Beating the Bushes:

Beam Yourself Up Scottie!

     Message to Scottie:

    So now you're beaming yourself up? Sorry to have to inform you of this Scottie, but your job has always been to beam the others up, not yourself.  For several years, it was your task to make others look good; to safely transport them to that vast clime where "no one has gone before." Before your debarkation, it was your job to transform dross into gold and water into wine.  You were the one crew member whose job spec read "Protect us from  our lies, our posturing and ourselves." 

 Scottie, have you misplaced the script?  Have you forgotten the Prime Directive? Obviously you have.  For in publishing What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, you are effectively beaming yourself up into the vast empyrean of mea culpa. That's simply not the way things are suppose to be. 

   Are we supposed to be grateful for your memoir?  Are we supposed to rush out and purchase a copy, thereby paving over your guilt with gelt? I fear that that's what's going to happen, despite the fact that all the awful truths you've "revealed" most of us have long suspected in haunting principle -- if not known in absolute fact.  And even if we agree with your take on how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and the gang lied us into Iraq -- the lies they told about 9/11, Saddam, and WMDs -- the fact remains that not only did they [by your own admission] know all along they were telling lies, but you, you were the one giving voice to these lies, day in day out.  You were the one beaming them up.  As such, you are as culpable as the men and women who put these mendacities into your mouth. 

   Then there is the case of Valerie Plame.  What Rove, Libby and the rest of the crew did in outing her -- and just to get back at her husband, Ambassador Wilson -- is 100% against the law.  It doesn't really matter whether you were "misled" as you now claim; the damage was done, an actionable crime was committed.   

   I do agree that the White House press corps was too easy on you and the crew -- uh, administration -- on the run-up to Iraq.  They showed an unconscionable lack of backbone and grit in not challenging every word, comma and semicolon.  But please, do not tell us that you now wish they'd only asked the hard questions; you know in your heart of hearts that you would have swatted their questions away like noxious flies at a picnic. 

   Scottie, don't be too surprised if one day soon you wake up to discover that, short of beaming yourself to some celebrious haven, you have rematerialized in front of a hostile Congressional committee or federal grand jury.  For the words, deeds, and machinations you have detailed in your book are, in the estimation of people with knowledge far greater than mine, legally actionable.  Should it come to this, would you seek the cloak of immunity -- or forgetfulness? Do you understand that you may well have the power to underscore, highlight and make bold this administration's position as the absolute worst, most disastrous in American history? 

   Already, your erstwhile friends and compatriots are hurling lethal thunderbolts your way, characterizing you as nothing more than a "disgruntled former employee," a "turncoat" who is "out to make a quick buck."  Tell me Scottie: when you first sat down to write this book, did you have any idea of the treacherous terrain to which you were beaming yourself? Did you really, truly think that you could teleport yourself on to a new career?

   Don't be too surprised if FOX News doesn't come calling, hefty contract in hand.  For in order to profit from sin, you have to be Ollie North or G. Gordon Liddy.

   In closing Scottie, it may well be that you haven't yet reached the "final frontier."  But one can hope that ultimately, in beaming yourself up, you have set the stage for the Bushies to be beamed down -- as far down as history and the courts will allow.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone 

    

Mr. Obama Goes To Shul

  BOCA RATON, FLORIDA * Senator Barack Obama came to Temple B'nai Torah this afternoon.  As will often happen with candidates out on the campaign trail, his arrival was delayed by several hours.  And although he apologized for being tardy and making us wait, he never did mention the reason for his delay.  As I found out later that night, he had hopped up to Capitol Hill in order to vote in favor of a measure which greatly expands the G.I. Bill.  He could have taken the high, self-serving road and told those assembled why he was late.  He could also have taken the low, "finger-pointing" road and flailed Senator McCain for being one of 22 Republicans voting against our men and women in uniform. 

   Instead, he did neither. 

   This was not his reason for going to shul.

   Rather, he was here, in the midst of approximately 750 mostly-Jewish men, women and teens, to talk about himself, Israel, and anti-Semitism, and to address head-on the virtual St. Vitus' dance of fear that has been such a noxious staple of cyberspace this past year 

   I managed to snag a VIP pass and, guiltily walking past the long line of folks standing out in the rain, was seated about 6 feet away from the senator. Sitting with me were -- somewhat surprisingly -- at least thee lions of the Republican Party and a couple of die-hard Clinton acolytes.  They, like so many in the assembled minyan, were not there because they already supported Senator Obama. Rather, they had come to find out for themselves just who the "skinny guy with the strange-sounding name" is, and whether or not he will be as bad for Israel as so many have claimed. 

   Senator Obama certainly had his work cut out for himself.

   To make the senator's task even more challenging, just the day before he attended shul, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts On Obama."  In the article, staff writer Jodi Kantor quoted a handful of South Florida Jews who were dismissive -- if not downright hostile -- to Senator Obama's candidacy.  One elderly woman said she would never vote for Obama "because of his attitude on Israel."  A second averred that Obama "is part of Chicago's large Palestinian community."   A third worried that if he were elected, Obama "might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan."  And yet a fourth opined, "His father was a Muslim and you can't take that out of him."

    No one ever said running for president was easy; especially when you're a guy named Barack Obama, and you're speaking in a synagogue before more Jews than the rabbi has seen since last Rosh Hashana.

    With a mesmerizing mix of eloquence and erudition, articulation and affability, the Senator won over the vast majority of the assembled minyan.  During the more than two hours he spent speaking and dialoguing, Senator Obama made it abundantly clear that he was, is, and always shall be, a staunch defender of the Jewish State.  [One should know a fact: after going over the voting records of both Senator Clinton and Obama vis-a-vis issues pertaining to Israel, AIPAC -- the main Israel support lobby in the U.S. gave both a 100% rating.  That's 100% of the time that both senators voted in a manner that was favorable to the Jewish State.]

   Senator Obama told of how, as a youngster attending summer camp, he had a Jewish counselor who told him about Zionism: 

   "I really connected with it, because in Zionism, there is this sense of rootedness, of having a place and a home.  And for a kid with my unusual background . . . and not knowing precisely where I fit, this struck a tremendous chord."

   When asked about his relationship with a Palestinian professor from the University of Chicago, the Senator said:

   "Yes, I have met the man, but why do people automatically conclude that therefore I must be in agreement with what he espouses?  People do have the ability to listen to those with whom they disagree.  How can one ever make any progress if the only folks they talk to are those with whom they are in agreement?"

   Obama went on to say:

   "I don't want to get in to the 'some of my best friends are Jewish' trap, because it's terribly demeaning.  But I will tell you this: when I first ran [unsuccessfully] for Congress against Bobby Rush, the main argument against me was that I was too close to the Jewish community!  I have always believed that Jewish and African Americans have an historic bond, an historic memory.  I mourn the passing of the time when Jewish Americans and African Americans worked together in harmony to bring about change.  If it weren't for the Jewish community and their central role in the Civil Rights struggle, I wouldn't be here today, running for President of the United States."

   Addressing all the emails that are going around [indeed, I just received one entitled "The Fifty Lies of Barack Obama"], he made a telling point with a fine degree of humor:

   "You know, no one believes those emails that start out: 'I'm a Nigerian who has $5 million in the bank but can't get at it . . . however if you'll only send me a thousand dollars . . .' Or all those medicines that promise to help expand your . . . well, let's not go there . . . [laughter] . . . But seriously, why then do people believe scurrilous rumors?  Promising millions for nothing or potency for pennies has about as much reality as proclaiming that I am a Jihadist."

   Many in the crowd were of the opinion that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had."  I hear this from my students more often than is comfortable.  Senator Obama addressed this in words of stark simplicity:

   "In the past seven years, Iran has become infinitely more powerful than ever before. It has given tremendous financial support to the major enemies of Israel. This has all happened under the Bush-Cheney-McCain watch.  How can anyone conclude that the one who empowers your worst enemy is your best friend?  It doesn't make any sense."

   One person in the crowd asked why, in saying he would convene a summit meeting of all Arab countries, he excluded Israel, Obama smiled and answered:

   "Well first, Israel isn't an Arab country; its a Jewish State.  Secondly, they are our strongest ally . . . our best friend in the region.  The countries we would be talking to are the ones we want to convince that someday, somehow, they're going to have to learn how to live in peace with Israel.  If you only talk to your friends, there is absolutely no chance that you're ever going to be able to change your enemies.  That is part of the definition of courage"

    By way of example, Senator Obama mentioned how, when speaking before students at a school of Ramallah, he told them, "One day you are going to have to learn to live in peace with Israel."    

   Did Senator Obama's "performance" make supporters out of everyone in attendance?  Probably not, for he is, as we say in Hebrew, raq basar va'dahm ["merely flesh and blood"]. Nonetheless, I believe he quelled the fear and uncertainty in many hearts.

   There no doubt will always be those who choose to believe the worst about Senator Obama -- or anyone in the public eye for that matter.  There will also always be those who seek to hide incipient racism beneath the veneer of inept rhetoric.  And believe me, I am fully expecting people to write and tell me that I have had the wool pulled over my eyes -- that Senator Obama is a Muslim, ant-Semitic . . . the whole nine yards.  

   And yet, for at least one afternoon, in one shul, the minyan had the opportunity to listen to -- and share with -- a man who reminded us that the Arabic barack and the Hebrew baruch share the same meaning:  "Blessed."

   It was a "sermon" well worth the wait.

   Oh yes: by the end, even the three Republicans were on their feet.

   And don't worry about being late Senator.  You see, ever since Sinai, we've been on Jewish Standard Time . . .

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

Vos Meinsdie iz Seig?

    Yesterday, in a speech before a group in Columbus, Ohio, Senator John "The Presumptive Republican Nominee" McCain etched a portrait of America and the world circa 2013 that would make even M.C. Escher stand in awe.

   For in his speech, McCain predicted that by the end of his first term:

• The Iraq war will have been won.
• al-Qaeda in Iraq will have been defeated.
• A democratic government will be fully operational there.
• Taxes will be lower.
• Congressional earmarks will have been eliminated.
• Robust economic growth will have returned.
• The genocide in Darfur will be a distant memory.
• The Social Security crisis will have been solved.
• Construction on 20 new nuclear power plants will be underway.
• Osama bin Laden will be either dead or captured.    

    As Arlo Guthrie asked in his classic "The Pause of Mr. Claus," What's in the pipe that he's smoking?

   It is patently obvious that the senator's remarks are meant to distance himself ever so slightly from President Bush, and get away from his "100 years in Iraq" nonsense.  Never mind that he is attempting to open Napoleon Solo's "Channel D" in order to contact independents and so-called "Reagan Democrats." As the old saying goes, "All you who really believe this, I've got this dandy bridge for sale . . ."

   Beyond the hollow promises to fix the economy, remake Social Security,  eliminate all congressional earmarks -- which, as obnoxious as they may be, amount to just a shade under .007% of the entire federal budget -- there is the very serious question Vos Meinsdie iz Seig? -- Yiddish for, roughly, "What is the definition of victory?"

Oh yes, there are plenty of examples of victorious conclusions to bloody wars:

• Lee handing his sword to Grant at Appomattox.
• General Alfred Jodl signing the document of Germany's unconditional surrender at General Eisenhower's Headquarters in Reims, France.
• Japanese Foreign Minister Shigemitsu and General Umezu initialing documents aboard the U.S.S. Missouri.

  In these -- and dozens of other -- cases, the combined military might of one set of allies defeated those of their enemies.  That is, nations, countries with defined borders, established -- albeit murderous and dictatorial -- governments acknowledged that the other side had beat them, and it was high time to lay down their arms and take whatever medicine the victors prescribed.
   
   The situation in Iraq is, of course, totally different.   First and foremost, America and her "coalition of the willing" are not fighting against the combined forces of any government.  Insurgents, terrorists, guerrillas, and suicide bombers do not an army make -- at least in any traditional sense of the term.  When government-sponsored forces engage one another in battle, at least they wear different uniforms; one can frequently identify the enemy.  In Iraq, anyone -- and everyone -- is potentially the enemy.

   Second, armies, navies and air forces are trained to fight wars strategically --  "by the book."  In comparison, the conflict in Iraq has no "rules;" what passes for strategy is most often a muddle of murderous inconsistency. 

   Third, more often than not, when countries become a battlefield, they are defended by their own troops and those of their allies.  In Iraq, the lion's share of battle has been undertaken by a military force viewed by most not as a savior, but an invader.  When a country is at war with itself, it is neigh-on impossible to succeed, let alone struggle on to something as illusive as "victory."  The historic tensions and animosities betwixt Sunnis, Sh'ias and Kurds had been, in a sense hermetically sealed during Saddam's bloody reign.  Once he was deposed, the gruesome genie was unleashed, fueled by the pent-up fury of untold centuries.

   And out of all this Senator McCain has a definition for "victory?"

Vos meinsdie iz seig?

    Then too, there is the Arizona senator's vision of an Iraq with a fully operational, democratic government. To understand the full implication of this dreamy vision, let us take a page from rabbinic literature.

    As anyone who has ever read the Hebrew Bible [i.e. Old Testament] knows, the Children of Israel spent forty years wandering in the wilderness; forty years between the end of Egyptian servitude and the beginning of Judean self-governance.  According to the midrash -- exegetical commentary -- God had originally planned on keeping their journey to a mere seven weeks.  Why the change?

   Most commentators agree that the change was due to the Israelites' base sinfulness and utter lack of trust in the Lord.  When Moses did not descend from Mt. Sinai at the precise moment they thought he would, they gave in to their fears and had Aaron create the Golden Calf.  In other words, for many commentators, the change from seven weeks to forty years was a punishment for this collective sin.

   There is, however, another commentary which shows tremendous understanding of both human nature and political reality.  According to this, the forty-year trek was meant to teach a pivotal lesson: that while it is quite easy -- albeit deeply tragic and inhumane -- to turn free people into slaves, it is terribly difficult to turn slaves into free people. To have expected the Israelites -- who had been enslaved for four hundred years -- to suddenly shake off their bonds and fully grasp the ways of freedom, was ludicrous.  In making the Children of Israel to wander about for forty years, God was making sure that virtually every man, woman and child who passed over the  River Jordan [save Joshua and Caleb] had been born in freedom, not slavery.

   This ancient commentary is most instructive in the case of Iraq.  By declaring that the Iraqis will be fully self-governing within six-months, three years, a generation, Senator McCain is making the assumption that former slaves are both longing for -- and capable of -- governing themselves.  This is a dangerous, delusional trap into which Senator McCain and most of his Republican colleagues have fallen.

   Just as there is no hard and fast definition of "victory" in Iraq, so too should there be no illusion about just how difficult it will be for them to remake themselves into a modern democratic state.  It will take at least a generation, if not two . . . or three . . . or longer.

   Senator McCain is correct in beginning to talk about bringing our troops home at some point in the future. But to link the words "Iraq" and "democracy" with the year 2013 is sheer folly.

   Like the sign says, "if you break it, you pay for it . . ."

"But That Was Yesterday . . . and Yesterday's Gone"

   We begin with a heartfelt -- albeit pro forma -- declaration: Senator John McCain is a man of uncommon valor and fortitude.  What he went through during his five tortuous years as a P.O.W. is beyond human comprehension.  He was tested in ways that not even Franz Kafka could imagine, and emerged to greet the sun of a new day. Senator McCain was, is, and shall always be, a shining example of the ineffable in man.

   Having unburdened ourselves of the plaudits due the man, let's get to the subject at hand: the genius of John McCain . . .

   For years, editorial writers have used the words "maverick," and "principled" to describe Senator McCain.  Time and again, he has been applauded for bucking Republican orthodoxy, for being the "heir" of Teddy Roosevelt.  At one point this was undeniably true.  Consider that in past years, Senator McCain co-sponsored a patients' bill of rights with liberal stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Edwards.  He united with Senator Chuck Schumer to sponsor one bill allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs and another permitting the wider sale of generic alternatives.  All three of these drove the health care industry, the White House and the GOP leadership up the wall.  Despite pressure, Senator McCain did not cave.

   Senator McCain joined John Kerry in co-sponsoring a bill raising automobile fuel efficiency standards.  Another time he teamed up with Joe Lieberman on a measure imposing a cap-and-trade regime on carbon emissions.  He was also one of only six Republicans to vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

   He has worked with Michigan Senator Carl Levin to close tax shelters, co-sponsored bills to close the gun-show loophole and federalize airport security and, perhaps most notably, voted against both the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.   Talk about a maverick!

   In fact, his moderate bona fides were so accepted, so much of the myth that is John McCain, that in 2004, John Kerry actually wooed him to join his ticket as vice president.  According to the New Republic's Jonathan Chait, the two held no less than a half-dozen clandestine conversations on the topic which, as Chait noted, was "about a half-dozen more than would have been needed if McCain was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican."

    At this point, a lyric from Chad and Jeremy comes to mind: "But that was yesterday . . . and yesterday's gone." [For all you guitar enthusiasts out there, that's E7, A, Bm7-5, E7, A, Bm7-5, A D9, E7.] 

    Where then is the John McCain of yesteryear?  What became of the man who, like T.R., was dead-set against repealing the estate tax, and once called the Reverends Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance?"  Is this the same man who now wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and is "very honored" to have the endorsements of Pastor Rod ["America was created to destroy Islam"] Pasley and Reverend John ["The Catholic Church is a whore"] Hagee?  How is it that a man who spent so many years working in tandem with Feingold, Kennedy, Schumer, Levin et al, can now claim the mantle of George W. Bush? 

   During the Republican primaries, many of the nation's most influential papers lauded McCain as a principled, straight-shooter:

• The Boston Globe: "Voters may disagree with his policies, but few doubt his sincerity."
• The Los Angeles Times: "The Arizona senator's conservatism is, if not always to our liking, at least genuine."
• The Wall Street Journal: "His philosophy is best described as a work in progress."

   Truth to tell, McCain's metamorphosis from "maverick" to "true believer" is not all that surprising.  After all, he is running for president, and will need both the hard-core right and big money if he is to win in November.  That's just the way politics works.

   What is a bit surprising -- and more than a little frustrating -- however, is the relatively free ride he has gotten from the media.  Articles and editorials enumerating his many flip-flops are in short supply.  Nowhere do we find commentary on his weak, dunderheaded rationalizations about why he wishes to make permanent the very tax cuts he originally voted against. When repeal of the estate tax first hit the senate floor, McClain noted "I follow the course of Teddy Roosevelt who talked about the malefactors of great wealth and gave us the estate tax."  Likewise, his votes against both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.  Today, he declares that voting to make those cuts permanent is not in the least inconsistent: "To let them expire would amount to a tax hike." 

   Excuse me? Isn't this the height of illogic?  While it is perfectly natural for some to oppose -- and others to support -- tax cuts, where is the logic in claiming that the repeal of said cut is tantamount to a tax hike? It buggers the imagination.    

   Those who have made a cottage industry out of harping on Senator Obama's "relationship" with Jeremiah Wright are strangely mute on the subject of the "Straight-Shooter" and his ecclesiastic minyan.  Where the Reverend Wright spewed his bilge in front of a couple of thousand each Sunday, the Reverend Hagee's, national television and radio ministry reaches an estimated 99 million homes a week [source: http//www.ministrywatch.org]

      There has been a great deal of speculation over which Democrat -- Obama or Clinton -- has the best chance of defeating John McCain.  Yes, we're well aware of those exit polls that purport to show an unhealthy percentage of Clinton supporters who claim they will vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't capture the nomination.  To our way of thinking in early May, those polls don't mean a whole heck of a lot.  We've yet to see a head-to-head debate between McCain and Obama.  Our money is on the Illinois senator; he has the issues, the message, and ability to make himself understood.  And, his thermostat is set a lot lower than McCain's, who has long been known for possessing a volcanic temper.

   One wonders if Senator McCain -- unlike Senators Obama or Clinton -- is immune to media scrutiny because "attacking" him -- i.e. revealing the truth -- would be tantamount to trashing an American hero.

   It is indeed a long, long journey from working with Ted Kennedy and having serious chats with John Kerry to climbing into bed with John Hagee and Rod Paisley.  It takes seven-league boots to make the leap from maverick to mossback. 

   Chad and Jeremy were right: But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone.

    It only remains to be seen if the American voting public and the Fourth Estate know how to sing that refrain.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic

   Let's see if we've got this straight:

   Senators McCain and Clinton have endorsed a "gas-tax holiday" for the 2008 peak summer driving season.  If the proposal is enacted, the government will forgive and forgo collecting the 18.4 cent federal tax that is added to each gallon we pump. Senator Obama, who has come out against said tax holiday, has been widely trashed for his opposition. 

   Let's do a little math: 

   My 2003 Toyota Solara, which has four cylinders and a manual five-speed transmission, gets about 33 highway and 28 city miles to the gallon.  The tank holds just a shade over 15 gallons, which means I get about 450 miles per tank. I religiously fill the old girl up once a week.  At 18.4 cents per gallon, I am putting $2.76 into Uncle Sam's coffers each time I fill up.  Multiply that for, say eight weeks of "peak summer driving," and I will save precisely $22.08 in federal tax.  Factor in Annie's Toyota four cylinder Highlander, which has a slightly larger tank and gets about about 4 miles per gallon less, and we save a whopping $45.00 over this eight-week period. 

   Now, add to this the $1,200.00 rebate we're going to be receiving in the next couple of weeks, and we'll have just about enough to fly out to California and visit Alice, Riki & Bob, Mitzi &  Matt, Leon & Ximena, Leanna, Alan and the gang.  Car rental will of course be extra. 

    Call me crazy, but I'm with Senator Obama on this one; I think the gas tax holiday is a ridiculous idea whose time has come . . . to be expunged from  political dialog.  Far from being any kind of quick-fix for the nation's dolorous economic woes, it is yet another misguided, ill-conceived attempt to curry favor with voters by convincing us that there is such a thing as a free lunch. 

   WRONG!

   Last time I looked, if you want bagel 'n lox with a side of cole slaw and an iced tea, you'd better be prepared to pay. 

   Yes, I certainly understand that those who  fill-'er-up up more than once a week, along with those who make their living driving the nation's highways -- especially truckers -- will be saving quite a bit more than Annie and me.  But what is missing from the equation are a couple of sobering facts:

• For every tax dollar that is forgiven, another indebted dollar gets swallowed up by the bankers of Beijing.  This is yet another case of puffing a putative short-term "gain" at the expense of a very real long-term  calamity.
• If we assume that tax-forgiveness will permit folks to add even one additional fill-up during the eight week period, that will put more money into Saudi coffers.
• Oil company profits continue setting records [Exxon Mobil, weeping  like Bessie Smith, just announced that it earned $10.9 billion in the first quarter of 2008.]

   Some have suggested that if McCain, Clinton et al are so hellbent on enacting this gas tax holiday, they ought to at least figure out where the offset money is going to come from.  How's about let's tax excess oil company profits?  Yeah right.  So long as this -- or any other -- oil-besotted administration reigns, there's about as much chance of that happening as my waking up tomorrow, looking in the mirror, and discovering I've become a five-foot redhead.

   In a hastily called press conference the other day, President Bush addressed soaring gas prices and what we can do about it.  So what was his prescription? Drilling in the Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve [ANWAR], building new oil refining plants, and taking another long hard look at both coal and "nukular" energy.  All of these are -- or ideally should be -- nonstarters.  The proposal to open up ANWAR to drilling is most monstrous of all.  For not only would it irreparably damage much of what the Good Lord created [Something I am sure no Bible-thumping pol would ever want to do!], it would take more than a decade to be up and running.  And, to add insult to injury, even if the president's prediction of "one million barrels a day" is correct, it would likely lower gas prices by no more than a penny a gallon. 

   Of course what's going on here is nothing more, nothing less, than the 2008 version of "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic;" changing light bulbs while the whole house is on fire.  No one is addressing alternate sources of energy.  No one has the words "wind," "solar" or "geothermal" in their vocabulary. No one is sounding an alarm or issuing a challenge.

   The creation and development of renewable sources of energy is both essential and makes good sense from many different perspectives:

• It is the moral thing to do: All people of faith -- regardless of whether one pays obeisance to God, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha or Mother Nature -- agree that we have been placed here to be stewards of the earth.  To act otherwise, to blithely denude the good earth of its riches, is to churlishly hurl the works of creation back in the face of the divine.
• It makes good economic sense: The creation, manufacture and sales of alternate renewable energy devices can and will create thousands of new businesses and millions of new jobs.  It can have the added bonus of taking an overwhelming economic weapon out of the hands of some of the most corrupt, inhumane regimes on earth.
• These epochal changes are not only essential, they are energizing: It has been close to a half-century since JFK issued what many deem to be the last significant challenge to the American people.  In challenging us to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," JFK energized an entire nation.

   I don't know about you, but if a leader were to, say, issue a "10-Point Program to Create an Energy-Independent America;" have the political skill and courage to get Congress to go along with him or her, and then tell the big oil companies to either get with the program or suffer the consequences, I would feel more focused, more energized, more optimistic about the future, than at any time in my life.  For that leader would, in essence, be instilling within us the belief and understanding that we are a significant part of the solution.  Today, all we hear is "there may be a slight problem; trust us to take care of it."

   So far as the Stone household is concerned, the government can take our $45.00 in gas tax savings and apply it as a credit to any company that is building solar panels, wind turbines or an automobile that runs on steam.  Meanwhile, we'll keep the $1,200 and make a visit to the folks back home.

      ©2008 Kurt F. Stone