Jagged Holes

Last week, I lost a co-worker and friend to suicide.  While some knew he was suffering from anxiety and depression, none of his friends, family, or co-workers knew he had entertained thoughts of suicide.  So when it happened, we were all shocked.

My friend was a devoted father and husband, active in his church and community, a good friend, and a heck of an engineer.  He will be missed.  His passing has left a huge whole in this world.

I believe many of us left behind are wondering if we could have done more to help him.  Some are hurt and angry that he took his life, leaving the rest of us to deal with the fallout.  Others are simply sad that a good man is gone.  I know I am.  I’m left with feelings of guilt for not doing more.  But how could I have known if even those closest to him didn’t know?

 

Wondering what more I could have done won’t help my friend.  He’s gone and I can’t change that.  But, there are others out there who are hurting, who are drowning in despair and hopelessness.  According to the Center for Disease Control, 41,149 Americans committed suicide in 2013. According to Randomhistory.com, someone in the US attempts suicide once every minute, and someone completes a suicide once every 17 minutes.  Perhaps we can help them.

I’m not talking about “raising awareness” or ice bucket challenges or things like that.  I mean truly helping.  Volunteering to man suicide hot lines or donating time and money to suicide prevention and mental health organizations is a good way to help.  Learning how to recognize depression and indications that friends or family may be considering suicide is important.  There are a lot of reputable resources on the internet.  Although it isn’t easy, talking about the elephant in the room is a good start.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among youth aged 10 to 24.  We can help by volunteering time and money to help youth organizations.  Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, church youth groups, school organizations all need adults to help our youth.  Especially since so many youth are coming from broken homes where the adults may be in jail or drug addicts or simply don’t give a damn about their children.  Too many people feel hopeless.  We need to talk about depression and suicide and let people know there are people that care and ways to heal their despair.

I’ve never experienced the depth of despair that drove my friend to suicide.  But I do know that his death has left a big, ugly, jagged hole in the hearts of those who loved him, knew him, and worked with him.  Let’s get involved and volunteer so we can reduce the number of jagged holes left in the world. 

American Sniping

“American Sniper” is a movie about Navy Seal Chris Kyle, who had 160 confirmed kills as a sniper during four tours of Iraq.  It’s a well-made movie, directed by Clint Eastwood, and judging by the box office records, a very popular movie.  Nevertheless, it has attracted its fair share of criticism.

Many critics refer to Chris Kyle as sociopath. Comedian Bill Maher referred to Kyle as a psychopath.  Some referred to Kyle and the other servicemen who fought in Iraq as murderers. Political cartoonist Ted Rall called our servicemen “government’s poorly paid contract killers”.  Others derided Kyle’s “racist tendencies”. 

Many of the comments I’ve seen online paint our servicemen and women as murderers and warmongers for not refusing to serve.  Some even went so far as to state that true justice would be served if the servicemen in Iraq turned their weapons on their superior officers.  But most lamented about the number of innocent civilians killed by our forces in Iraq.  What really caught my attention was the comments that our troops don’t deserve our support.

Was Chris Kyle a sociopath?  I never met the man. He did write in his book that everyone he shot was evil and that he had a good cause for shooting them. But, since he cared deeply for his family and his country, as well as his fellow warriors, he doesn’t seem to fit the definition of sociopath or psychopath.  Was he racist?  Perhaps.  But in a war zone where inhumane conditions exists and other humans are trying to kill you, maybe the only way to save a modicum of your own humanity and sanity is to dehumanize the enemy.  If that means you call them racist or other despicable names to cope, I certainly can’t judge, I haven’t walked in a soldier’s shoes.  I’ve never been in combat, never had another human being trying to kill or maim me, so I don’t know how I would respond.  But I know good, moral people who have been in combat who’ve used that coping mechanism and I don’t believe them to be racist.

Should our servicemen and women have resisted serving overseas?  The assumption is that they knew the war was wrong, yet failed to resist. How would they know the war was wrong? The fact of the matter is, we were all told that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  We were told that Iraq had both chemical and biological weapons.  In 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq and among the reasons for war in Iraq was Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population”, its “continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organization”, and that it posed a “threat to the national security of the United States.”  Those all appear to be valid reasons to go to war.  If our duly elected leaders, who have access to intelligence assets that the general public doesn’t, say we should go to war, how are we to say whether Iraq is truly a threat to our national security or not?

I would expect most of those who went to Iraq saw themselves as fighting to secure our country as well as being liberators of the Iraqi people.  In hindsight, we now know Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.  And we know that the Iraqi people, by and large, didn’t want or weren’t ready for a democratic government. Hussein held the country together by force; a Sunni Muslim, he brutally repressed both Shiite and Kurdish uprisings with chemical weapons and killing more than 100,000 Iraqis.  The enmity between Iraq’s ethnic groups is deep-seated, and much of the US efforts in Iraq were spent quelling sectarian violence.  And given that Islam, the major religion of the Middle East, touches nearly every aspect of life and society, conflicts with democratic ideals thus making it unlikely to survive in Iraq.

Were innocent people killed during the Iraqi War? Without a doubt, yes, there were innocents killed and wounded.  But innocents were killed by forces on both sides of the war.  One scene in the movie illustrates how ruthlessly the Iraqi insurgents treated their own people who were suspected of talking with the Americans.  US servicemen had to abide by rules of engagement (ROE) in Iraq.  Those rules, sometimes to the detriment of the safety of US personnel, were meant to protect innocent civilians. Maybe the rules weren’t affective but at least it shows that the US values lives.  While we no longer have forces in Iraq, innocents are still dying.  The Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, and ISIL Islamic terrorist organizations are still waging a campaign of violence against innocent civilians.  Beheadings, mass executions, and kidnappings are occurring in central Africa and the Middle East.  Muslims, Christians, men, women, and children are all victims of the violence.

President Obama is planning to seek a formal war authorization to fight against ISIL and al-Qaeda forces in Syria and the Middle East.  If our duly elected leaders choose to grant these powers to the President, then our troops will go into harm’s way once more.  Should we expect our troops to refuse to go?  Do we want them to demand proof of reason why force is necessary before they head out to the warzone?

I think we have to accept that there are those out there that want to do harm to the US and other peoples, regardless of what we do.  And we have to accept that sometimes, the only way to stop those that would do evil is through force.  When this happens, we have to understand that there will be a loss of innocent lives, regardless of how hard our troops try to avoid it.  We also shouldn’t label our soldiers sociopaths for performing the job their government has assigned them to do.  Regardless, if our leaders say that force is required, we should pray for the safety of our troops and support them.  They are the shepherds that protect the rest of us from the wolves of the world.

Hypocrisy Matters

“Black Lives Matter” is movement that started in the wake of the Trayvon Martin trial and acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman.  The movement gained momentum after the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.  There have been over 600 “Black Lives Matter” demonstrations worldwide and the protest organizers and protestors have met with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Attorney General Holder to demand that the federal government do something about the fact that, “[b]lack communities have suffered under racially biased policing and unconstitutional law enforcement policies for far too long.” Have the black communities suffered? In some ways, it depends on perspective.  However, the facts allude to a different story altogether.

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports database provides a wealth of statistics on crime in the nation.  According to the FBI, in 2012, 123 blacks were shot and killed by police versus 326 whites killed by police.  However, the data doesn’t provide much information on whether the person was armed, unarmed, retreating, fighting with officers, etc., so it’s difficult to tell if the policing is racially biased or not.  But as I researched, I came across other facts that tell a different story.

In 2012, there were more than 8.3 million arrests in the United States.  Blacks accounted for 28 % of those arrests, while 69 % of those arrested were white (Note: The FBI data includes Hispanics as part of the white population).  The US Census bureau reports that blacks make up 13% of the US population, so one could say that there is a disproportionate number of arrests, but is that due to racial profiling or is the fact of the matter that blacks commit a larger portion of crimes?

When broken down by offense, 49% of those arrested for murder and 51% of those arrested for robbery were black.  Again, one could argue that this is indicative of widespread bias.  I think not.  Buried in the data are these two facts.  From 2003 to 2012, blacks were responsible for 44 % of the deaths of officers killed in the line of duty.  But more disturbingly, 91 % of the 2648 blacks murdered in 2012 were killed by blacks.  It seems to me that black-on-black crime is a much more serious problem than white on black (193 blacks murdered by whites in 2012) or police killing blacks.  So why don’t we hear more protests about black-on-black crime?

The professional rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the like don’t want to talk about the real issues because they get no mileage out of it.  Which is more sensational and more likely to grab headlines, an innocent teen killed by a racist neighborhood watch volunteer or another story about blacks killing blacks?  Obviously, they can’t get attention if they can’t grab headlines so they focus on the sensational, ignoring the real issue and try to make the rest of us feel guilty about race.  And the problem of black-on-black crime continues.  Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Do blacks have a legitimate concern about unfair and biased policing? I’ll concede that it is not only possible, but likely.  Is it due to racism or stereotyping?  It’s hard to say.  But FBI data indicates that the bulk of the violent crimes happen in urban areas populated primarily by blacks.  And FBI data indicates that the majority of law enforcement patrols are deployed to these same areas.  For the many law-abiding blacks living in these communities, the police are their only protection; the police patrols exist because black lives do matter.

Black lives do matter; all lives matter. But the next time you hear one of these protestors say that black lives matter, ask yourself if they mean all black lives, or only the lives that give them 15 minutes of media time. 

Good Cops Bad Cops

by John Galt

As a topic debated in the media, I’ll mention my thoughts on our policemen and women.  The majority of police officers are upstanding people doing an extremely difficult job.  I know I couldn’t make the split-second decisions they have to make.  I cannot imagine the remorse they must feel when they make an error in judgment that results in someone being harmed.  Wearing a gun isn't a responsibility I want to shoulder, much less wear one as part of my job.  I cannot imagine a society without the peace-keepers, so they have my admiration. 

If we look at the members of police forces across the country, I’m sure you will find officers representing all races, genders, and economic standings.  Our local police force is us, maybe not with statistical precision, but they are a product of our local communities.  Within the country-wide police community, there are some that use the power that comes with a badge to take advantage.  No question that these officers exist and they should be held accountable for their misconduct.  Just like the rest of us, there are good and bad.

Obama Claus

In a recent column, Dr. Thomas Sowell said, “When someone tries to lay a guilt trip on you for being successful, remember that your guilt is some politician's license to take what you worked for and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for the politician who plays Santa Claus with your money.”  Unfortunately, we have a person occupying the White House who is more than willing to play Santa with our tax dollars, but I fear his motives are more than just votes.

President Obama recently gave his annual State of the Union Address.  As in previous addresses, he outlined how he plans to use the federal government to make our lives better.  He spoke of helping working families feel more secure and helping them afford childcare, college, healthcare, housing and retirement.  He talked about passing legislation that would guarantee paid sick leave.  He said he would send a plan to Congress that would allow people to attend community college for free.  And, he spoke of raising the minimum wage in order “to give millions of the hardest-working people in America a raise.”

President Obama wrapped his speech in a package of “middle class economics”, telling us that he wants to help not only the poor, but the larger middle class segment of the population; more Santa Claus means more votes.  Are votes his motivation in all this largesse?  I don’t think so.  Obama said, “I have no more campaigns to run.”  So what is his motive? In his address, Obama gave us a hint of what he really wants.  He stated, “the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. We don't just want everyone to share in America's success -- we want everyone to contribute to our success.” 

Like other progressive politicians, Obama wants us beholden to the federal government for our livelihood.  If you’re successful, it should be because the government gave you the tools, the education, and the investments.  Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” speech and Elizabeth Warren’s statement, “[t]here is nobody in this country who got rich on his own,” are attempts to downplay the significance of hard work and determination to become successful.  They are attempting to make those who are successful feel guilty for it.  And, more than guilt, Obama wants to punish those who are successful.

Obama promised us that under Obamacare, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it". However, if your insurance policy didn’t measure up to what Obamacare mandated, your insurance company had to cancel your policy.  Hundreds of thousands have already had their health insurance policies canceled, according to the Washington Post.  Those whose policies were canceled had to buy more expensive coverage that covers less or provides coverage they don’t need.  Costs for employer-sponsored insurance plans have risen at a slightly faster rate and individual health care plans have risen at a rate three times faster than before Obamacare was signed into law. And, if you are fortunate enough to have a really good insurance plan, a so-called “Cadillac plan”, you’ll have to pay an excise tax on that plan beginning in 2018.  The reason, to help finance the expansion of health coverage for those that can’t afford it.  Although he said his goal was to provide health care insurance for the millions that didn’t have coverage, it appears to me that he wants us to have only the coverage that the government says we can have or pay a penalty. Also, he wants those who can afford insurance to pay for those who can’t.  Just a quick aside, but did you notice that the government is forcing you to buy a product or get penalized?  Not only is it unconstitutional for them to do that but the Supreme Court declared it legal!

Obama wants to make it free to attend community college, yet proposed taxing the 529 college savings accounts.  First, when he says community college is free, does he mean for everyone, or for a select group?  If people are shrewd enough or fortunate enough to save for college, why penalize them by taxing these savings accounts that can only be used for college?  That amounts to being punished for paying your or your child’s way through college.  That clearly doesn’t make sense if your goal is for everyone to be able to attend college—you’ve just punished those that don’t need to attend for free.  But, if your goal is to tax the “haves”, give to the have-nots, and make everyone indebted to the government for their education, it makes perfect sense.

Although these are only couple of examples, if you dig deeper into Obama’s policies and actions, it is easy to see a trend in his proposals and policies to redistribute the wealth and make the public indebted to the government for our lives and livelihoods.  Thankfully, Obama will be out of office in a little more than 700 days.  Yes, I’m counting.   However, it will take a long time to undo the damage from his and his predecessors’ policies.  And, we must be educated, active, and diligent in avoiding electing more progressives.  If we don’t, I fear for the future of this country—who of the “haves” will be left to provide?

Great Expectations

Along with a new year, we have a new session of Congress.  The 1^st session of the 114^th US Congress recently convened with the Republican Party holding a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  While many have great expectations that a Republican-led Congress can steer the country in the right direction, a majority of Americans believe that Congress will accomplish no more in 2015 than it did in 2014. It’s a pretty bleak outlook, but with an approval rating hovering around 10% for the last few years, even a few accomplishments would be an improvement.

The Republicans in Congress have a long to-do list and if they have any hope of remaining in office and getting a Republican elected to the presidency in 2016, they better make some meaningful progress.  But the tasks are formidable; immigration reform, deficit reduction, improving the economy, repealing or restructuring Obamacare are just a few of the big-ticket items.  Democrats, especially potential presidential candidates, and the media are poised to pounce on any misstep.  And, the Republicans have only two years to make meaningful changes.

But, the American public, especially the conservative segment, needs to have realistic expectations.  While some issues appear to be recent in nature, such as Obamacare, most of them began long ago and have been allowed to fester because we elected individuals who chose to avoid addressing the issue.  Other issues arose early in the last century, the Progressive Era, but we’ve blindly allowed them to grow and multiply in the name of progress and social justice.

While some good came of the Progressive Era, exposing government corruption, social reform that lead to women gaining the right to vote, and imposing child labor laws that protected children, there was much that, while sounding good, began undermining the principles and freedoms that our founding fathers fought for.

The progressives, such as President Woodrow Wilson, were, according to political scientist Charles Murray, “advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.”  Wilson said it himself in a campaign speech in 1912, “All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when “development,” “evolution,” is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle”. Since then, we’ve allowed progressive elected officials and the activist judges they’ve appointed to interpret the Constitution to further their molding of social institutions as they see fit.

The federal income tax was implemented during Wilson’s term.  Franklin Roosevelt, appointed judges that were sympathetic to his New Deal programs, replacing judges that had initially rejected his programs as unconstitutional.  And one of his New Deal crown jewels, Social Security, is taking up larger and larger chunks of our federal budget.  President Truman, who stated that “Every man should have the right… to worthwhile job…” continued the implementation of progressive policies. And payroll tax-funded Medicare and Medicaid were signed into legislation during President Johnson’s Great Society. These are few of the more blatant examples of progressivism.  There are plenty of other blatant examples, but there are many examples of progressives using the state to mold social institutions that are more subtle, and some may argue, more sinister.

Activist judges have found supposed “rights” in the Constitution and legislated from the bench, changing policy and setting precedence for legal “rights” that do not exists in the Constitution.  Separation of church and state?  It’s not in the Constitution, but court decisions have essentially put it there.

The federal government has been able to increase its power, oftentimes through bribery and coercion.  Remember the 55 mile per hour speed limit?  The Carter Administration thought it would be a good idea, and save lives and gasoline.  How was it implemented, when neither Congress nor the President has the power to set state speed limits?  Simple, threaten to withhold federal funding if the states don’t implement a 55 mph speed limit and reward those that do with highway funds.  Yet these funds came from us, the taxpayers.  Either comply or we won’t let you have your money?  It obviously worked, the 55 mph limit was a nationwide limit for a number of years.  And this is just one of many examples where the federal government has bent the states to its will using authority not allocated to it by the Constitution.

The Republicans don’t have an easy job ahead of them.  As Thomas Paine wrote in “American Crisis” during the winter of 1776, “Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” And we are fighting tyranny.  President Wilson defined it for us when he said, “By tyranny, as we now fight it, we mean control of the law, of legislation and adjudication, by organizations which do not represent the people, by means which are private and selfish… We mean the exploitation of the people by legal and political means. We have seen many of our governments under these influences cease to be representative governments, cease to be governments representative of the people, and become governments representative of special interests, controlled by machines, which in their turn are not controlled by the people.”  The Republicans aren’t simply trying to undo six years of Obama policies but nearly 100 years of progressivism.  Be patient and applaud them for every positive step they take in trying to reign in the federal government, but don't throw them out if they fail to achieve every goal in the next two years.  And communicate with them to remind them that they are YOUR elected representatives, not the special interests.

Good or Evil

by John Galt

Due to the recent upsurge of divisive racism in the media resulting from the deaths of black Americans by police officers, I tried to understand what is causing these issues that are creating such outrage and dividing the American public.  My thoughts went beyond racial discord to the subjects whipped to a frenzy by politicians and the media.  Topics in today’s headlines are gay rights, wealthy capitalists, racial and gender inequality, and so many more subjects that divide the American public.  We live in a time of crime, poverty, drug use, terrorism, unemployment, and hopelessness.

Long story short, I decided our situation isn’t an issue of race, wealth, gender, sexual orientation, age, or political orientation, but instead issues of good versus evil.  There are good people, those with the moral and ethical bias to do the right thing, make the right choices, and shoulder their responsibilities.  There are evil people, those that take advantage of, blame, slander, hate, and brutalize others for their own gain.  In reality, most people are not perfect, they are a mixture, of varying degrees of both good and evil.  We all sin, rich, poor, gay, straight, men, women, black, white and all shades in between.

But I’m not talking about sinners cheating at bingo.  I‘m talking about the evil that we can recognize once we look at the facts without our biases of color, gender, or wealth.  My son asked me if someone that stole to feed their family sinned, well, yes, but they are not evil.  You can do wrong and not be evil.  But the person that kills another out of jealousy is evil.  Evil is done in the absence of soul or conscience.

In a society that expounds on the evil in man’s heart every day in the news headlines, we have to recognize that good people doing the right thing are hardly ever mentioned in the headlines.  There are people that will do the right thing regardless of the circumstances.  There are others that will usually do the right thing unless they think they can get away with it or they feel the circumstances are justifiable.  There are others that will do the evil thing, just because they want to.  Don’t you agree?  Notice that I didn’t differentiate on race, wealth, social standing, gender or religion.  There are good people and there are bad people.

Historically, differences of economic standing, race, religion, wealth and opinion have led to violence.  Anything that can differentiate groups of people has created discord.  Some people perform evil acts in the name of religion.  Politicians slander their competition for political gain.  People kill and maim because they feel slighted by another person.  Greed has long been a motivation for evil.  In all of those media stories, it is easy to see who perpetuated the evil.  In others, we fixate on the outcome of the scenario and we don’t consider the events or actions that led up to the final moments of the story.

What if every media story wasn’t colored with adjectives of race, political association, age, gender or wealth?  It matters less that a white or black person died than that a life was taken.  We shouldn’t feel more loss if a rich person dies than a poor person.  If two people get married, let’s not wonder if anyone wore a white dress.  It isn't really the headlines that define our society, it is the individual players, their motivation and their actions. 

All I ask of you is to scrutinize the next media story by using only the facts.  Don’t join in on a mob mentality inspiring hate.  Assess the entire situation, not just the outcome.  Beware of hearsay.  Who are the players in the story?  Walk in their shoes for a minute and decide if you would have made the same choices.  For example, did the officer draw his gun to serve and protect or out of fear for his life?  Who is the aggressor?  Who is the victim?  Who could have changed the outcome and why didn’t they?  Take the time to form your own opinion.

Je Suis Charlie

by John Galt


Free speech was brutally attacked in Paris.  Terrorists killed 12 in an attack on the office of the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.  Someone took offense at their satire and took lives.

Remember the childhood rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!”    My parents taught me to let the words roll off my back because sometime somewhere someone’s words will offend me or will be counter to my own thoughts.  Other than my feelings, when nothing else is hurt, get over it.  Why escalate a perceived slight into violence?  

We have warnings on movies and music CDs that warn us of the content.  If we don’t like a show on television, we can change the channel or turn it off.  If we don’t like what someone says, we can tune them out, walk away or avoid them.  We have choices.  People get offended, but it is their choice to be offended.  A long time ago, someone told me that no one can make me mad, I choose to be mad.  When you get right down to it, yeah, I could as easily chosen otherwise.

But when someone makes a choice to be offended, then escalate their discord to violence, that is so outside the bounds of social etiquette that it is barbaric.  What is even sadder is it seems this was done to vindicate a slight to their prophet, a prophet that was referred to in the Quran as a “mercy to the worlds”.  There is no honor there.

I don’t agree with all that is said; not by a mile.  When the Westboro Baptists protested soldier’s funerals, by no means did I agree.  But rather than hating them and escalating a response into violence, we rallied around the soldier’s families and shut them out.   I chose to get mad, but I reacted by voicing my disgust and joining the wave of honorable people that spoke out against them.  There are more of us than there are haters in that church and we too have a voice.  As the adage goes, fight fire with fire.  

We are involved in wars to give people the right to free speech.  We protest when our rights to free speech are challenged.  Today, we must rally around the world’s right to free speech, even if you don’t agree with the message.  Charlie Hebdo was quoted as saying, “I’d rather die standing than live on my knees."  Today, I am Charlie because I have the right to deliver a message.  And, as always, you have the right to tune me out or change the channel.  But today and every day, je suis Charlie.

Hope for a New Year

It’s been far too long since I last posted a blog.  I could give you a myriad of excuses for why I haven’t posted, but the fact of the matter is, I’d written so many posts that focused on negative things and events going on in this country, I’d simply lost hope. It’s a sad statement, but it seemed the country was going in the wrong direction, too many rude people, and other bad things that I just wondered, what’s the point?

Not long ago, one of my Scouts was trying to complete his Communications Merit Badge.  One requirement is to plan and prepare a script and serve as master-of-ceremonies for a troop program; this Scout chose to do a flag retirement ceremony to satisfy the requirement.

This young man is a very conscientious person and I expected him to do a good job of planning it.  He didn’t disappoint; he made sure that his ceremony was respectful and complied with all the rules of flag etiquette.  He’d even gone so far as to read the federal law (Chapter 1, Title 4 of the US Code) pertaining to the display and respect for the US Flag.

What surprised me was not his behavior, but the behavior of the other Scouts who participated in and observed the ceremony.  There was no talking, no horse-play, just sincere respect for the flag.  Even the younger Scouts, some of whom couldn’t sit still even if you stapled them to the chair, stood at rigid attention showing the proper respect.  No one had to tell them to behave or stand still or stop talking.  They recognized, of their own volition, that retiring the colors of this country deserves dignified and respectful behavior and they acted in such a manner.  If an 11-year-old can recognize when such behavior is warranted and behave appropriately without an adult reminding them, maybe there is hope for this country.

With the turn of the New Year, I hope to write more, especially more on positive subjects.  And I hope to make you, the reader, think more and inspire you to be an active participant, not a passive observer, in our communities, in politics, religion, and life, in general.

Happy New Year!