Ladies first....

I read in the paper earlier this week that a historic moment occurred at the White House - all the presidents, former, current, and elect, met for lunch to talk, to share, to inspire and to encourage. It was a moment that shows our country at our very best, I believe, because there are few places on earth where the transition of power occurs so easily, so gently, so orderly. George Bush spoke for most people in this country, I believe, and not only the men who have shared the Oval Office, when he wished the Obama administration well. Our country depends on his success, and where he fails, we all fail.

So seeing the photos of them all lined up together, differences put aside for the moment, looking pleasant and friendly, was a genuinely inspiring moment. [Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who are notorious for their dislike of each other, were standing side by side and smiling through their obviously gritted teeth.] It makes me feel like perhaps, just possibly, my usual pessimism where politicians are concerned may be unjustified, at least for this day. If these strong, willful men, who have led this nation in a variety of hard times, and with a variety of philosophies, can put aside their egos and their differences to make peace with each other for one afternoon, perhaps the rest of us can, too.

One thing I did not see in that photo, however, was the wives of these powerful men. I think that is a sad oversight. The First Ladies of this country are a rich blend of old and new, graciousness and audacity, brilliance and beauty, and I would love to see their combined star power, too. In fact, I have to say, I probably like the First Ladies more than I like their husbands, for the most part, and I would love to see what they would bring to the table, at a similar luncheon.

We have had many First Ladies since I came along in 1960. They have each had their own unique style, and brought their own purpose and perspective to the job of being the First Spouse, the First Parent, The First Lady. It is interesting to compare them, and to see what each of them have in common, and how they are all different, as well.

Jackie needs no description. John Kennedy famously said that he was the guy with Jackie, and he wasn't too far wrong about that. She was the essence of class and grace and style, and she made it all look effortless. She was never out of step, never out of place, and brought a sophistication to the job that was breathtaking and classic.

Jackie represented the women of this nation on a worldwide stage, and did so in a way that elevated us all. Sort of like Grace Kelly, I think. We all wanted to be the beautiful, regal, Princess for Real when we grew up - they are our dream come true in the flesh. Jackie's death must have left a tremendous void for her daughter, the only remaining member of that tragedy plagued family, but her legacy is certainly one of which her daughter must be very proud.

The next three First Ladies are a little more fuzzy for me, partly because I was so young at the time, and partly because I think they distinguished themselves as individuals more in the post-presidential period, if at all. Although that sounds like a criticism, it truly isn't meant that way. I think some of them were more private than others, and that can be seen in how they have lived their lives since their time at the White House. It seems that for many First Ladies, their real life begins after their spouse leaves office, and they have more freedom to speak their minds, and to do what they feel passionate about.

Betty Ford is a First Lady who has really come into her own in the post-presidential years, and I would very much enjoy speaking to her about her personal passions and thoughts. Betty is a true hero to me, in the best sense of the term, as she has been willing to fight her various very personal battles in public, and allowed her private griefs and pains to be exposed for the benefit of leading others.

Without Betty Ford, I believe addiction issues, and mental illness generally, would still be a much more hidden nightmare, and the many people who have been helped, not only at the clinic she founded, but by her public example, may well still be in the dregs instead of on the recovery path. I admire Betty enormously, as I do her husband. I think they are/were people of genuine principle, people who were willing to do the right thing at a high personal cost because it was best for the country, regardless of the consequences to them personally.

Rosalyn Carter was a smart First Lady, one of the deeper thinkers, I suspect, that have held that honored position, although she kept it somewhat under wraps during the time her husband was in office. But I believe she shares his passion, if occasionally misplaced, for peace, and for making the world a better place for the poor and impoverished, in both body and mind, who are to be found both here in the US and throughout the developing world.

My clearest recollections of Rosalyn personally come after the fact, when she and Jimmy would come to Memphis, Tennessee, where I was living then, to see their daughter Amy, more or less grown up, in art school, but somewhat troubled at the time.

I will digress on a side note here - you wouldn't know I wrote the post if there weren't a tangent somewhere along the line. I have often wondered if Amy was going to be a bit of a mess, no matter what her early years had been like, or if the international spotlight that was shining on her caused much of her difficulties. I can relate to Amy more than any other First Child, being a bit of a mess myself - I hope she has a stable life now, and I hope she is happy.

Rosalyn was ever gracious and poised, and no matter how much pressure she must have felt, she never cracked in public. Her private pains, and they must have been a great burden at times, remained closed off from us, and she often seemed remote, an enigma, sort of unreachable.

Nancy Reagan was not, in my personal opinion, one of the great First Ladies, although I certainly will respect your opinion if you feel differently. She was too cold, too abrasive, too aloof for me to ever warm up to her. Her Just Say No efforts seemed to me, even then, overly simplistic and too narrow in scope, out of touch with the realities of what kids face in their real world lives. Her difficulties with her own children, while drawing a certain amount of sympathy, made me suspicious of her qualifications to tell the rest of us how to parent our offspring, as well. While I am never judgmental about people's parenting, I have made far too many mistakes myself to be judging anyone else's efforts, I don't try to give simplistic answers to other parents problems, either.

However, in her post-presidential years, she has won me over for her honesty and her championship of Alzheimer's Disease and the search for a cure. She could have hidden her hard life circumstances behind the Secret Service protection and the wall of wealth she has every right to enjoy, and just quietly disappeared from view, but instead she chose to come out publicly and be honest about what her beloved husband was going through. It not only humanized her, but it made her a much deeper, much more human, much more real, person, for me, and won a respect that I would never have envisioned feeling for her.

Barbara Bush, as both a wife and a mother of presidents, holds a unique place in the history of American First Ladies. In her dual role, she has been first quietly supportive, and then slightly more openly combative, but ever gracious and steady. Sort of First Grandmother Extreme, if you will.

Like most First Spouses, she kept her opinions to herself while her husband was in the White House, and led us as an Everywoman in late middle age - gracious, pleasant, fluffy hair and slightly weighty, but with no apparent opinions of her own. In her post-presidential moments, the genuine Barbara Bush has emerged, one for which I, personally, have a greater appreciation.

Barbara Bush has handled both of her roles, especially the First Mom, with definite grace under fire. I feel for her, especially so, as she has to endure the constant criticism of her beloved child - it must be excruciating to have to face it every day in every media venue, and not fight back. I have a teensy sense of how that feels, because I cannot stand to read the comments left when my own child writes his weekly column, so I can't even imagine how much worse it must be to be assaulted by it in a constant stream every day and night.

I think Barbara represents the old guard of White House women - the seen but not heard crowd. The role of the First Spouse is theoretically to be a personal support to the POTUS, and hold his family together while he holds the country together. [And yet, First Ladies are also expected to be a public person, supporting charitable causes and out representing us in the public arena. They work very hard, and they have to meet 250 million expectations. I think it's ridiculous that we refuse to acknowledge that work and put them on the payroll, giving them credit for that place in their spouse's administrations. But once again, I digress.]

The First Mom has expressed her own ideas and opinions on occasion, and they are surprisingly moderate, I think. [Don't get me wrong, I know she is no Liberal, so no need to get conservative shorts in a bunch, but she appears to be much more centrist than either her husband or her son, which I find refreshing.] My impression of her now is of a rather fiery woman with strong opinions, and no reluctance to express them within her own sphere. The First Mom is a much more interesting woman, considerably more complex and thoughtful than she appeared in the White House years, and I find myself wishing we had known her better while HW was in office.

Hillary was, and remains, a polarizing character. Hillary shattered the traditional mold for First Ladies, I think, and made it clear that they have minds and passions of their own, and great ability, if only we allow them to pursue it. I think we have spent too much time wasting a valuable resource by not allowing the First Ladies to have a voice, and I think it's time we acknowledge their skills and their influence, and give them the tools to make a difference.

Hillary was much more visible, and clearly helped to drive policy while her husband was in office - I have no doubt at all that her mind and intellect are not only a match for her husband, but possibly exceed his - but she was not a popular First Lady with much of the country. She seems to have a genius for alienating people on the conservative end of the spectrum, despite being, according to the people working with her in the Senate, willing to work through things in a bi-partisan way. Her friends, though not large in number, are dedicated to a fault, for the most part. Her own loyalty seems to me to be self-evident - if you will stay with a cheating spouse through a national debacle like the one they went through, I don't think anyone can fairly argue her loyalty, whether you consider it misplaced or not.

After her highly criticized open leadership of the health care task force, she pulled back, and rightly so, realizing that she had become a negative distraction to the very causes that were most important to her. And while she didn't go away entirely, she was, in most ways, a fairly traditional First Spouse from then on. It was our nation's loss, I believe, because we would be better off today if we had some type of affordable national health care for everyone, [although spare me the government administration of it; I have seen Medicare rules, and it is a nightmare,] and her interest in children's issues is long standing and seems to be genuine.

Her post-presidential time has been spent earning her place in history in her own right, and she has certainly made an impact. She has apparently earned the grudging respect of her fellow Senators, even the Republicans, who report that she is a hard worker, and no prima dona. I think, if you are fair, you give her credit for that, even if you don't like her. There is no question she has been one of the most publicly active former First Ladies in history, and will now have earned her own place in the history books for her presidential run and her Cabinet post.

And yet, for me, the woman who should be a natural POTUS candidate is not. I would never have voted for her, for my own reasons, which are neither conservative nor liberal, but moral and personal, and had nothing to do with her cheating spouse at all. Her willingness to shift and bend the truth to fit her own purpose reminds me a little too much of someone else I know, and makes me believe that she is not to be trusted with the type of power that is inherent in the position of POTUS.

Hillary is a fascinating person, and while I wouldn't want her behind the desk in the Oval Office, I would love to sit down and have a conversation or ten with her. I think the incoming First Lady would be well advised to have some one on one time with Hillary, and to cultivate that relationship, because I think she would learn a lot, from a mind that has some things in common, even if the moral code is vastly different.

Our current First Lady seems to be more of a traditionalist, the First Wife and First Mother figure with a modern flair. I do not think she is without her own opinions, despite not having aired them in public the past eight years - loyalty to her husband and daughters is obviously her first priority, and I suspect that we will hear more of her thoughts when her husband is out of office than we did while he sat behind the biggest desk in the world. I think it would be ignorant to assume she did not give her advice and opinion on a wide range of topics, and I find it unlikely that her husband made any big decisions without her knowledge, if not approval, at the very least.

Laura has been the consummate First Lady - gracious, generous, modest, genuine and mostly quiet - and she will leave her position with the respect and admiration of the overwhelming majority of the American public. I think Laura has done as much to publicize the situation of women in the developing world as anyone could have, and I do hope that she will continue that vital role once her husband leaves office. Her efforts towards literacy are laudable as well, and I think her daughters' choice of professions speak loudly as to the importance of her personal beliefs in the value of education and literacy in this country.

Just as we watched her sympathize with those who have faced hard times, and you could see the emotion she expressed was genuine, we have sympathized with her discomfort in her own hard times. From her husband's low approval ratings, to her children's unfortunate public mistakes - mistakes which most teens make, but made in the public eye, it had to be far more embarrassing - to her righteous indignation over the shoe throwing incident, which revealed, I think for the first time, that the First Lady has a bit of a temper, we understood her position, and have mostly been respectful of her personally.

Although those incidents opened a shutter on the window a little, I wonder what we will learn over the next 20 years that will surprise and enlighten us about Laura. Most Americans seem to admire her, but I don't think very many people feel they know her. I suspect that is just the way she would like it to be.

I don't know enough about Michelle Obama to know what she will bring to the job, but I do know she is smart, she is driven, she is a woman who puts her children at the top of her priorities, and she doesn't know how to pick the right dress for election night. [Seriously, Michelle, NEVER go out in public again without asking your daughter if you look good. That goes double if she is a teen, as she soon will be.]

I hope that she brings the obvious passion and drive to her new position, and will find a way to make a difference. I expect she will advise her husband, just as I assume all of the First Ladies have, and I hope that in the course of the next four years, she is given the information she needs to give good advice.

I hope that she is able to be the First Mom, and still be Sasha and Malia's mom, without being criticized [or applauded] for every single thing she does. Would you want that scrutiny on your parenting? I sure wouldn't. We have young children in the White House again for the first time in many years - I am excited about that, as I think we have a new opportunity for a more youthful focus. In these times of economic crisis, it won't hurt to have the First Daughters visible to remind us of who pays the price for the mistakes we make today. One hopes that their parents will have that firmly in mind as well.

So who would you choose to spend an hour with, if only you could? Which First Lady would give you the most fascinating hour, the most to think about, the most to learn?

I would enjoy an hour with Rosalyn Carter, because she is such an enigma, and I think one on one I would get a better sense of who she is and what is important to her. I know very little of her, really - even in the post-presidential years, she is one of the least visible First Ladies still alive, and I think it would be interesting to see history from her point of view. While her husband is running all over the world monitoring [and interfering] and whatever else he is doing, where is Rosalyn, and what is important to her? It might be a fascinating hour, and I suspect I would find out that her passions ran as deep, if not as visibly, as her husband's.

I find Barbara Bush much more interesting than her daughter-in-law, but I don't harbor any illusions that either of them would have time for the likes of me. Barbara was a nice counterbalance to her slightly wonkified husband, and brought a personal touch to a presidency which otherwise might have been too distant to reach the common man, while Laura brought a touch of grace and class to a presidency in a very troubled time. I wouldn't turn down an hour with either of the Bush women, although I think there are others that would be more interesting to me personally.

I couldn't pass up an hour with Betty Ford, if only to tell her thank you for lighting the candle for so many people. She leaves an incredible legacy of courage, and hope, and I believe that my own battles with clinical depression were made easier by her willingness to talk about things that nice people didn't talk about in public before. I would be proud to spend an hour honoring this very special woman, who has given this country much more than a First Lady.

I would enjoy an hour with Hillary, because she is brilliant and fascinating, and it would be educational and an extraordinary challenge to tap her knowledge. I suspect we wouldn't leave the meeting as best friends, but I think I would leave with admiration for her sharp mind and her ability to be flexible and see more than one side of an issue. I can admire someone I don't like a whole lot, and I think that is where an hour with this former First Lady would probably leave me.

I hope, for Michelle Obama's sake, that she will have the benefit of talking to each of the living former First Ladies, and will have the chance to learn from them what her role could be, what she should expect, what mistakes they made that they wouldn't make again, and what they wish they had done that they didn't do.

I hope she will have the time to learn from each of them what their strengths were, and how to deal with the pressures and loneliness of the position. Laura Bush was singularly fortunate in having that resource immediately available in the form of her mother-in-law, and I have to imagine that was invaluable to her. Michelle comes from a different world, so I hope that these women, each different, but with this enormous shared experience, will reach out to her to give her help, just as their husbands have reached out to Barack to offer wisdom and advice and encouragement.

For the first time in as many years as I can remember back, it seems we are coming together as a country to face the hard times we must face. This is not a moment in time, like 9/11, where we are reacting out of shock and fear, but a gradual dawning of the realization that we are in it for the long haul, and we sink or swim together.

The very special group of living presidents, past, present and future, is an extraordinary vision of how it could be. It was uplifting to know, even in these troubled times, that it is possible to have a common mission, and that the goal of democracy and freedom rests on the ability of the governed to step aside and allow for a free flow of ideas from all sides. Let's see the Ladies show that same solidarity. Heck, most people like them better, anyway. And they will certainly make a prettier picture!

Oh Christmas Tree....

This past weekend, I engaged in the tradition of the reverse holiday - the dismantling of the Christmas tree so recently procured and adorned in all its finery, the centerpiece in the festive atmosphere of our home. Putting up the tree is fun, and even at my age, holds the excitement of anticipation and unknown treasures, as you look forward to what might be waiting for you under that tree in a few weeks.

Taking the tree down is depressing and sad - all the pretty little ornaments packed away in their individual boxes, lonely and hidden for another year, when the season will once again overtake me. It is difficult not to recall the past year when you take down the tree, I think. There is something about the dismantling of the tree that makes me want to dismantle and dissect my life, as well.

What has the past year held for me? What did I do right? What did I get wrong? What will I continue to do, and what will I never do again?

I have gone through many changes in this past year, both internal and external, it seems. I have gained and lost - I don't know if in equal measure, and I'm not sure it even matters.

While many people use New Year's as a chance to make resolutions and address changes that need to be made, I become retrospective and introspective. I think you have to know where you went right and wrong in order to know what to keep and what to throw out. So the process of moving forward involves looking backward as its first step.

In looking backwards, I am grateful to be leaving 2008 behind. It was a hard year, both for me personally, and in the life of this nation. There are many people suffering hardship of various kinds right now, and we all hope that 2009 is a kinder, gentler year, I am certain.

But I also take the hard life lessons of 2008 with me, and I hope they make me a better, fairer, more thoughtful, more dedicated, more effective person going forward. If there is a reason to celebrate the start of a new year, it has to be the opportunity to clean the slate and start fresh once again, with new attitude and new enthusiasm and new hope for what is to come.

But I am a realist. Life is what it is, and I am unlikely to see a change in my luck, simply because the calendar has turned a page. However, I think much of what we see as good luck or bad luck can be reframed to produce a whole new attitude. [Please note I said much, not all. If I thought it was all based on perspective, I would certainly change my course immediately to fix the problem!] So if I have a resolution for the year 2009, it will be to reframe the negatives that are thrown my way, so that I can see where the glass is half full whenever possible.

I got the opportunity to put this resolution into practice early, as my toilet fell apart, delivering a watery mess to my upstairs bathroom floor on January 2. Late Friday afternoon on a holiday weekend, and suddenly, I have a water saturated bathroom. Naturally, because it will make things more exciting, [and let's face it, I am still me,] my water shut off valve breaks in the middle of the fiasco, allowing even more of the wet stuff to spew unabated. I go to turn off my brand new water main shut off valve, to find that it, too, leaks, although not at crisis levels.

At this point, I threw up my hands, I informed all who were listening that I hate my life, and I called the plumber. Who was, as you might expect, out of town for the weekend, with no backup available. Next, I call my fix-it guy, who saves me regularly when I'm in over my head, but no answer.

Now what? Naturally, I head to the hardware store, mother in tow, to see what I can do about the situation. And this is where the reframing begins for me.

Because my guy, Kevin, called me while I was there contemplating which shut off valve I needed, and offered to drop everything to come and save me. An offer which I accepted with alacrity.

The floor, although damaged, is not as warped as I would have feared, and miracle of miracles, there was no damage to the ceiling below. This, despite the bleach filled cleaner tablet that I had placed in the tank for the first time ever, immediately prior to the leak occurring. {Could those two things be related? Hmmmm.]

The bolts, which had rusted out, allowing the leak to occur in the first place, are similar to bolts in the remaining toilets, so Kevin will come and replace them the next time he has an hour free with nothing better to do, so this will not happen again.

I have a new shut off valve, one which is less prone to breakage, so that will hopefully not be a problem any longer on that toilet.

It only cost me $39 to get the whole situation under control. [Not counting the damaged vinyl flooring, of course. But let's face it, it's my kids' bathroom, so we all know that isn't going to get replaced any time soon.]

All in all, I was very fortunate, because the whole thing could have been a lot worse.

Reframing the situation will take some practice, I fear, but it is possible, even for a cynic like me. Maybe along with the Christmas tree, I will have thrown pessimism into the compost heap, and 2009 will be the year of the renewal. Wait! Is that hope I see?

Happy New Year to you, and here's wishing you many more to come!

Recession indeed....

This morning I read the news that tells me we really and truly are in a whole different kind of recession. What news, you ask? Total lottery sales were down in the state of Kansas for 2008.

This may not seem like big news to anyone. On the surface, it seems obvious that if you have less money for bread and gas, you will not spend it buying lottery tickets. But on the contrary, that is often not the way it goes. The majority of lottery sales go to those who can least afford it, with the desperate placing their hopes on a windfall, real life being what it is.

I do not play the lottery. I am not one of those people who is likely to ever benefit from anything that involves good luck, my luck being mostly of the other variety. But I understand why people hopefully throw down a dollar or two or ten, on the off chance - after all, someone does eventually have to win the money - that this will be their moment to grab the brass ring in life.

My brass ring has turned out to be fool's gold, and I am not hopeful that will change any time soon. I don't waste my time or money hoping for something that will never happen - I don't have that kind of time, nor do I have the mental energy. But, like I said, I understand the hopefulness that leads a person to participate.

And that is why I was surprised this morning to learn, quite unexpectedly, that lottery sales are down in the state of Kansas for 2008. As the economy tanked, I would have expected that sales would have spiked, and that more people would have looked for the barely possible to occur. [This is as opposed to the impossibility of becoming rich under your own power, which will not occur for most people who don't start out that way, no matter how hard they work.]

I don't know the reasons behind it, nor do I understand the sales trends or dynamics that are involved. I have not given sufficient time, or any time, really, to the study of lottery sales, to have even the slightest idea of the economics of it all.

But I do have an understanding of human nature. I understand how irrepressible hope can be, how optimism can drive you to make decisions that don't make sense, and how dreams can distort reality until it seems possible that a person could actually hit the jackpot and suddenly find themselves on the other side of a financial divide that separates the comfortable from the fearful in our society.

It has been said that you are more likely to be struck by lightning than to win the lottery, and yet, while people assume, usually correctly, that they will never be hit by lightning, they also believe they can win the lottery. It is that very inconsistency which leads human beings to climb mountains, to cross canyons, to strike out as pioneers for unknown, and unforgiving, new lands. It has led us into space, and under the ocean, and to new, or at least new-to-them, continents, where we wrestle with the unfamiliar until we have imposed our own sort of order upon it.

So, back to the lottery. What would lead people, in this troubled time, to suddenly abandon the belief that this could be their moment in time? What would make people who usually dream to suddenly awaken and realize it won't happen for them after all? What is it that leads them to say, it's not going to happen for me, instead of the usual hope that it can, indeed, happen, and happen now?

When I step back and look objectively at it all, it seems to me that we are now seeing the incidental evidence that this nation is going through the hardest time in my lifetime. This is not an isolated event, and it's not a short term problem. Barack Obama has made many promises, and for all our sakes, I hope he will be successful, because his failure will be our collective failure as well. Those who, in their short term anger and spite, hope that he fails are wishing disaster upon us all.

But the evidence I see tells me that we are in for a whole different period in the life of our nation, a period of true malaise in the population. The optimism that usually drives us to bigger and better things seems to be absent right now, and in it's place, we have anxiety and caution. We are not going to shop our way to prosperity this time, I fear, no matter how many stimulus checks we can cash.

The very people who have driven the economy previously, the paycheck-to-paycheck crowd, who spent money they barely had, in the hopes that tomorrow would be more lucrative and their windfall would hit, are out of work, or out of money, or possibly both, and they are not spending any more. Those who have the money are cutting back from the fear of what may come, and they want to be sure that they don't run out of money, because it's easier to keep what you have than to make new.

The lottery spending is a reflection, not of the economy, but of the change in mindset that has been driving the economy. American optimism has been replaced with fear, and suddenly, what seemed possible just a few short months ago now looks distant and out of reach.

And yet, in my humble and uneducated opinion, I think we are at a turning point to becoming a better nation. In shedding the trappings of the national acquisition obsession, perhaps we will find the simplicity that has been lacking over the last 50 years.

I see picnics and board games and reading on the horizon. I think libraries will see a renewal, and coffee shops will be forced to justify their existence. I think the days of buying a house you cannot afford to furnish may be gone, and in their place, we will see a return to smaller, more compact, but higher quality homes that will last longer than your child's adolescence.

We will still have those among us who can go to Paris for spring break without giving it much thought, but I think we will see more driving trips and renewal in interest in national parks and local landmarks. Chicago and St. Louis may become destinations once again, while Disney World could be forced to lower prices and raise service in order to compete for the increasingly limited tourist dollars no longer so available. [And as much as I love Disney World, it's my favorite vacation place on earth as anyone who knows me will tell you, the level of service, especially in their hotels, is abysmal, while the prices are exorbitant.]

I read the other day that Abercrombie and Fitch, [a store of which my children can tell you I most definitely do not approve,] is in financial trouble, with Christmas sales down by double digits this year. I hope that their troubles spell a resurgence for stores like Target, which sell very fine merchandise [truth be told, the quality is probably higher at Target, at least in my experience,] at a fraction of the cost.

I know there are many people out there who believe they have the answer for why this recession has occurred, and what is at the bottom of it. I have my opinion as well, based not upon science or theory, but upon casual observation.

When your only focus is on maximum short term profits for shareholders, often overseas, with no real investment in our nation, at the expense of the long term viability of the majority of your major companies, you are going to have a problem somewhere along the line.

When you add to that the offshoring of most of the manufacturing jobs, lowering the quality of the merchandise, while paying your remaining employees less to do more, you have priced out the remaining consumers in an ever increasing cycle that can only have one direction and one outcome.

What is my solution? Bring back the jobs. Raise the minimum wage to a living wage once again, so that the people who have jobs can afford to pay for what they need, driving a genuine surge in buying, rather than the artificial one that has been ongoing for some time now.

I know there are many who will cry that raising wages will dry up jobs. To them, my response is easy. Look around you. The jobs are drying up anyway, and they are not just the lower wage employees in that unemployment line these days. The middle managers are the ones who are really struggling, because they didn't make enough to save up much, and they spent too much to save what little they could. [Yes, I would be the classic example.]

I believe our economy needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up, providing a living wage to everyone who is employed. I believe this will push job creation in the long run, because those who have the money will require more goods and services, and the result will be more jobs. If the wage is mandated, the playing field will be more level, and you will fuel an economic rise for everyone.

Alan Greenspan has acknowledged that his long held beliefs were, quite simply, in error. It is time for us as a country to admit we were wrong, as well, to try and right the ship, and to pay a little attention to those in the steerage class once again. Henry Ford had the right idea, I believe. He funded the lower class, to provide consumers for their own products, driving up prices, and demand.

I know I will have many who disagree vehemently with me, and I know I am not an economist, so the criticism that I don't know what I'm talking about is fair. But that is how it looks from the merry-go-round I'm riding, and from what I can see, the geniuses in charge haven't got the answers, either.

I think this recession is not only real, and more severe than any since the Great Depression, I think it is going to be with us for a long time. I believe now is the time to correct the road map, while we are in pain, anyway, and to set a new course, one which will increase prosperity for all. Real prosperity will raise hopes and increase optimism, and that will bring out the American spirit once again.

I will leave it to the brain trusts to figure out how to get it done. In the meantime, go ahead, spend a dollar or two. Get your ticket, if you feel lucky. After all, there are less players now than there were before, and someone has to win. You never know, it might just be you!

The world is my oyster....

Most people who know me well will probably, out of my earshot, tell you that I am a cynic. Some of them will tell you that right in front of my face, of course, particularly if they call themselves blood relatives. [Being adopted, it narrows the field considerably, so they know who they are.] I admit I tend to look at the glass as half empty, because, at least in my experience, that IS being optimistic. The bad stuff in life is life - the good stuff is a pleasant surprise.

But there is a larger life viewpoint, a perspective from which you can only see yourself as the small cog in the celestial wheel that is life on earth. We are, each of us, but a drop in the bucket of life, important to our own family and friends, possibly even important to our employers or our own town or city. If you are Bill Gates or the President of the United States, you might even be important to people world wide in an impersonal sort of way - you impact lives on a daily basis without even knowing the people whom your decisions affect. But still, in the end, when viewed through the lens of the whole cosmos, we are small cogs at most.

Awhile back, I came across a picture taken from space at night. It was, in reality, a series of time lapsed pictures, stitched together. Ultimately, you could see the entire world from the bird's eyed, or space ship eyed, perspective.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html

If you want to know where the developed world ends and the developing world begins, you need only look at our continents from space at night. Europe, the United States, and small parts of the Pacific Rim are lit up brilliantly, clearly defining where you will find most of the life that is being lived within those boundaries. Hawaii is easily found in the middle of the dark Pacific, while Mongolia and Siberia and Tibet and most of the continent of Africa are completely shrouded in darkness.

It is difficult to understand how a continent such as Africa, with its wealth of natural resources, can be so dark, so lonely, so forgotten, while all of Europe glows like a beacon in the night. It would seem that a continent such as Africa would have every opportunity to convert the vast resources they have into a thriving world leadership position, but it has never been so, since trade routes were first established. It has always been a continent which sold its soul, it seems, for a few pieces of silver or some shiny beads, but in the end, they are left with nothing but dictators and poverty.

And yet, for many people in the United States, they are detached from those issues, because it is something on the news - they don't have to confront the reality of the problems in person, face to face. Darfur is the same old story, the Congo is something of a legend, Pakistan and Afghanistan are pictures on television, and Gaza is someone else's problem. We think of these places as a news brief and forget that the people suffering and dying there are still doing so right this minute.

As we enter this new year of 2009, I cannot help but wonder what is ahead for all of us - as a person, a family, a country, and a world.

We in our family are embarking on new adventures on many levels - a new pet, still finding my way in a new job, college graduation and decisions that must be made, deciding where to go after high school - all are personal decisions being made just in our family.

As a country, we are looking at a new presidency, and new people in charge, amidst the current crisis in our economy and an ongoing war. Will they fulfill the many promises they have made on the campaign trail (or even any of them?) Will they be able to bring new enthusiasm to old problems, and perhaps, even if only psychologically, move us in a new direction? What solutions are available that haven't already been tried? How do we put our nation on track - not back on the old track, but on a new track, that will be even more successful and bring us greater satisfaction, both individually and collectively?

Our place in the world is on shaky footing right now, as we battle with both allies and enemies. The political climate both at home and abroad is not satisfied with where we currently find ourselves - will we be able to work together to solve some of the world's problems, or will we continue to be splintered into a million different pieces, each piece with its own agenda?

We are still seeking Osama bin Laden, who, even though functionally irrelevant, is still tactically dangerous for his symbolic successes. We are seeking an end to tyranny on more than one continent. Israel and the Palestinians continue to battle for supremacy in a part of the world where war is the norm, and peace is a long forgotten dream. We are facing poverty in the Sudan and other places in Africa on a level that is unimaginable - 40,000 people a day are dying on the continent of Africa right now, most of them children. The problems we face are not small, and not insignificant. And we will not be exonerated from our failure to address and solve them simply because an ocean separates us.

As you view the world from space, and you see us, not as individuals, but as a whole, we are inextricably linked together in space and time, as inseparable from each other as drops of water in a glass.

Where our economy goes, so too do the economies of the developing world, who are dependent upon our consumption for their success. A dread disease in Africa is but a single plane flight away from a world wide pandemic. War in Gaza threatens the stability of every nation on earth, as Jew is pitted against Muslim, and every country chooses up sides. The children dying in Darfur are cheapening life for all of us, and we will never know how much has been lost to us because of it.

So then, is the point of this post to depress and criticize? No, on the contrary, for the first time in a very long time, I feel like we, as a nation of hard-working compassionate people, are finally ready to face the realities of life, and to dig in and solve the problems we are facing. We are looking at 2009 as a time of retrenching, a time to renew and cut back and start over. Our new year's resolution as a nation may well be that change has come, and it's not fun, but we are ready, and we are going to see this one through.

So, to all the believers out there who join me in hoping for a brighter tomorrow, even in the midst of the hard today, happy new year! I hope, one year from now, I will be able to look back at this moment and know it was the turning point for us as a nation, as well as for me as a person.

I don't usually make new year's resolutions, because it is, in my opinion, a set-up for failure. However, I do like to assess my situation at the beginning of the year, and try to see where I am, and where I wish I would be by the time this year comes to it's close.

At the beginning of 2009, I look ahead with hope and anticipation of what may come, both personally and financially. I am resolved to take the best each day has to offer and to do the most I can with it. I have learned from as many of my past failures and mistakes as I can, and I will try to take that knowledge and use it to do better in the days to come. I will appreciate more and complain less, I will recognize the gifts of each day, and stop worrying about tomorrow so much. Finally, I will try harder to be a better me, so that those who know me will be enriched by my presence on this earth in new ways. I want to be the pearl in the oyster of life, instead of the grain of sand.

I am wishing you and yours all the best that life can offer in the coming year.

My Kindgom for a shoe....

Obviously, this is a weekend for me to have footwear on the mind, since I am still gloating about my new boots. Therefore, my thoughts have turned to other, somewhat less well shod folks in this world, who not only don't have new boots, but have been throwing around what footwear they do have in the interests of advancing their own personal agendas. Which seems pretty counter-productive to me. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Recently, our current President, George Bush, made a surprise visit to Baghdad, Iraq, and Afghanistan to visit the troops a final time before leaving office. The trip itself wasn't all that newsworthy - outgoing Presidents typically make these kinds of visits to the troops as they prepare to leave office.

Just for the record, I think it's the right thing to do. It's a way for the President to personally thank those people whom he has put into harm's way for making the sacrifice, a sort of rousing farewell so they know their efforts have been appreciated, and not taken for granted. It's a common action for leaders to visit and rally the troops that are fighting at their behest, and on their behalf, and it's a very effective motivator, as well as a nice personal gesture.

I am certain that seeing the President on their field of battle is a way to feel solidarity with the folks at home, who are largely unaware, even in the age of the 24/7 news cycle, of exactly what those sacrifices consist. So, in short, I'm for him making the trip, I think it was the right thing to do. And, in addition, I have respect for him that would be willing to go into one of the most dangerous places in the world, where there is without question a price on his head, in order to bring his message to the troops personally.

But this trip was a little different. I've often read that the journalism world is a jungle, but you don't expect it to be genuinely dangerous, a threat to someone's physical safety. At most, you occasionally wonder about the safety of the reporters themselves, as they cover the news from some of the most dangerous locations on earth. [The recent death rate of reporters in war zones is truly appalling, as they have become easy targets for whatever wacko fringe group want to make an easy hit.] But in a press conference, the only barbed objects that one should fear are the sharp comments being made by skeptical reporters who don't quite buy what is being sold at the podium.

Which brings us back to this brief surprise visit to the war zone, where we find George Bush standing at the podium at a news conference on a sunny Baghdad afternoon, answering questions about the war to an audience of mostly Middle Eastern reporters.

Now, let me just say, I am a firm believer that our President, whether I support him politically or not, is our international representative, sort of an everyman American, speaking and acting on our behalf when he is making state visits abroad. As such, we have a right to demand that the respect due his office be shown, wherever he may be in the world. Apparently, however, not everyone agrees with me. And I take umbrage.

On this occasion, a reporter, it's unclear to me where, exactly, he is from, although he works for an Egyptian news agency (ya, THAT Egypt, the one that is theoretically sort of our ally,) actually threw both his shoes and a series of verbal assaults at our president, a sign of intense disrespect in an area of the world not exactly known for reasonable behavior, anyway.

I have to give George credit, really. He showed an interesting ability to dodge the verbal (and footwear) bullet. I was impressed by his ability to see it coming and avoid being hit by the unexpected shoe assault. You have to wonder if he spent time on the field while he owned the Rangers, because he looked just like a kid taking batting practice eying up the ball.

I was also impressed at his ability to remain gracious and keep the situation light hearted and not take himself too seriously. It was, in my opinion, a presidential moment, in which he represented both himself, and our nation, in the best possible light. It could have been a critical international incident.

Instead, it was a humorous sound bite, because he was able to take himself out of it for a moment and see it for what it was - a moment of protest against a policy that someone disagreed with. I think part of the appeal of George Bush is exactly that, in fact - he never has appeared to take himself too seriously. That's an attractive quality in the most important leader on the face of the earth, I think.

But that is where the story goes seriously awry, in my opinion. The President himself was spot on in words and deeds, and I am proud of him for how he responded. But there is a dark side to this story, one that needs to be examined and dissected, so that it never happens again.

The errant reporter was quickly subdued, thanks not to the US Secret Service, a group of people paid very well by you and me, the taxpayers, to protect the President of the United States even at the cost of their own lives. In this case, the thanks goes to another reporter, who slammed this guy to the ground and waited for the Secret Service to pile on, acting like they had done something when, in fact, they did nothing at all.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have to say, I am not exactly impressed with the Secret Service in the situation. Things happen, and I suppose I can see how it's possible to get off one shoe and throw it without attracting attention beforehand. You can't really anticipate someone taking off their own footwear and throwing it, especially in the circumstance.

Objectively considered, from the reporter's perspective, he didn't really have much in the way of weapons at hand, so his shoes probably seemed like the best choice, despite the obvious reality that he was never going to get away from there unscathed. The fact that he wasn't wearing his shoe was going to come up on the way out, seeing as how a shoe got thrown, so it's assumed he knew he was going to be apprehended and beaten to a pulp. It's still Iraq, after all.

Although, come to think of it, I am forced to observe that Muslim adherents seem to have a fondness for footwear as weapons recently, an interesting trend that I find noteworthy, and apparently, so should the Secret Service. Perhaps footwear should always be as suspect in press conferences as it seems to be for the regular citizens at the airport. Still, all in all, I can't really blame anyone for not stopping the first shoe assault. But I am appalled that the reporter was able to throw both of them.

If this is an example of Secret Service protection, for which the American public is paying a premium price, it is inadequate, to say the least. If I were Laura, I wouldn't be letting George out of the White House again until he was out of office. And if I were Michelle, I'd be a nervous wreck. Four years of that kind of worry and you would have to pack me off to the rubber room for sure. (I will admit, I have one foot in the door at all times anyway. But that would put me right over the edge.) Given the lunatic fringes that exist right here in our own country, you would think the Secret Service would have been prepared for anything, and instead, it seems they were caught, dare I say it? flat footed.

I understand they were in a foreign country. I understand that you have to give latitude to that country and their own police force. But this is not just another tourist hitting the beach in Cancun. This is the President of the United States, and he was visiting the country whose cause you can fairly say he has championed non-stop since entering office. Say what you will about him, he has been consistent on Iraq, and his belief that this is a just war, and that we have freed them from tyranny.

So I think it's fair to ask, where were the Secret Service? Where were his police and military protection? What were they thinking in not keeping a sharp eye on every single person in that crowd? While they were all accredited journalists, and the weapon of choice was a shoe instead of a gun, for which we can all be eternally grateful, this is an incident which should never have occurred. We cannot screen for every eventuality, and it could have been a bomb hidden in his shoe instead of just a shoe. It is clear that in that part of the world, life has a different value, and the value of martyrdom is far higher than the value of remaining on this earth to many people.

Human aspects aside, I shudder to think what would have happened had something catastrophic occurred, and President Bush have been severely injured, or God forbid, assassinated over there. Our country is already in crisis. That would probably throw us over the edge. We do not need that interruption in the national process of transferring power from one president to the next. While I am, obviously, glad for his family and personal friends that he is okay, I am glad for us as a country as well, because I think we are too fragile, too strung out, too vulnerable, to risk something that damaging happening right now.

Benjamin Franklin told the cautionary tale from history about how for wont of a horseshoe nail the kingdom was lost. While the origins of that little proverb are likely found in the story of Richard the Third and Henry VII and The Battle of Bosworth, [a moment in time which literally changed the course of Western history, and paved the way for the Tudor dynasty and the English Reformation,] the meaning of the ditty is still crystal clear. If you don't pay attention to the small stuff, you will lose the bigger battles as well. We are at war with the zealots in this world, and we cannot afford to let down our guard, either at home or away, for even a moment.

So, to the Secret Service, SHAPE UP. Intensify your training. NEVER forget that the very future of our nation, and even the future course of the world, could be in your apparently incapable hands. You have one of the most serious jobs on earth. Perhaps you should put your walkie talkies down, and just open your eyes and look around you. The threat is not only from the great. Sometimes, it's the little stuff that brings you down.

And to everyone else, keep your shoes on. Unless you're at the airport, of course.