Articles

A Smooth Red Stone

Last month we celebrated Mother’s Day and this one enveloped Father’s Day. In years past these holidays engendered talk of lunches, barbeques, hot dogs and hamburgers. But, in recent years these days have, to me, been taking on new meaning. If we are blessed, a few things in life seem to grow stronger with the passage of time. Love may be one of those things. A love that is true, that is. Like the one most parents hold deep in their hearts for each of their children, as well as that of their children for them.

At a recent event it was my good fortune to encounter a man I hadn’t seen or spoken with for over thirty years. He brought this point home in a way few have been able to achieve.

As such conversations go, we began to reminisce and play catch up to bridge the gap of the intervening decades. Long ago I had attended high school with his children and remembered all of them fairly well, but of course, some better than others. We went through where they were now and what each was now doing. But, as we went along I sensed we were coming to a place of unavoidable discomfort. It was the uneasy pause that comes from contemplating whether or not to avoid the painfully obvious. It was when I recalled his second son my friend seemed to detect my awkwardness and to relax the moment he generously extracted from his pants pocket what to me at first appeared to be a smooth red stone.

I remembered his son as not only a cross country athlete, but a quiet young man with somewhat unfashionable horn-rimmed glasses. More importantly, however, I remember him as a gentle spirit with a peace settled upon him uncommon to most others around him who were busy participating in the uproar of the late sixties-early seventies Viet Nam War era. Even compared to his siblings, he always seemed to be the one thinking about other things … perhaps things that should have mattered to the rest of us more. Maybe that’s why he so liked to run … it gave him time to do just that.

What I didn’t know until yesterday, however, was that one of the things he did in his life was create a plastic-like cube in a shop class he took. When he had finished it and brought it home way back then it was likely a non-event in their house. With four children, the inflow of art and craft projects into the house was probably an all too common event. Even so, I imagine he was proud of it. At the very least it’s red color was attractive to the eye. And so, he kept it.

Around two years later a friend from back home approached me in my university dorm to ask me if I had heard that this quiet gentle young man had died. Some form of cancer had taken him. I remember being stunned and crying that night. I had considered him a friend, and beyond the sense of loss, I was at a loss to understand why the God my friend so deeply believed in would allow such a thing to happen. It is only now, at the other end of my life, that I am receiving a glimmer of the answer to that question.

In part, it has to do with the important lessons of life we are to learn that, due to our hard headedness, are most permanently imprinted upon our minds best through adversity. I don’t know what lessons the members of his family learned from that trial, but I’ll bet they do.

The other part, however, is equally, if not perhaps the more, important. It has to do with our understanding of the purpose of our lives in light of their brevity, no matter how long we may live. Many of us spend our lives chasing the wind in search of what may be gained here while all the time putting out of mind the fact that life is really nothing more than a vapor, here today and gone tomorrow. And, when it is over, is it not more important that we be able to leave a reminder, some token, of our love to all those who we leave behind?

I doubt if my friend knew that is what he had done when he made that small red cube in shop class … but it was. It has been carried in the pocket of his father every day for nearly 35 years … its edges now smoothed by the caresses of a father who loved his son very much … a love that has remained as strong as the day they parted ways … a love that is symbolized by a cube that now has been given the appearance of a beautiful red stone. For the rest of us, perhaps we should consider more carefully what it is that we are about doing. The question that remains is whether we in our life are working to produce anything nearly as precious that those we love will want to carry it in their hearts and minds … and maybe even their pockets … for what remains of their lives? If not, we would do well to get about it, remembering that no matter how long we live, our time here is really nothing more than a vapor soon to be gone, and producing something like a smooth red stone may take all the time that remains.

One day my friend will playfully skip that red stone along a foamy shore while walking hand-in-hand with the son who made it – no more tears -- a fulfillment of the PROMISE established in the HOPE. Then they will both understand clearly and rejoice forever.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense/entertainment law in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, www.cliffnicholslaw.com or www.thedailystand.com

Why a Son Needs a Dad: 100 Reasons
ASIN: 1581823312

Father and Son
ASIN: B0002V7OCE

Our Choice of Judges Matters

Often, wrong choices we make do matter … and sometimes very much.

Not all too many years ago I had scheduled a five defendant preliminary hearing on an unusually hot summer afternoon. My client was the wife of an ex-felon she had met at her church. Believing he had been reformed, she chose to marry him… she was wrong ... and on this particular afternoon she was to about to find out just how wrong her choice had been.

She had known nothing of her husband’s crimes until the day she was interrupted doing dishes by a raid on her home. Nevertheless, because the district attorney assumed she must have known something, he chose to charge her as an accessory … another wrong choice … but, like my client, it would take the afternoon hearing for him to realize it.

Rocket science was not required to soon realize that this particular hearing was going to be … shall we say … different. The scene upon entering the court was surreal … the room packed beyond capacity. In addition to the criminal court’s normal audience, every attorney, clerk, court reporter, secretary and bailiff from throughout the building who could break free were filling seats, standing in aisles or leaning shoulder-to-shoulder against the walls of the courtroom. That morning the district attorney had spread word throughout the courthouse that he intended to play for the amusement of all a pornographic video seized in the course of the arrests starring one of the defendants … an artistic effort he laughingly assured the many he hoped to impress they would not want to miss. So, regretfully they chose to flock in … but, as with my client and the district attorney, they also had chosen wrongly … yet again, however, the hearing would be required to bear that out.

At the outset, defense counsel offered the judge a number of motions, stipulations, waivers and objections to not only urge the judge to disband the circus that had formed, but also to forestall playing the video that had caused it. Every opportunity had been afforded him to do the right thing. However, apparently enjoying more his 15 minutes of fame, the judge chose instead to promote the party … again wrong ... however, yet again, only the hearing would reveal the magnitude of his error.

As the video began my client reflexively drew in a deep breath. Although forewarned, she could never have been completely prepared emotionally for the humiliation she was about to experience. Surrounded by strangers, she had no option other than to watch in the most extremely graphic detail her husband enjoying the company of a prostitute in every imaginable way.

As the video proceeded, the lewd jokes and laughter one could have predicted began to periodically erupt. Few, if any, seemed aware of the implosion of a tender human soul occurring in their midst. That may have been because my client’s embarrassment and shock was so crushingly absolute that her almost primal sobs had been rendered silent … evidenced only by her tears, a heaving chest and guttural gushes of air exuding from her now down-turned face.

Every fiber of my being wanting to relieve her pain, I suggested we pray. Her tear-streaked face nodded assent, but her continued silence required me to fill the void. Lacking any spiritual depth worthy of mention at that time of my life, I reached back for things I recalled from my youth … long story short, that afternoon God received a whispered request that this woman be given a peace and comfort beyond all human understanding … a peace that would allow her to not only endure but survive … and a comfort based on her faith that she would ultimately realize his purpose for this ordeal.

When we finished and opened our eyes the jokes and laughter had stopped and the court was virtually empty … all but a few of the spectators had silently departed. Even the district attorney now seemed embarrassed and soon consented to stopping the video … leaving now only the judge to stand in the way of mercy. Apparently finding its content engaging, however, he refused. Oblivious to the pain it had already caused, he ordered it to continue on … and on … and on …until its very end.

Who we choose to be our judges matters. Titanic political battles are now being fought over issues like the separation of church and state, euthanasia, abortion, evolution, gay rights and others … issues of morality that hang in the balance. All are part of today’s larger, and increasingly heated, cultural war … a war being fought to determine our country’s moral direction … a war that must eventually result in the rights of some prevailing over the conflicting rights of others … and a war in which the victor will most likely be determined by the judges we choose.

After Nuremburg the Allies assigned a group of legal scholars the task of reviewing the laws of Germany. Their mission: to identify and either eliminate or rewrite those laws they determined were written to favor policies of the Nazi regime. Interestingly, however, comparatively few could be found. Rather, most were found to bear the imprimatur of both neutrality and legitimacy. From this, the scholars concluded that many of the horrendous consequences the world had witnessed may have been largely the product of biased interpretations and applications of those laws rendered by the judges who that country had chosen to seat.

Could there be a lesson in that for us today? If we assume, as we must, that the setting of our country’s moral compass can likewise be so determined, when called upon to choose who our judges shall be, would it not be critical for us to remember … wrong choices we may make can matter … and sometimes very much?

GOVERNMENT BY JUDICIARY
ASIN: 0865971447

Courts, Judges, and Politics
ASIN: 0070441677

How Can You Do That?

Frequently, people indelicately pose the question: “How can you defend criminals?” Reflexively, I always respond initially by saying, “Hmmmmmm.”

Setting aside the fact that their question wrongfully presumes the guilt of anyone who may only be charged with a crime, what I think they are really asking is: “How can you defend people I have prejudged in my mind’s eye to be scum?” My answer, of course, depends on the time allotted.

Never is there enough time to address, much less correct, the personal shortcomings of the people who would ask such a question, so I have given up trying. Beyond that, however, if time is short, the short answer is, “I don’t. I only defend those accused of crimes.” I have found that easier than saying, “I defend them because they are frequently people not unlike you and me, and as such, it seems only fair to me that they be afforded the same rights and privileges under the law that I would expect to be afforded were I to be threatened with imprisonment. You know … those little rights guaranteed by otherwise obsolete things like the Constitution that were intended to make us a relatively civilized and free country compared to some places like, say, China or North Korea.”

A complete answer, however, is even far more complex than that, and requires context for a full understanding. So, should your time permit, consider the following three scenarios.

Scenario 1: Shaking, my client has just received news that in California is bad indeed. The District Attorney assigned to his case is young and won’t budge. To settle he insists that my client plea to two felonies priorable under California’s three strikes law. If he accepts the D.A.’s offer, he will live the rest of his life with two out of the three strikes hanging over his head. One more offense at any time in his future could send him to prison for from 25 years to life. It seems neither just nor fair to either him or me. To say the least, it is a horrifying prospect for a boy only fourteen years old. After all, he had been only twelve when he had made the mistake of playing doctor with his ten year old cousin. Yet, the D.A. thinks those thoughts irrelevant. So, rather than settling, we set for the matter for trial. In the end, both fairness and justice prevail.

Scenario 2: My client is a young man who is well aware of the fact that he committed a crime -- but to me that’s not what seems to be bothering him most. For starters, his scabbed forearms are oozing blood. His continuous scratching has removed much of the skin. As we talk, his eventual self-destruction seems imminent. Yes … he had desecrated a graveyard … but only after years of satanic worship under the wing of his mother … a long standing member of a witch coven. Now, he appears to be seeking a way out. Perhaps by the end of his case, however, he can be shown a path that will enable many of his wounds to heal … if he is able to stay the course.

Scenario 3: Here we are given a high school student whose ambitions of becoming a police officer are threatened because he brought a dead baby chicken to his high school speech class. He bought it from a pet store that sold them primarily to feed to peoples’ pet snakes. Per instructions given by the store owner, he then killed it (certainly more humanely than would another customer’s pet boa constrictor) and took it to class. When it was his turn to speak, he laid it down on the table at the head of the class, and except for his classmates’ predictably sad moans, nothing of significance happened until he spoke: “If the sight of this dead chicken bothers you, you might want to ask yourself how you can possibly be in favor of abortion?” Only then did the room explode with emotion. To me, it was evidence of his speech’s effectiveness entitling him to receive an A+. The teacher, however, disagreed. Were there any in the room who had missed my client’s point, she ironically, yet I’m sure unintentionally, drove that point home by insisting that he be charged immediately with felony animal abuse -- apparently oblivious to the indisputable fact that few, if any, chickens are ever allowed to avoid some kind of untimely death. So, we wonder: if killing a chicken is a bad thing, why hasn’t Colonel Sanders been charged as a serial killer? On the other hand, if it’s O.K. to kill a chicken to either feed a reptile or make a salad, would it not be fair to conclude that my client is being prosecuted not because he killed a chicken, but rather because of the politically incorrect content of his speech. Unfortunately, however, the D.A. does not seem to care about no steenkin’ constitutional right to free speech up until it’s his turn to exercise it. He declares to the media that he intends to prosecute my evil client to the hilt. As a result, we anticipate that a dismissal of the charges will be possible only at the end of a very long and painful process.

The question I would now put to you is, which of these clients did not need an attorney?

These cases were chosen because they reflect varying degrees of culpability that, in turn, highlight what they have in common -- each is about a person in need of help. As a colleague of mine who is a friend puts it, “If they are guilty they need help and if they are not guilty they need help, and in either case I want to be available.” Were it otherwise, perhaps we should also consider denying medical treatment to those shot in the commission of a crime until after their trial or denying the assistance of accountants to people compelled to undergo audits?

The bottom line is at some point in each of our lives we all need help … we all have, or will, fall short of some standard at some time and need an advocate. Are there any who can claim their conduct is without blemish? If so, that person may well be the first since the time of Christ qualified to cast the first stone. In the meantime, however, the rest of us may do well to remember that even the Christ was described by John as an advocate who appears even now before His Father to argue on behalf of all those who have sinned.

For the moment, suspend your disbelief and assume that is true. Are there any who would not say that’s a good thing? Moreover, doesn’t this depiction of Christ sound interestingly similar to that of a criminal defense attorney? If all of this were true, don’t you think that should make some who dislike criminal defense attorneys at least want to go, “Hmmmmm”?

Emotional Trials: Moral Dilemmas of Women Criminal Defense Attorneys (The Northeastern Series on Gen
ASIN: 155553614X

Criminal Lawyer is redundant Large Bumper Sticker
ASIN: B0002U5ZZI

"Walking Through The Valley Of Death's Shadow"

Saturday mornings I’m walking my “usual” in Santa Monica from here to there and back. At my age, jogging is no longer the option it was when I would traverse these same streets as a youth. But I have found walking to be good too. It has unique virtues.

For starters, it allows me to appreciate the Camelot-like beauty. The green lushness of one’s surroundings along the way is highlighted … in the mind of the walker, perhaps more so than that of the jogger or biker? At my age it makes me feel better to think so. Or, could it be that earlier in life the beauty was just taken for granted? Most likely it’s a little of both.

Walking also permits the time to give greater thought to things the busyness of our lives has a way of shoving into that rarely visited closet called … “later”. And so it was this morning. My mind wandered to a part of Los Angeles I had been to only three nights before; a church far south of downtown, off Slauson, that I have visited from time-to-time since first being invited by a Deacon several months ago.

As I approached that night I was again confronted with how unlike this neighborhood was to Santa Monica. Slauson is a grassless corridor of corrugated metal, chain link fences, concrete and asphalt. As evening approaches small groups of shadowed figures populate the darkened doorways and driveways. The feeling that grows with each block in that area of town is one of no good going on. But I knew I was wrong.

The service started with the usual Sister reading scripture, followed by another Sister encouraging those in attendance to sing and pray; giving thanks to God for all the many blessings He had given to each and every one in the sanctuary. Finally a Brother read the verses to be taught to the children for Sunday school, before it was time for the Pastor to step up to the pulpit to moderate the evening’s Bible study in his usual cheerful way, as I had seen him do on a number of occasions before.

But, this night was different. Heads turned. Some to see the clock and others just to look around. The Pastor wasn’t yet there. Where was he? His wife who had taken a seat quietly toward the back said he had something to take care of. He would be along in a minute. And so he was, but again, something was different. He seemed out of breath. Because he was late and had hurried to get there? I thought so, but was wrong. More likely, it was from a rush of adrenaline.

Like me not long before, his wife and he had been driving down Slauson to get to the church. But, nearby them a car exploded. It burst into flames he said -- literally becoming airborne, flipping in midair and landing upside down on another car near them. Surely the people inside the car were dead or grievously injured. He now asked his friends in the room to join him in prayer for them. We did.

In that neighborhood wisdom mandates the prudent to depart scenes of violence quickly. It is presumed more violence could soon follow. Even so, the Pastor told us, he had tried to call 911 as they proceeded to church. When he finally connected with the emergency dispatcher, however, he was put on hold, and remained there until they reached the church. While holding, however, they spotted a police officer along the way. They tried to wave him down, but the officer didn’t stop. Did he not see them or was it because they were black? Who knows? The pastor was not shocked but you could feel his frustration.

Only after they had reached the church did the dispatcher return to take his report. Probably too late. He knew that. Nevertheless, he had tried. He knew that as well. However, that did not quell the emotion in his voice nor the tears forming in his eyes. Again, he had been forced to confront the harsh realities of the neighborhood in which his flock resided. Yet, there was more.

Before the Bible study began, a Brother requested the podium to make a public service announcement. He had received an e-mail that reported that in the week before members of a black gang had allegedly stolen around 450 kilograms of narcotics from a Hispanic gang. The e-mail reported that in retaliation the Mexican Mafia had ordered the members of its numerous gangs around Los Angeles to randomly kill 450 black men.

Was it true, or just a hoax? Who knew? It really didn’t matter to the men and their wives in the room that night. All they knew was that it was possible -- each of them now a potential target because of something they had nothing to do with. The only sound that remained in the room was that made by their children playing among the pews.

I looked at the painting on the wall above the church’s baptismal. Jesus was baptizing a man. Both were black. Something hit me. I wished that I too was, at that moment, in that room. In part, I very much wanted to appreciate fully the pain and suffering that some of these men and women had endured in the course of their lives, and knew that I could never. But, more than that, I wanted to understand how even under such circumstances they remained the people so full of joy and hope I had come to know them to be. Yet, I was soon reminded of the obvious answer as the Pastor retook the pulpit.

He proclaimed the Lord their Protector. He then proceeded to lead his flock to take up what he said was the more important business for which they had assembled. All present then focused upon finishing the evening praising and glorifying their Lord with an excited and devoted study of the Book of Revelations – the end of days. The atmosphere of joy, peace and comfort in the room soon return.

My mind then returns to the present. I look up. The sun’s warm glow is at my back and I know it may soon be time to go home. For some reason, though, I am now not only more grateful for what I have taken for granted, but more compassionate than when I had begun my walk on this bright and beautiful Saturday morning in Santa Monica.

2005 In Review

Was this last year interesting or what? Among other things, we witnessed … Clinton and Bush, Sr. joining together to promote Tsunamis relief … Hillary denying in speech after speech that she wants to be President … hurricanes and earthquakes in diverse places … wars and rumors of wars around the globe … and as Christmas draws near, the only thing liberals seem to be a’twitter over is a movie about gay cowboys that, after all is said and done, may only allow next year’s slump in boot sales to be predictable. At minimum, we certainly live in “interesting times” ... but, wait a minute ... isn’t that a Chinese curse? Maybe you should be the judge.

In the past year we saw many cheer when the evil Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to die for the cold-blooded murders of his wife and unborn child. When our President nominated people to the Supreme Court who might wish to protect other similarly situated helpless children, however, we were then treated to watching many of the same people angrily proclaiming the President to be an evil fundamentalist. Meanwhile, others cheered when Michael Jackson was exonerated of molesting children, while the only negative emotion I can recall resonating in the aftermath of that event was his supporters’ dismay when the Michael refused their request to join him at Neverland to celebrate by “partying down”. Then, soon thereafter, the question was raised by a decision from the 9th Circuit whether some of the activities Michael had been accused of should have even been considered wrong in the first place. After all the hubbub over Michael, that court found that parents have no Constitutional right to determine exclusively how their children are to be reared, and so also found that if the government wants to expose elementary school children to sexually explicit materials it is free to do so. Were you in Michael’s shoes, wouldn’t that cause you go Hmmmm … shouldn’t what’s good for the goose also be for the gander? Confused? Me too, but then, who am I?

Speaking of being confused, consider this recent event: how can a President who has sworn to uphold our Constitution unilaterally authorize his government to invade the privacy of his subjects without first obtaining a warrant? I know he unilaterally determined his administration’s warrantless wiretaps were constitutional, but that was only because he told us his people had unilaterally instituted some vague and unexplained “safeguards” to prevent their own abuse of the powers he had unilaterally granted them. Far be it from me to speak for our founding fathers, but isn’t that kind of government-think that the 4th amendment was written to prevent by requiring government agents to convince a judge to issue a warrant before they are permitted to invade our privacy? Silly me. I must confess, at first blush the President’s warrantless wiretaps seemed to me to be just as outrageous as if the Supreme Court were to rule some day that the Constitution allows politicians to use eminent domain to take my property away so they can give it to their buddies. Oh … you say that also happened this year? Well, Okay … I guess that must be what living in a democracy is all about.

At least last year also gave us the opportunity to export some of that democracy abroad. Of course, a few around the world may have questioned whether that’s a good thing, as they listened to us debate whether or not we will legalize torturing some foreign citizens as a means to facilitate their compatriots’ transition to our better way of life. Hey … but what are a few fingernails when compared to the possibility of exporting democratic principals like “secular tolerance” to cultures less advanced than ours. Consider the example set by France in the last year. No, I’m not talking about surrendering. They banned all religious symbols in order to encourage their citizens from different ethnic backgrounds to peacefully coexist in a spirit of tolerance. Oh yeah, I forgot … they also had ethnic riots that approached becoming a revolution this year. Well, then let’s just hope that we American’s can do better. If next year we open our borders to illegal immigrants even more than they were this past year, and at the same time accelerate our on-going efforts to remove all things having to do with God from our midst like the French tried to do, we might just be able to outdo the French … that is, if we aren’t blown up first by terrorists we have allowed to cross our non-existent borders. Also, hopefully, we can demonstrate to the world the tolerance inherent to our democratic way of life before our nation is called upon to “tolerate” an attack on Iran to eradicate the rather intolerant nuclear threat they will soon pose to Israel.

Lastly on the international scene, this year also gave us the execution of Tookie. Who could have predicted that event would result in Schwarzenegger’s name being removed from a stadium in Austria? Both here and abroad, people argued his execution was a travesty. Tookie had become a role model, they said … he should be allowed to continue living in order to steer our youth away from joining murderous gangs … like, for example, the one he had co-founded: the Crips. Again, however, maybe I’m confused, but to me the very best lesson Tookie seemed to be in a unique position to give our young people was by way of affording them a practical demonstration of the fact that if people do things like he did (i.e. murder people) they are going to be put to death. And, I thought he accomplished delivering that worthy message very well. Oh, you don’t? Well, there I go again, being simple minded. So, until next year perhaps now would be a good time for me to give it a rest, except to say Merry Christmas and may your New Year at least be as “interesting” for you as was the last one for me.

A Case for Life – Terri Schiavo

What is the real question our culture is answering when it comes to Terri Schiavo, and whether or not she should be kept alive? There is no question that she once was a vibrant person. There is no question that her quality of life as most would define it has been severely minimized. There is no question that many among us may think we would choose to not live under such circumstances. There is no question there are many among us that might at first blush equate the value of such a life to that approaching zero. Yet, there is also no question that we are NOT Terri. Nor are we as a nation Terri’s family. So, does the question really become how would Terri answer the question as to whether she should be kept alive? But, since she cannot answer, the burden has been undertaken by our society to speculate. However, caution is advised. How we respond will define us as a society. There is no question that she is a living human being. There is no question that some people’s lives will be enhanced by her continued existence in this world. There is no question that there exist people who love her. There is no question that, were she enabled to answer, Terri would tell us that she loves them. Does anybody really question that love? Do we really question as a society that to love and be loved in the course of one’s life is the ultimate purpose of any life? And, where it exists, should it not be allowed to continue? So what is it about the love flowing to and from Terri in her present condition that is somehow less valuable than the love experienced by others that would justify its being discarded? What is it in her case that outweighs the value we attribute to a persons life due to the existence of love? Is it outweighed by some people’s concerns over money? Concerns over convenience? Concerns that for a life to be worth continuing it must have some tangible utilitarian purpose for society? If it is money, why not do away with the idle rich and distribute their wealth amongst us. If it is convenience why not push the severely handicapped over the edge and be done with it? If it is the belief that a life must contribute some utilitarian purpose, why not just round up and shoot the homeless? Unthinkable? Could this be because somewhere hidden amongst our core beliefs is the notion that civilization by definition must place an inherent value on life that transcends money, convenience and utilitarian contributions or it will cease to be civilized? Was this not the ultimate finding consequent to the Nuremberg trials: that life must be given a value held sacred transcending these worldly notions or we may all be found in peril’s way? For where it is not, any claim of that people to possessing a character and integrity superior to that of the Nazi regime shall cease to exist. And surely where that has occured we have seen the horrors produced. One need only reflect upon occurrences in Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia to keep the list conveniently brief. In those instances, the inherent value of a person based upon he or she being either the giver or recipient of love was reduced to an absolute irrelevance. As a result, many millions in those societies were relegated to irrelevance on the basis of money, convenience or the absence of utilitarian purpose. Needless to say, our collective interests are best served if this outcome can be avoided in the country in which we live. However, this can only be done where it is also collectively determined by a society that has disregarded the notion that God has played a role in the creation of the lives in question. For where it is acknowledged and appreciated that God exists, it is also found undeniable that He has declared Himself to be the source of the greatest gift bestowed upon mankind: love. Consequently, for a nation to discard the existence of love as a criterion by which to evaluate and hold sacred the worth of any and all human life mandates that it discard also: (i) an acknowledgement of God; (ii) His role in the creation of human life; and (iii) the importance that God places on love. For if there exists a God love must be found to be mankind’s greatest purpose and wherever it may be found to exist it must be recognized as the sole justification in the mind of God that need be found for their continued existence. So, in answering the question of whether or not the life of Terri Shiavo has a value to our society worth sustaining, we may now better appreciate the question really being asked and why caution is advised before answering. Are we not really responding as a nation to the question of whether our society acknowledges, much less values, a belief in God? Sadly, when all is said and done, our answer to this question in reference to the unborn does not afford Terri or her family much hope.

A Living Constitution Could Be The Cause Of Our Demise

Those who vainly profess the Constitution to be a “Living Document” might do well to note the following words of the late pundit, Samuel Francis: “The final and unpredictable irony of our [nation’s] history may be that we were more civilized at the beginning of it than at the end of it.”

One would think that all people of reason should wish to avoid the fulfillment of this dire prophesy. But it would appear that it is not that simple. One reason may be that it leaves us as a people with but one avenue of recourse that is not easily pursued. Collectively, we must be willing to develop and exhibit the character and integrity that is a prerequisite to our wanting to abide by the fundamental moral principles upon which this nation was founded as they were embodied by our nation’s founders in the United States Constitution. Our generation and the ones that follow must be made aware that when they wrote this document it was a direct response to their personal experiences of having lived under the shackles of tyranny. Foremost in their minds, however, was not only their desire to set in place a government that would avoid a recurrence of that misery, but to replace it with one that would enable all those governed by it to enjoy certain unalienable rights and freedoms that, at the very least, would ensure every citizen a foreseeable opportunity to obtain prosperity in their lifetime.

Two of the fundamental building blocks necessary to that moral foundation upon which they intended to build this country were that: (i) the right of all citizens to possess private property was to be safeguarded as sacred; and (ii) government intrusions upon any citizen’s private property was to be limited to only those infrequent occasions where there was found to exist a necessary public use absolutely mandating that it be taken. And even in that case the last two clauses of the Fifth Amendment expressly provide that nobody’s property shall not be taken without the citizen being afforded both due process and just compensation.

The founders knew that property is wealth, and that, unless protected by law, wealth will eventually be taken by the strong and that in the end any government is always stronger than any of its citizens. The founders knew from their personal experiences with King George that, absent the necessary limitations and prohibitions they imposed upon the power of the government they were forming, it would not be long before any citizen’s wealth for all practical purposes would again be exposed to seizure at any time at the government’s whim. In short, they knew that, if a person’s property were so exposed, tyranny would once again soon reign in the states they were then attempting to unite.

Regretfully, however, this sense of urgency soon faded into memory such that now, a little over two hundred years later, we are being handed decisions by the Supreme Court like Kelo v. The City of New London, Connecticut; a decision that Justice O’Connor powerfully argued against as essentially eviscerating the Public Use Clause in its entirety from the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution. Sadly, however, her arguments were unavailing and private property now suffers the very exposure to governmental tyranny the founders had sought to avoid. Even sadder, though, but for a few who are heard protesting the decision here and there, it would seem the average citizen on the street could not be less concerned about the Kelo decision and others like it.

It would seem, therefore, that the immediate question that needs asking is how has our country changed from its inception that its people would allow such a travesty to stand? Conservative Joseph Sobran I think has correctly pointed out two reasons that may have contributed to this outrage. As to the Justices that rendered the decision, he noted: “The Supreme Court has gradually changed its character from a body of men who had to justify their decisions with reason and evidence to an authoritarian body whose word is law (and whose stabs at logic only confuse matters).” And then on the subject of the general public’s complacency, he points out: “Most people, being intellectually timid, rely on authority and hate to believe that the authorities can err seriously.” But then he rightly points out that “all human authority is not only fallible, but, over time, is virtually certain to err wildly.” In short, it is no small irony that those conservatives among us who would seek to preserve what this country was originally intended to be would do well today to follow the admonition that appeared on the bumper stickers of liberals in the 60’s and be prepared to not only “Question Authority,” but to “Challenge the Establishment” represented by those same liberals who over the last thirty years have risen to and assumed positions of power in this country.

Should you think that this overstates the case, consider carefully the recently uttered words of Presidential hopeful (and former 60’s liberal) Senator Hillary Clinton when discussing the recent profits of this country’s oil companies. “The Democrats know what needs to be done and we’re working to push our agenda forward. The other day the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund …” (emphasis added)

Why she wants to “take” their profits, is irrelevant. The point is that when those in government realize they have the unfettered power to take people’s property there is no reason to believe that they will not use that power, nor is there any reason to believe that such a government will necessarily limit those takings to your real estate. Next will come a taking of your company’s profits, then your income … your gold … your jewelry … and then … you. After all, the enslavement of citizens is the ultimate end of any tyranny, and that, in turn, almost always follows after the government’s seizure of its citizens’ property. If you doubt this, perhaps you would do well to reexamine Hitler’s edicts with respect to the taking of the property of Jews in the years immediately preceding the Holocaust, as perhaps, he was able to learn from watching Stalin in the years preceding that. The founding fathers were aware of the possibility of such injustices. Perhaps we would do well to remember them and take them seriously. It really could be that important to us and the children we are raising. Otherwise, we may well find Samuel Francis was correct. Our society may indeed be less civilized when it ends than when it began.

Cliff Nichols is a Member of the Board of Trustees of AEL and also is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Los Angeles, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 458-1739, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com. Other recent articles written by Mr. Nichols and published in the Santa Monica Daily Press are available at www.thedailystand.com.

A Return To Truth Could Be What Will Keep Us Free

I was talking with a friend last week who manages a large apartment complex that houses over a thousand people. As such, she is exposed on a daily basis to what I would consider a pretty good cross-section of our society. That is why I found one comment she made to be particularly interesting. She said that, as time goes by, she finds fewer and fewer people she interacts with have what she considers to be “integrity.” I asked what she meant, and she said to her “integrity” is measured by the importance a person attaches to the virtue of telling the truth. In short, most people she deals with seem to have a predisposition to lie, even when, as she says, the truth would help them more. I, for one, think she’s on to something.

Sadly, it was my generation that initiated the “so I lied” mentality many years ago. According to that philosophy a lie was perfectly acceptable if it served their personal needs, even to the extent that, if they were caught lying, it didn’t matter. “So what!” they would say, “Everybody does it, and so, even if you catch me doing it, I don’t care.” Then, the next generation gave birth to the flip side of that coin, whereby the “truth” was further degraded to the sphere of relativity. Those inconvenienced by it simply mis-characterized truths as only someone else’s “perception,” while what used to be lies eventually came to be described as “spin.” The result? Between your spin and everyone else’s, the truth was ultimately mutilated and discarded along the way.

For example, take the recent announcement by Democrats that they intend to initiate a website devoted to appealing to “faith-based” voters. Apparently, the last several elections have taught them that their Party’s endorsement of Christian-bashers, not to mention abortion, gay-rights, and the legalization of illegals, has not played particularly well in America’s heartland. So now, we are told, the internet shall be used to persuade members of the Bible-belt that voting Democrat is a good idea, even though everybody knows that the Democrat leadership still despises the beliefs of these people whose votes they covet. So, it would appear that Democrats are now admitting their willingness to tell whatever lies may be necessary to get the votes they need to advance agendas they know would remain offensive to certain voters unless they are lied to. I know. So what’s new?

From one perspective, this effort is humorous. It reminds me of the old Milton Berle joke: “There’s so little trust in the country today. Yesterday, I heard a politician confess that he’d lied, and I didn’t believe him.” In my opinion, this is probably true about the Democrats’ “faith-based” website. Most likely, few will believe it. On another level, however, the problem created by such behavior has more serious adverse implications for us all when we consider the costs associated with our predisposition Berle jokes about to discard the truth even when it is made available. As his joke rightly points out, the hardening of our hearts caused by repeated lies eventually impedes our ability to recognize the truth for what it is. And for that, I can guarantee we could be made to pay dearly.

When truth ceases to be the common currency exchanged and relied upon by the citizens of a society certain adverse consequences become predictable. Among other things, the importance of attorneys increases, the number of laws, rules and regulations explodes exponentially, surveillance and infiltration activities become more pervasive, governments become more corrupt, and the virtue of concepts like the democracy our founding fathers envisioned ultimately loses whatever appeal it may have once had. As fraud and deceit become the norm, the value of people’s freedom to interact with each other and their government degrades over time. Historically, people then have shown an increasing willingness to exchange their freedoms for security, and that is the point where many societies in the past have unwittingly welcomed a totalitarian dictatorship to govern them with open arms.

What concerns me is that with the advent of a living Constitution that now means whatever judges and politicians may want it to mean, I no longer see anything that remains unique about us that would prevent a similar result from occurring in America. The only difference would be that the totalitarian regime we would be burdened with would be afforded far greater powers than have ever been available to tyrants in the past. Imagine a Hitler today that would have access to satellites that can not only photograph, but monitor our homes and at the same time use our cell phones to triangulate everyone’s exact location wherever they may be on the face of this planet. And that’s before we even get to a consideration of all the cameras and video cams have now been installed at almost every intersection we drive through and on most buildings we pass by. Such technology in the hands of a man like Hitler or Stalin should also give us a heightened concern about things like the existence of secret prisons (that are now admitted to exist) and the comfort some have today with justifying things like warrantless wiretaps and the use of torture upon those they unilaterally have determined to be enemies of the state. The point being, not whether these things are good or bad today, but were such things to fall into use by the wrong people the potential for horror would most certainly be tremendous.

Milton Berle also once joked that, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but not nearly as popular.” In my opinion, his joke should be a warning to us all. In light of today’s technology, the only thing that keeps our nation from becoming even more evil than the Nazis and Soviets once were is our integrity based on our tradition of respecting truth. So, perhaps we had better seriously consider restoring the foundation of those truths that this country was built upon or we may soon find that we will not remain a “great” nation for very much longer. Although those truths may not be as “popular” as some “fictions” progressives would have us believe today, I would suggest that without them, even progressives could soon find their lives to be less, shall we say, “abundantly fulfilling” than they were when those truths prevailed. So, all things considered, I think my friend’s point is well taken. Our increasing reliance upon lies makes no sense. Clearly the truth could help us more.

Cliff Nichols is an attorney practicing criminal defense in Santa Monica, California. He may be contacted regarding this editorial at either (310) 917-1083, cliff@cliffnicholslaw.com or www.cliffnicholslaw.com and you may join his blog at www.thedailystand.com.

A Test of the Heart

The other morning I was approached by a man at the gas station who wanted a cup of coffee and asked me if I could spare some change to help him get one. When I gave him the money I looked at him, but then I saw something else. Over his shoulder I locked eyes with a woman standing beyond him who was giving me a look of absolute disgust. It was obvious she held me in contempt for giving the money as much as she did the man to whom I was giving it.

My rule about giving handouts to people on the streets is they have to ask. Either silence or words written on a piece of cardboard will not do. But, when I am actually approached by a person with far less than I, I really feel it’s a duty to respond in some meaningful way, if at the time I have the ability. The reason? I feel the condition of my heart is being tested.

I know the clichés about not encouraging them and what they really want the money for. But I know just as surely that there are some instances in which these old saws do not apply, and I, for one, am unable to sort them out based on this criteria. I have neither the knowledge nor the insight necessary to determine what events in their life led them to be where they are today. More importantly, however, I know that in my life there was a time when I was very much in need of the assistance of others due to circumstances absolutely beyond my control, and I am eternally grateful that they were there when I needed them. I often think about what if, for whatever reason, they had not been? The answer is simple. I too could have easily slipped through the net and found myself on the street.

A good thing about an experience like this is the tremendous appreciation it gives a person for those in their life who are actually willing to stand with them in tough times. In fact, there probably is no better way to find out very quickly who your true friends really are, and perhaps more importantly, who isn’t. I found that the vast majority of people have a tendency to flee from people in need. Unless they can see it placing them in an advantageous position in some way, that is. Few and far between, however, is the person who will actually take of his or her time to be of some practical assistance. And fewer and further between are those who will not only help, but also abstain from the temptation to either take advantage of or stand in judgment of the person they are helping, if not both.

Many, if not most, people who have been forced to succumb to adversity against their will already feel like, and in a tangible way probably also actually believe, that they are losers, regardless of what may be the objective truth of the matter. Therefore, such people do not need to be told so. Additionally, many people who are down and out may not have arrived there necessarily because of alcoholism, drug addiction or mental illness. In many cases it’s conceivable that they became alcoholics, addicts or insane because they got to where they were, only to find nobody left in their lives willing to help. Consider how many of us would not eventually resort to taking refuge in one of these forms of relief, were we to find ourselves living under a bridge and begging for food without any hope of ever being restored to a normal life?

When their lives are viewed from this perspective, I for one become very thankful even for little things I enjoy that they do not. I am thankful for the shower I was able to take this morning, the clean clothes I was able to put on, the breakfast I ate in a local diner and, yes, even for the cup of coffee I could afford to buy. Although I have faith that such amenities will continue to be available in my life, that faith is coupled with my knowledge that circumstances could quickly reverse to take away what I have always taken for granted in the twinkling of an eye. “Impossible,” you say? Ask the millionaires who jumped out windows to their deaths when the stock market crashed in 1929. Were they able, might they tell us, if it happened to them, it can happen to anyone?

But that’s not the end of it. Consider this. What value is my faith that such a fate will never be mine, if that faith is not manifested by my actions? That is why, when a person tells me that he is either hungry or cold, I feel I must send him away with more than just some platitude about how I wish him well, when it is within my ability to help him or her in a meaningful way. So far as I can tell, Jesus never did. When people approached him with problems he never just walked away saying, “I’ll pray for you.” He always seemed to have the time to restore sight to the blind, mend the cripple, feed the hungry and comfort the lost and forsaken. Could it be he was setting an example for the rest of us to follow? Maybe, and you never know ... when we are asked to show hospitality to a stranger, is it conceivable that we actually could be in the presence of an angel who is only asking for a cup of coffee … to test the condition of our heart? If so, isn't that a test you would prefer to pass? I do, if for no other reason than we have been informed that whoever has the world’s goods, and sees someone in need and closes his heart against him, the love of God does not abide in him. And really, when you think about it, how convicting is that?

A World Where Right Is Wrong and Wrong Is Right

What’s going on? Doesn’t it seem recently that bizarre behavior is occurring with increased frequency?

On the criminal behavior front, just a week or so ago we had the three guys in North Carolina who videotaped themselves castrating men in the basement of their house that they had ever-so-cleverly named “the dungeon.” Elsewhere, it appears Google is, or until recently was, hosting a “boy love” blog site called “Paiderastia: The Boy Love Revival.” In addition to the dozens of teachers found to be having sex with their students, we now have a high school assistant principal in Florida being prosecuted for asking some of his young charges to videotape their sex acts and bring it in to him so he could watch it. Then there are the homicide charges brought against the parents of a baby who died of a heroin overdose, the man’s conviction for drowning his girlfriend’s children in a lake and the woman who plead guilty to slitting the throat of her friend’s baby. Have we gone nuts?

And the political world doesn’t appear to be much less bizarre. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is now denouncing Howard Dean for nothing less than … dare we say it? ... pandering to Christians. Has the man no integrity? According to the Task Force, Dean grossly misrepresented the Democratic Party’s official position on the definition of marriage when interviewed recently by the Christian Broadcasting Network. He said his party’s position is – perhaps now would be a good time to ask your children to leave the room – marriage is between a man and a woman. Can you even imagine that? Well, it sure upset the Task Force. They said he should know better than to say such a thing, and have demanded he correct it without delay. I guess that leaves the rest of us to pray he does the right thing.

Let it not be said, however, that republicans don’t have problems of their own. It is now reported that, ostensibly to protect our freedom, the National Security Agency is busy invading our privacy. Apparently, they are collecting a comprehensive data base of every phone call made by every citizen in the United States, whether or not we may be suspected of any criminal behavior whatsoever. The irony, of course, is that this particular program is being done in total disregard of the fact that one of our most sacred freedoms is supposed to be our expectation that we will be protected against unwarranted government invasions of our privacy.

Then, can any solace be found in the fact that both parties seem to be confounded by the illegal alien problem? When we travel to Mexico we are warned that if we break their laws we will be put in prison, and there is little our government can do to help us. By contrast, however, a friend told me that on Cinco de Mayo in Santa Ana, California there were Mexican flags being flown all over her neighborhood by illegals with the words “Conquer America” emblazoned on them. Are we to presume that, when they achieve that goal, they would improve our country by making it more like the one they left to come here illegally?

Then, just as we appear to be ready to concede that our nation’s borders should be abandoned as the anachronisms of intolerance that some now say that they are, our government gets all bent out of shape when Mexico’s government wants to legalize the possession of all narcotics for personal use. Why? In the absence of borders to impede migration, I don’t view this proposed legislation as much of a problem as it is an opportunity. If nothing is going to be done about our country having to absorb their labor force, wouldn’t it at least achieve some level of parity if Mexico’s culture were to absorb our drug addicts who, no doubt, would have been given a significant incentive to migrate south?

In the aggregate, bizarre events such as these, in addition to many others not mentioned, are leaving me with the sense that we can soon expect to witness the mushrooms screaming from the castle gate that the tomatoes have mashed King Spud and are taking over the Kingdom. Or, maybe it’s already happened and we just failed to hear the alarm. Maybe we were all just too busy with other things to pay any attention to it happening.

The other day I contacted a Christian minister to see if he would have an hour to spend with a friend of mine who had asked if it would be possible to talk to that minister about Jesus. To my amazement, in effect the minister responded that his schedule was too packed to do it, but that, if I thought it necessary, he would try to find someone else who might have the time. Among other things, I might describe that as being too busy. But, it also serves to exemplify how we might have gotten ourselves into the position we are all now in; where what should be right is somehow spun as being something that is wrong and what is wrong we are told is really right, and as a people we have been conditioned to turn a blind eye to both these lies and their consequences. How else might one explain how we as a people have come to accept a government that would even consider court-martialing a soldier because he exhibited the temerity to say the name of Jesus Christ in a prayer while in uniform? Yet, we have, and, though it might make Orwell proud, to me it is but another tragic example of the bizarre.

The only question that remains then is whether we as a culture have passed the point of no return. If so, I expect that we should prepare ourselves to see the occurrence of even more bizarre behavior in the future. On the other hand, if we have not, allow me to take this opportunity to suggest that a remedy to this malaise is going to require something more than bumper stickers and billboards telling people things like “Friends don’t castrate friends.”

An Opportunity That Has Passed

His given name was Wolf. Though to his friends in the last days of his life he was affectionately known as Willie. His passing was startlingly quick. One day he was there smiling and waving to friends. The next day he was gone. As is often the case, it was only after his passing that we considered what he might have told us about his 91 years. Too late we thought of the questions we would like to have asked – a golden opportunity lost. Unfortunately, all that remains today are the memories he left with those he loved and left behind.

Wolf’s life began in Poland in 1914, the same year that gave birth to World War I. His parents lived in a city called Lodz, but soon left to open a clothing factory in some other town now forgotten by his family. Does it matter? Perhaps not. Their stay there was not long. The government confiscated their business, left the family impoverished, and forced their return to Lodz. Today, we are left only with speculation -- it may not have been a good thing at that time to be Jewish in Poland.

Over the next decade or so, Wolf learned the garment business from his dad. To help support the family, from the age of 12 he attended school only for half- days and then left to work for his father making clothes. Soon, however, the winds of war again began to stir in Europe and the little time he had been afforded for his youth came to an abrupt end. In 1937, the social unrest festering in Germany soon spread to Poland and ultimately exploded in Lodz itself. A pogrom commenced that lasted three days. As Jews throughout the city were attacked without mercy, interestingly the memory that most indelibly impressed Wolf was his absolute disbelief at the police who, though present, stood by with a complicit indifference, doing nothing to either protect or rescue any of his family and friends. Wolf experienced first hand the ugliness mankind is capable of when they irrationally choose to hate others solely on the basis of a difference only they perceive. Sadly, however, for Wolf that experience would not be his last.

In 1939 the Germans attacked Poland and all men between 18 and 55 were ordered to Warsaw to defend the country. Since transportation was not provided, Wolf and his friends started the three day journey by foot. A walk he would never forget. German planes attacked them continuously with machine gun fire, and Wolf at one point was blown unconscious into a ditch. When he awoke all those who had been with him now surrounded him in death except one -- Wolf’s friend who managed to escape and return to Lodz only to report to Wolf’s dad his belief that Wolf was dead – a blow that Wolf remembered his dad never recovered from even though he learned only a few weeks later that Wolf was alive.

After arriving in Warsaw Wolf, along with the rest of Poland, was soon captured by the Germans, and he found himself in a work camp. Unbearable humiliation was the order of each day, and Wolf quickly found a way to escape. By then, however, the Germans had imposed a 5:00 p.m. curfew throughout Poland, and anyone found in violation was to be summarily shot and killed. Wolf was thus overjoyed to find there existed another side of human nature – a side that was good. He found strangers he would never again see who were willing to risk not only their lives, but the lives of their entire families, in order to hide him, feed him and guide him on his perilous journey back to Lodz, only to say goodbye quickly to his family before continuing his escape to the east in the hope of reaching Russia. What Wolf did not know when he left Lodz that day, was that he never again would see his mother and father, his grandmother, his older sister, her husband and their child.

Once in Russia he again was captured, this time by the Russians who at first held him for an extended period in a small room with 80 or so others and no bathrooms. The filth and sickness nearly overwhelmed him before he was eventually relocated to a work camp comprised of captured Polish exiles. But even there he found the conditions to be equally dismal. Of the 1500 in his camp, only half survived prior to those left alive being shipped to but another assignment elsewhere. And so it went for him over the next several years. From work camp to work camp he was moved until eventually he found himself in Siberia where he was permitted to again tailor clothing for the remainder of the war. More importantly, however, it was there also that he met Rachel who had arrived in Siberia in much the same way as Wolf. In love, they soon married and remained together for the rest of Wolf’s days on this earth.

Often in life the passing of one opportunity makes room for another, and so may be the case here. If we’re lucky, perhaps it will be a renewal of the opportunity thought lost -- to learn what more we can from the experiences of men like Wolf. Perhaps Rachel will share with us how they as a couple were able to greet their friends always with a wave of their hands and warm smiles – smiles that reassured all to whom they were given that life is good – even after all that which they had been forced to endure. Wolf, may God bless you with a peaceful rest you so richly deserve.

Sunflower
ASIN: 0805205780

I Have Lived A Thousand Years: Growing Up In The Holocaust
ASIN: 0689823959

And Life Goes On …

Let’s see … oil is $117.00 per barrel -- gasoline is selling for nearly, if not in some places over, $4.00 a gallon -- gold is hovering just below $1,000.00 per ounce -- the dollar’s value is auguring into the ground against the Euro -- home foreclosures are soaring across the nation, and in California alone are 327% higher this year than last -- the U.N. is warning about regional food shortages threatening people’s lives around the globe in the near future – the sale of rice is being rationed at Wal-Mart -- and over 50% of the work force in Los Angeles is said to be made up of immigrants. And, in the midst of all this, our very own President Bush tells us that we are not at the advent of a possibly severe recession, if not in fact a depression … interestingly, that being said by him only a day after his doing another stand up comedy routine on NBC’s Deal or No Deal. Is it any mystery why he now has the highest disapproval rating of any President ever to be recorded in the Gallup Poll’s 70 year history? Only, it would seem, to the President himself. He tells us everything will soon not seem to be as bad as us who are mere mortals may presently perceive it to be. After all, he assures us, the Iraq war is “getting better”, whatever that means, and that the economy is set to resurge once each of us gets our grubby, greedy little inconsequential hands on a few hundred dollars of our tax money back from him in the months ahead. In response to this, only one word presently comes to mind … NOT!

Then again, looking at the flip side of the same coin, it would appear we may all soon be given an opportunity that is unprecedented in our lifetimes … that is to find out who we really are as individuals. I’m speaking now about things like our depth of character … our personal integrity … our sense of what exactly is right, as opposed to wrong. You know … those attributes of our personality makeup that not only define with clarity who we are as human beings, but that also are never more exposed as when people are compelled to experience deprivation. A missed meal would most likely chalked up to either part of a diet or due to a scheduling problem … several missed meals, however, will get the full focus of our attention … but, enough missed meals may cause even some of the most otherwise decent and/or civilized people to conclude that those who survived the Donner Party imbroglio may not have been such bad people after all. Case in point … this week gasoline theft is reported to be on the rise in Los Angeles. How? Forget siphoning … the thieves are simply punching holes in the tanks underneath the cars and taking the gas that they are able to retrieve in buckets. Are we surprised when one police officer stated this week that this crime is only likely to increase as the economy worsens and the price of gas continues to rise? One can only wonder what people would do should our food also becomes scarce (i.e. too expensive) among an increasingly unemployed population. Honey, here’s the gun … would you mind getting us some rice on your way home?

And now for the unhappy dilemma we all seem to have been placed in. The stark reality is that we are being offered only three individuals to choose from to lead us through, if not out of, this seemingly dark valley after Bush leaves with his cronies to enjoy the money they have made at our expense: Clinton, Obama or McCain. Even though having a choice is generally regarded as being a good thing, the truth remains that when all the options we are given to choose from are bad, just being able to choose from among them does nothing to improve the quality of any. This year the foregoing Presidential options respectively seem to equate to taxes, more taxes or more war and forget the economy, which equates to more taxes. And, even I know this approach won’t likely help those who can’t buy rice, much less those who can’t afford the gas to get to where it is being rationed.

From all this, however, I am left with one bright thought. It could well be that because of this pickle we find ourselves in God Help Us may soon become our national mantra. I can see that happening in the vain hope that it is not too late to reverse our national trend of banishing Him from the country entirely … thinking that if we start being nice to Him again, He may still be willing to lend us a helping hand … you know, something like we’ve heard He did for our country’s founders. But then again, it may also be possible that He has already made His decision -- to narrow our choices down to three individuals any one of which will serve to give us the leader that He thinks we now deserve … and for that reason alone all that may remain to be said is, God help us.

Bad Immigration Policy Railroads a Bus Driver

On the 23rd of September, 23 American citizens lost their lives on a bus leaving a Houston nursing home to escape a hurricane that ultimately never really arrived. Officials originally determined that faulty brakes caught fire, and that that fire, in turn, ignited oxygen bottles brought aboard by the patients. Fault? The immediately obvious candidate appeared to be the bus company. But now the driver of that bus has been charged with 23 counts of criminally negligent homicide … like somehow the bad brakes were his fault. Why? I attribute it to the fact that it was because he was discovered to be an illegal alien, and that embarrassed our the government. So, to hide its embarrassment the government is now prosecuting this poor Mexican national like somehow he is the bad guy.

Why, you may ask, should our government be embarrassed? Possibly because it is they who allowed that bus driver to be doing what he was doing when the accident happened –working in this country illegally. Consider for a moment the fact that if he had a driver’s license -- and even that presumes he was required to have one to get the job – the same government now prosecuting him had to have issued it to him. All of this is a direct consequence of our government’s “don’t look – don’t see open border policy” – a policy that has been weakly denied by them for years with a wink and a turn of their head. It brings to mind the old joke that has a U.S. border agent explaining that he has no idea how illegals are able to sneak in, unless possibly they are coming in after 5:00 p.m. or on weekends. All this leads one to conclude that, if blame is to be placed at all for the death of these 23 souls, it would be more just to place it at the feet of our government. After all, it is the government that permitted their safety to be placed in the hands of an illegal in the first place.

Elsewhere, in Los Angeles the2nd District Court of Appeal seems to have gotten it right. Last week that court ruled that a U.S. company is not entitled to deny worker’s compensation benefits to a worker just because he is an illegal alien. Why, you may wonder, would I consider this “getting it right?” Because it offers an economic approach that could eventually resolve, if not solve, the illegal alien problem in this country.

Most illegal aliens are here because they are able to find work for an amount of money not available to them elsewhere in the world. They have an economic incentive to supply to this country an inexpensive labor force for which they cannot, and should not, be blamed. That is because it is equally true that most illegal aliens are here also because there exist many businesses in this country that seek to hire those laborers because they cost less than were they to hire U.S. citizens. Their incentive is also economic and so for that, as with the illegals they hire, they cannot, and should not, be blamed. If anybody, it is the government that should be blamed. That is because they encourage both the illegals and businesses with full knowledge of the fact that, where these forces of supply and demand intersect, equilibrium in the illegal alien labor force population shall be, and most probably has been, reached – resulting in the nearly 12,000,000 aliens presently residing in the United States illegally.

If we wish to change this equilibrium, it can only be done by changing the economic environment that presently fosters both these forces of supply and demand, and this can only be done if the U.S. labor force is made competitive with the illegal labor pool. To accomplish this I can think of only two practical ways. One is to convince a significant segment of the American public that it would be a good thing for them to work for less money, benefits and protections than they now have. Some politicians, however, may find this approach, shall we say, “unpopular” and therefore not politically viable. The other way is to remove the conditions that enable illegal aliens to be hired for less money and benefits than their U.S. counterparts by compelling U.S. businesses to provide all their employees – whether legal or illegal – equal wages, protections and benefits. For instance, were all businesses required by law to give illegals the same pay, health benefits, social security coverage, retirement plans, sick pay, vacation time and so on, the cost discrepancy between the two labor pools would narrow to a point of irrelevance, and because the profits now derived from hiring illegals would thereby be significantly reduced, the presently existent demand for illegals would eventually be eliminated. Now perhaps you understand more clearly why I think availing illegal aliens of things like workers’ compensation benefits may be a “good” thing.

The economics of illegal immigration is comparable to that of the illegal drug trade. As long as our government focuses its attention upon arresting individual drug users, but continues to overlook the need to eliminate somehow the huge profits being reaped by importing illegal drugs into this country, the war on drugs will never be won -- notwithstanding any pretense our government may give of wanting to win that war. Similarly, as long as our government allows businesses in this country to reap significant profits by hiring cheap -- albeit illegal (though in name only) -- labor, those businesses will continue to have an economic incentive to encourage illegals to migrate to this country -- notwithstanding how many individual illegals our government may pretend to want to arrest and deport. And until that is changed, perhaps you understand more clearly why I think for the government to prosecute a bus driver for 23 counts of negligent homicide only after it “discovers” he happens to be illegal is, at minimum, a just a tad disingenuous.

Close the Borders? No Way! ... That Would Be Intolerant

Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-Mexico Border
ASIN: 0785262369

Confused? Me too!

One might say that the times in which we are now living are confusing.

The warrantless wiretapping of American citizens is now O.K. they say, if it is done to protect our democracy from terrorists who would threaten things like our right to be free of unwarranted government intrusions upon our privacy. That’s O.K., there are worse things that could happen. Look at Europe. Their democracy is in an upheaval that would seem to be moving it quickly toward becoming a unified Arab nation. Other than for the shortened life-expectancy of some Dutch cartoonists, however, it may be too early to tell if that’s a bad thing. After all, are we not dying and killing in another Arab nation for the purpose of instilling in those people a love for the democratic process? Never mind that we’re outraged at the Palestinians for recently embracing that very same process to elect flagrant terrorists to become their leaders. Maybe John Lennon was on to something. Didn’t he suggest in one song that we imagine whirled peas? Or was that world peace? Whatever... Perhaps we should give that a try – just so long as while we’re at it we remain steadfast in our condemnation of people like Pat Robertson who want to avert wars by assassinating the leaders of some nations – you know, like those who only claim to be exercising their right to free speech when they tell the world over, and over, and over again that they really do intend to nuke countries like Israel off the face of the globe sometime soon.

After all, tolerance and compassion for all is mandatory we are told – except apparently on those occasions that we decide it’s necessary to torture somebody in the interests of national security or to rid ourselves of unwanted children. Hey, but that’s O.K. Our society as a whole is making demonstrable progress, evidenced by the fact that cowboys that herd sheep can now proudly be gay. It really doesn’t seem to matter anymore that cowboys used to be defined as boys that dealt in some way with cows or that people who deal with sheep have for centuries been referred to as sheepherders – who, by the way, have always been considered suspect to some degree. Talk about social progress. At least now we are able to understand why some housewives are desperate.

Speaking of progress – coffee is now a good thing once again, so long as we call it by some other name and forgo the whipped cream. Science has enlightened us. We now are all aware of the fact that anything we consume that is white -- like rice, bread, potatoes and cocaine -- is bad for us. Take cigarettes, for example. By now, everyone knows they represent the worst evil mankind has ever known (even though cigars remain trendy). That leaves us with meat, vegetables and sex. But sex and meat are also dangerous today, so that leaves us really only with vegetables. Perhaps that is one reason mankind as a whole seems to be drifting toward becoming more spiritual yet not religious, whatever that means.

Meanwhile, blacks and Hispanics are fighting and killing each other in our jails on the basis of race and we are told by some that to separate them until things calm down would be unconstitutional racial segregation. What are we supposed to do with that? Isn’t the constitution a living document capable of adapting to the times? So, why isn’t it adapting now to enable common sense to both save lives and be considered legal at the same time? Perhaps Al Gore has the answer. But even if he did, would it really matter if, in the final analysis, we are not able to garner Jimmy Carter’s support for his solution? After all, just look at all the negativity that has happened to our world as a direct consequence of the Clintons’ decisions in the 2000 presidential election to not support Al when they had the opportunity to do so. Had they chosen to do the right thing, one might reasonably ask whether global warming would be the problem some say it is today. If just that one malady had been averted, just think about all the catastrophes we might have avoided, like Katrina, the tsunami, Paris Hilton and, most recently, the Philippino landslide. One can only imagine the havoc that could be wreaked upon mankind if Jimmy Carter were to make a fateful error of judgment similar to that of the Clinton’s. The potential catastrophic effect would be unpredictable. Our ozone hole could conceivably be ripped a new one, possibly creating a magnetic field that would, in turn, redirect an asteroid on its way to France toward Hollywood and in one fell swoop end for all eternity our ever getting to see another re-run of Law and Order, CSI in the-metropolitan area-of-your-choice or Seinfeld. You talk about the end of civilization as we know it.

But we have more important things to worry about than that, do we not? Our borders must be secured to protect our homeland we are told, except in the case of those who simply wish to immigrate here illegally to take our jobs or sell narcotics to our children. But, what the hey? At least what has always been good in the past for the goose now seems to be good for the gander as well. Billboards are now appearing in our border towns warning our country’s sexual deviants traveling south that Mexico disfavors pedophilia just as much as the country they are leaving in order to practice their proclivity. Doesn’t that just make you want to say, “God bless globalization.”

So, where does all of this leave us? You never know. The way things are going, could we soon expect to see someone wanting to award the Pearl Harbor tourist concession contract to a Japanese firm? No, even in the state of confusion the world now seems to be in, that’s just too far-fetched, isn’t it? That would be like someone wanting to give control of all our major ports over to an Arab company just so some Muslims will like us while we find ourselves needing to bomb some of them. I take comfort in the fact that at least there are few things we can sleep well knowing could never happen no matter how confusing the world seems to be getting. I hope you can too.

Do Loose Borders Equal Loose Bowels???

Speaking with a physician can often be a disconcerting affair. But you wouldn’t think it would have that effect when the subject is about something as innocuous as “spinach”. Boy, was I in for a mild surprise. Figuring that what was good for Popeye should be good for us all I asked, “What’s up with all this bad spinach and the outbreak of E-coli?” My doctor friend’s answer took the form of a series of questions about our current epidemic of sphincter spasms that caused mine to pucker. The conversation went something like this:

First he asked, “When you plan a trip to Mexico what does a doctor tell you to do?”

I responded, “I’ve been told to take lots of anti-biotics and paregoric.”

“And, what else are you told about how to limit your eating habits down there?”

“I think the rule is to not eat any raw vegetables or salads … or, put differently, don’t eat anything that isn’t well cooked, boiled or fried … right?”

“Right. And why it is that you take the medicine and follow that rule?”

I responded, “Because everybody knows that, if you don’t, you are likely to get ‘the runs.’”

“And, what causes the runs?”

I didn’t know, and so I said, “I don’t know … what does cause the runs, doctor?”

“Things like E.coli.”

“So, doctor, what’s the point. The bad spinach causing an outbreak of E.coli is in this country, not Mexico.”

“Well, have you ever considered that maybe the bad spinach in this country maybe coming to us from someplace like Mexico? When you think about it, there would be little difference between a bad salad tainted with E.coli bacterium that you wouldn’t eat while in Mexico and the same salad, if it were brought to your home via your local grocer. The only real difference would be that, because it is placed on your dining room table, you would be more inclined to eat it. The effect on your bowels, however, would most likely be the same, wouldn’t it?”

“Come to think of it, it probably would. But our government wouldn’t let that happen, would they?”

“I don’t know, but I can say this, ‘Welcome to one of the probable future side- effects of globalization and free-trade.’”

My friend then went on to explain that, generally speaking, E.coli is produced by feces located either on or in the soil where vegetables are grown. And, when that bacterium is transferred to humans via those vegetables grown in proximity to the feces (i.e. spinach) it produces cramps, nausea and diarrhea similar to what we have observed recently with the current spinach debacle in this country. He pointed out that farming conditions that would permit this to occur usually are found in third-world countries with less strict sanitation standards. So, when an outbreak of the type we have witnessed occurs in this country, logic would suggest that one of the first questions should be to ask, “Where did the bad spinach come from?” That is the first question that was asked when mad cow disease was spotted in Washington State, he said, and within days it was determined that the diseased cow had come from Canada. Then why is that question not being asked of the bad spinach? One can only speculate, of course, but could it be because the government investigating the E.coli outbreak is also the same government that is currently promoting the importation of agricultural products that have been grown in other countries?

If so, the short of it is this: the health and sanitation standards of the countries that are growing the food we eat, for all practical purposes become our health and sanitation standards, and, to say the least, that may not always be a good thing for us here in America. But, wait. Don’t go away. It gets even better. My friend noted that, just as E.coli can be imported into this country via bad veggies, so can other diseases hosted by, not only the foods we import, but by the people we allow to come into our country. In the past, it used to be the practice at ports of entry into this country, like on Ellis Island, to segregate sick immigrants from those that were healthy. Obviously, this was done to prevent an influx of various contagions into our population. That, however, is no longer the practice, my friend pointed out. What with our government’s open border policy with Mexico, allowing anyone who wants to come in to this country, whether or not they are sick has been made acceptable. And, apparently many are. Therefore, according to my friend’s ruminations, in the near future we me well see resurgence in this country of illnesses we thought had been eradicated for all practical purposes except for in some distant parts of the third world like diphtheria, whooping cough, tuberculosis, small pox and polio.

Thus, the ultimate question posed by my friend was, with our open border policies, could these illnesses soon be reappearing locally in our neighborhoods because our government has permitted them to be brought to our doorstep? If so, my friend warned, the diarrhea we are now witnessing could well be viewed in hindsight as the least of our problems. His point? When we see an outbreak of diarrhea erupting across our nation’s fruited plains, we may do well to ask if it is not evidence that it is our very own government that has been caught with its pants down vis-à-vis an open border policy that quite possibly could imperil the future health of Americans? And if is determined that is the case, at minimum, wouldn’t you have to conclude that’s a policy that stinks?

Free At Last .... Free At Last

“Free at last . . . Free at last.” So said former Clinton advisor Vernon Jordan last year to the cheers and applause of those at a meeting of the National Urban League.

On that occasion, however, Mr. Jordan was not referring to civil rights advancements for blacks – rather, he was celebrating his freedom from the choke collar attached to a very short leash held by the federal government on the free speech rights of this country’s charitable organizations.

Mr. Jordan said that when he was the President of the Urban League he often felt “enslaved” by the rules and regulations applicable to “charitable” entities given tax-free status under Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3). But now, because he is no longer an “official” associated with the Urban League, he feels, in his words, “emancipated” to freely express his political views. And so he did - and perhaps wrongly. He used the podium set before the Urban League’s national assembly to negatively critique both President Bush and his policies.

Under the IRS’s rules, regulations and guidelines, a §501(c)(3) organization “may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates” and “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective public office.” Further, leaders of such organizations cannot make “partisan” comments in any official organization publications or at official functions, and “indirect participation” in a political campaign includes such things as contributing funds to a campaign or issuing position statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate.

The penalty for an infraction can be quite severe. It may result in “denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax.” Moreover, in some, if not all, such cases the imposition of taxes may be imposed retroactively on all income the organization has received since its inception. In short, revocation could equate to automatic bankruptcy for the organization.

Why is this a problem? Because most faith-based organizations (i.e. churches) in this country are tax exempt under §501(c)(3), and consequently their valuable input into the political debate surrounding many grave social issues is effectively silenced -- issues of immense importance not only to both these organizations and their members but to our Nation’s cultural future as well -- issues such same-sex marriage, abstinence education, gender orientation legislation, hate speech legislation, stem cell research, abortion, late-term abortion and, perhaps most importantly, the social policy predispositions of the judicial nominees and politicians that will determine the outcomes of these issues.

The threat made to churches that would violate this mandate of political silence is real. One editorial commentator recently put it this way: “Either religious leaders must confine their public actions to religious matters or forfeit the tax-free status of religious individuals and organizations.” Moreover, there now exist groups that are actively seeking to enforce this threat, such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Mainstream Coalition. Their members (Gestapo?) are sent to monitor the services of various churches for inappropriate or unlawful “political content”. And in those instances that these monitors perceive that a speaker has crossed the line, a complaint seeking revocation of the church’s tax exemption is filed with the I.R.S.

At the same time, however, the free speech rights of those who would oppose faith-based views are not subject to any similar restraint. For example, at the Democratic Convention in Boston and the events leading up to it, Christians and their views were repeatedly attacked publicly by, among others, Howard Dean, Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Ben Affleck, Rob Reiner, Linda Ronstadt and Ron Reagan, Jr. And, in response, the silence of the churches was deafening due to the vulnerability caused by their tax exemptions if they were to do otherwise and speak out in defense of their beliefs.

How can this inequality be rectified? First, by acknowledging that the 501(c)(3) choke collar imposed upon churches is self-imposed by churches that seek and maintain tax exempt status. The alternative? Bite the bullet and offer to pay taxes in exchange for the right to freely express and defend one’s individual and corporately held opinions and beliefs.

For new or recently formed churches this should be virtually painless. For churches that have been in existence longer, however, this might threaten their very survival if forfeiture of the exemption would result in retroactive taxation of the church back to its beginning. But even so there still exists a tremendous opportunity.

Consider the publicity that would be generated if one such church were to publicly offer to forfeit its exemption and commence paying taxes as of the current tax year, if the I.R.S. would waive the retroactive tax penalty and thereby permit the church to avoid bankruptcy? In essence, the church would be offering to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s (taxes) and to render to God what is God’s (obedience to his commandments and precepts). And, in reality for church leaders the alternative to making this offer could be grim. For example, they may ultimately find themselves before the God they were to worship and trust having to explain their silence in the face of 40,000,000 deaths and find that the loss of a tax exemption as an excuse is unacceptable to that God.

Moreover, consider the earthly benefits of making such an offer to the I.R.S. Perhaps the first headline would read:

“CHURCH REQUESTS I.R.S. PERMISSION TO PAY TAXES IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT’S INTRUSION UPON THE CHURCH’S OTHERWISE UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH”

The real question, however, is whether the next day’s headline would read:

“I.R.S. DENIES REQUEST TO PAY TAXES MADE BY CHURCH SEEKING FREE SPEECH RIGHTS”

For is not the real question whether the power to silence the views and opinions of churches has a value to the government and the churches’ political opponents that is greater than the value of any taxes such churches would pay due to forfeiting their exemptions.

Yet, even if that is the case, then at least we might all be brought to a future appreciation of one true, yet subtle, purpose for which churches are offered the exemption in the first place: to effectively secure their silence.

The Separation of Church and State: Writings on a Fundamental Freedom by America's Founders
ASIN: 0807077224

The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness
ASIN: 039331524X

HMO's and the Value of Life

An acquaintance named Jim recently died. He was not a personal friend of mine, but certainly was a friend to some who are. Regretfully, however, the story of the events that preceded his demise is one that recently is becoming all too familiar. You see, Jim had been a member of an HMO.

It all started one year ago in August when Jim complained of heartburn and shortness of breath. His primary care provider physician performed a cursory examination, told him his condition was due to GERDS and sent him home. Unbeknownst to the examining physician, however, a physician’s assistant had taken an X-Ray that was not noticed in the chart until a subsequent exam conducted some months later for the same condition. When it was noticed, however, the physician exploded, not because of what the X-Ray indicated, but because it had been taken without his authorization. Only because it did exist, however, was the physician able to determine that Jim’s problem was not GERDS, but rather was caused by the presence of a very large gallstone.

They scheduled an outpatient procedure to remove the stone and told Jim he would be fine. Then another mistake was made. It seems that someone forgot to pass certain critical information about Jim to the surgeon prior to the procedure causing Jim to have a heart attack during surgery that his family claims was not discovered for nearly a week after surgery. Following its discovery, however, they admitted him to the coronary care unit for awhile, but then quickly said he was good and again released him too soon to go home.

Jim was home just a couple of days, however, before he was rushed back to the Emergency Room. Again, he was having trouble breathing and was seen by his HMO provider group’s physician. If it hadn't been for a “real” physician from outside the group who was called in for consultation, however, I am told they would never have figured out what was wrong. Not only had he had a couple more heart attacks since being turned out, but it also turned out he had some type of fibrosis in his lungs. Yet, amazingly, even with these eventually discovered conditions, his wife relates how Jim was told repeatedly to go home by physicians from his HMO provider group. They told him he was fine, to get up and walk out. This was repeated multiple times daily, contrary to even basic common sense! Eventually, it got so bad that Jim and his wife complained to someone working for the State of California who ultimately stepped in to prevent Jim’s eviction from the hospital!

The HMO physicians then apparently re-channeled their energies to sending him to Los Angeles for “rehab”. But, then even that option was withdrawn and, ultimately, he was dismissed from the hospital but yet again as “doing fine.” Twelve hours later, however, Jim’s family again had to call 911 as he couldn't breathe. Once more, they took him to the hospital where he wound up in Coronary Care. This time, however, they told him he also had kidney failure. His family maintains today, that was when the HMO sent in their "Terminator" doctor who told them there was no longer a choice; he had to leave the hospital and go home for hospice care, as he had now been designated as a terminal patient. Conveniently, this designation also just happened to relieve the HMO of any further responsibility and/or liability for his future medical care. And so, Jim’s HMO dropped him as soon as the terminal diagnosis was given by his group's "Terminator" doctor, leaving hospice care as his only chance for life. Jim died within two weeks … at home.

Needless to say, these events caused his family to have questions. Was he really terminal all the time and this was just his time to go, or was his death caused in large part by a lack of competent medical care provided by his HMO’s physicians due to cost concerns? Were they so worried they'd have to pay a bill arising from competent medical care that the HMO wanted rid of him? Would rehab or an earlier proper diagnosis of his medical condition have cured him or, at least, prevented his condition from worsening? Who knows? Certainly his family never will.

When members of Jim’s family attempted to get copies of his medical records they were told that certain critical portions of them seem to have been misplaced and couldn’t be found. They also discovered that certain physicians who were directors of the HMO’s provider group were also on the boards of the hospitals involved in treating Jim. Convenient, some would say. Then malpractice attorneys were eventually consulted. They declined the case, however. The family was told that because there was a low dollar limit for general damages in malpractice cases and because of Jim’s age there weren’t likely to be sufficient special damages such as lost wages, it would not be worth pursuing.

The conclusions drawn by Jim’s family from this experience are the following. Without lawyers to corral them, some doctors seemingly have free reign to determine the course of your medical treatment based on economics rather than medical ethics. And, why shouldn’t they? The way our medical/legal system is structured, after a certain age human life has been predetermined to have no value, with the result that any malpractice visited upon the aged has no practical adverse consequence for the physicians involved.

The result? It would seem that under some HMO care, if the HMO’s assigned physicians decide its cheaper for the HMO for an elderly person to die rather than live, so shall that patient’s fate be determined, regardless of the efforts and pleas of both the patient and his loved ones to obtain a more favorable result that may be medically feasible and available. And so, it is in this way that the value of life is cheapened in pursuit of the dollar. Some may think that appropriate, while others may only see it as a sad commentary on today’s culture.

Others, however, may be left angry and wondering if physicians are permitted to practice in this manner with impunity why was Kevorkian ever imprisoned?

Fight Back and Win: How to Get HMOs and Health Insurance to Pay Up
ASIN: 0887231721

Don't Let Your HMO Kill You : How to Wake Up Your Doctor, Take Control of Your Health, and Make Mana
ASIN: 0415924820

Is An Apology In Order?

From 1990 to 1998 Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted people who wanted to take their own lives. To do so, the methods varied as his technique was perfected, but the result was always the same. They were killed by what came to be known as Kevorkian’s “suicide machine”, built with $30 worth of parts scrounged from hardware stores and garage sales. Kevorkian’s patients were interviewed and counseled as to the gravity of their decision. The process led to some being turned away. Among those determined to be qualified for the process, however, they all had at least four things in common: (i) They were all severely disabled, if not considered terminally ill; (ii) All had voluntarily chosen to not continue their lives because of their disability; (iii) On each occasion it was the patient. not Dr. Kevorkian, who pushed the button on the “suicide machine” that released the agent that ended their life; and, (iv) On each occasion, their deaths took only moments. Over the years numerous attempts to prosecute Dr. Kevorkian were made. Four criminal trials resulted in acquittals or mistrials. In several of these, lower courts declared that in the United States there is a constitutional right to die. Notwithstanding this “constitutional right”, however, in 1997 the Supreme Court apparently ruled that you may be damned if you help a patient in this effort. In short, they held that states have the right to outlaw doctor-assisted suicides if they so choose. Michigan did so and a jury convicted Dr. Kevorkian in 1999 of second-degree murder. His sentence: 10 to 25 years in prison. He remains there to this day, not eligible for parole until 2007. Now, compare his case with that of Terri Schiavo. On March 18, 2005 Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was physically removed pursuant to an order of a court of law ensuring her eventual death. Can this be distinguished from the actions taken by Dr. Kevorkian? Most certainly, in the following ways: • Dr. Kevorkian’s patients voluntarily forfeited their own lives, whereas Terri’s life was taken from her by others without her explicit consent. • Kevorkian’s patients ended in mere moments, whereas Terri’s took fourteen long and torturous days of pain, dehydration and starvation to bring about her passage. • The government made the deaths of Kevorkian’s patients illegal and they were forced act in secrecy to avoid the government’s detection whereas the official government sanction, if not approval, of Schiavo’s death and the process that brought it about was glaring. Police surrounded her to preserve the “integrity” of a degrading and torturous death, while people who attempted to alleviate her pain by administering a drink of water were arrested. • In Kevorkian’s case judge after judge was petitioned to prosecute him, with one ultimately succeeding, whereas in Schiavo’s case judge after judge was petitioned to save her life and they not only refused to do so but, in fact, effectively facilitated her death with no less vigor and commitment than Kevorkian had displayed prior to going to prison. So then, are we not left with the following question; Is there any practical or moral difference between one who administers an agent (i.e. a lethal injection) to a patient that will produce immediate death and one who forcefully denies that same patient an agent absolutely necessary for life to continue (i.e. food and water)? Perhaps the following hypotheticals may illuminate the irony produced by all of this: Assume first that Terri Schiavo had been physically able to do so and specifically requested that Dr. Kevorkian assist her to effect her death by doing to her exactly what the judges involved in her case actually caused to transpire. Assume also that Kevorkian complied with this request and intentionally inflicted upon Terri Schiavo a death like the one we all just witnessed; a death far more hideous than Kevorkian ever dreamed of for any of his previous patients. Under these facts, would it seem appropriate in your opinion to release Dr. Kevorkian from prison so that he might serve on the bench in Florida (or perhaps even on the Supreme Court)? Now assume Dr. Kevorkian did these things to Terri Schiavo without her consent and, while doing so, showed nothing but contempt for the pleas of her family and friends to spare her life. Under these facts would we not consider Kevorkian’s behavior to be that of a psychopath? Would merely sending such a man to prison be an adequate punishment for someone who would do such a thing to another human being? The question then becomes if prison is appropriate for Kevorkian whose acts were far less horrific, why not also for the judges involved in the Schiavo case? Based on this analysis can we as a society avoid the conclusion that differing results in the Schiavo and Kevorkian cases are both logically and morally irreconcilable? And if we are brought to this conclusion, does that not leave us as a society with only a few options to remedy the conflict presented. Collectively, either we must condemn the actions of the judges involved in effecting the death of Terri Schiavo or we must promptly issue an apology to Kevorkian. In the end, however, we will probably choose to do neither. Thus, by default we will most probably select the only other option that remains: to turn a blind eye towards our hypocrisy. Sadly, however, this can only be achieved at the expense of justice.

Katrina Was A Lesson To Us All

Sometimes we are confronted with just how thin the veneer of civilization really is -- the veneer comprised of the patina of laws, rules, mores, customs and traditions we follow that allow, or in some cases compel, us to act civilized and on the whole to look “good”. However, when that veneer is stripped away by the occurrence of any catastrophic event, like hurricane Katrina, it is amazing how quickly who we really are becomes exposed for the world to see.

Katrina suddenly and effectively removed from a significant segment of the American public the social safety nets w