

Many people muddle through life seemingly without a purpose. I fail to understand how anyone can lead a truly satisfying and/or fullfilling life unless he/she concludes we are here for some purpose greater than ourselves.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson