A GOVERMENT FOR THE PEOPLE?

Per a recent E-mail I learned, "A cat's urine glows under a black light" -

Ever wonder how much our government paid to figure out that one?

There is a debate going on these days (you're kidding!). Someone is suggesting we need to cut government spending. Others say, "That's no way to get re-elected."

It would appear the latter group is winning for nobody would argue losing pork barrel projects is the path for Redemption, or more importantly, in the minds of politicians -re-election..

It is not a new trend for those of us who have been around for a while. Former President Jimmy Carter had the audacity to try and cut funding for the B-1 bomber arguing that the $1 billion dollar bomber was an error of chronology (anachronistic) in a world of intercontinental missiles.

He failed. He also was not re-elected (1977 - 1981). Today the B-1's allegedly are located at various military bases - largely unused.

The folks who drew the short end of the straw in their debate position on the subject of spending reduction are scratching their collective heads as to how to successfully argue for the elimination of pork barrel projects.

That's "pork barrel" not "pork belly" projects. Regardless of how many efforts there may be to eliminate the latter - who among us wants to give up bacon? That's communistic. No BLT's?

And, therein lies the problem. We taxpayers want to reduce taxes, increase government benefits, vote out the "wrong thinking politicians" etc. - but, retain those who "bring home the bacon" in our particular state.

We don't want to be the one who has to sacrifice.

A new course at Harvard Business School might well be titled, "How the Hell did Alaskan voters manage to kick out Senator Lisa Murkowski?" The answer may not be relevant should Lisa survive the counting of absentee ballots scheduled to commence next Tuesday.

Ms Murkowski is alleged to be a "Princess of Pork" winner, for all of you alliteration fans out there.

You see, it's still that old argument we referenced in a recent blog, "Well, everybody else is doing it!", that allows the pork barrel givers to have more longevity than right handed people have over lefthanders.

No mention is made in that latter study as to the fate of "right minded" people. Perhaps they couldn't find a large enough sample to assure an appropriate standard deviation.

Per The Christian Science Monitor ( you probably have a couple boxes of back issues hidden somewhere in the garage) "the defense budget in 2011 (including veterans' benefits and defense energy costs) will be $861 billion (that's a lot of B-1's) - or more than all other countries in the world - combined." ( Hey, a billion here - a billion there - pretty soon it starts to add up.)

Columnist Cal Thomas quotes Rep. Barney Frank (who does that these days?) and his report that identified nearly $1 trillion in possible budget savings if the Pentagon budget was " pared" back through 2020.

Thomas goes on to use the illustration regarding the "alternate engine" for the Joint Strike Fighter and compares it to the " Bridge to Nowhere". It seems Congress has "earmarked" (pork ears?) more than $1.2 billion for this since 2004, according to the watchdog group "Citizens Against Government Waste"

Oh yes, forgot to mention, "the Pentagon has said repeatedly it doesn't want or need the engine- both the Bush and Obama administrations have tried to eliminate it - but, Congress refuses to relent "

It is needed", they say, in concurring with their constituents.

Too many decisions in Congress are related to two goal statements: - "lobbyists largesse" and "how do I get re-elected". And still, we refuse to get behind a campaign for us to solely (or is it soul-ly) finance the elections. That would effectively demasculate the Insurance lobby - the NRA - the bankers lobby, the teachers union, etc, etc etc.

Here's an idea then. If we're unwilling to take the only sensible action to keep the lobbyists out of your living rooms via campaign ads - why don't we start a movement to financially support watchdog groups - who announce their findings?

It would seem that just our natural native curiosities would cause us to want to know who it is (specifically) that is causing us to think of robbing banks and grocery stores in order to obtain medicine, formula, baby food, and Pampers for our babies.

It's not that members of Congress don't understand the "For The People" of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address . It's just that they think it only applies to "Their People."

And maybe, as a result, we Will perish from this earth - (right after the announcement of the lottery winners, of course)..

Something to offend almost everyone

One of my ever growing frustrations is hearing, "I know exactly what you're going through". It is something that friends or neighbors of mourners seem to feel is appropriate. The goal is to make the survivor feel less distraught and also encourage the growth of a community of idiots.

The one saving grace is that the person to whom they are expressing their recognition of grief is usually so overwhelmed by their loss - or tranquilizers - that in their efforts to also respond in a politically correct manner, they fail to recognize how lame this particular condolence is.

This example is not unique to other words we use in our feeble attempt to console others. Often heard are these equally insipid offerings: "This is God's will!" and, my favorite, "This is for the best."

Hopefully, the grieving family members are not atheists or lack jobs that will allow for them to make up for the financial loss they will incur as the deceased passes on to "that great tax collector in the sky".

Even CSI: NY comes up with a better choice, "We're sorry for your loss.", says Detective Stella with the fascinating eyes.

To the south, on CSI:Miami, Horatio says nothing. Horatio, as portrayed by David Caruso. has apparently negotiated a contract forbidding him to accept a weekly script with more than 5 lines- nor to say anything remotely suggesting he has been an "actor" for over 20 years.

Anyway, do we really see our comforting skills improving down the road?

Assuming that members of the next generation still go to funeral homes - or that funeral homes will continue to exist - the reality is that more and more people are choosing to go out as "crispy critters" (including yours truly). So, what will these already etiquette challenged kids come up with if forced to enter a funeral home?

Seriously, try to imagine what our youth will say to parents of a child who has died at the hands of a drive-by shooter - or was texting the entire lyrcs of a Lady Gaga song while driving ?

Chances are it will not be , "They've gone to a better place".

Besides, recent studies have demonstrated teens are getting less involved in church groups (only 30%) and may not have a clue as to the location of that "better place."

However, should some choose the "better place" line, they could be thinking the deceased may end up at the local mall as a vampire, haunting women who are frantically going through racks at Lane Bryant in an attempt to find "full figured" clothing.

Church and kids (forget Tim Tebow) remind us of the two magnetized Scotty dogs - one white and one black - in opposite polarizing modes.

One church administrator recently reminded us, "A decade ago teens were coming to church groups to play, coming for the entertainment, coming for the pizza. They're are not even coming for the pizza anymore. Some ( teens) say, 'We don't see the church as relevant, as meeting our needs, or where we need to be today.'

Surely, that must be considered blasphemy. Youth groups not relevent?

I say, "Let's not overlook the many improvements made by Digiorno before racing to judgment."
The truth is that for generations the pastor, the elders, etc have known, without a good youth leadership pastor -and young worshippers , their church will surely die; and yet have done little, choosing to invest the potential youth minister salary in financial derivatives.

It is hard for me to empathize with an employed pastor - or even one of the many coming out of divinity school to a " stiff arm" market - who says "we blame it on the parents who didn't grow up in a church culture.

" H-E-L-L-O! Perhaps nobody was listening then either.

Almost there. Let's take on those good teaching organizations who have decided to give up the fight and supply condoms to their students. One can only hope that their decision does not include a "show and tell" demonstration as to the proper application of same. We seem to have more and more female teachers who have become fascinated with homework (theirs) for their male students.

Studies by experts examining the efficacy of a change in "health care" teaching cannot agree as to the results. It's a little like surveys they used to conduct to determine if workers would be more productive if surrounded by subliminal music. The studies finally agreed they could not determine if : it improved productivity - encouraged singing and thus less productivity (assuming they were not members of The Seven Dwarves) - or just prove people liked music.

Remember, there were experts who claimed they could predict - beyond the shadow of a doubt - human personality traits via the application of Phrenology - examining the bumps on the head.

"Experts" now are puzzled by the fact that while condom usage had increased (based on the small amounts of condums left in the school nurses basket each day), statistics still failed to show a decrease in baby production by teen-agers.

What they did finally discover was that the male teen, already using condoms, found it much less expensive to use the free condoms than to purchase them at CVS.

I loved one parent's analogy, "This is like giving a kid a keg of beer on Friday night and telling him not to drink."

But, then again, "What do I know?"

Did I miss anybody?

HORROR MOVIES

In old time horror movies of my youth you would watch a huge curtain painted to look like a building and it would shake as if it no longer was an inanimate object.

If you looked closely - and if the editing was done as fast as the picture was made - you might see the hand of the assistant director shaking the curtain so as to give it a human dimension.

Now, if you failed to notice that, you got an audience reaction like, " "My God Marge, did you see that building start to shake?"

Well, today our special effects folks are much more sophisticated, although I did see a stagehand running behind a piece of scenery in a New York production of "Phantom Of The Opera."

Today, we really have animated buildings. I know this because in catching up with my reading this morning I saw: "Barclay's Bank has agreed to pay $298 million over allegations it illegally engaged in financial transactions with banks in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma."

It has given new meaning to those ads that claim, "Our bank is on your side." - and you happen to notice that wherever you move, the financially challenged bank has opened a new branch.

This is sort of like Joe, the Valley Dairy milkman who always delivered the milk to my Mom no matter where we moved. But, that's another story- and it comes with a reasonable explanation.

Nope, it appears banks really do have a life of their own. Like science fiction movies today, they have taken on a personality of "Chuckie." - and they're doing bad things.

When my kids were tots and they ran into the sharp corner of a livingroom table in their bare feet, to stop their crying and create empathy I would slap the top of the coffee table and yell, "Bad table!" "Bad table!". Soon, my kids would start to emulate that behavior and join in with Dad in playing "let's give this table a whack."

I have no idea what my oldest son does today when his car refuses to start and, please, no cards or letters.

One can only imagine that after Monday's news about the possible fine of around 300 mil - the London bank customers swere standing around 1 Churchill Place and whomping on Barclays Building with their " brolly" (umbrella) - screaming ( in a mildy chastizing English way, of course) "Bad Bank - Bad Bank!"

Actually, if rumors can be believed, when you go inside the bank edifice you will be amazed to see that while there are many, many customers - there are no people who actually run the bank and make policy decisions. "Nope, don't need them - don't want them." It's all done by Special Effects & Chuckie.

Well, guess what? The Monday Washington Post states that, "At a 1 p.m. hearing, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (of course) declined to immediately approve the 298 mil deal w/o (working on my texting skills) the presence of Barclay's Group general counsel, Mark Harding, whose signature was on the proposed agreement."

"If he wants to do this, he can get on a boat or plane to plead guilty like anyone else," Sullivan said, "He's not going to plead on the phone."

You see, you just cannot get a Sullivan to buy into something this hokey. Don't ever try to mess with those Special Effects.

We know a lousy Horror movie when we see one.

SLICED BREAD"

This is a blog that asks questions like , "What was the best thing before sliced bread?"

There are many things in the world that I've witnessed, thought about, read about, talked about, even imagined. Nowadays, I cannot deny a feeling that I'm in a world I just don't understand.

Take the following, for example:

"Larceny" is described in one dictionary reference as "a crime involving the wrongful acquisition of the personal property of another." Sounds simple enough, right?

It was an offence (note the spelling) in Common Law, and became an offence in jurisdictions which incorporated the Common Law of England into their own law. Ironically, it was abolished in England, Wales, Northern Ireland & the Republic of Ireland.

It remains an offence in the United States and New South Wales, Australia involving "the taking and carrying away" (asportation) of Personal Property. The distance involved did not matter.

The taking away may be either direct or indirect; that is, accomplished by the criminal himself or an innocent agent. (just for the heck of it, let's think "lobbyist" here). and may require that a judge recuse him or herself (step aside) from adjudication of the matter.

"Bribery", on the other hand, is a "form of corruption", and an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime.

The bottom line is that "political campaign contributions" are considered acts of "bribery" in some countries, while in the United States, they are considered "legal" .

A politician here need not recuse himself regarding any legislation if a timely campaign contribution (money or gift) just happens to be from a company or entity who might profit from that favorable piece of legislation as determined by the committee that this particular politician "heads up."

You may find yourself asking , "How can that be? - Who would legislate something like this?"

You might also have been taking way too much of the cough medicine your doctor prescribed for that cold you are battling. Therefore, let us take advantage of your confusion.

While raising these Monty Python like issues you may find yourself seeking clarity and are asking , "Wait a minute - Bribery is a form of corruption and larceny is a crime involving the wrongful acquisition of the personal property of another? Then what is campaign financing?"

Not to worry. Let us explain with the use of some great reference sources. First of all, "campaign financing" is a little like "duck typing".

Better grab the cough medicine and hit the record button as you read this aloud!

Per Wikipedia, "In computer programming with object-oriented programming languages, "duck typing" is a style of dynamic typing in which an objects 'current set of methods and properties' determine the valid semantics, rather than the inheritance from a particular class or implementation of a specific interface." (It's that red button on your remote.)

The name of the concept referred to as the "'duck test" is that attributed to a guy named Riley, who obviously HAS to be Irish.

You see, in duck typing one is concerned just with those aspects of an object that are "used", rather than with the "type" of the object itself. (Who wouldn't understand that?)

Wikipedia continues, " For example, in a non-duck typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of type "Duck" and calls that object's walk and quack methods."

The reference adds, "If the object does not have the methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. It is this action of any object having the correct walk and quack methods being accepted by the function that evokes the quotation and hence, the name of this form of typing."

Per James Whitcomb Riley, the alleged author of the quotation, it reads: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

"Duck typing would appear to be like campaign contributions then, as, like duck typing , it is aided by habitually not testing for the type of arguments in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, (clear coding) and testing to ensure correct use." (I love Logic! )

Okay, you got it now? Do you finally understand why todays campaign financing rules do not qualify as either "Larceny"' or "Bribery?"

In the words of recently departed actor, Robert Culp, "Why, of course you do!" But, in your weakened condition you might just want to rely on Riley's interpretation as a guide and inspiration.

Really, it's much better than sliced bread.

ANGER MANAGEMENT

In a recent e-mail, friend and fellow blogger, Harry (http://www.harry2335.blogspot.com)/
sent me a cartoon with the same title as this blog. It pictured an older couple who looked to be sitting on a park bench conversing.

The man says to his wife, "Whenever I get mad at you, you never seem to get upset. How do you manage to control your temper?'

His wife replied, "I just go and clean the toilet", at which point the husband asks,"How does that help?'

Her reply was. "I use your toothbrush."

Oh, if only it could be that simple.

Many, if not most, of us could use some anger management. I share Harry's fascination with the Letter's To The Editor column. It was interesting to read this morning's USA Today and to see the reaction to the saga of the flight attendent who may have taken his last "free" air ride.

Then again, it was on a JetBlue flight so it's possible that like for everything else, they charge their flight personnel for air travel. Regardless, the opinions of readers about the flight attendant situation today, as well as those last Friday, seemed to differ greatly.

Some denounced the attendants actions as a lack of self-restraint. Others used the forum to make reference to unruly passengers they have encountered and offered sympathy. But, the one whose opinion rang a bell with me was the writer who quoted "a crusty old boss" who advised him about emotions in business: "If it feels good - don't do it."

Those might be wise words for all of us. After falling on my sword a few times, I learned to stow an angry memo in my top drawer for a day or so before deciding it's fate. I grew older - not wiser - and am long gone from the "boss world." I regret not keeping the tradition alive in both my written and verbal communications.

As noted philosopher Eminen once rapped, "Words are weapons" -(and angry words are the AK-47's of the world).

In a "downloadable" sermon by James Merritt, written for any cleric who may have "writers block" or just can't figure out how to reconfigure an older message, he describes "World's Most Dangerous Weapon", thusly:

"Concealed as a sniper, quick as a bullet and deadly as a gun - it is the three inch animal who lives in a pool of saliva behind an ivory cage of teeth - (and is known as): the tongue."

With a writing style like that I can well imagine a future career for Merritt as a fiction writer specializing in the current fascination with vampires. However, he is right-on.

My wife Phyl often relates to me the speech a woman gave in a therapy group that included abuse victims. She said, "I have been beaten, raped, attacked etc., but the scars on my body healed much faster than those in my heart."

Much has been written and spoken about the decision to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. The President has been in the news recently due to what some Republicans see as a flop on his position regarding this development; after his revised comment this past weekend.

While awaiting the fate of the towels in the dryer I was reading from another Presidential speech:

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace - - -Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country - - - and, they need to be treated with respect. - - those who feel they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America."

I also read this reaction to the mosque today by a former and apparently aspiring politician:

"Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy. - - - For radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization."

The Good Rev. Merritt offers this in support of his sermon topic:"He who guards his lips guards his soul, but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin" (Proverbs 13.3).

Oh, the would be politician above? That was Former Republican House speaker, Newt Gingrich.

And, did I fail to mention that the President making the speech I quoted was not Barack Obama, but George W. Bush; 6 days after the terrorist attack of 9/11?

It's been a while since I've quoted religious leaders from the Bible as opposed to the many blogs I've written immortalizing "allegedly" God fearing politicians in our midst. Despite that I'll end this blog with the following:

"If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a
tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion
is worthless." (James 1:26)

Change your toothbrush frequently.

THE EARLY RETURNS

Writing the last blog about the healing powers of Religion was not easy for me. I yanked the first published post hoping nobody had seen it. It took four more revisions to finish it.

One reader beat me to the punch and had read the post before I pulled it. He encouraged me to resubmit the post while acknowledging the difficulty of the subject.

He did so by translating Danish philosopher, theologian, and psychologist Soren Kierkegaard (a blessing in itself) and supported his position by including a a photo by Martin Stranka, a renowned photographer whose photographs are said to "exist in that space between dreams and waking, those split seconds when a person has a foot in both worlds."

The reader apparently spent his time in college actually studying while I struggled with determining why there is an expiration date on sour cream.

His translation - that humans can feel something deeply but cannot translate those feelings into words - was right on the mark for me.

Religion is a tough subject for many including those who teach it, as confirmed by a letter to the editor of USA Today from a Rabbi from Tennessee . He suggested the reverend, Oliver Thomas , still hadn't answered his question, "Why Religion?", the subject of my revised blog.

Now, in all fairness, neither Thomas nor the Rabbi had much space within which they could expound on their differing philosophies. The Rabbi did appear to be a little more critical than Thomas who had suggested that the clergy: "Keep your eye on the ball. It's not so much about this doctrine or that, Mass or The Lord's Supper or even Ramadan or Yom Kippur."

The Rabbi seemed more offended by this recommendation than had Chevy Chase advised him to "be the ball." Not sure the good cleric would buy that philosophy regarding the "powers of the universe" either. And, that's okay. It brought a response. He got involved.

While one could easily have come away from this Tennessean's Letter to the Editor with the feeling that he had confused Oliver Thomas with Oliver Hardy, at some point he might have confused him with Thomas Hardy too.

The Rabbi was upset. This last sentence should not be confused with the Harry Kemelman mystery, "The Rabbi Slept In." - while not necessarily a bad idea. He appeared to be upset with Thomas's conclusion : "Religion makes it easier to be decent because religion pushes us to be better human beings."

In his rebuttal the Rabbi attempts to refute this by dwelling on the mistakes of religious leaders who obviously did not become a better person. Apparently he missed Rabinnical school when the topic of the day was faulty syllogisms.

There is no reason to suggest that the synagogue over which the Tennessean Rabbi pontificates is being robbed of spiritual guidance. He may be an excellent teacher - but, that is not the focus of the column Thomas wrote. He was suggesting that there may be a need for leaders/teachers in many of our houses of worship to rearrange their priorities and honor the posit of man's search for meaning.

It is this position, which both Thomas and I embrace, that suggests the result could be a drastic improvement in our ethical values and less reliance on the meaningless defense mechanism, "Well, everybody else is doing it!"

The Rabbi not only didn't appear to "be the ball", he seemed to have missed it completely.

There were only two letters and the second was from a man from Texas, who claimed to be an atheist and who believed that "religious myths are an invention of those seeking power and wealth."

He refutes Thomas's theory by reference to his "wife's" cat, "It doesn't have any religion and never gives it a thought. The cat knows why she's here; she eats, sleeps, chases little things that jump and seems very content."

One can see why he may be reluctant to refer to the animal as "our cat", while still admiring his communication skills with animals - if not people.

Not sure which of the two respondees appeared to be the more threatened.

Me? I'm going to go talk to our Chihuahua. "Keep them cards and letters coming in. "

"PRAISE THE LORD - AND PASS THE AMMUNITION"

In the Monday' s USA Today, I read "The Forum" and a column by Oliver Thomas, the author of "10 Things Your Minister Wants To Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs The Job). It was entitled"Q: Why religion?"

My first reaction is, "Here we go. More from the fundamentalists. I was wrong.

It probably wouldn't have even found itself buried away in the "self-help" section at Borders..

For some time now, I've been concerned about a possible correlation between an increasing distaste for organized religion and an even greater decline and fall of our Ethics.

As I approach the end of my tenure on earth, the progression that bothers me more is the latter as opposed to the former.

One possibility for the order of concern is that the time spent with organized religion has convinced me that my belief in God may be a gateway toward a secure future. At some point in my life "organized religion" was a life-saver. I embraced it for the very same reason Thomas was citing: Religion makes us want to live.

Another reason for the result of my priortizing is the many workshops I gave on the subject of business ethics. In addition I was priviledged to co-edit/write a national column on the subject.

The materials used in editing/writing were the many thoughful replies received to an ethical question the column posed the previous month.

Quite a few of the responses were more reactionary than thoughtful. In hindsight, reciting the letters in their entirety without editing might have provided the audience with a more tasteful dessert with whatever meal they had just consumed before I got up to speak

Let's face it. The subject of Ethics wasn't any more popular back then than it is now. In some cases it was like talking to people who wished to regain their youth before they discovered that meant they would have to retake Algebra..

Back to the column and my reaction. No, I'm not some Evangelist, but, religion is a highly personal subject for me. I'm a rather infrequent churchgoer now. Like others, I have come up with more reasons for not attending church than Mark Twain did in arguing why we really don't want to go to heaven.

During the 80's my church involvement became quite prolific. It came at a time when there was a strong need for that "surrogate family" to which Oliver Thomas refers as a byproduct. It was a time for me to watch and join a movement of congregation members who not only praised the Lord - but "passed the ammunition". It was more than a Kiwanis meeting.

The focus seemed to be that of "doing the right thing", something else I'm reluctant to discuss in depth as I've fallen way short at times. However, talking about the healing that comes from pursuing a sense of self/ via the workings of a church is something aI would embrace every day.. Like sky-diving- it's not for everyone.

Thomas writes about successful survivors of concentration camps: "It was those who found meaning in their lives - - shared their meager rations with others and went about encouraging their fellow prisoners."

He did not call it religion nor did he ever once use the term "Kum-baya".

One conclusion was that while people need to find a meaning in life - that meaning wasn't necessarily religious. He stated the "meaning" referred to was something not amenable to the scientific method of analyzation. He suggested it came from addressing three questions:

Why am I here?
What does it all mean?
How should we then live?'

Each time I watch a Sunday political show or hear/read political commentary I sub-consciously ask myself one or all of those questions

Answering just one is a lifetime accomplishment. One assumes if you can master all three you're probably ready for "The Rapture".

Thomas was not selling Religion. He wrote of indecent souls as well as indecent congregations.

To me, he seemed to be saying that whether we were observing the Moral Majority, the white collar criminals on Wall Street or the lobbyists on K-street, it was within ourselves as to how we wished to live OUR life and establish OUR legacy.

As a graduate student finishing my Practicum I worked as a church counselor. Those who have fears that they couldn't attend church because they did not feel worthy enough did not understand the battles church members were facing that were not unlike their own.

The difference may have been that those churched attendees recognized how churches often perform the function of a surrogate family. They decided to attend the "tryouts" while determining if going to church was the right fit.

Per Thomas: "Religion makes it easier to be decent - to maintain the positive core values, mutual accountability, and constant striving for self-improvement to become a better person."

He writes:"The community church approach often provides strength in a time of need and offers a lifepath for those who want to leave this place in better shape than when they found it."

He is also paraphrasing something I first learned and then spoke of often in my counseling: "You can't help others very much until you learn to help yourself. It's not unlike the instruction the flight attendant gives parents as to the priority of installing oxygen masks."

How helpful this concept might have been for family members attempting to provide homecare of their Alzheimer relatives.

Thomas mildly rebukes the clergy for failing to keep their eye on the ball while evangelizing about "The Last Supper", "Ramadam" or "Yom Kippur". He recommends a focus on purpose, meaning, and helping folks who wake up and say, "Do I really want to get up this morning?"

"People need a reason to live. Religion often helps find that answer". It was fascinating to me that in stating this he quoted Nietzsche: "If one can answer the 'why' of life, he can cope with almost any 'how".

Is Religion the answer to us finding ourself and practicing good ethics? I don't know, but, it is remembered how when watching people practice their faith as opposed to just preaching it, the unspoken message started to creep into my life - and later my blogs.

If and when YOU are ready - the "ammunition" is already there - and I'm surely not talking about the blogs.

JUST JOKING AROUND

Lindsay Lohan was released from jail after spending 13 days of her 90 day jail sentence.

Apparently , the tougher punishment was meted out because of the adverse publicity over her admitting to using drugs the first time and then serving 87 minutes jail time.

Supposedly the cruel and inhuman punishment of the 13 days in the pokey was followed by the judge's order that she go straight to a 90 day rehabilitation facility. The early release was due to her "good behavior"and crowded prison conditions.

Had a friend once who was doing drugs and served a 3 year sentence where his mother visited him each weekend and occasionally he got to see his new baby.

Lindsay, better get your act together. They're obviously cracking down. Just a word of caution: "If you don't pay your exorcist - you get repossessed."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Was reading about the Russian Spy Ring and was reminded of the year 1985 being designated as "The Year Of The Spy"

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recently was advised by a friend of the importance of enjoying life and taking a few chances. One example of the significance of failing to do so was her question: "Did they ever determine the number of passengers on The Titanic who skipped dessert at dinner?"

Another E-mail just received was a "repeat - worth repeating":

The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

The Italians drink a lot of wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

The Germans drink a lot of beer, eat a lot of sausages & fats - and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans.

Conclusion: Eat and drink what you want. Speaking English is apparently what kills you!

Maybe those illegal immigrants in our country are on to something.

Remember: practice safe eating- always use condiments.
----------------------
Another E-mail sent to me informs that there is an oriental doctor out there who preaches this philosophy on the subject of good physical health:

"Your heart only good for so many beats, and that's it. Don't waste on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up heart not make you live longer, it like saying you extend life of car by driving faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap."

When asked if swimming was good for your figure he replied, "If swimming good for your figure - explain whale to me!"

Just how much money do we owe China?

[please don't go getting all politically correct on me if you still remember "a Paddy wagon"}
--------------------------------------------
A distraught senior citizen phoned her doctor's office, "Is it true, she wanted to know, "that the medication you prescribed has to be taken for the rest of my life?"

"Yes, I'm afraid so", responded the doctor.

There was a moment of silence before the senior lady replied, "I'm wondering then, just how serious is my condition, because this prescription is marked 'no refills"?

THE OLDER WE GET, THE FEWER THINGS SEEM WORTH WAITING IN LINE FOR.
--------------------------------------------------

Is it true that when two egotists meet it's an I for an I?

Happy Monday! Enjoy!