John McCain's Pick for Vice President: What It Reveals About the Man

By selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain has revealed several things about his character. Is he brilliant? Has seen proven that he is now a listener to his partisans? Or McCain has shown something not so flattering about this man?

By choosing Mrs. Palin, Senator McCain has done the following, for better or for worse:

Senator McCain has destroyed his most persistent attack on Barack Obama as lacking the experience to be commander-in-chief. This 44-year-old first-term governor of two years is hardly the one with the experience to take over as president should anything happen to John McCain. How can experience be such a big deal for Obama but not for McCain's running mate?

The senator has lost credibility on the national security issue, which he says is the most important issue in this presidential election. How can he, with a straight face, say that Sarah Palin is ready to serve as national security champion, especially with reference to international affairs, when he at the same time alleges that Obama is not qualified to play that role? With all due respect, Mrs. Pilan is a close to zero international experience as Senator McCain could have come. The whole experience attack is now off the table; it no longer has credibility on the McCain side.

Mr. McCain has certainly lost his maverick credentials. It's a pathetic joke to say that McCain's choice of Palin is a "maverick" move, because the governor has been a maverick change agent in Alaska just as McCain has been in Washington. McCain chickened out of his original leaning to have picked a pro-choice running mate. Remember that McCain floated the idea of a pro-abortion VP in some of his town hall meetings, until Republican partisans began to shoot down the notion. Whatever happened to Maverick McCain? Poof, he's vanished! We are left with this new McCain who bends over backwards to kiss the feet of die-hard right wingers, who insisted on a prolife running mate for the senator.

Senator McCain proves he is a desperate man. He is desperate to win this election at all costs and by all means. His selection of Palin is for one reason alone: get those Hillary Clinton female voters, who just can't get over the defeat of Mrs. Clinton. But wait! Didn't 27% of Mrs. Clinton's supporters already say they'd vote for McCain anyway? Perhaps the senator did not want to take any chances by taking those Clintonites at their word. Mr. McCain seems to be admitting that there is no way he can become president of the United States with those precious female voters of Clinton's.

Age seems to have played a major role in driving Mr. McCain to this desperate end. The senator, who turns 72 today (August 29, 2008), realizes that age is not on his side. This is probably his one last shot at the presidency, and this sense of desperation has driven the man to pick this virtually unknown governor. Simply put, McCain picked Palin, a woman, because Obama did not pick Hillary Clinton, a woman. McCain wants to outdo Obama on the female twist. And with that, we are supposed to start looking at McCain as the history maker, attempting to give America its first female vice president? Boy, are we impressed?!

Furthermore, rather than take initiative like a true leader with years of that important "experience", Mr. McCain has chosen to be purely reactionary in his choice of VP. He waited for Obama to make the first move in picking a running mate. Then McCain reacted to Obama's choice. There is no rule on the books that says McCain had to wait for Obama before he could pick his own running mate. Is that the kind of leadership America needs or wants ~ someone who will be reactive rather than proactive?

What a pitiful move on Senator McCain's part after the Democrats had such a blast of a convention this week! Let's hope the Republican convention to start on Monday, September 1^st, will help to rescue John McCain from the impact of this poor choice for a running mate.

If Senator McCain's VP choice proves anything at all, it is the deserved cynicism that politics is anything but a game. And in this case, the political game for John McCain was to change the subject. That, we must admit, he has done in such a crafty way here. Tell you who's going to be one of the happiest men in these weeks leading up to the November elections: Rush Limbaugh ~ that's who, that was the conservative heavyweight that McCain chose to please by placing the nationally unknown Mrs. Sarah Pilan on the Republican ticket.

Good play, John McCain, good game. That only makes Senators McCain and Obama little more than typical politicians fully devoted to the game of politics, which means almost nothing will change after the elections. Don't hold your breath, people, there will be no meaningful change in the daunting challenges that America faces. Come January 2009 and it will be same old same old in the United States of America. Oh, how I wish to be proven wrong by either President McCain or President Obama.

Barack Obama Lacks the Experience. What Experience?

Beginning with the presidential primary elections, we have been told for about 19 months now that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to hold the most important office in the United States of America, that of president. This line of attack continues to be the best that Obama's opponents can deliver. Some of us would rather debate the man's ideas instead.

I have a few questions for those who have convinced themselves of the seeming logic of the argument that because Obama does not have the experience he should not be elected president.

What exactly is "the experience" that Obama lacks? Is there a special set of experiences that qualify one for the presidency? If so, where does one get such an experience? From a governor's mansion? From the halls of congress? From where exactly?

Why doesn't any of Barack's life experiences count? The man earned a law degree from Harvard and served as president of the Harvard Law Review. So his educational experience does not count? Barack has been married to one woman for 16 years; there has been no charge of him cheating on his wife, which cannot be said of some of his opponents. His experience of marital fidelity doesn't count? He has been raising two daughters as a responsible father, unlike his own father, who abandoned him. Why doesn't his fatherhood experience mean anything to a nation that claims to be big on family values?

After graduating from Harvard, Barack sacrificed potential fat-cat jobs, and, instead went to Chicago to work as community organizer for the downtrodden. Why is that not experience that means much? Also, he taught constitutional law at Chicago Law School. Should we not take his teaching experience into account, though he may not have been a law professor?

Why shouldn't we take into account his experience in the Illinois legislature? Legislative experience is legislative experience whether in Illinois or Washington. Is that not true?

How could a guy who is not qualified to lead America have succeeded against all odds to defeat the well-connected first lady Mrs. Hillary Clinton, with the full political genius and machinery of her powerful husband, former President Bill Clinton, arguably the best politician alive? Keep in mind that from the get-go, Mrs. Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. How in the world did this political junkie pull off this major offset? Very few politicians in our lifetime could have succeeded against the combined political force of both Clintons. Why shouldn't we be impressed by such a feat? Should we choose rather to keep underestimating this guy?

How could an unqualified man have organized and run the kind of successful grassroots movement that Obama has led, especially his inspiring thousands of young voters? Are to to look at this level of administrative skill and consider it zip? Are you kidding? And have we not seen how the just-ended Democratic convention succeeded in unifying the party rather than revealing the fatal disunity many observers and pundits were expecting? And do we not attribute at least some of this success to Barack's leadership ability? By the way, did you notice that Barack proved his doubters wrong by filling up Mile High stadium with more than 80,000 people? Are we to look that and just label it dung?

And where in the constitution of the United States does it mention "the experience" required for anyone to be elected president of this great nation? Can we prove from American history that most of America's successful presidents were the most experienced candidates prior to being elected to the highest office?

Finally, are we really saying that Barack Obama cannot do the job that Mr. George W. Bush has done for about8 years? And what has Mr. Bush's experience done for our country, our economy, our international reputation? Don't get me wrong, I used to be a big Bush fan; I shook hands with Candidate George Bush when he visited our city during his campaign, and I enthusiastically voted for Bush twice. But to say that Mr. Obama will do any less or worse than Mr. Bush has done just defies common sense.

We can keep chanting "he lacks the experience, he lacks the experience" until November 4 th , but much of what America has seen thus far of Barack Obama reveals and confirms that this man is anything but an inexperienced figurehead. Though it's kind of scary to say it, this guy is a natural leader of the rare sort. And I say that as one has been arguing with my wife a lot about Obama's ideology. Some of his beliefs and ideas give me cause for concern.

I'm not yet sure I'll actually vote Obama for president. But this "he lacks the experience" line is nothing more than a purely subjective call, an opinion that ignores Obama's amazing leadership qualities of which we now have much evidence. If on November 4 th I vote McCain instead of Obama, it will be because of either man's ideas, not his experience. After all, experienced people have done some very dumb things that have harmed America, and some of those experienced people have been our political leaders, including presidents. In my experience, experience is usually overrated. Life itself, simply sharing in the human experience, can be the best experience for any job, including that of commander-in-chief.

Let me close this piece by quoting Geoff Elliott, writer of the Abraham Lincoln Blog:

"To summarize, Lincoln was a state legislator for 8 years and a U.S. Congressman for 2 years before he was elected president. He didn't have much experience as an office-holder, but he went on to become the country's greatest president. Other men (see John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) had far more experience than he, yet failed miserably in their presidencies. This is why in my opinion, at least, political experience is not a predictor of success or failure of a potential president."

When we overrate experience alone we are likely to underestimate other qualities.

Diaper Dad: Diary of a Stay-at-Home Father

Today, Baby turns 3 years, 10 months, and 7 days. Diaper Dad is in his mid 40s; actually he'll turn 45 next February.

Ever since this morning, Baby has been asking Diaper Dad to go to the park. The two of them haven't been to the park in months, since June or something like that. And it's near the end of August. So where did Baby get the idea that it was time to visit the park again? Did she dream about playing in the park last night?

Anyway, Diaper Dad has a full plate of to-dos, and he's hoping Baby will soon drop her park talk.

The pair go to Wal-Mart, where Diaper Dad wired some funds to his native country via MoneyGram. Baby enjoyed the ride in the cart, as Diaper Dad pushes the cart from the outside of the store, into the store, around a couple of aisles of the store, before they ride out of the store.

For the past few days, Baby has been sitting on the main seat of the car. She has outgrown her car seat, and the booster car seat is in Working Mom's car; she's gone to work. The money is not there now to buy a second booster seat for the other car, the stay-at-home one.

By the time Diaper Dad and Baby get back to the house, she has won the promise of a trip to the park. She says, "Deal?", and Diaper Dad, replies, "Deal!"

Meanwhile, Diaper Dad wants to buy some more time. "I have to call my friend on the phone. Let's eat lunch first. Where's my phone? I think my phone is in your mom's car, and she's gone to work."

Baby keeps saying, "I thought we are going to the park. Let's go to the park."

Diaper Dad: "But I don't want to go to the park."

Baby: "Don't say that. I want to go to the park."

Diaper Dad: "But..."

Baby: "No but"

Diaper Dad: "What?"

Baby: "No but. Don't say but."

Diaper Dad can hardly believe his ears. That's the latest first from Baby. "No but! Where did she learn to say that? Not from me!"

For lunch the pair eat some long-grain brown organic rice with roasted chicken and sardines mixed with onions. Working Mom bought the chicken, sardines-in-olive-oil, and onions, when she did grocery last night.

At long last, by Baby's watch, the both of them get in the car and head for Moreland Park, the closest park to their home.

Once on the playground, where she's in a rush to reach, Baby and a little boy quickly make friends and start chasing each other, while Diaper Dad finds a good spot to sit and read Chapter 4 of the book Living On The Ragged Edge . The chapter title is "More Miles of Bad Road". Not that Diaper Dad and Baby took a bumpy road to the park, but that's a rabbit trail not worth chasing.

As Diaper Dad reads, he lifts his head now and then to look and see what's up with Baby and her new friend, who has tried at least five times to scare Baby by sounding like a monster and scratching around with his hands as though they are the paws of some mean giant beast. Every time the little boy does the monster sound, Baby just stands there and stares at him, totally cool, calm and collected.

About ten minutes or so later, an older gentleman calls Diaper Dad's attention: "Sir, I think your little girl has a problem over here. She needs help. Wet pants. I have some diapers, the pull-up kind. Do you want one?"

Diaper Dad thanks the gentleman, but passes up the offer. He walks to the playhouse, and true enough, Baby's shorts have pee on the front and around, underneath her buttocks. The little guy, her new friend plus another kid, a girl, stand there with a concern look on each of their innocent faces, kind of feeling sorry for the little girl with the wet bottom. They might have been reflecting on their days of mistakes in the not-too-distant past.

Baby has never done anything like this before, since she became potty-trained. What happened to her? Too much excitement?

Baby and Diaper Dad walk to the park's restroom, to the Men's side.

" There's the commode, do you want to use it?" Diaper Dad asks.

Baby shows no interest whatsoever. She surveys the cubicle, carefully walking the walls, the ceiling, the floor, and the commode with her dark brown eyes, probably thinking, "This place is really dirty! I can't sit on that and pee in there!"

About two minutes later, she says, "Can I have some tissue let me clean myself?"

She seems to have no more pee left. They have to leave immediately, because Diaper Dad has no pull-up or pantie in the car. Baby sits, buckles up and asks for some Heart2Heart crackers.

Back in the driveway, as Baby slowly makes her way out of the 2002 model car, as though wanting to separate herself from her wet pants and pantie, she says, "Dad, I think the seat peed."

" No, the seat didn't pee; you peed," Diaper Dad corrects her.

Baby insists it's the seat that peed, and the pee got on her. Diaper Dad loses the argument and gives up. They enter the house to change Baby's wet pantie and pants. But instead of another pantie, he gets Baby to wear a pull-up, which she normally frowns on, except at bedtime. But this time Baby does not debate wearing the pull-up, for obvious reasons.

Now, she wants to return to the park, but Diaper Dad is no mood for a re-run.

"Can we go to the park?" Baby continues asking.

A few minutes later, the house is completely quiet. Diaper Dad lifts his head to look over the banister from the kitchen, and there is Baby sucking her thumb, slumped on the floor, sound asleep. Nap time.

Finally, Diaper Dad can catch up on some much-needed work.

Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech: Did He Deliver or Disappoint?

America makes history again on this day, Thursday, August 28, 2008. Tonight Barack Obama, a man who embodies the melting-pot portrait of the United States, delivers his acceptance speech on the last day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. He is the first black nominee of a major political party in the United States of America.

The expectation and hype that preceded Senator Obama's big speech must have made his supporters nervous for fear that the political junkie might not have been able to step to the plate and clear the bar that was set so high. Yes, he had made great speeches in the past, but everyone knew this was different, and no one seemed certain if he would deliver as hoped or hyped.

Well, as a habitual critique of Barack Obama throughout this election, I am forced to admit that not only did Mr. Obama meet those high expectations, he totally surpassed them.

Among the many words I could use to describe the historic speech, let me capture the essence of Obama's rousing speech in three key words: prescriptive, combative, and inspirational.

The speech was prescriptive. The first part of the speech had the touch and style of President Bill Clinton, taking and making simple the complex policy issues of the economy, taxes, national security, international affairs, and social programs. Obama finally was able to answer his critics on the charge of being big on rhetoric but slim on substance. Tonight there was more than enough meat on the plate. In the prescriptive part of the speech, Barack basically stated, 'This is the issue or problem; here is how I will solve it; this is how we will pay for it; and here is the difference the solution will make.' That is the style of speech making that Mr. Clinton has mastered; Obama has borrowed Clinton's style well and yet made it uniquely his.

The speech was combative. At several points during the primary, it seemed like Mrs. Hillary Clinton had the fight and killer instinct that Obama supporters wished for their guy. Tonight, Barack showed a side to himself that we have not really seen: just like Mrs. Clinton, he has what it takes to take the fight to his opponent. His supporters need no longer worry about the three upcoming presidential debates between Obama and McCain. Yes, Senator McCain holds the record as the soldier, but Senator Obama now seems and sounds ready for a real verbal combat, whether defensive or offensive. Die-hard Democrats got the red meat they've been craving for, and that should result in even more grassroots efforts aimed at getting out the vote on elections day.

The speech was inspirational. The home stretch of the speech connected the oratorical dot all the way back to none lesser than Dr. Martin Luther King himself. What a trick of history it was that Obama's speech fell on the 45 th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech! This was the original Barack Obama, the master public speaker that stirred much of America during the early part of the primary elections. It was good to hear that Obama again. This means that Obama has finally ignored his opponents' attempt to sever him from his rhetorical strength by calling him nothing more than a man of fluffy words. It would have been a huge mistake for Obama to dumb his inspirational charisma in an effort to prove that he can talk straight like McCain. Let Senator McCain keep his mantle as "Mr. Straight Talk Express". Barack Obama does not have to apologize for being a charismatic orator.

Beyond this night, one can only hope that Obama will stick to this more complete version of his delivery, which mingles and mixes the prescriptive (Bill Clinton's simplicity) with the combative (Hillary Clinton's fighting spirit) and the inspirational (that lifts people's spirits for something bigger and higher than routine politics).

One other thing was striking about the experience, even for those who were not physically at the stadium in Denver: more than a political event, the climax of the convention seemed to have become a religious encounter, with so many people shedding tears as they sought to take in and savor the moment.

What more can I say? Never in my lifetime have I heard such a political speech. Simply put, it more than got the job done. The speech was a blast, and whether Obama is elected president of the United States or not, history has already been made, in that he and our nation have proven that America can and will elect a non-Caucasian for the highest office in the land. Obama's success proves America's progress toward a more perfect union. We are getting there, and the destination is finally at hand.

Note: Dear reader, thanks in advance for your comments!

The Main Reasons Why Barack Obama May Lose the Elections

The wonder of the 2008 presidential contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain is that it is still a contest at all. Of course, we may tote the tired line that polls prior to the political parties' conventions mean little or nothing. But one can't help but wonder why this race is a contest at all.

You can bet your horse, if you have one, Democrats are very nervous already. Some party leaders are still questioning Barack's judgment. "Why didn't Obama put Hillary on the ticket as his VP, if winning the presidency was his number objective? How will Joe Biden help him win those angry Hillary supporters, not to mention those battleground states?"

Here is why John McCain should be trailing Barack Obama by at least 10 percentage points at this point in the game:

1. Economic Recession: The economy is in the tank, with failing banks, high gasoline price, rising food price, and floods of foreclosures as the housing sector swims in the sewer of recession.

2. Unpopular President: For months now, President George Bush's job approval rating has been in the 20s and low 30s. As of August 24, a CNN poll showed the president with a 30 percent approval by Americans.

3. McCain Attachment to the Bush Agenda: If you can believe some of the reports and talking points, Senator John McCain has voted with Mr. Bush about 90 to 95 percent of the time. That means, there is no way McCain can be regarded by American voters as a change agent, since he may be able to only deliver a 10 percent change different from the Bush agenda.

In spite of all these factors favorable to a Democratic landslide in November, Barack Obama is in a dead heat with Senator McCain. If this trend continues – Barack losing his lead over McCain, then tied with McCain, and now trailing McCain in the latest Gallup poll – the Democrats may actually see another Republican in the White House, to continue what Democrats like to call "a third Bush term".

What is going on? Political pundits are awash with theories as to the reason for the close contest between Obama and McCain. Here is my best bag of speculation.

One reason is that domestic issues have been truncated by international concerns. The leading culprit is Russia's invasion of Georgia. To make matters worse, Russia is on track to annex parts of Georgia. Such a turn of affairs usually favors the Republican hawkish tendency. It may actually be Vladimir Putin of Russia who who defeats Barack Obama on November 4^th. What does not seem to make sense about America's preference for McCain in dealing with the Russian-Georgian crisis, though, is that Russia has boldly marched into Georgia under the very nose of a Republican president, despite President Bush's warnings, rebukes and threats aimed at Russia. What is a President McCain going to do to the Russians that President Bush has not been able to do – start bombing Moscow?

Another reason: The harsh attacks on Barack Obama by fellow Democrats during the primary season have come home to roost. Those relentless attacks have taken their toll on the political junkie, and they may yet do further damage. The McCain campaign has seized the audios and videos of the repeated pounding against Obama of "lack of experience" and "not ready to lead" by Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. McCain does not even need to use his own words, except to say, "I am John McCain, and I approve this message", every time they play the words of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden (now Obama's VP), slamming Barack for his perceived inexperience.

A third reason: Clever underhand maneuvers by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party are starting to undermine Obama's chances of winning this race. As some of us have maintained for months now, it does not serve Hillary's presidential aspirations for Obama to be elected President of the United States. If Barack wins, Mrs. Clinton may have to wait for 8 years before she can make a second run for the White House. But if McCain wins, she can run again as early as 2012.

Fourth reason: Hillary Clinton supporters have now gone beyond partisan politics to religious zeal and devotion to their defeated candidate, whom they now treat as a feminist deity, a goddess, whose worship deserves any level of sacrifice they can make, even if it means the forfeiture of the presidency by the Democrats in 2008. There is hardly anything Mrs. Clinton can say to dissuade these ardent worshipers, not to mention that, to these disciples, Clinton's hidden actions and visible body language speak much louder than any clarion call she may send forth for her followers to vote Obama for president. Besides, the Clintonites will love nothing less than to suck it to the likes of Michelle Obama, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Barack wing of the Democratic Party. Barack's loss will amount to the biggest "We told you so" from the Clinton establishment.

Sixth reason: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright hangover has helped to create or confirm doubts about a black man that may be too liberal for America. Though from everything the nation has observed so far, Barack does not seem to share Rev. Wright's militant spirit, a good number of white voters may harbor sufficient doubts to tilt the elections in McCain's favor. At present it seems the only black man some white voters can accept is someone like General Collin Powell, who has an approval rating in the 70s.

True, there is enough time for things to change, but right now, one cannot but ask, "Is there still hope for Barack Obama to win on November 4^th?"

If there is such a hope, it may come from two sources. One is Obama's own "audacity" to hope against hope. Boy, does he need that "audacity of hope" right now?!

The other source of hope is something that some die-hard Obamaians have floated. They suggest that the traditional polls being taken by CNN, Gallup, and other pollsters are missing an important demographic ~ the cellphone generation of young (college) voters, who proved to be firebrands for the Obama movement during the primary elections. Those who hold this view say that traditional pollsters normally call landlines, not cellphone numbers, to poll voters. Mr. Obama can only hope that there is some truth to that rumor, which may serve as his trump card come elections day. We shall see.

Note: Your comments to this article are more than appreciated.

When Being Good Does Not Equal Happiness

Won't it be wonderful if there were a single formula for happiness? There is no such thing, and anyone who claims to have invented or found such a formula or equation is simply kidding, pretending, or trying to fool the rest of us. But it would be near-to-impossible to disprove the person's claim to gladness, because you'd have to live in the same house with that "happy person" for 30 days before you'd find out the fact that he or she only claimed to be happy all the time but was really just like the rest of us: unhappy in an unhappy world

Perhaps the closest any human being can come to cracking the happiness code is in being a good person, someone who is committed to doing what is morally right, as defined and understood by the dominant culture where that person lives. Religious people are said to be among the rare souls who have uncovered the mystery to happiness. They tend to link happiness or joy to being or doing what is good, godly and righteous.

The only trouble is that it is not that clear cut, or most humans would have followed the religious formula, and the world's billions of people would be mostly happy, glad, joyful. The reality is that being good and doing good may not result in happiness, at least not all the time. The only way godliness would produce permanent happiness in this life would be if only good things were to happen to good people, and only bad things were to happen to bad people. In a world where bad things happen to good people and vice versa, it is absurd to think or believe that lifelong happiness can become anyone's reality this side of the grave. The reality of a crippled world renders flawed every formula of happiness.

Concerning the morally good life, one writer penned these words on what he called "the straight life":

The straight life for a homemaker is washing dishes three hours a day; it is cleaning sinks and scouring toilets and waxing floors; it is chasing toddlers and mediating fights between preschool siblings. (One mother said she had raised three "tricycle motors," and they had worn her out.) The straight life is driving your station wagon to school and back twenty-three times per week; it is grocery shopping and baking cupcakes for the class Halloween party. The straight life eventually means becoming the parent of an ungrateful teenager, which I assure you is no job for sissies. (It's difficult to let your adolescent find himself – especially when you know he isn't even looking!) Certainly, the straight life for the homemaker can be an exhausting experience, at times.

The straight life for a working man is not much simpler. It is pulling your tired frame out of bed, five days a week, fifty weeks out of the year. It is earning a two-week vacation in August, and choosing a trip that will please the kids. The straight life is spending your money wisely when you'd rather indulge in a new whatever; it is taking your son bike riding on Saturday when you want so badly to watch the baseball game; it is cleaning out the garage on your day off after working sixty hours the prior week. The straight life is coping with head colds and engine tune-ups and crab grass and income-tax forms; it is taking your family to church on Sunday when you've heard every idea the minister has to offer; it is giving a portion of your income to God's work when you already wonder how ends will meet. The straight life for the ordinary, garden-variety husband and father is everything I have listed and more . . . much more.

Should we then forget about being good people as our society or religion stipulates, forget about doing good deeds, because goodness will only wear us out rather than bring us the bliss of happiness we desire? Certainly not! Why not? Because being bad and doing bad things will remove us even farther away from the gates of joy. Though happiness via goodness is illusive, it is far better to spend life at the gates of happiness, where we may see or smell the desire of every heart, even if we barely enter into those confines of joy. That is much better than to live our existence atop the pit of gloom, on the threshold of a hellhole, where we may never even know what the greenery of happiness looks like.

We should choose character with charity, because, when all is said and done, it is better to be and do good than to be and do evil. But let us be good and do good for goodness own sake, not for any reward of happiness we expect in return in this lifetime. That misguided soul who intends to trade goodness for happiness will find that such a bargain is never the fair trade we wish it to be in this uneven, fallen world we call home.

When Being Good Does Not Equal Happiness

Won't it be wonderful if there were a single formula for happiness? There is no such thing, and anyone who claims to have invented or found such a formula or equation is simply kidding, pretending, or trying to fool the rest of us. But it would be near-to-impossible to disprove the person's claim to gladness, because you'd have to live in the same house with that "happy person" for 30 days before you'd find out the fact that he or she only claimed to be happy all the time but was really just like the rest of us: unhappy in an unhappy world

Perhaps the closest any human being can come to cracking the happiness code is in being a good person, someone who is committed to doing what is morally right, as defined and understood by the dominant culture where that person lives. Religious people are said to be among the rare souls who have uncovered the mystery to happiness. They tend to link happiness or joy to being or doing what is good, godly and righteous.

The only trouble is that it is not that clear cut, or most humans would have followed the religious formula, and the world's billions of people would be mostly happy, glad, joyful. The reality is that being good and doing good may not result in happiness, at least not all the time. The only way godliness would produce permanent happiness in this life would be if only good things were to happen to good people, and only bad things were to happen to bad people. In a world where bad things happen to good people and vice versa, it is absurd to think or believe that lifelong happiness can become anyone's reality this side of the grave. The reality of a crippled world renders flawed every formula of happiness.

Concerning the morally good life, David Allan Hubbard, in his book, Beyond Futility, penned these words on what he called "the straight life", as quoted by Charles Swindoll in his book, Living On The Ragged Edge.

The straight life for a homemaker is washing dishes three hours a day; it is cleaning sinks and scouring toilets and waxing floors; it is chasing toddlers and mediating fights between preschool siblings. (One mother said she had raised three "tricycle motors," and they had worn her out.) The straight life is driving your station wagon to school and back twenty-three times per week; it is grocery shopping and baking cupcakes for the class Halloween party. The straight life eventually means becoming the parent of an ungrateful teenager, which I assure you is no job for sissies. (It's difficult to let your adolescent find himself – especially when you know he isn't even looking!) Certainly, the straight life for the homemaker can be an exhausting experience, at times.
The straight life for a working man is not much simpler. It is pulling your tired frame out of bed, five days a week, fifty weeks out of the year. It is earning a two-week vacation in August, and choosing a trip that will please the kids. The straight life is spending your money wisely when you'd rather indulge in a new whatever; it is taking your son bike riding on Saturday when you want so badly to watch the baseball game; it is cleaning out the garage on your day off after working sixty hours the prior week. The straight life is coping with head colds and engine tune-ups and crab grass and income-tax forms; it is taking your family to church on Sunday when you've heard every idea the minister has to offer; it is giving a portion of your income to God's work when you already wonder how ends will meet. The straight life for the ordinary, garden-variety husband and father is everything I have listed and more . . . much more.
(Pages 13-14 of Beyond Futility, 1976; page 19 of Living On The Ragged Edge, 1985)

Should we then forget about being good people as our society or religion stipulates, forget about doing good deeds, because goodness will only wear us out rather than bring us the bliss of happiness we desire? Certainly not! Why not? Because being bad and doing bad things will remove us even farther away from the gates of joy. Though happiness via goodness is illusive, it is far better to spend life at the gates of happiness, where we may see or smell the desire of every heart, even if we barely enter into those confines of joy. That is much better than to live our existence atop the pit of gloom, on the threshold of a hellhole, where we may never even know what the greenery of happiness looks like.

We should choose character with charity, because, when all is said and done, it is better to be and do good than to be and do evil. But let us be good and do good for goodness own sake, not for any reward of happiness we expect in return in this lifetime. That misguided soul who intends to trade goodness for happiness will find that such a bargain is never the fair trade we wish it to be in this uneven, fallen world we call home.

Happiness: The Chase Goes On

Some people claim to know what happiness is. No one seems to know where or how to find happiness.

Born and raised in Liberia, we spend part of our childhood dreaming about leaving Liberia, crossing the vast Atlantic Ocean, landing on the heaven-on-earth terrain known as America. My junior high friend, Robert Saydee and I would lay on the bunk beds of our dorm room in a boarding school and verbally dream of the day when both of us would migrate to the great, rich United States, the land of the missionary, peace corps, CIA agent, tourist, Hollywood star, cars, planes, and black American athletes. So we dreamed until Saydee and I were separated by the need to continue our educational journeys in different locations. Our American dream lingered.

Well, it was not exactly the journey to America we would have scripted, but my lifelong friend and I are in the United States now. It was the brutal Liberian civil war that uprooted us and catapulted us to this sweet land of liberty, which has proved to be so much more than our boyish minds had imagined. Give or take a few surprises.

Liberians who still live in what is perhaps now the world's poorest country will not believe me when I say it, but it is true: there is no happiness in America, just as there is no happiness in Liberia. Life in America means a lot of things, but permanent happiness is not one of them.

What does it really mean to live in America? Find it in those words in nation's Declaration of Independence: it is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". In the United States, what you are given is the right to live, to be free, and to pursue happiness. You are not granted, guaranteed or given happiness. No, it's not happiness but the pursuit of it. That's what America offers.

The "pursuit" is the key to life in America. As for the happiness part, give it up, you will never catch it here. Unless you have figured out the mental trick of finding happiness in the pursuit itself, you will be a wind chaser all the days of your life in America. Can you catch the wind and hold it in your hand? Neither can you grab happiness, hold it, and take it with you into your American home.

Happiness has little to do with geography. It is not about location, or relocation. Moving from here to there will not make you happy any more than changing from flip flops or slippers to shoes. Happiness is not some place or some thing.

Happiness is a pursuit, not a catch. So, let the pursuit begin, or let it continue. Remember, they call it "the American dream". It's a "dream", not a reality.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Choose Your Chase

Now that you have it down that America guarantees only the pursuit of happiness, not happiness itself, you need to decide what it is or how many things you want to pursue in the spirit of America. What do you want to pursue in American fashion? Is it pleasure? How about wealth, more money, a bigger house, a bigger car, many houses, many cars? Why not add a motorcycle, a boat, a yacht, an ATV, an RV, a private airplane?

Pursue knowledge, philosophy, education. Go beyond high school to college. Reach the heights of graduate school and add a title or two before your name, perhaps Dr. or PhD, or some other fancier, more impressive tag. Be a lifelong student; no learning is for nothing, so they say.

Pursue the career of your dreams. Pursue toys, little ones or big ones, cheap toys or expensive toys. Pursue sex, all the sex you can have, with whomever you want to have it, whenever you like it, wherever you and your sex partner choose.

Pursue the best foods at the best restaurants. Pursue travel and spend your nights at the world's luxurious hotels and motels, and watch pay-per-view movies or premium channels while you are there. See the world by car, train, ship or airplane. Add tourism to travel as icing on the cake of adventure.

Pursue friends, and multiply them by the dozens, if you want. Pursue sports. Pursue the perfect body, watching what you eat; work out like a well-oiled machine. Pursue your pet project, the hobby of your fancy. Become a decorator, a writer, a singer, a designer, an engineer, a builder, and build whatever your heart desires. Pursue plants and gardens, and seek fulfillment in nature and horticulture.

Pursue fame, and get your own shiny spot in the sun of celebrity and popularity. Pursue position with some star power of your own. Seek political office for whatever reason you can come up with, and have the whole world chanting your name or slogan, while you convince them that it's all about them, not about you. Get them to believe that together you and they have been called to change the world.

Pursue technology. Own the latest computer and other communication gadgets of the time: laptop, cell phone, ipod, iphone, GPS, HDTV, DVR, TiVo. Get all you can, and can all you get.

Better yet, pursue religion, charity, philanthropy, doing the right thing. Volunteer your time and give your hard-earned money to help those in need. Find your cause in life and sacrifice all you can for that worthy cause, whatever it is. It will even make you feel good, that with your life you have made someone else's life better.

Pursue and marry the love of your life. Settle down and raise a family. It is far better than running around, shacking up, sleeping here and there, or is it really better? Raise responsible children and donate them as your ultimate contribution to human civilization. You may be proud of that, or you may regret the whole thing after all, in your sunset days.

You can pursue all of the above. You can grab hold of some or most of them. But sooner or later, you will realize that happiness still lurks in the foggy distance of your future, yet waiting to be pursued.

If there is anything in life close to a semblance of happiness, it only lies in the pursuit itself. "The pursuit of happiness". Not the possession of happiness. You are happier pursuing than finding and keeping whatever it is you are chasing.

Whether sifting through the desolations of the underdeveloped world in Africa, Asia and South America, or soaring heights of affluent North America and Europe, it does not matter what continent or country, there is no deposit or reservoir of happiness to be found anywhere on this planet. Humans have searched for and found deposits of petroleum, the dark wealth over which humans and nations continue to fight wars to control its flow and supply. Deposits of gold, diamond, iron and other minerals abound, and greed for these precious metals never cease to spoil much of our luck at happiness. But there has yet to be that one lucky son of man who decoded the secret or unearthed the stuff of happiness, that true wealth that all other riches combined cannot even begin to afford. Happiness is as priceless as it is scarce.

And whatever is valuable, humans will search for. Thus the chase goes on. The pursuit continues, the pursuit of happiness. Though something inside each of us tells us, we'll never find on this side of the grave the permanent state of happiness we are chasing, we somehow know it's better to be in pursuit of the dream than to give up the chase, sit back and kick back for a cop out in the name of frustration.

Be true to yourself and admit it: You are not happy, and you have never met a truly happy person. Many of your acquaintances pretend to be happy, but if you ever get to really know them, you'll find they're just like you and your family and friends: unhappy, always in pursuit, but never laying hold of the prize, not finally and permanently.

Now, for any soul who has ever been so blessed as to experience pure happiness, it has always been just for a fleeting moment every time. You see, real happiness is the orgasm of life. Like orgasm, happiness is the peak to which every human effort and endeavor builds. Like orgasm, happiness is a climax that sends into one's innermost being the sweetest of feelings. Sad thing is, the high never lasts. It is not meant to. Happiness is meant to like the brief splash of a victory lap accompanied by cheers, the awarding of medals and singing of a national anthem after an athlete wins an Olympic event. Happiness never lasts beyond the moment. Because of its fleeting nature, we humans can spend our lives in pursuit of happiness. Without the thrill of the chase, life would be quite boring, hardly worth your breath. What is life, after all, without something worth chasing, especially if the object of the chase is happiness, even if for a dot of time.

I'm still in hot pursuit of happiness. In the not-too-distant past, I managed to grab it a time or two, but lost it again each time. How about you? Let me know if you've found happiness that lasts. Or have you given up the pursuit, as millions of souls have done?

Dr. James Dobson, Steven Curtis Chapman, and The Theology of Denial

It's Monday, our 16^th wedding anniversary. Not that this has anyting to do with the subject of this article. Okay, I'm driving our 14-year-old daughter and 12-year-old son to school. And as I normally do on school days, the radio is set to a Christian station with Focus On The Family as the program. This morning Dr. James Dobson, the psychologist, best-selling author, and traditional evangelical leader was interviewing Christian music artist Steven Curtis Chapman, the repeated Dove Award winner who has sold more than 10 million records.

For the program of the morning, Steven Curtis Chapman was discussing with Dr. Dobson the recent loss of Steven's adopted daughter Maria Sue. Mr. Chapman described how faith in God has helped his family cope with the tragedy. On May 21, 2008, the little Maria Sue died when her 17-year-old brother Will Franklin ran over her in the family's driveway with an SUV. Maria had just turned 5 on May 13^th.

Steven Curtis narrated how he prayed, seeking to change the forecast of dark cloud that was descending over the Chapman family. He said, “I heard myself praying over and over again all the way to Vanderbilt Hospital, 'In the name of Jesus, breathe life.'” That was the shortened version of the prayer Steven began praying in the driveway as the medical team was working on Maria. Dad kept believing that God was going to breathe life back into his precious girl.

As that awful day unfolded, Steven Curtis prayed some more, “In the holy name, in the worthy name, breathe life. God, I know You can do this. You've breathed life into dead bodies before. I know You can do this... Jesus, breathe life into Maria... God, I'm gonna trust You, I'm gonna bless You even in this.”

Dad had a sense that he was breathing for Maria.

“In my mind, I was preparing myself to go in and pray for Maria to be raised from the dead”, Mr. Chapman said as he neared the hospital. “I'm gonna go and bolt the door, and they can come in and call me crazy and say whatever they want to, but I'm gonna pray and just trust that God can raise her back up...”

At that point, Dr. Dobson, perhaps feeling helpless and uncomfortable about the level of pain in his radio guest's voice, gently interrupted Chapman to set the singer straight. You know how Christian musicians some times have a twisted theology, based on a poor knowledge of the Scriptures? Except that in this case, it was not the singer but the doctor who needed a theological fix.

Dr. Dobson told Steven Curtis and the radio audience, “In fact He (God) did, He did, because we know where she is”. Not surprisingly, Steven Curtis abandoned his line of what really happened and agreed with Dr. Dobson that “in fact” God did raise Maria from the dead, since the little girl is now at home with the Lord.

“And my son Caleb said it at the memorial service,” Steven Curtis continued. “He said, 'God did heal Maria. He answered our prayers for Maria. He healed her, but He didn't heal her in the way that we like very much right now...”

So, according to these two Christian men along with Steven's son Caleb, God “in fact” did two things for Maria Sue:

1. God raised Maria from the dead.

2. God healed Maria of the coma.

Denial theology! That's exactly what that sounds like. That's what it is. Denial theology confirms the charge that so many non-Christians levy against religious people: that we use faith to hide from reality. This is the kind of faith that cannot be defended with reason. Thus it portrays our faith as illogical. This kind of religious jargon attracts the label of “blind faith”, and it should.

The fact, the truth, the reality is that in May of 2008, a 5-year-old girl named Maria Sue Chapman died. God did not raise her from the dead. If Jesus had breathed life back into her, Maria would physically be a part of the Chapman family today. The truth is that God did not heal Maria Sue of the coma from which she never returned. The reality is that God did not answer the prayers of the Chapmans and the thousands of believers who prayed with them, asking the Lord to preserve little Maria's young life.

We play ostrich to stare such a devastating reality in the face and stick our theological necks in the sand and come away spewing such piety as, “God did raise her to life. God did heal her.” We can believe Maria is in Heaven, but that is not the same as her being resurrected or resuscitated. Not recovering from the trauma of coma is not the same as being healed of coma.

Denial theology does not serve the Christian faith well, or any other faith for that matter. It mocks true faith, which keeps on believing and trusting God, even though Maria died, even though Maria was not healed.

Words have meaning, and the words of theology are no exception to the rules of diction. Resurrection means rising from the dead; dying and staying dead cannot mean the same thing as being raised back to life. Healing has a meaning, and it does not mean the same as death. Why do we even have to point that out?

As Christians, our theology of pain and suffering should remain rooted in the Scriptures, and the Bible is no book of denial. It features real people, real events, real experiences.

Beginning with the teaching of Jesus Christ, death is spoken of in the New Testament as “sleep”. When a believer died, the first-century Christian community would say the person had “fallen asleep”. But that “sleep” was a euphemism for death.

Also, the language of sleep underscored the belief that for the Christian death has lost its painful sting; death has become as calm as falling asleep. Furthermore, the sleep imagery summed up the early Christians' hope of resurrection, that the Christian would literally rise from the dead at the end of this age, when Jesus Christ returns to planet earth. Never did the early Christians or the New Testament ever portray the experience of dying and death as healing or as rising from the dead!

The early believers would reject the denial theology that has become so rampant, coming even from the lips of famous Christian leaders. There are many Scriptures we can use to comfort people without resorting to the crude denial of death and disease.

A clergyman recalls how he was tempted to use denial theology as a cheap, watered-down way to comfort a young lady whose baby had died before delivery. He had considered cheap comfort, because he really didn't know how to help this young lady. It would have been far better for the minister to keep silent than give the girl some of the cliches that denial theology is famous for.

The grieving mom asked the minister to do a funeral for her stillborn baby. It was the preacher's first time conducting such a funeral, and he has never done one like it ever since. Frankly, the man of God really did not know how exactly to comfort that young woman and somehow ease the pain of her acute grief. Finally, he shared the story of King David and Queen Bathsheba whose baby had died, regardless of the fact that David had prayed and fasted, asking God to spare the life of the innocent infant. Using that biblical account, the minister told the mother and the sympathizers present something like this:

“None of knows why God allowed your innocent baby to die before birth. Our faith in the God of the Bible tells us that there are some things we will not be able to understand or explain in this lifetime. All we Bible believers know for sure is that the human race lives in a fallen world, an imperfect world, and in such a world bad things do happen to innocent people, even to innocent babies like your little one. To continue to believe and trust God in spite of our inability to comprehend such a reality is the essence of true faith. You can still trust God, even though He did not answer your prayer for your baby's life, even though you do not know or understand why your child did not live.”

Does Dr. James Dobson not know this? Of course, he does. After all, Dr. Dobson wrote the book, When God Doesn't Make Sense, wrestling with the subject of theodicy (the issue of evil in lieu of God's existence). So what are we to make of Dr. Dobson's preference for denial theology in his interview with Steven Curtis Chapman? One can only guess that the lapse was due to the psychology major's well-meaning effort to sympathize with Mr. Chapman and relieve the still fresh memory of the intense grief that Marie Sue's death must have brought upon the Chapman family.

But even at that, Dr. Dobson still came across as a typical denial theologian, who seems to trivialize the mentally demanding question of 'why bad things happen to good people'. Denial theologians tend to throw trite answers at the deep questions of theodicy, the presence of undeserved evil in a world governed by the hands of a sovereign God, a deity whom believers know to be omnipotent (all-powerful and beneficent (good, kind, loving).

There is much hope that denial theology shall not continue to rule the thinking of the faith community. How can we be so sure? Because left to sort out their own experiences in light of their faith, ordinary religious people will express views that resemble realty theology. That was exactly the way Steven Curtis Chapman was narrating his story, until Dr. James Dobson stepped in to save the day. The good doctor should have left Mr. Chapman alone, so he could continue to sort out his very own theology of pain and suffering, rather than stuff him with a loaf of cookie-cutter denial theology.

What? Another Barack Obama Re-Introduction?

Last night (August 20, 2008), I turned on cable television, and there on CNN Presents was the latest biography on Mr. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee for president of the United States. Perhaps CNN produced this show to counteract that slanderous book Obama Nation.

Frankly, I learned not much new about Mr. Obama. There is very little left to be learned about the man. Barack (Barry) was born to a black (Kenyan) father and white mother. His father abandoned him; his dad, born 1936, died 1982 in Kenya. Barack married Michelle Robinson in October 1992. His mom died in 1995.

Can we move on now, please? How many times will Barack Obama have to introduce himself or have CNN or any other entity introduce the man to America? Was he a naturalized citizen or something? Really, why does the man need to be introduced and re-introduced to his own country over and over? Barack has been on the national stage for months now. By now anyone interested in learning more about him should have checked Wikipedia or some other independent source on the candidate.

All this pretend curiosity about getting to know the real Barack Obama is getting kind of old. And it is getting some of us to ask, “If this guy were a white presidential candidate, named William Baron, would we still be wanting to know 'The Real William Baron', or would we rather be more concerned about William Baron's ideas?”

This is insane, and I'm about to lose more of my already vanishing hair strings. Look, people, the only important questions to ask of any presidential candidate of these united states should be those contained in the Constitution of our country. Perhaps a little civics review will do the trick:

1. First important question: Does the candidate satisfy the age and citizenship requirements as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution? The founding document reads, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

2. Second important question: Does the candidate meet what may be called the no-dynasty, no-ruling family requirement? The term limit amendment ratified February 27, 1951, reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

The person does not have to be a certain height. Does not need to have been in Washington for decades; two to three years in the legislature plus numerous appearances on the national stage is plenty of time to know someone who wants to be president. Besides, the media, especially in the Internet Age, littered with blogs, will definitely leave no stone unturned in the effort to reveal, uncover or expose any politician aiming for Pennsylvania Avenue.

No, the candidate does not have to be a certain gender. Does not have to be married. Does not have to have children. Does not have to graduate from a certain school. Does not have to be a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Does not have to be Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, or Charismatic. Does not have to be a governor, representative or senator. And no, the candidate for the oval office does not have to own a dog or cat, or have his last name be Kennedy, Bush or Clinton. His/her name does not even have to be or sound American.

I thought the United Sates were the great, big cultural melting pot of the world. Has that changed all of a sudden, because a guy's name is or sounds Eastern? What am I missing here?

Yes, the presidential candidate must have character or integrity, as defined and accepted by American society. But if the person lacks moral integrity, the electorate will filter him/her out with their votes.

On August 25^th the convention for the Democratic Party kicks off, to be followed on September by the Republican Party convention on . May America be treated as an adult, not expecting or waiting for an encore introduction of Obama or McCain. May we see and hear a serious presentation of the big issues this election should be about from now until November 4^th.

“What are those issues?” one may ask. Those issues are not McCain's war record or prisoner of war accolade. Not Barack's last name or middle name; not his pastor or any other associates of decades past. Personality will not win or lose this election. What we want to hear are the candidates' ideas and plans concerning national security, energy, health care, taxes, judges, abortion, and the international scene.

How will either man deal with each of the following? The recessive economy; America's bankrupt social security scheme; the costly war in Iraq, costing the American taxpayer $10 billion per month; angry Russia, now occupying the sovereign nation of Georgia; ambitious Iran, with its unpredictable ruler; illusive Afghanistan, where the Taliban resurges; the explosive dilemma that is the Israeli and Palestinian question; the rising super power that is China; nuclear Pakistan, with increasingly bold and blatant suicide bombers; Darfur, the humanitarian disaster of Sudan; the AIDS epidemic.

Leadership Void: We Need Leaders But All We Get Are Politicians

Just look at the multitude and magnitude of the problems America and the world face.

On the international front: The volatile existence between Israelis and Palestinians continues. The war in Iraq seems to have no end in sight, and it costs America $10 billion every single month, probably more than any budgetary item of the federal government. The Taliban resurges in Afghanistan, taking back territory once under allied forces. Russia entrenches its forces in the sovereign democratic country of Georgia; the world watches, and world leaders in America and Europe bark like old dogs without teeth; meanwhile Russia lies to the world that it is withdrawing its troops when there is little proof of a Russian withdrawal. Islamic extremists step up the heat in Pakistan less than a week after that country's president resigned; the news media just reported that two suicide bombers just blew up themselves along with 50 innocent people.

On the domestic front here in the United States: Social security is still broke. Medicare is bankrupt as well. Health care cost spirals out of control. The rising cost of energy continues to inflate the cost of food and other essential goods. The banking sector has lost the trust of investors. The housing market slumbers in the basement.

In the face of this litany of demanding issues and problems, the political system offers America two men, Barack Obama and John McCain, whose resumes qualify them as politicians not leaders. But do we even know the difference between a leader and a politician anymore? In recent years, we have been so used to hearing and seeing politicians we are beginning to settle for typical politicians rather than demand true leaders.

Let's contrast a leader with a politician.

Politician: make the right move, and leave every difficult decision for the next guy. Problem is, "the next guy" will do exactly the same. Leader: make the tough decision, which is also the right decision for the country.

Politician: say the right thing, what's politically correct. Leader: do the right thing, what's morally correct.

Politician: compromise your principles; go along with others. Leader: stand on your principles; persuade others to come along.

Politician: identify many problems and make many promises to solve them. Leader: identify few real problems and solve them one problem at a time.

If you were to ask, "Of all the qualities that defines a leader, which is most important?", my answer, without a blink, would be "problem solving". The wisdom and courage to solve real, tough problems is the essence of what a true leader is.

On the contrary, the public officials of our time are known for creating problems, standing in the way of solutions, taking credit for doing nothing, pointing fingers and passing blames. There is not one leader among them. No, not one. How do we know? Everyone of our biggest problems is yet to be solved.

Class of Offenders: Exploring Alternatives for Non-Violent Offenders

The Bureau of Justice Statistics breaks down crimes into four major offenses: violent offense, property offense, drug offense, and public-order offense. The 2004 figures show the following:

1. Violent offenders: 52 percent
2. Property offenders: 21 percent
3. Drug offenders: 20 percent
4. Public-order offenders: 7 percent

From this breakdown of the numbers, you see that the dangerous criminals make up 52 percent of the prison population. That means, the other 48 percent of inmates could be out of jail and not pose any serious threat to public safety, because those are non-violent offenders.

Should America not step up the effort by providing the needed funding to explore and utilize real alternatives to incarceration for these non-violent offenders? Surely, a nation as wealthy and able as America can do just that, if not more.

Here are some alternative sentencing measures that can reduce the prison population, cut the cost of incarceration, benefit society, and help to rehabilitate hundreds of thousands of the prisoners in our backyards, all at the same time:

• Property Offenders: sentence them to labor equal to the value of the property stolen or damaged.
• Drug Offenders: sentence them to drug treatment centers, shelters or programs. If the person does not improve, combine this treatment with some hard, sweaty labor. The Divert Court program in Texas provides a working model.
• Public-Order Offenders: sentence those who violate public order to labor or community service. They could actually be given low-wage jobs to pay fines commensurate with their offenses.

Let us not forget that among America's prison population are many mentally ill people. Now, what class of offender do these fit in? Who knows what crime it is to lose one's mind? Just think about that: the world's most civilized nation hauls its mentally ill citizens to jails! Not that I want to fault my country, but can't we find a better solution than incarcerating crazy people? Yes, I know, they are often included with the druggies, because drug abuse may have resulted in their mental condition. But can't we find a better way than locking up the mentally ill like criminals?

Keep the brainstorming going; America might just one day shed its record as the world's lead jailer.

Inmates America: What It Costs to Run America's Prisons

America's prison population continues to explode, and so does the cost of keeping so many Americans locked up.

According to Pew Center on the States, America now has one adult inmate for every 99.1 American adults. Of a total of 230 million American adults, our prison population stands at 2,319,258. Only America holds this distasteful record. We incarcerate more of our citizens than totalitarian Russia (864,590 prisoners), more than even communist China, with its 1.3 billion people (1.5 million inmates).

So, while we rightly spew human rights lectures at China, the Chinese government only needs to throw it back at us that we have 1 percent of our adult population behind bars.

People, that's a whole lot of our precious human resources wasting away in jails, prisons, and half-way houses all across this land of the free. And it costs billions of dollars to keep those Americans locked up. The 50 states of the USA spend a total of $49 billion a year on incarceration. Twenty years ago, the cost was less than $11 billion.

In a recent town hall meeting, Governor Steve Beshear said it costs the state of Kentucky $20,000 a year to incarcerate just one person. In 2007, Kentucky led the nation in the increase of inmate population. Governor Beshear points out that though Kentucky's crime rate has increased by only 3 percent in the past 30 years, the state's inmate population has soared a whopping 600%.

Actually, the actual number is higher than the Governor's estimate of $20,000 per inmate. Kentucky, which had 3,000 inmates in 1973, now has 22,000 inmates as of 2008, and the state has been spending $500 million each year to house those inmates. If you do the math, it's costing Kentucky taxpayers about $22,727 to incarcerate one inmate for one year.

Should America Be Ashamed of Our Prison Population Explosion?

Imprisonment embarrassment. That's what it should be called.

Researchers of America's prison population have found that the number of women inmates continues to swell. The female prison population increased 2.5 percent from 2006 to mid 2007, for a total of 115,308 ladies in America's jails and prisons. Our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters have been packing the jails just like the guys.

One female prison, the Ohio Women Reformatory, houses 2,300 women, many of them mothers. Don't you like that name, “Reformatory”? The truth is very little reformation is going on behind the walls of American jails. The recidivism rate seems to still be stuck at around 85 percent; that means for every 100 persons who are released from jail, 85 percent of them will be re-incarcerated. Those giant revolving doors across the prison industry just keep swinging back and forth.

To their credit, the overcrowded Ohio Women Reformatory, in order to meet the demand of more female offenders, is building a 1,000-bed facility. They say 1,000 beds, but we know that “beds” really mean “women”. So this jail expects another 1,000 women to come knocking to enter Prison Institute.

Our choice of euphemism for the prison industry reveals there is something that really disturbs us about having so many of our fellow citizens locked up. The ballooning jail population shows something of our nakedness as a society, and we find ways to blush away this embarrassment by resorting to figurative language: reformatory, department of corrections, correctional facility, detention center, etc.

Are we embarrassed to call them what they are? Why do we hesitate to say them jails, prisons? What's this “corrections” stuff, like the incarcerated are students getting their tests graded (corrected) by their instructors? We somehow prefer to lessen the impact on our collective social psyche by minimizing the punishment aspect of our prison business. But no matter how tender the language we employ for crime and punishment system, we will do nothing significantly meaningful to reverse the trend towards more and more of our fellow citizens headed into prison cells.

It's high time started calling America's jail houses what they really are – hell holes of the world's greatest country. With the correct semantics, we may start seeing the seriousness of the problem that an ever increasing numbers of prisoners present to this civilized society. Let us call prisons by the punitive names they deserve. Perhaps by doing so, we may just prick our social consciousness into taking the necessary steps to reduce the population explosion of those dark halls of squandered human resources.

The Beijing 2008 Olympics and Religion

If I remember correctly, the ancient Greek Olympic games started out as rituals or religious ceremonies in honor of Greek gods. In stark contrast, the organizers of our modern Olympic games go out of their way to distance the games from formal religion of any sort. In fact, if there is any religion at the games these days, it's the religion of atheism, faith in No God, or in China's case, the religion of communism, worship of the state.

Perhaps the Beijing Olympic 2008 of communist China has thus far proved to be one of the most god-less games of our time. American athletes who are known for their religious catch phrases like "Thank God", etc, have not dared mention the word "God" once, at least not from the interviews of athletes I have seen and heard thus far.

Just one more evidence that China has gotten everything it wanted from the games: reintroduce or reinvent China to the world, while keeping every bit of its communist, totalitarian markers in place. Every world leader of note has all but bowed before the great dragon of China.

How could people not bow to China's dragon, after that superior opening "ceremony" (religious?) by the Chinese? How could we tell if the Chinese, by their grand opening show, had not succeeded in tricking the mesmerized world into worshiping the communist nation?

Did I say there is no god at the Beijing Olympic? There may not be 'God talk'. But actually, there is, and it's that blood thirsty dragon known as Red China. Everyone, including journalists, presidents, prime ministers, athletes, spectators, and the world audience have been offering sacrifices of praise to Great China, and her various shrines, like the Bird's Nest (national stadium hosting the games), the Great Wall, and so on.

Speaking of China's new national stadium, Beijing officials said two persons died during construction work on the Bird's Nest. Accident or Sacrament? What if the blood of the two who died was a kind of human sacrifice to the dragon? Erase that! Cut.

An irony of modern culture is how religious people are who claim to avoid the very appearance of religion. The only difference is that the God-haters prefer new gods crafted in their own image, carved from human history and human achievement. Like the gods that built the Great Wall of China; those deities deserve our worship.

Humanism. Secularism. That's the universal religion of the civilized world; that's what they want it to be. And national symbols like the dragon, eagles, lion, etc, have become sub-deities in the pantheon and sanctuary where the Homo sapien is the Almighty.

Of course, we could add to the list of modern Olympic deities the gold, silver, and bronze that the athletes compete for, but the metals are far lesser gods than the humans who crave them.

Have we really made progress in our quest to leave religion behind, while reaching for the peaks of pure science and human achievement without the God Sickness? Are we any less religious than the ancients? Not really. Most of what we've done is substituted Greek gods and legends with self-worship, the worship of ourselves. Truth is, we have lessen our religion and stooped to a lower altar than the ancient Greeks of the original Olympic games.

I'm still enjoying the games, though, especially the swimming of America's Michael Phelps. If any human deserves worship, it's this fish-like swimmer. And speaking of fish, that's a religious symbol too. See how difficult it is for humans to steer clear of religion?

Kentucky Goes After Electric Cars: Is ZAP Hype?

ZAP (Zero Air Pollution) is an electric car company currently based in California. The company now makes electric cars in China and wants to locate a facility in America. Contenders for the American plant include Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee.

That brings me to this....

On Monday evening, August 11, Governor Steve Beshear of Kentucky visited my backyard for a town hall meeting at Apollo High School in Owensboro, Kentucky. Among the many questions and comments from the audience was one from a man, who thanked Mr. Beshear for signing an executive order in early August, allowing electric vehicles on some state roads. The man said he and his wife have been using their electric vehicles, and the savings over gasoline are simply something to shout about.

The electric car can go as fast as 45 miles per hour, and are now permitted to travel on Kentucky roads with speed limit of 45MPH or slower.

With this executive order, the Governor hopes to lure ZAP to choose Kentucky for a 200-acre plant that could eventually employ more than 2,000 workers.

So, what will these electric cars cost Kentuckians? A 4-passenger ZAP car will cost around $11,700; a ZAP truck costs about $12,400. Not bad, ahn? Also, ZAP would like for the state to offer every buyer of a ZAP vehicle a $1,000 tax credit. Gov. Beshear is open to that option.

But not so fast! There is one huge problem with all this electricity before it strikes Kentucky roads en masse. Here is how the Lexington Herald Leader phrased the ZAP loophole:

“Some independent auto analysts say ZAP has a reputation of overpromising and under-delivering. Aaron Bragman, an auto industry analyst with the economic forecasting group Global Insight, said last month that 'Kentucky politicians should proceed with caution with ZAP. ZAP often makes very big promises in press releases and news conferences but has yet to prove they can deliver all they say they can. They've shown us a great concept, but not a good business model.'”

Okay, ZAP's big talk aside, one thing seems certain: Electric cars have become part of the cure to the world's addiction to petroleum. And for those hypersensitive souls on environmental concerns, electric cars with zero CO2 emission may just deliver the energy Nirvana the world needs. Right?

O yea, it's a good feeling knowing that Kentucky may actually be known for something other than champion of tobacco, leader in smoking and cigarette-related diseases, and all the other dusty trophies that bad news journalists enjoy robbing in our faces. At last, the Commonwealth of Kentucky can be a leader in the new energy revolution.

If we don't land the new energy reputation with zero-air-pollution cars, perhaps we could find in clean coal technology? Or may be it's bio-fuel something that will redeem the Commonwealth's good name. I'm ready. Anything but four-buck gas for my V8 petro guzzler.

Electric Cars to the Rescue? Dennis Miller Interviews Shai Agassi of Project Better Place

It was President George W. Bush who said in his 2006 State of the Union speech that America needed to end her addiction to oil. If any one knows addiction when he sees it, it is Mr. Bush, who was once addicted to alcohol or liquor. As Mr. Bush overcame his drunken ways, he wants the nation to become sober from petrol.

Ever since the president's oil addiction line, politicians have been arguing about how to rehabilitate America the oil addict. And the private sector has been pouring money into alternative energy like flood waters over broken levees.

Meanwhile, some of the solutions have been a little too hasty, if not misguided. A case in point is the ethanol rush, which has sent the price of corn soaring along with all corn-derived items. In fact, one could argue that all food prices have gone up as an indirect result of the corn-based ethanol solution to America's "petrolism" (addiction to petroleum). In my native country of Liberia, the price of rice has more than doubled, thanks to the biofuel solution to our energy need. Talk about 'the law of unintended consequences'!

As we all know by now, other alternatives besides corn or biofuels have stepped up to the plate to contend for the oil replacement spot: wind power, solar energy, hybrid technology, hydrogen fuel, and the all-electric vehicle.

Speaking of the electric car, a businessman named Shai Agassi was on the Dennis Miller Show on August 5, 2008, touting his project to mass produce electric vehicles. Mr. Agassi claims to have raised more than $200 million, the largest for any startup company in recent memory.

“Previously, Shai was President of the Products and Technology Group (PTG). He resigned from this position on March 28 effective April 1st, 2007, to pursue interests in alternative energy and climate change. In October 2007 he founded a company named Project Better Place, focusing on a green transportation infrastructure based on electric cars as an alternative to the current fossil fuel technology” (source).

Project Better Place will adopt the strategy of the cell phone industry: build the infrastructure first; then build the product. It will cost $100 billion to put the infrastructure in place. That amount is equal to what the United States spends on two months' supply of petroleum.

Unlike oil, which is produced from just one source (fossil fuel), scientists know how to generate electrons from various sources: coal, dam, solar, wind, etc. And any electricity generated from any of these sources can be used to power electric vehicles.

You see how the success of electric vehicles could mean the end of the petrol industry. Is that drastic or what? No, really, will such a solution be overkill? How many petroleum companies and employees will lose their jobs for the sake of these electric vehicles? Let’s hope that oil companies will be swift enough to make the switch from fossil fuel to electrons, or else, we may be looking at an economic depression when the electric cars initially take over from our gas-guzzlers. Well, of course, the world economy would bounce back, depending on how quickly the petroleum gorillas and oil addicts rise from the slumber to make the transition from “big oil” to “brilliant electric”.

Project Better Place will partner with automobile companies Renault and Nissan to build the electric vehicles. They will start by testing 50 cars. By 2010, they will manufacture 500 electric cars. If successful, they will go into mass production mode, with tens of thousands of electric vehicles to hit the streets.

Starting with Israel, Project Better Place will build swap/charge stations, like filling stations, where drivers of electric cars can recharge their batteries or swap their batteries out. If the plan works in Israel, Better Place will repeat the process in Denmark. The company has selected Israel and Denmark to be the electric vehicle guinea pigs, because, according to Shai Agassi, these nations are "transportation islands".

This entrepreneur speaks with such doubt-free confidence that he makes listeners feel his solution to the oil-dependent transportation is a sure thing. He claims that making the electric cars is actually the easy part; they already have the technology in place. He says getting those electric car stations built is really the bigger challenge. Once that is done, electric vehicles will begin to flood the planet in the same way that cell phones have covered the earth from Europe to Africa, from Asia to America, once the satellite signals and other hardware was available.

After Dennis Miller's interview with Shai Agassi, my only question was, "Where will I get some serious money to invest in Better Place at the ground level, so I can join the current ranks of alternative vehicle multimillionaires?"

Another question: Will it cost less than half-a-tank of gasoline to swap or charge an electronic car's battery? Better be! What we need is not only an end to oil addiction but a sobriety plan that won't cost us the same as our current addiction. If not, then we would have been better off remaining petroleum addicts, especially if we could supply the drug from our own soil.

So, depending on cost to the consumer, in the next few years, we might just be saying, "Give me that li-ion battery," or, "Hand me another booze ~ I mean tank of gas, and make that regular unleaded with techron."

Barack Obama & John McCain: Flip Flop Comparison Chart

Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have done the flip on major issues. Saying that one man is a bigger flip flopper than the other is like getting out a scale to weigh their summer sauts to decide which man is the greater flipper flopper. Obama and McCain are well matched in the flip flop arena. It does not seem like McCain's greater age and experience give him an edge over the younger Obama when it comes to the skill of flip flopping.

The list of tumbles is too long to continue here. It includes changes of positions on national security, foreign policy, domestic policy, energy policy, etc. But you can find more flip flops by Senators Obama and McCain on these links:

=> For a complete list of Barack Obama flip flops, click here.

=> For a complete list of John McCain flip flops, click here.

What these men have done is make flip flops so common that before this elections season is over, Americans will be desensitized to flip flops by politicians. As we've been lied to by our parents, pastors, priests, players, politicians and other people of influence, so that we say hopelessly and simply, "Everybody lies". So, in future elections, whether local or national, flip flops (lying) will become a minor thing to worry about, unless it is something like perjury or "lying under oath". We are poised to start saying with reference to politicians, "Everybody flip flops".

Barack Obama Flip Flops Again - Good!

It was just yesterday that I blogged that Senator Barack Obama would lose the 2008 presidential elections to Senator John McCain over the biggest issue of this time: energy. My prediction was that Obama's insistence on toting the party line against offshore drilling puts him on the wrong side of the sensible majority of the American public, who have made it known that they want America to drill for its own oil.

I even emailed the Obama Campaign about this, and I suppose countless other Obama admirers did the same.

Well, guess what? It seems like Obama has already felt the heat and smelled the coffee. He is now modifying his position, saying he is open to offshore drilling, depending on how the plan is structured. Good for this guy, he's not afraid of flip flopping, since changing position on any issue fits right into his template of being the "change candidate".

Because Obama was/is a far left liberal, every flip flop moves him closer to the moderate end of the ideological spectrum. I kind of like that.

You know, something in me told me that Obama would prove to be a real politician by changing his position on this matter, once he was convinced that he was losing the popular support for more drilling.

So after months of singing the anti-drilling song, "We can't drill our way out of this," Barack Obama is about to join a different choir, singing, "We can partly drill our way out of high gas prices."

Instead of being upset with Obama for flipping, I'm actually elated that he's coming around to the American people's side on this all-important issue, while he still has time.

Next, let's watch, listen and see if Mr. Obama actually believes in offshore drilling now and will begin to hammer the point as part of a comprehensive energy solution that will both lower gas prices immediately and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil eventually.

Keep flipping and flopping, Barack Obama, and you might just become President Obama, after all. I'd rather have you do 360s on important issues that you are wrong on than stick to your far-left guns and bite the dust on November 4th.

There are bad flip flops, and there are good flip flops. This was certainly a good one. Is there another on the way, Obama, Sir? I sure hope so...

Out Of The Emotional Basement

Where do you go from the emotional basement that started with disappointment, then went downstairs to discouragement, distress, dejection, and depression?

Your options are very few. In fact, just three, but every one of them is a choice that you still have the power to make:

Option 1: Remain here. Remain depressed. If you choose this option, you won’t be able to function as a normal person. You won’t be able to keep a job. You can’t be there for your family, friend and others who look up to you or may depend on you. You can’t be functional, unless you take some kind of medication. But then you may soon get hooked on prescription drugs, with an ever-increasing strength of dosage needed to calm your nerves. A slippery slope into drug addiction, and all you really want is to be able to function at some semi-normal level.

Option 2: Regroup and rebound. You can rise up, stand up, walk out of that emotional basement and bounce back. But let’s admit it, you will need help to do this. And the odds weigh better in your favor, if you ask for that help much sooner than later. The shorter the time you spend in your emotional abyss, the greater the chances of you coming out alive and well.

Option 3: Commit suicide. Depression is the leading cause of suicide. Sadly, many take this dark path of no return. They prefer to go from the emotional basement to an irreversible grave. What a pitiful choice! What an unnecessary choice.

When you are not the one in the emotional basement, and if you have the opportunity to catch your friend or loved one squelching in this damnable hole, get ready to play hero. Whether you see yourself as savior or not, that’s exactly who you’ll need to become, because your loved one will need nothing less than a savior to rescue him or her from the emotional quicksand.

You may be that person’s only hope of ever returning to meaningful living or remaining alive. Start by going out of your way to be a close friend to the person. Your friendship will help shatter the person’s dejection, the faulty thinking that he or she is an unwanted loser and useless trash. When you become a friend to this depressed person, she may learn that she is wrong to feel unwanted. Suddenly, the person realizes, “Some body still wants me. I’m wanted. Not everyone has rejected me; at least, not this person!” That can be the birth of new life for that person, the dawn of hope, a living hope.