I Have Moved

Please go to the following link to check out my new blog.  I think you will find it user friendly and also enjoy the photography that goes with my entries.  Also, be sure to pass on the link to the new link to anyone you think will enjoy it. 

 http://www.moorethanjustnewsreport.com/

Some Thoughts About Common Sense

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Common sense is as rare as genius.” Never before has that been more true than today. We can't all be rocket scientists but that doesn't mean we have to be down right stupid either.

Common sense would tell an educated nurse who has been assigned to care for an Ebola stricken patient not to get on a plane during the incubation period of that deadly virus. Somehow, this escaped the thought process of the nurse in question and now there is a plane load of people who have gone their separate ways to track down with the hope they do not further spread this deadly disease.

In the words of Victor Hugo, “Common sense is in spite of, not the result of, education.” Our president, by all accounts, is a well educated person. Still, in the midst of a middle east crisis that sees ISIS snubbing their noses at the western world, while an Ebola outbreak threatens to infect up to 10,000 people a week by December, and when your poll numbers continue to plummet, common sense would tell you it is not a good idea to attend a democratic fundraiser held at Gwyneth Paltrow's home. My guess is we will see more common sense from our president after the November mid term elections but then common sense also tells me by then it will be too late.

Too bad Harriet Beecher Stowe was not around to advise Roger Goodell. She said, “Common sense is seeing things as they are; and doing things as they should be.” When a 220 pound NFL running back sits next to his wife who weighs about half as much tells you he punched and knocked her out in an elevator, common sense should tell you this guy needs more than a two game suspension. It doesn't even require seeing any video to know the kind of damage he inflicted. Then again, if your fiance' knocks you out with a punch, common sense would ask, “What are you doing marrying this guy?”

“Common sense is the most widely shared commodity in the world, for every man is convinced he is well supplied with it.” These were the words of Rene' Descartes. I wonder if Michael Brown Jr. believed he possessed much common sense. You would think if he had any he would not have robbed a convenience store and then gone walking down the middle of a busy street just prior to getting shot and killed by a police officer. Brown's lack of common sense is what led to his demise as much as anything else and common sense would tell the protestors in Ferguson that Brown is not a martyr.

It was Thomas Edison who said, “The three great essentials to achieve anything worthwhile are, first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense.” We idolize too many people in our culture who only possess the first two traits Edison mentions. Common sense would tell a football player if they make their living smashing their head into others, they can expect to have brain damage at an early age in life. Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes, and countless other celebrities should know it is difficult enough to make it in Hollywood and even more so if you are constantly needing to go into rehab. Of course, if their parents had any common sense, they might have decided against pushing their kid to become a child star who becomes ill equipped to handle the adult world.

Even W.C. Fields knew what he was talking about when he said, “Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps him from betting on humans.” Just pick up a newspaper or go on line. How many stories are there that focus on people who lack common sense? Even those who cover the stories often lack it.

And before you tell me how easy it is for me to sit and judge others for their lack of common sense, let me admit to some of my own short comings. Common sense would tell me the more I read about others lack of common sense, the less flabbergasted I would become over the current state of affairs. If I had any common sense when I was younger, I would have gone to film school in my twenties and waited to begin a thirty year career as a teacher. I would not have got in that raft on a flooding forty-one degree Stanislaus River after a ranger made sure to get the names of my next of kin along with the guys I was with. And common sense would have told me long ago life is easier to enjoy when you focus on the good and not the bad.

What would this world be like if Voltaire was wrong when he said, Common sense is not so common.”No one knows for sure but my guess is it would be a lot more boring than it is today.

Todd Gurley Does Not Need The NCAA

The University of Georgia has suspended their star running back, Todd Gurley, because he allegedly was paid $400.00 for signing autographs on eighty memorabilia items. This works out to a mere five dollars an item for a young man who brings in millions of dollars of revenue to his school without receiving a dime in return.

Now before you go off and tell me Gurley receives a free college education, you should know the University of Georgia cares only about two things when it comes to their best player; what does he do on the playing field and what does he get into while off of the playing field? The classroom does not come into play.

While Gurley sits out an indefinite suspension, the University of Georgia will be sure to continue selling jerseys with his number three to fans at a far more profitable rate than Gurley was paid for his autograph. The school and the NCAA will use these profits to add to their coffers without thought of the hypocrisy of what they are doing.

Why is it a young athlete in college on athletic scholarship is not allowed to make money to supplement the living expenses he receives from his scholarship? Gurley, and the thousands of other athletes across the country on scholarship, do not live a lavish lifestyle and often end up leaving college with head, neck, knee, ankle, hip, or back injuries that will cost them a shot of landing a professional contract. These injuries also will often end up limiting what they are able to do for the rest of their lives which includes earning a decent income.

Meanwhile, anyone not on an athletic scholarship is allowed to earn money while attending an NCAA school. Those on academic scholarship can get jobs just as anyone who is not skilled enough to play a sport at an elite level. If a talented art student is allowed to earn money selling their work while in school, an athlete should be afforded the same opportunity. Why prevent student athletes from earning a few bucks here and there?

Allowing college athletes to earn money will actually make the job of coaches, compliance departments, and the NCAA much easier. Who is it harming if a booster wants to reward a player for a great game played? Who cares if an athlete is paid to appear in a local television commercial? Does it affect the outcome of a game if a player is paid to sign a few balls and jerseys to be sold at an auction?

Todd Gurley will come out of this just fine. The NFL will not care that he was suspended a few games. In fact, given that he plays running back, they will be happy to know he will have a little less wear and tear on his body. Suspending Gurley only hurts his team because he is such an important component of their offense.

The NCAA needs to cease their practice of hypocrisy. They are swimming in money and are not hurt when a few star athletes are smart enough to cash in on their talent. As long as they have not signed with an agent or are involved in the gambling aspect of the game, let these athletes profit. It may actually result in fewer athletes looking to leave school early before they are ready to play at the professional level.

Todd Gurley only did what any young person would have done in order to have a little more spending money. His only mistake was charging too little for his name. However, that will all change next spring because the next time he signs his name it will be on a professional contract. Not even the NCAA is powerful enough to keep that from happening.

Euthanasia Should Be Legalized

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, decided it is within the rights of any woman to end a pregnancy under certain circumstances and guidelines. Whether or not you agree with the court's decision is irrelevant. What matters is the court ruled that women have control of their bodies which in essence means all citizens of age have control of their bodies. However, this is not true.

Today, 34 U. S states have the death penalty as part of their criminal justice sentencing. Criminals found guilty of certain crimes and circumstances may face execution.

In cases of both abortion and execution, it can be argued that the state is allowing for the taking of a human life and depending on your religious beliefs, may also be argued we are doing "God's work."

All states also have laws that allow the use of deadly force by law enforcement in an attempt to protect and serve its citizens. Few would complain about the police shooting a crazed gunman who takes hostages but again it could be argued they are doing the work of God.

Unfortunately, we do not allow citizens, under certain circumstances, to take control of their bodies and decide for themselves whether or not it is time to end their life. High rise buildings and hotels have windows that do not open up to prevent citizens from committing suicide. Bridges and over passes are covered in wire to prevent someone form throwing them self over to their demise.

You can easily argue a suicidal people are mentally ill and if they could just receive proper mental health support they might go on to live productive lives. But what about those who are not mentally ill? What about those who are only suffering from the ravages of old age or are terminally ill? Should they not have greater say as to how and when they pass?

Eighty to ninety percent of all the money we spend on medical care during the course of our lives is spent in the final two years of life. This is neither cost effective nor fair to the dying person who may prefer to leave this world sooner and leave behind whatever money they may have to loved ones.

What is so wrong with an elderly person who has decided they have lived enough and they have nothing left to offer this world from taking their life? What about the terminally ill? Is it so wrong that they choose to go out on their own terms rather than feel like a burden to their family? The only people who benefit from keeping an old person alive is often times the medical industry.

Now, I am not suggesting we start authorizing the killing of elderly or sick people. However, I do think the decision to live longer or not should be theirs just as it should be a woman's decision to decide whether or not it is best for her to go through with a pregnancy. What is the big deal if someone with a terminal illness decides they would rather swallow a few pills and end their life instead of going through a slow process that may end up leaving their loved ones emotionally drained while emptying their savings? Some, perhaps many, would prefer to die on their terms with their dignity rather than on society's terms.

Does it make us a worse society if a cancer patient who has put all his affairs in order and said all of his good-byes decides to die on his terms rather than be kept alive as long as possible? We allow citizens to donate their organs to others upon death in order to help someone else live longer. Family members often are encouraged to "pull the plug" so doctors can harvest their organs for someone else. Isn't this playing God? A person of sound mind should be allowed to die in the manner of their choosing and not be forced to resort to extreme measures.

If you support a woman's right to an abortion or believe in either the death penalty or use of deadly force, you should support euthanasia. We either have total control over our bodies or none at all. You can not play God in some cases of life and death and not in others.

The Politics of Containment Will No Longer Work

Our leaders, and nation as a whole, could stand to follow the ways of physicians who believe in practicing a preventative approach when dealing with potential problems. Unfortunately, we increasingly see and evaluate leadership in terms of crisis management. All too often, the first goal of leaders is to get reelected. This results in them lulling us into a false sense of security and focuses their energies on containing problems rather than trying to prevent them in the first place. It is why today we have serious concerns facing us in the forms of Ebola, a serious water shortage, ISIS, and whether or not our own president is adequately protected.

In 1976, the first Ebola outbreak was recorded along the Ebola River in Africa and struck 318 people, killing 280. At the time, we learned this was a new and very deadly virus and breathed a sigh of relief that is was contained to a small portion of Africa.

There have since been other Ebola outbreaks, each striking primarily western Africa. In 1995, Ebola hit another 315 people and killed 254 in the process. Since the new millennium, there have been at least seven other Ebola outbreaks resulting in a death rate of over 75 percent. While each has been contained to the African continent, these outbreaks have always resulted in the worry of whether or not it might reach the United States.

Unfortunately, since the initial outbreak in 1976, not much has been done to combat the virus beyond keeping it from spreading. By identifying and isolating its victims, we have spent 38 years trying to contain it without making much progress in treating it. When you compare this to the progress made in fighting AIDS over the same period, you begin to see just how little progress has been made since 1976.

Some will argue that in 1976 we did not know enough about Ebola to do anything about it. What they fail to grasp is we knew enough about viruses at that time to know they could not be contained and they would eventually spread. That knowledge alone was enough to jump start our fight against AIDS. But because Ebola was contained in Africa, there was no urgency to combat it at the time.

However, now that Ebola has reached the United States and current estimates predict well over one million people world wide will die from this current outbreak, we now have a crisis on our hands. The fact that we waited nearly forty years to view it this way should outrage anyone who contracts Ebola or has a loved one who falls ill from it.

That the first Ebola outbreak happened at about the same time Americans faced an oil crisis at home resulting in gas shortages is more than just a coincidence. Today, we have made little progress on our crude oil dependency and continue to find ourselves at the mercy of oil producing nations for our energy needs. Little progress has been made in weaning ourselves from foreign supplied energy and if, or when, another oil crisis strikes, we are ill prepared to deal with it.

Today, in California, we are also in the midst of a horrible drought and water shortages are now at a crisis level. In 1976, when Ebola first broke out, our state was experiencing a terrible drought. Like today, wells dried up, agriculture suffered, lawns turned brown, and showering became a luxury. Unfortunately, since the end of that drought, and subsequent droughts that have followed, California has failed to keep pace with its population growth so today we are suffering through another water crisis.

Too often, state leaders tell us there was just no way to predict such a drought. The fact we have been able to trace a history of previous droughts, predict population growth, and estimate our future water needs seems irrelevant to them. Nor is it a fault of anyone that we have failed to build sufficient sources of back up water supplies or gray water collection systems to help meet our growing needs. We have; however, been able to find the funds to build an unneeded bullet train at the cost of billions of tax payers dollars even though it will never irrigate an inch of parched land.

Then there is ISIS. No, they were not around when Ebola first arrived in 1976. However, terrorism in the Middle East was and again, we chose containment over prevention. We learned nothing from the tragedy of the Munich Olympics in 1972 when terrorists murdered members of the Israeli Olympic team. Subsequent terrorist attacks that resulted in planes shot down, American hostages taken, and a failed attempt to bring down the twin towers by Al-Qaeda in the 1990's failed to wake us up. The attacks of 9/11 placed us in two wars and we all rejoiced when Bin Laden was hunted down and killed only to see our president take the view that ISIS was nothing more than a JV team.

The fact we continually practice the politics of containment, also known as the politics of dodging bullets, when we know it only leads to one crisis after another is inexcusable. And yet the very leaders who help cause these crisis' pat themselves on the backs for how well they handled them rather than doing what was needed to prevent them in the first place.

Next month marks 51 years since the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In that time, there have been two close assassination attempts made on Gerald Ford and another one that nearly cost us the life of Ronald Reagan. We have also seen numerous White House fence jumpers in the past but only until the most recent one made his way into the White House East Room that we have started to question the security of our president.

We can no longer afford to simply look at our problems and seek to merely contain the damage done by them. Containment only leads to larger crisis' down the road.

It is time we begin practicing preventative politics. In the long term, this is a much healthier approach because it requires forward thinking, proactive solutions, and most of all, leaders who seek to leave a positive lasting legacy for all the people rather than creating leaders who seek to do as little as possible.

Preventive politics would have resulted in a much better prepared medical plan to combat Ebola today. It would continue to keep it on the African continent by already having developed vaccines as a result of nearly 40 years of research and medical breakthroughs.

Preventative politics would have placed our nation on the fore front of alternative energy today and provided much needed jobs for Americans. It would no longer link our economy to the price of crude oil in the Middle East and give us more international political and economic leverage than we currently have.

Preventative politics would have resulted in scores of back up water construction projects throughout our state and resulted in plentiful jobs rather than seeing the Golden State become a welfare state. The central valley would not be a modern day dust bowl and all of California would enjoy plentiful water as we weather another drought.

Preventative politics would see us one step ahead of terrorists rather than scrambling to play catch up. It would see more people working at jobs to protect our borders, airports, embassies, and overseas interests rather than seeing the political finger pointing that goes on today.

Most of all, the politics of prevention would see cooperation between political parties which is far healthier than the politics we currently see played out. The politics of prevention is based on a premise that the best politics is looking out for our future rather than placing blame on the past.

Just like with the human body, our country is better served when it practices preventive care. It requires we demand whoever we vote for places their ego at the door and work with the opposition party rather than merely setting out to block their political progress.

We have tried containment long enough and look at where we are today. Perhaps it is time to rethink this failed approach and consider what we can accomplish through healthier means.

Republicans Could Benefit Have The Supreme Court To Thank In 2016

Now that the Supreme Court has effectively ended the debate over gay marriage by refusing to listen to challenges over state laws allowing it, it would appear this is a huge loss for republicans. In fact, if they play their cards right, the opposite might be true.

While supporters of gay marriage can celebrate the court's decision, republicans can thrive if they learn from their past. With the 2016 presidential election just two years away, thanks to the Supreme Court, gay marriage should no longer be an issue. If asked for their position on gay marriage, republican presidential candidates simply need to reply, “While I personally do not believe in gay marriage, the legal process has played out and the Supreme Court has decided the matter once and for all. We have more pressing matters that face this nation and it will be those matters that my presidency will focus on.”

By respectfully disagreeing with the court's decision while telling the public the matter is dead, republicans will be able to begin the process of ending the practice of allowing religiously influenced politics to direct their presidential goals. If they are wise, republicans would also do the same when it comes to their stances on abortion, euthanasia, or any other issues that are all too often bible driven.

In doing so, the Republican Party can begin concentrating on convincing millennials they are the party best suited for the future of this significant voting population. Jobs, war, tuition reform, the environment, taxes, health care, and housing are not bible driven issues and all are more important to the children of baby boomers than who is or is not allowed to get married.

Republicans would also be wise to forget about a litmus test for their future judicial appointments, expecting them to be pro life, pro death penalty, and pro heterosexual. All these do is send a message to young people that republicans are not an all inclusive party. If they want to gain the vote of women, minorities, or the young, they need to return to focusing on the issues that matter most to the majority rather than those of the overly influential extreme right.

Millennials do not care whether or not a person is gay or straight, christian or other, white or black, or conservative or liberal. All they want is to trust a political party with their future, a future that today is no better off than it was when they got behind President Obama in 2008 and 2012.

In 2016, democrats will have to run on their record. They will not be able to blame the war, economy, health care, or social reforms on republicans. The republican candidate who can focus on the short comings of the past eight years rather than on undoing what the Supreme Court has allowed and what most Americans support, will have a much better chance of winning the White House. This candidate will be able to paint the democrats choice, most likely Hillary Clinton, as a representative of failed past policies that only stand in the way of the future progress of this nation. Republicans might actually have a chance at painting themselves as the more level headed and moderate party, something most Americans are hoping to find in one of our two major parties.

So in two years, if republicans win back the White House, they can thank the Supreme Court once again. Only this time it will not be over their interpretation of dangling chads or voter recounts in Florida but rather because they took a divisive issue that made republicans look out of touch with the rest of the nation and took it off the political table.

Our Future Economy Could Be Linked To The Military

In a day and age where our economy seems unable to fully recover from our great recession, it is time to rethink what is in store for our future. Americans finally seem resigned to the fact that many of our major corporations have relocated overseas and we are destined to lose jobs to China and India due to their much larger pool of available cheap labor.

Consequently, it is important for our economic future to rethink where future jobs will thrive and accept that we may need to rely on a much larger influence from our military for providing Americans with a variety of available jobs. With President Obama admitting the bulk of the responsibility for establishing peace in the Middle East falls on the United States, we have an opportunity to cash in on our superior military. By becoming the “police force” of the free world, we can exploit the military deficiencies of other nations and use a much larger military than we currently have to serve as a military presence in nations unable or unwilling to protect their own self interests or the interests of friendly outside nations.

Perhaps, rather than investing less of our GNP in the military, we might be wise to invest more into it. Other than Russia, no other nation in the world comes close to the four percent of our GNP that we invest in our military. In fact, we come close to out spending all other nations on the planet in the amount we presently spend on our armed forces.

It has become clear that American companies can not afford to pay a large work force the low wages it needs to produce the type of goods we love to consume at an affordable rate. Raising the minimum wage will only cost jobs and add to our unemployment rate so we may be better off allowing those companies to pursue cheaper labor elsewhere.

But with the Middle East in a state of political and religious chaos, Russia making waves in the Ukraine, and our border leaking like a sieve, it may be wise to invest more in the areas of defense, anti terrorism, and border protection. As it is now, we do not have enough man power available to meet the demands in these areas so it only makes sense to begin investing them, both via the government and private sector.

Technology whizzes are desperately needed to keep us ahead of the rest of the world on the military front so we should be pushing to hire more college grads on this front rather than paying them to make more video games for our children. We will continue to need newer and more diverse drones that can be employed to protect our interests both abroad and on our border. More sophisticated weapons from a workable “Star Wars” defense system to even smarter and more powerful bombs will allow us to become a military employed by nations like Saudi Arabia rather than selling them weapons that may fall into the hands of the wrong people and be used against us. Wouldn't it make more sense to trade Middle East oil for American provided protection instead of selling arms for oil?

By allowing other nations to outsource their protection to the United States, our military will have a much greater need for manpower which creates jobs for a variety of people with anywhere from low to high skills. Yes, we will need more people on the front lines in other nations but we will also need specialty trained men and women with the skills that keep our equipment running, supplies flowing, and medical needs met. Again, many of the young men and women who are unable to find work in their fields of study will now be needed to apply their skills while employed in the armed forces. Doctors, teachers, psychologists, physical therapists, pharmacists, maintenance mechanics, and scores of others will be needed by expanding the role of the U.S. Military.

Expanding our military will also weaken the power of people like Vladimir Putin. As it is now, Russia's economy can not handle spending four percent of their GNP on their military and be vibrant. It was our country's ability to spend so much on our military that brought an end to the cold war because Russia could not maintain our spending rate while keeping Russians employed. The headache we have in the Ukraine today goes away when the Putins of the future know if they invade a neighboring nation they will be matched up against a much stronger and far better equipped military than they face today.

This also renders the UN Peace Keeping Forces useless, which is what they have been for decades. No longer will a country have to turn to a dysfunctional governing body for help when they can turn to the United States. Who would you rather have protecting your nation from an enemy invasion, the UN or the United States?

Finally, there is our border. Like it or not, we can no longer protect our border and keep out terrorist threats with any degree of certainty. Border patrol agents claim they are lucky if they nab thirty percent of the people trying to enter illegally. If I am ISIS, I chomp at the bit over those figures. An increased investment in border protection, airport security, and coastal surveillance will provide Americans with much needed jobs as well. What good is it to have the strongest military in the world if we can not keep the enemy outside our borders?

We all know that need equals jobs and if the government opens many of these defense/security/anti terrorism jobs to the private sector, it will create competition. Competition in the work force allows for less wasteful spending and greater efficiency than we currently see when the government runs everything. It will stimulate our economy in a way never before done and allow us to no longer dwell on the jobs we see going overseas. It can create an economy built around our providing a much needed service to nations all over the world much like oil provided nations in the Middle East.

Americans will only be able to remain consumers of more products than any other nation in the world if they are able to afford to purchase cars, boats, electronics, and the endless number of toys we devour. That requires jobs that provide the worker with a stable income and job security which can only happen in fields that are needed. Nations need protection now more than ever and there is no reason why nations like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Ukraine, and countless more can not hire a nation like ours to do for them what they may be unable or unwilling to do for themselves.

It may well be time to rethink our place in the world's economy. We will no longer be a provider of cheap labor and goods. We can not afford to become a nation of haves and have nots and expect to thrive. We have to find a way to create much needed jobs that provide a valuable service to not just Americans, but to people all over the world.

President Obama is right when he says no other nation in the world is equipped to take the lead on matters of protecting and preserving peace in the world. Why not make that a focal point of our economic turn around?

Ebola Won't Be A Problem: Ha!

Rest assured Americans. Now that we have our first diagnosed case of Ebola in the United States, government officials have assured us there is nothing to worry about. There is no need to worry the infected man informed airport officials he was returning from Liberia where he was exposed to at least one infected woman who later died. It is also understandable he would be sent home from the Dallas hospital he first went to when he started feeling ill only to be admitted a few days later. What could happen during that time? Okay, so he was in direct contact with at least five children who attend four different schools. It's not like our schools are breeding grounds for illnesses.

In case you are still worried Ebola might become a major problem in our country, let me set your mind at ease and remind you that if our government says there is no need to worry, then there is no need to be alarmed. Just in case you still have doubts, I have provided you with a list of sound reasons why you should feel good about how our government will handle Ebola.

1. These are the same people who assured us the White House fence jumper was quickly and professionally apprehended despite getting past at least five guards, walking through an unlocked front door, and making his way to the White House East Room.
2. We have been told over and over there is no need to place boots on the ground in Syria or Iraq even though there are not any defense experts who agrees with this idea.
3. The same government that viewed ISIS as the JV team is probably viewing Ebola as nothing more than a stubborn head cold.
4. There is no need to doubt a government that assured us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when they tell you Ebola will not be a problem in the United States.
5. Remember, when we are assured our president is well protected despite placing him in an elevator with an armed rent-a-cop who begins acting strangely, there is no reason to worry about an isolated case of Ebola.
6. Even though government officials were mistaken over what were gunshots fired at the White House and had to have their error pointed out by a White House cleaning lady, I am sure they can not be wrong about their opinion about Ebola.
7. While we may not place boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq, we can feel good about our government sending 3,000 troops to western Africa to combat Ebola rather than sending 3,000 health care workers.
8. You should not worry about Ebola just because our government decided to bail out banks and do nothing when they rewarded CEO's with huge bonuses while Americans lost their homes.
9. Have faith in our government because they know you can defend yourself from an Ebola outbreak just like the Iraqi army was able to defend their country, allowing our soldiers to return home.
10. And just because it was our government that spent 50 billion dollars a year fighting a war in Afghanistan, a nation whose gross national product is worth six billion dollars, I am sure there is plenty of money left for any of us who might need medicine in case we come down with Ebola.
11. This is also the same government that is fighting to put an end to the team named Redskins while doing nothing about those named Indians, Braves, Chiefs, Seminoles, Blackhawks, Warriors, Aztecs, Chippewas, or Fighting Illini.
12. Never lose faith in our government's Ebola fight just because they lost 55 million dollars last year producing pennies at a rate of 1.83 cents a penny.
13. And finally, even if you do get Ebola, you are probably like me and glad to know thanks to the Affordable Care Act, many of us now pay more to receive less health care than before the ACA.

So when you go to bed tonight, drop to your knees and give thanks knowing our government has a handle on Ebola. Feel good knowing the next time you are sitting in your doctor's waiting room or a crowded ER and the guy next to you is coughing and sweating from a terrible fever, you have nothing to worry about. Know that the plane you are flying on and is recycling everyone's air for you to breath is Ebola free. And I am sure the sniffles your kid's best friend has are nothing to be concerned about.

We have been assured by our leaders there is no reason to worry, and that alone should be enough to make us all sleep well tonight.

ISIS Poses An Historical Dilema

The challenges we have faced in the Middle East since the 9/11 attacks bare a striking resemblance to another period in our history. It would do both our political and military leaders as well as the general public well to study our history before moving forward in our fight against ISIS.

On December 7, 1941, Japan successfully launched an attack on our western fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor. The idea behind the attack was to inflict so much military damage that our leaders would negotiate with Japanese leaders as they pursued conquering Asia. Neither the Japanese military or Al-Qaeda wanted to engage in a conventional war with our military; however, both attacks were aimed to strike enough fear into the American public's mind with the hope it would result in urging our leaders to change their political practices.

Instead, in both instances, the attacks served to unify our nation in support of wars to end extremism; fascist/empire building in World War II and religious fanaticism today. As a result, years of war followed as we worked to rid the world of foreign threats to not only us but to others in the free world.

Today, we stand at a crossroads in history. How do we handle the ISIS threat and ensure we rid the world of future threats like it? Clearly the two post 9/11 wars have not brought an end to the religious extremism behind Al-Qaeda, they merely slowed it down. Unfortunately, they did nothing to prevent the rise of a more dangerous group in ISIS.

In World War II, President Truman decided to use the atomic bomb to end our war with Japan. Europe was freed of Hitler and his supporters but Japan stubbornly fought on. While German and Italian troops surrendered in large numbers when defeat was imminent, Japanese soldiers fought to the death. When out of bullets, they did not hesitate to charge our troops with bayonets affixed to their guns and fight hand to hand. With hundreds of islands to retreat to, they had the ability to prolong the war another ten years and at a cost estimated to include the loss of another million U.S. Servicemen lives.

ISIS will retreat into densely populated cities, rugged mountains, or into hard to reach caves while waging a fight to the death with those they perceive to be infidels. They will slaughter anyone who stands in their way in the most brutal manner imaginable and post these killings on the internet for the world to see. While they may lack the numbers and military power to defeat the United States, ISIS can and will prolong their fight hoping in the process to destroy our economy due to the war's high cost here at home.

In World War II, Japan was inspired by their emperor who they believed to be divinely empowered. Today, ISIS desires to establish a new Caliphate and also believes they are divinely directed. ISIS has no problem finding volunteers to launch suicide attacks against us or innocent people in the cities and towns they seek to conquer. These murders believe they will be rewarded with an eternity in Paradise. During World War II, Japanese teenagers volunteered as Kamikaze pilots and attempted to guide engine less planes packed with explosives into American war ships. They believed they were on a holy mission and those not selected often committed harakiri out of shame.

When President Truman decided to use the first atomic bombs it was a decision made to bring an enemy to its knees while trying to limit the loss of American lives. It allowed a war weary nation to finally return home and resulted in a rebuilt Japan that has remained democratic, peaceful, and a close ally of ours. It also led to an arms race and decades long cold war between our country and the Soviet Union and would see us involved in two lengthy and costly wars in Korea and Vietnam.

To think a nuclear option is off the table in our fight against ISIS is to be naïve. How does the American public think we will rid the world of religious extremism if they only support wars that result in minimal loss of life? It has yet work.

Our next president may well be someone who has to make an incredibly difficult decision. It is clear our current president prefers to pass on making it and will watch it become part of the next presidential debate. Does our next president okay the use of nuclear weapons to rid the Middle East of fanatics while also killing massive amounts of innocent people or are U.S. troops sent in to fight door to door in urban settings resulting in high U.S. casualties? Do we fight another long war resulting in a stalemate and a line drawn much like the 38^th parallel in Korea that requires a large constant U.S. Military presence or do we annihilate an entire region and rebuild it with the hope it becomes as strong an ally as Japan is today?

In either case, history tells us what lies ahead will neither be easy or inexpensive and will shape the future of the entire planet for perhaps the remainder of the 21st century.

Obama Blinded By His Goals

President Obama has finally stated ISIS was underestimated by his intelligence team, going so far as to name James Clapper as being primarily at fault. Obama also admitted in his 60 Minutes interview that he overestimated the readiness of the Iraqi military when pulling out the last of American troops.

While there may be some degree of truth behind his admissions, Obama fails to admit he ignored the intelligence both he and congress received on numerous occasions in which it was pointed out that ISIS was becoming a major threat. At the same time, Obama refused to take seriously the military advise he received to leave a small force behind in Iraq. Now, both ISIS and Iraq have come back to haunt him.

By tossing James Clapper under the bus in his 60 Minutes interview, President Obama is trying to convince us this international crisis is not his fault when in reality it is. No one is hearing our president say, “The buck stops here.” Instead, it is the fault of those who work for him.

However, when our president receives daily briefings and hears congressional testimony from people who bring to his attention major threats to our security and he ignores them because of his own personal desires, he fails to be a leader who is strong enough to surround himself with nothing more than “yes” men and women. He becomes unable or unwilling to change his mind because he knows history is not always kind to leaders who do. You only have to go back to the first President Bush. Do you really think he wanted to break his “no new taxes” pledge and lose his party's support?

Unfortunately, President Obama became blind to any perspective that ran counter to his desire to be remembered as the president who got us out of both of George W. Bush's wars. Unfortunately, in doing so, Obama can not lay claim that both Afghanistan and Iraq are better off today. He also can not claim there is less of a threat from radical terrorism and now has admitted we are in for a long fight to combat it.

But what is really troubling is despite all of this, President Obama seems determined to follow the blind path he has been on for far too long. By refusing to listen to military advisers and experts and sticking to his “no boots on the ground” stance, our president is leading the nation down a dangerous and troubling path.

No one of any credibility has yet to state we can win this fight against ISIS by simply bombing them. Like it or not, boots are needed on the ground in Iraq and Syria. And like it or not, our president has told the entire world the United States will be the one to pull most of the weight behind the coalition fight against terrorism. How will this happen if we do not go after the terrorists?

Does President Obama really think the Iraqi army will get its act together and do the job for us? Does he think the Syrian government will welcome Iraqi troops inside their border? Our Arab coalition partners have been minor participants in our bombing raids. Who thinks they will jump at the chance to place their soldiers in harms way? And lets face it, European support is not much better than Arab support so if Obama is wise, he will not wait another eight to twelve months before deciding to do what we all know he needs to do. Waiting for mid term elections or hoping this can be passed on to his successor is only adding to the crisis. We all know what decision Obama needs to make but again, he is stubbornly sticking to an unrealistic goal which is only helping ISIS.

Our president has told us we are at war with ISIS and any other terrorist group with similar goals. It is time our president uses the resources at his disposal and begins to follow the advise of those who know more than him. If he is unwilling to fight a war with the intent to do whatever it takes to win, how does he expect to build a strong and committed coalition?

President Obama is at a point where his words are falling on deaf ears because our eyes see the reluctance in his when it comes to making difficult decisions that go against his prior set presidential goals. He would be better served not just in the short term but in the history books as well if he would forget about those goals and set about making the types of decisions that better serve this nation in the long term. Maybe then, future coalitions will be easier to build for the next president.

Change Our Culture and the NFL Will Follow

Much has been written and talked about in the media regarding the troubling culture of the NFL. The commissioner doesn't take domestic violence seriously; player behavior is out of control; and owners care more about profits than the character of the players. On top of this, a new report indicates one-third of all NFL players will leave the game with some level of brain damage leaving us to question whether or not the game is safe to play at any level.

Still, fans follow the game at a record rate. They participate in fantasy football leagues as well as follow their favorite teams. They bet millions of dollars every weekend on the outcome of games while also purchasing NFL merchandise in a variety of forms. Clearly, Americans love and want the game despite recent polls showing their desire to see improved player conduct and stiffer penalties for law breakers.

Unfortunately, as a society, we are more concerned over the conduct of fewer than two thousand professional football players than we are over society as a whole. I keep hearing people say, “It is a privilege and not a right to play the game.” In reality, it is neither. Being a professional football player is nothing more than a brutal job.

Can you name any other profession that is allowed to thrive while causing one-third of its work force brain damage? Americans should be demanding OSHA step in and shut the game down rather than helping it achieve record annual profits. However, if that were to happen, what would we do on Sunday afternoons or Monday and Thursday evenings?

If you use the “It's not a right, it's a privilege” argument and apply it to all jobs in the United States, we would have to hold ourselves accountable to the same standards as the NFL. How many of us are willing to undergo random drug testing knowing it could cost us our career and reputation? Are we willing to have our work performance posted in newspapers and on web sites while dissected by talking heads on television and radio? Are we comfortable knowing we can be canned from our jobs and not owed a dime despite having a signed contract? Do we want to have to look for a new career because someone tells us at the age of thirty or thirty-five we are over the hill?

If we want the culture of the NFL to change, we must first change the culture of the nation that created it. We also have to stop embracing the violence and win at all cost mentality behind the game.

At least half of our nation has been raised in a time in which we embraced violent video games starting at an early age. What type of adult behavior do we expect to churn out when parents allow their kids to play games centered around making quick and violent decisions in order to advance to a higher level? It should not surprise us that during this video age we have also seen a huge rise in school violence, mass shootings, and domestic violence.

When we promote the sale and use of alcohol and link it to the enjoyment of our football viewing experience, it only makes sense we see a rise in domestic violence calls on Sundays in cities where the home team loses. It is also why we see an increase in DUIs as drunken fans try to drive home, sometimes with tragic results.

As a culture, perhaps we would be better served if we corrected and eliminated the behavior of local gangs, drug dealers, and other violent criminals so our Sundays can once again be spent enjoying life outdoors rather than living vicariously through professional football players. Maybe if we eliminated, rather than celebrated, reality TV shows that glorify drinking, degradation, loud confrontations, and narcissistic behavior, we might see an improvement in not just football player behavior, but also the behavior of fans and society in general.

If we are going to see significant change in player behavior in the NFL it will require us to demand better from ourselves. It will mean confronting problems on a national level and not just a National Football League level. It will also require us to be better doctors, teachers, trash collectors, and most of all, citizens.

If playing in the NFL is a privilege then so should being a citizen of this nation. Our best leaders lead by example and not by the, “Do as I say and not as I do,” philosophy too many of us live by. We all need a wake up call when it comes to individual conduct before placing higher expectations on the NFL. By demanding more from ourselves, we all lead by example and that will, in time, show in how the NFL commissioner, its players, and owners conduct themselves.

Dear Roger,

I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your handling of the Ray Rice matter. It's people like you that allow me a breather from the media. We both know they can be relentless in their pursuit of the truth.

Had you not botched up the Ray Rice investigation, his punishment, and by the looks of things, your most recent apology, I would still be getting grilled over my handling of ISIS. Clearly, I was wrong to think of them as the JV team just as you were wrong to think you could allow players like Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, Ray McDonald, Adrian Peterson, Ben Roethlisberger, and countless others to slip under the radar.

I have a huge favor to ask of you and know it comes at a challenging time. Could you in some way either keep this mess on the front burner for another month and a half or create a new controversy that will keep the media focus on you? You see, I still do not have a clear plan in place on how to deal with ISIS and have to find a way to keep voters distracted until the November elections take place.

Perhaps you could get grilled over just how little money raised from NFL pink merchandise sales goes to actual breast cancer research. If the American public knew only eight percent of the money goes to research while about one and a half times that goes to the NFL, fans and the media might rake you over the coals and forget that my current coalition to fight ISIS looks about as scary as the Dallas Cowboys defense.

Then again, maybe more could be made about how almost one third of all NFL players will end up with brain damage. This might make Americans forget about the PTSD problems our men and women in the armed forces face. You and I both know brain damage is just a small price to pay for keeping America strong internationally and great on the gridiron.

Perhaps you could ask owners of teams coached by blacks to fire their head coach and create another race controversy. We both saw how well a race controversy worked in Ferguson this past summer. I am certain there is not enough time or media talking heads to cover this kind of story while still questioning my leadership skills.

Finally, if none of this works, maybe we could do each other a favor. If we were to just switch jobs, that in itself might get the media off our backs. I could offer the NFL the same kind of hope I offered the United States when I was first elected in 2008 and you could bring the kind of open and decisive leadership to the oval office that you have brought to the NFL.

Please know I am in your corner and one of your biggest supporters. Thanks to your leadership skills, I can concentrate on my golf swing while figuring out how someone jumped the white house fence and got to within a few feet of my front door.

Your Friend,

Barack Obama

NFL: No Fan League

NFL owners are often accused of running a good old boys club with its commissioner, Roger Goodell, their hand picked mouth piece. Under Goodell's reign, NFL owners enjoy record profits annually and they in turn rewarded Goodell to the tune of $44 million dollars last year. Despite continued high profile police cases involving players arrested for domestic violence, child abuse, DUI, assault, rape, and drug dealing, the league continues to grow in popularity making Roger Goodell, Roger Good Sell.

However, with his recent botched handling of the Ray Rice domestic violence case and the outcry over it, it would seem the NFL stands to face serious fallout. The media has yet to let up over the potential cover up by Good Sell or Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti and yet viewership is at an all time high.

While a few of the NFL's sponsors have voiced concern over how serious the league is at combating domestic violence or cleaning up player behavior, the reality is for every sponsor who might decide to drop their account with the NFL, there are probably ten others waiting in line to hop on board the league's money train. Besides, fans will continue to watch the games no matter who sponsors them.

Look at Baltimore Ravens fans. Their owner, Steve Bisciotti, team president, Dick Cass, and general manager, Ozzie Newsome, all knew the content of the infamous elevator video showing Ray Rice knocking out his then fiancee, Janay Palmer, with one punch. They may or may not have decided to not watch the video but they received both a verbal and written description of it. Worse, when the team's head coach, John Harbaugh, asked them to cut Rice immediately from the team, they all over ruled him and went to great lengths to minimize how long Rice would be suspended.

Ravens team leaders went to great lengths to downplay the incident as much as possible. Bisciotti probably lied at worst, or with held information at best, when questioned by his subordinate, Roger Good Sell. Bisciotti, and his top team executives then put undue pressure on Janay Palmer to downplay what happened when they attended her meeting with the commissioner. Bisciotti then goes on to basically bribe Rice by assuring him of a job with the team to ensure he sticks to the company line. Finally, he tosses the only sane person in this fiasco, his head coach, under the bus by making him the face of the organization when answering to the press in which he also sticks to the company line.

It is no wonder scores of female Ravens fans were seen wearing Ray Rice jerseys at the team's season opener. It's also no wonder why fantasy football players are angered over the extended suspension of Rice. And if the Ravens fall short of the playoffs this year, their fans will scream it is because of the unfair treatment of Ray Rice.

Whether it is Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Ray McDonald, or any of the scores of other NFL players who screw up while off the field this season, the fans don't care. They continue to follow their favorite teams because they provide a wonderful distraction to their own mundane lives. They will continue to purchase the numerous products pitched to them during commercial breaks while wearing their favorite player jerseys whether the player is a convicted felon or not.

Until the NFL becomes the No Fan League, we are only fooling ourselves if we think the league, its owners, team executives, and commissioner are committed to cleaning up player behavior.

 

Excellent work, Mr. Good Sell.

Blacks Can't Have It Both Ways

When I hear Charles Barkley profess Minnesota Vikings star running back Adrian Peterson only did to his child what every black parent in the south does, it only helps further drive home a view point many whites like me in this country have when we feel there is a segment of the black community who want life both ways. By that I mean they want to be allowed to live by a set of rules that not only go against the norms of society as a whole, but also goes against what the bulk of black America believes.

Many within the black community still believe they are not treated equally by society and by whites as a whole. They feel they are signaled out because of their skin color and not because of their actions. When Michael Brown was shot it was because of his skin color and for nothing else. To mention the convenience store robbery he committed a few minutes prior to his death or to suggest the white officer feared for his life is only an attempt to smear Michael's reputation. The reality is, white police officers account for only 0.2 percent of the gun deaths of black males in this country while black males account for the shooting deaths of 90 percent of black shooting victims. If it is wrong for a white to shoot and kill a black then where are the protests for the scores of blacks killing blacks?

This same segment of the black population demands “justice” when a white person uses the N-word but has no problem using it hundreds of times a day when conversing with other blacks. When did Martin Luther King Jr. urge blacks to use words with such a vile history behind them as part of friendly day to day banter? He urged blacks to lead by example and not by contradiction if they were going to succeed in changing the mind set of the white establishment.

The arrest and prison rates of blacks is far greater than it is among whites despite blacks making up a mere thirteen percent of the national population. It is often claimed by black leaders as another example of just how tough blacks, males especially, have it in this nation. Their drop out rates are also much higher as are their unemployment rates. However, when an articulate black like Charles Barkley claims it is normal for blacks to punish their children by whipping them or taking a tree branch to them and call it parenting, they add to the challenges blacks face in our society. To call it parenting is to fail to see how it only adds to the mounting anger found in many black males today. And when Adrian Peterson claims it was this kind of parenting that helped instill the discipline in him to become a great football player, he fails to see or accept the contradiction it has with the history blacks fought so hard to put an end to in the 1960's.

It is one thing to reject the white American culture because you do not want to lose your own in the process. Many minority groups throughout our nation's history have had to face this challenge while raising children. Irish, Italians, Jews, and Asians have had to do the same while raising families in America. However, to incorporate the very ugly components of the past white culture your predecessors fought and gave up their lives to do away with is only doing more to harm your peoples advancement than it is adding to your culture. It is not only hypocritical, it also shows a clear lack of understanding of the growth and changes made by the white culture in their attempt to learn and grow from their past. It is time for all blacks to do the same and realize they just can't have it both ways as part of a better life.

Five Questions We Deserve Answers To

As the hours draw closer to President Obama's speech to the nation that will most likely result in us going to war again, there are many Americans who want and deserve answers to questions that are rarely answered. These are questions that politicians know are on the minds of citizens but they go to great lengths to avoid answering them. It is time these questions are finally addressed in an open and honest manner before we jump into another war.

1. What will the United States military do differently this time that will help create a lasting peace in the Middle East? There's really no point in waging another military campaign to rid the area of a dangerous terrorist threat if it ends up like the last couple we fought. Billions of dollars spent, a crashed economy, thousands of lives lost and more left with permanent injuries is not a victory to be proud of. In fact, given the current state of life in Iraq and Syria, one could easily argue it was a defeat since we find ourselves back to square one.
   Whether or not this means no boots on the ground, more boots on the ground, a long lasting U.S. Military presence in the region, or the use of greater and more destructive weaponry on our part are some of the considerations that the American public deserves answers on. To simply repeat the tactics of ten years ago because it worked for a short while is no longer good enough. Americans deserve to know what will be different this time around.
2. What will we see differently from nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Kuwait that will convince Americans they will actively support a lasting peace in the region? Lets face it, the leaders of the nations I just mentioned rarely look at life beyond their palaces. So long as they are able to maintain peace within their borders, they really have not done much to ensure a lasting peace in the Middle East. Our government has armed many of these nations quite handsomely only to see them fail to actively step up and fight for the peaceful existence of all Muslims and non Muslims in the region. Until they actively take part in flushing out terrorist groups and use their military as part of a large coalition force to guarantee peace, they have to be viewed as part of the area's problem and not the solution.
3. Is it wise to continue arming moderate factions who end up becoming our enemy in another five to ten years or should we be more hands on in the post war nation building process? We have to admit, while we made a huge effort toward allowing the Iraqis to build a democracy this last time around, it didn't take hold. It's tough to expect a region to embrace freedom when they have only known repression and war. Post cold war Russia and her satellite nations are still finding this difficult 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. While it may seem nice, clean, and simple to hand the keys of a new government over to a group who helped us fight ISIS, they are likely to be ill equipped to not let their new power go to their heads. For this reason, anyone we arm to help fight ISIS will need to know we will be sticking around the region a lot longer this time. While this can be expensive to do, it is not nearly as costly as having to come back a decade later to fight yet another war.
4. How will the cost of this war hurt the American economy now that it is just starting to show signs of life after our post 9/11 wars? Too many middle class Americans lost jobs in part as a result of the high cost of fighting a war last time around. Too many young college graduates are still unable to find work as a result of the post 9/11 economic crash. We deserve to know what to expect this time around. Fighting a war requires sacrifices on the parts of all American citizens and not just those who serve in the military. Can we expect tax increases? Will there be wage freezes or mass layoffs? What type of services can we expect to see cut here at home while more money is geared toward the military? Without addressing these issues, there will not be much long term support, both at home or within a coalition, for an extended war.
5. Why should U.S. Military personnel and their families believe their post war medical needs will be taken care of? War doesn't just mean the loss of life. It also means seeing veterans returning home with amputated limbs, post traumatic stress, and financial challenges. Unfortunately, the VA has done a horrible job in meeting the medical and psychological needs of returning veterans and not enough employers stepped up to provide jobs for returning service men and women. Too many lost their houses, had their credit ruined, and were left in worse shape after serving their country than they would have been if they never served. This war has the great likelihood of needing far more service personnel for a much longer period of time to help bring about a lasting peace in the Middle East. Where are they going to come from if we fail to help meet their unique needs upon returning home? 
   

President Obama, along with members of the intelligence community, congress, as well as economic leaders, need to show us we have learned from the mistakes we made following our post 9/11 military efforts. They can not simply ask us to support them with a blank check and do as we have done in the past and expect to support another war on terrorism.

The truth is, we need a plan that will not only help defeat ISIS but lays the foundation for a continuous war against future terrorist groups. The reality is, we can never let up against this fight. However, there are things we can do, and need to do, differently to ensure the entire burden of peace does not fall on just our shoulders militarily and economically. There needs to be a real and lasting coalition of nations working together. It's time everyone's actions speak louder than their words. However, tonight, we all deserve to hear the words of our president and determine whether or not he is going to answer the questions we all deserve answers to before giving him our full support to go to war.

Hold Your Applause

For those who want to congratulate Roger Goodell, the Baltimore Ravens, and the NFL as a whole for extending the suspension of Ray Rice after TMZ released footage of the star running back looking more like a young George Foreman flattening Joe Frazier, hold your applause. They have done far more harm than good throughout this process. 

Commissioner Goodell is fortunate to have increased the money owners swim in. He should be looking for a new job but because he has done a terrific job of increasing revenue across the league, he will survive this public relations storm. There is no excuse for him to have passed judgment on Rice if his claims of not having seen the video are true. How do you hand out a punishment when you know you do not have all the facts? To claim the casino or police would not hand over the tape doesn't fly. He could have, and should have, forced Rice's hand by simply telling him he will be suspended indefinitely until he has seen all of the evidence. Furthermore, why would he interview Rice's victim, his then fiancee and now wife, with Ray sitting next to her? Anyone who has seen an episode of Law and Order knows this just doesn't lead to the truth. Goodell more than fumbled the ball with his investigation, he tried to pull one over the public and it has come back to bite him.

As for the Baltimore Ravens, they are only terminating Rice's contract because they fear the public's wrath more than they will miss Rice's tough running. If Baltimore had any sense of decency, Rice's contract would have been terminated last spring. However, they had more important matters to contend with like what might happen if Rice received just a two game suspension and then signed with division rivals Pittsburgh or Cincinnati? By releasing him now, that is no longer a fear because no organization short of an Al Davis run Oakland would sign this guy.

Worst of all is the NFL as a group. What other profession goes so far to find ways to hang on to young men whose conduct is criminal? Whether it is domestic violence, DUI, assault, multiple failed drug tests, or making joke bomb threats at an airport, the NFL rewards far too many of its players with big money contracts when they really should send them packing. This goes back decades. I remember Bill Parcells cutting a player who missed a team meeting. When the rarely used player pointed out that Lawrence Taylor also missed the meeting, Parcells is reported to have told the young man if he played as well as Taylor played he would still have a job.

The NFL Players Association has to quit fighting the suspensions of the criminal component in the league and start insisting ownership and the league begin taking a harder stance on players who belong behind bars and not on the gridiron. Only when the league office, ownership, and the NFL Players Association agree to rid the league of these players will we begin to see significant improvement in the off field behavior of its players. Commissioner Goodell and the owners have to view Ray Rice as more than a sacrificial lamb who will hopefully get fans and the media off their backs. They have to view Rice as the start of a new era in the NFL in which players are no longer rewarded with nice contracts while being allowed to live by a set of rules that the rest of us do not get to live by. Only time will tell if today is the beginning of such a new era or just another attempt by the NFL to present an image that just isn't real.

The Middle East Conundrum: Two Real Solutions

It is time to end the charade of politics being played out in the Middle East. In my 56 years on this planet, there has yet to be true peace in the region where political, religious, and ethnic respect have been promoted. Regional wars, oil embargoes, and the growth of terrorism have dragged the United States into far too many wars, international crisis', and concern for our own well being. It is time for this to end.

The problem is leaders in this country, both past and present, have failed to clearly lay out our real options when dealing with problems in the Middle East. By continually being dragged into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, allowing powers like Saudi Arabia to dictate oil prices while doing nothing in return to policing the region, or by failing to rid ourselves of our dependency on the region's oil, the United States is as much to blame as anyone for the current unrest in the Middle East.

Diplomacy has failed to accomplish anything of significance. When called to step in with our military, we are unable to secure any real regional support from nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Qatar when trying to build a coalition. These nations would clearly prefer to stay out of the unrest found in places like Iraq, Syria, or Libya because they know if they get involved and support our efforts they will become the next targets of Islamic Jihadists. Instead, they sit in their palaces and watch while we rely on countries like England, France, and Australia for support.

Our diplomatic goals have relied far too heavily on keeping the flow of oil coming to our country which ends up benefiting major oil companies more than the average American. Furthermore, we have refused to ween ourselves from our Middle Eastern addiction which, if done, would allow the money we spend on military efforts abroad to be used toward developing cheaper and abundant energy sources at home.

Where has this gotten us? Our “Redneck” mentality of using our military to topple Saddam Hussein resulted in greater political turmoil in Iraq while allowing for the rise of ISIS, the most barbaric and militarily challenging terrorist group our country has faced. And now that our president has stated he does not want to see American boots on the ground as part of the process of destroying ISIS, the situation there has been greatly complicated. While our nation is rightly tired of the years of post 9/11 war, and since congress is facing mid term elections in two months, we seem to be dragging our feet while the Middle East grows increasingly unstable.

It is time to rethink our strategy in the Middle East and to start calling out our real enemies. While ISIS has made it clear they are our enemy, so are the filthy rich leaders of do nothing nations in the region. When nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and others refuse to do their part to keep peace in the region, they must be viewed as our enemy as well. If they are not an active part of the solution then they are part of the problem. It is not simply enough to be assured by them they will not hide, train, or finance terrorist groups inside their borders. It is time for these leaders to step up and place their boots on the soil of Iraq, Syria, and Libya and rid the region of its extremism.

Failure, or refusal, on their part needs to result in cutting them off from our military sales which are only used to keep their citizens from rising up against their poor leadership. It also means requiring our oil companies to pull out of the region, destroying the infrastructure we have put into place, and severing all business ties to the region. It should result in a blockade of the Suez Canal and major ports making it impossible for these oil rich nations to export petroleum anywhere in the world.

If this does not end the do nothing approach of oil rich leaders, then we are left with two simple choices, each of which require a great sacrifice on all our part. The first will be to continue suffocating the region economically and sit back and watch their cannibalistic leaders devour one another while they lay the region ruined before then stepping in to clean up the mess. However, this will result in drastically higher fuel prices at home. We can also expect to see more Islamic meddling toward Israel along with much greater middle eastern state support for terrorist groups who want to see our demise.

The second option would call for us to step in and use our military in a way the world has never seen and reassert our domination in the process. It is pointless to continue to fight costly wars aimed at destroying an enemy while trying not to punish the innocent. Wars like this have little long term benefit and at best only serve as a costly band aide. The wounds inevitably get reinfected and require greater and more costly measures on our part. Unless we are willing to cut off an arm or a leg, we will continue to be dragged into one costly and pointless war after another with nothing to show for it.

To have a great military like ours at our disposal and not to fully use it in a decisive manner is no different than than not having a great military. Rather than trying to bomb specific sites with minimal fallout, we should consider leveling entire cities. We can not concern ourselves with who gets killed because all too often the survivors resent us for being there and end up working against us in the peace building process.

Does this mean using nuclear weapons? I would hope not. However, we have plenty of other weapons in our arsenal at our disposal and I think it is time we consider using them rather than past methods which have failed. There is no such thing as a humane war so if we are going to rely on war as a solution to the problems in the Middle East, we owe it to our citizens to do what we can to make it the last war in the region. If our future is at stake, then we can not concern ourselves with the loss of life in the Middle East as a result of war. This may seem hawkish but in reality it is just facing the the truth. Wars should only be fought to ensure long lasting peace and not to just buy more time before something worse happens. Do we really want to continue with our band aide approach and see an enemy worse than ISIS down the road?

My guess is, millennials are better prepared to handle the economic hardship of a Middle East boycott. They are more willing to do away with our oil dependency and question why our government does not do more toward developing cleaner energy sources. Public transportation is no big deal since many have been left with so much debt they can not afford to buy a car. They have no desire to continue to fight wars that yield nothing of significance in their eyes and all too often prevents them from getting a head start into the work force. They do not understand the concept of military sacrifice because too many have not been taught about the sacrifices made by those who fought in wars like World War II.

On the other hand, the old guard, baby boomers, of which I am one, are less likely to want to pay the much higher bills at the gas pump that would come from an economic boycott. We remember the gas lines of the 70's and do not want a repeat of having to remember whether or not it is an odd or even day to fill up at the pump. We like our cars and are not interested in relying on public transportation to get around. In fact, many, myself included, never had to serve in the military. We also lack a true understanding of what war is like and only know wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan which can not be viewed as major successes. Besides, we are more concerned about our financial portfolios and whether or not we will have enough money to enjoy retirement.

The big challenge will be convincing both groups to cease the problem solving methods we have been using for decades and to come together in a comprehensive agreement and demand our leaders approach the Middle East in a different and unified way. While the problems in the Middle East are often portrayed as cultural, here, in the United States, they are more generational. One thing both young and old can agree on is what we have been doing for the last half century has not worked.

Perhaps when the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia sees what total economic or military defeat will do to them, they might be convinced to wake up and actively join our fight for regional stability if for nothing more than their own self preservation. However, that will not happen until we at home are willing to be bothered by either economic hardship or the idea of seeing just how much damage our military can do to bring an end to what takes place in the Middle East.

If we are tired of war and no longer want to see American boots on the ground then we have to decide between economically suffocating the oil rich Middle East, which will cause us our own economic hardships, or a radically different military solution. If it is a military course, then it needs to result in the full use of our military might. We have to disregard the desires of oil rich leaders who have refused to help us bring stability to the region and if necessary, result in the rebuilding of a new Middle East, much like we did with post World War II Europe.

EDUCATION: Then and Now

I want to begin writing a series about our education system by comparing and contrasting the education system I began with in the 1980s to the one I finished with in 2014. Not all the changes that have taken place are for the good.

Then: In my first year of teaching, I taught six periods with seven different preparations. How is this possible? Well, as a first year teacher you just didn't complain so when the principal gave me both the yearbook class and the newspaper class the same period, I ended up teaching seven different courses. The others were sixth grade reading, sixth grade social studies, seventh grade reading, seventh grade World History, and eighth grade reading. My weekends were spent with an average of 16 to 20 hours of lesson planning and by the time I added up all my non contracted time I put into the job, I earned about five dollars an hour.

Now: I finished my career at the far end of the pay scale and was paid close to $90,000.00 a year to essentially keep control of classes that averaged over 40 freshmen, most of who were reading well below grade level and who already had made up their mind they were not going to attend college. Reading assignments were pointless because students looked at text books as punishment so class was set up with a lecture and group discussion curriculum coupled with weekly essays. I had not been observed in almost six years and in the three previous years at the school I finished at, I never once had an administrator come check on my class.

Then: By my second year at Clifton Middle School, I had proven myself as a skilled teacher and was rewarded with a full schedule of five periods of sixth grade social studies. I had a total of 99 students which meant I was not swamped with papers to grade and had plenty of classroom space for small group activities. There was also no pressure to teach to a state or federal test so a colleague and I taught a three week unit on manners and etiquette which culminated in a large feast with boys and girls dressed in their “Sunday Best” and parents coming by to admire the job we did.

Now: Since the course I taught was not required as part of graduation or had nothing to do with any state tests, no one seemed to care what I taught. As a result, I had the freedom to present any topic of my interest to my classes and could focus on current hot button issues. I also was not part of any department so when we had collaboration time, there was no one for me to work with. I was essentially a guy the district was waiting on to retire and yet no one in the administration wanted to see what I could do as a teacher until my final year when a new assistant principal began to observe my classes. When she told me she had no idea what high level discussions I held and how involved my students were, I informed her it was because she was the only administrator in six years to come see me teach.

Then: In my second year, when a student told his father I called him a name I had never heard of before, the parent came to school and wanted to beat me up. When a colleague of mine intervened, he wanted to beat him up as well. When the parent left, we reported the matter to the principal who in turn asked the parent to meet with us the next day. She sat and listened to the man tell his story and did nothing as he got angrier. When he finished, she informed him she checked on his background and learned he had threatened teachers at three previous schools. She then informed him she had the backing of the school board and superintendent to tell him if he ever set foot on our campus again, he would be arrested. The next day, the boy's mother came down and checked him out of the school and moved on somewhere else.

Now: Today, a similar meeting would be held but I would be advised to bring a rep from my union to take careful notes. After the meeting, the parent would be told a decision would be forth coming. Within ten days of the meeting, I would receive the principal's notes from the meeting and a letter placed in my file instructing me not to make comments to students that are hurtful. By doing so, I created a situation that could have been dangerous to myself and a colleague. I would be reminded I could respond to the write up to which I would point out I never made the comment to begin with. When the dust finally settles, I would have a letter in my personnel file stating I made a hurtful and unprofessional remark that I never made and will have received no administrative support.

Then: I moved to a high school in northern California and taught in the English department. I taught in a real “hick” town where kids were into rodeo, hunting, and farming. While they were not the brightest kids in the world, they sure were polite. On the few occasions when I received a new student from the courts who was moved up from southern California and who was disrespectful to me, male students would approach me after class and apologize for the student's behavior and then assure me they would make sure it wouldn't happen again. The student usually came to class the next day with a black eye or two.

Now: If a student mouths off to you, administrators will ask you what you did to provoke the kid. They also want to know if you logged their behavior into the computer,called the parent, created some kind of intervention before writing up a referral for discipline from the office. Rather than suspending students for their unacceptable behavior, the state would prefer we keep them in the classroom so they can learn irregardless of the harm they do to the learning process of good kids. The inmates run the asylum and the administrators want nothing to do with teachers problems.

Then: When it was time to negotiate a new contract and look at an increase on the district's salary scale, our superintendent would tell the teachers how much there was for a pay raise and then hand over the district's books. She would tell us to feel free and bring in someone to look them over and if they could find more money elsewhere, we could have it. The entire process was open, took little time,

and did not result in any mistrust. As for health care, it cost teachers nothing and covered us and our families 100 percent.

Now: When I retired, our contract for the just completed school year was still not settled. Negotiations on a pay raise were going no where and the district was unwilling to open their books to our people. Furthermore, if my wife and I wanted to keep our previous health insurance, we were going to have to pay an additional $2,000.00 for the coming school year. The district's offer of a four percent pay raise coupled with an increased cost in health benefits and our state retirement system taking out more money would result in a pay cut at a time our schools are swimming in new money. Needless to say, there is now talk of a possible strike.

Then: ZAP the CAP was the phrase of the day. The Cap was the name for the state test of which there was little emphasis placed on. There was no accountability for test scores so no one stressed out about it. Instead, we focused on the development of the whole child rather than looking at each one as a possible test result. While academic progress was a goal for all, just as much emphasis was placed on social progress. Students were viewed as future members of society and we took seriously developing the behaviors needed to succeed as much as the academic skills required for a successful life.

Now: Common Core has replaced No Child Left Behind which has replaced one new wheel after another. Teachers have such huge workloads in terms of the number of students they teach and all the measurable standards tested that there is little to no time available for developing the social expectations of our society. While our test scores have been increasing, so have the number and levels of school violence. Students are feeling more labeled and isolated than ever as we forget we are teaching young people and not test takers.

Then: Students could be assigned detention to serve after school for failing to follow class rules. Students who failed to serve would then be referred to the assistant principal and either additional detention time would be assigned or a suspension from school would be given to repeat offenders. Parent complaints fell on deaf ears as they were told the detentions could be served before school or during lunch if after school was inconvenient. For the worst behaved, corporal punishment was still in use. I can remember seeing Mr. Barrick, my first principal, picking a up a student I placed on his bench by his belt and carrying him into his office for a few swats on the rear. At the high school I moved to, our assistant principal was a man who was six foot seven and who enjoyed chopping wood as a form of relaxation. Believe me, students were not about to test his skills with a paddle. The school district down the road from where I lived in 1984 had students lined up in long single file lines on Saturday mornings cleaning the local high school campus. They began at eight in the morning and if they finished before noon, they moved across the street to clean the local park and golf course.

Now: Detention is just not held after school because it is too inconvenient for parents. However, Saturday school is made available for students who have absences from school. To entice them to make up these absences so the school can receive more ADA funding, students are bribed with pizza, soda, movies, and anything else fun they can think of. Nothing is done to make up for their lost instructional time.

Then: Summer school was offered to all students. Kid could take academic classes to get ahead on their credits so they could take more electives during the school year or they could take elective courses that might not normally be offered during the school year. Athletes could also take classes in the sports they competed in. Teachers loved the extra money they could earn for working a half day and usually still had a month of free time during the summer when summer school ended.

Now: Summer school is not offered because we no longer have the money for it. Students who struggle in Math or Language Arts often do not get to take any electives during the school year and have to double up on the courses they struggle with. As a result, schools have had to decrease or drop classes like music, art, and theater which only makes school more of a drag for kids. If you are a kid who lives in an impoverished community, without summer school, you have too much free time and nothing to do with it. This is a recipe for getting into trouble.

While it is important to improve the education we offer our youth today, it can not be accomplished at the expense of ignoring the social expectations of our society. What good does it do if all our students graduate with more academic skills than ever but are ill equipped to conduct themselves in a manner acceptable by their elders? More and more employers complain about the lack of social skills young employees have and prefer to hire retired people in their place. And we can not forget, it doesn't do anyone any good if our youth graduate from high school with outstanding academic skills but can not afford to attend college. Besides, college is not for everyone and it is time our public schools rethink their emphasis on a college prep curriculum.

And thought the past is behind us, there is much of it worth preserving. Public education needs to be as much about developing well mannered people with a solid work ethic, an understanding of what society expects of them, and steering our youth in the direction that is best for their future as it does about understanding measurable data for state and federal exams. Until we do this, we will continue to miss the mark and be continually reinventing the wheel.