COOKIE MONSTER

I am not the most technologically savvy person, even in my own family. I have never

tweeted, don't have a face for Facebook, and MySpace is quite limited at the moment.

However, I love cookies. My wife makes the most delectable chocolate chip cookies and

snickerdoodles from scratch. I am fond of vanilla wafers and Oreos and I love oatmeal-

raisin cookies. Now, I discover "cookies" can violate my privacy and allow companies to track

my activities online. Couldn't we change the name of these cyber-creations to Brussels sprouts

or liver?

Privacy is an endangered species. In the past, I have written about how your cell phone

can be used to track you; your OnStar car system can follow you; rental car companies have

put devices in the car to track your speed and other driving habits as well as location; and the

Fast Pass you use to cross the Bay Area bridges tracks you and the records can be subpoenaed.

On Facebook, you can click on "places" to let every burglar in the city know you aren't home

and now it turns out companies are using "cookies" to track you and even if you delete the

"cookie", a new version saves a small file on your computer to re-create the "cookie" and thus

your activities can be continuously tracked.

"Cookies" are supposed to be a convenience. They allow a site to remember you so you

don't have to log in information each time you visit. Courts have ruled websites can place

"cookies" on your computer. It turns out, they can also be used to track you across websites

producing a dossier of your preferences, where you window shop, what you purchase, and what

subjects interest you. This information is then sold to advertisers who can target you with ads

and special offers. It is also available to lots of other interested parties including the

government. The Wall Street Journal estimates "cookies" are the basis for a $23 billion online

advertising industry.

If this is not intrusive enough, mobile tracking is picking up steam aimed at people who

use smartphones. One company assigns a unique I.D. number similar to a "cookie" and if the

user deletes the number, it re-creates itself moments later. All your activity on the phone can

then be tracked and the information sold or used for other purposes.

We don't have a lot of privacy left. Between the Patriot Act, telecom spying, "cookies",

ID numbers, GPS systems, and the promise of cameras everywhere you go in your city or town,

there are few places left to be free from prying eyes. There are still a few hideouts; and

corporate America seems to want to eliminate these as well. The Fourth Amendment is almost

useless and so many people today don't seem to care. They argue if you haven't done anything

wrong, why should you care if you are being tracked or watched? The problem with this line of

reasoning is that the government determines the rules and what is acceptable now may not be

acceptable tomorrow. Even worse is a government which in the past has spied on and acted

against Americans engaging in legal conduct in order to intimidate and find ways to stop them

and move against them.

The Federal Trade Commission is supposed to issue new privacy guidelines soon. There

is also talk of creating a Do-Not-Track registry similar to the Do-Not-Call registry system used

against telemarketers. You need to be aware of these developments. You need to protect your

privacy. We need to oppose those who speak of national ID cards as a solution to the illegal

immigration problem (the Social Security card is already too much of a de facto national ID

number).

Imagine all of this information, technology, and tracking systems in the hands of a

tyrannical government. Imagine a president who would use all of this to track political enemies

and crush dissent. Imagine a corporation which could use all of this to intimidate and trap

environmental or other activist groups opposed to their policies or actions. Is there anyone,

anyone reading this who believes this information would not be used against us?

Many times I have been advised to avoid cookies for health reasons. It turns out these

new "cookies" could be even more dangerous to our health and welfare. It's 10 o'clock, do you

know where your smartphone is? Does it know where you are? What do you think?

I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

TO BIG TO CONFRONT

Afghanistan is rated one of the most corrupt states in the world. Government officials

at all levels require bribes and payoffs before any business can be done. The Afghan people

are caught between a corrupt government they despise and a shadow Taliban government

they fear. So, how will the average gum-chewing Afghan greet the news the United States is

no longer interested in high-level corruption, but will continue to oppose graft on the local

levels?

It appears Afghan President Hamid Karzai is miffed with us. One of his top aides was

arrested and Karzai wasn't notified beforehand. His brother, Mahmood, is a part-owner of

Kabul Bank which is in danger of failing because of corrupt lending practices and the U.S.

refuses to bail the bank out. His other brother, Wallid, is the "fixer" in Kandahar and is at

the center of a system of bribery and corruption including getting a piece of the opium trade

which helps to fund both the Taliban and al Qaeda. At least he is on the CIA payroll; but

President Karzai is angry about all the unfavorable press his brother and family and friends

receive.

The Obama Administration has announced it is going to leave the Karzais alone and focus

on local power brokers and corrupt officials (most appointed by the Karzai family). They

promise they won't ignore major corruption; but they will cut the Karzai family criminal

enterprise some slack. They promise to give him advanced notice before they move in on any

one in his government and get his approval. (You don't think he would tip off anyone, do you?

Her is our trusted ally, after all.) It seems the Afghan president is making noises about turning

to Iran or making a separate peace deal with the Taliban to protect his criminal siblings; and

Obama's advisors are so shaken by this possibility that they have agreed to stop pressuring

him to clean up his country.

So, now we will focus on low level corruption and be very discreet about not

embarrassing Karzai every time one of his clan gets caught with his finger in the cookie jar.

We will now go after local crooks and leave the big crooks to the Afghan president. In 2010,

our administration promises to insure U.S. taxpayer's money is fully accounted for unlike for

the last eight years or so. I wish I was making this up. We continue to re-arrange deck chairs

on the Titanic while the hole in the bow gets bigger and bigger.

Afghan financial institutions launder drug money for the Taliban and possibly al Qaeda.

This will continue. The Afghan government protects the opium industry. This will continue.

Afghan politicians will continue to loot the nation's treasury and Americans will pay for all of

this in blood and treasure. The local thugs are all appointed by the national crooks. The local

sharks serve at the pleasure of the national sharks. Obama officials insist this is not a retreat

from rooting out high-level corruption. O.k., so we will call it a strategic withdrawal from the

field instead.

In December, General Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Gates will review the counter-

insurgency strategy for President Obama before troops are supposed to be withdrawing in

July of 2011. You and I know exactly what will happen. In December, they will declare the

strategy sound; and then in July they will announce most troops will stay in the country for

the foreseeable future. Americans will continue to die and good American money will follow

bad as the Karzai crime family continues to steal from its own people and from us. I love the

smell of corruption in the morning. It smells like victory...doesn't it? What do you think?

I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

IT'S AS PLAIN AS THE TRUNK ON IT'S FACE

You have to give the Republicans credit. If they retake control of the House of

Representatives. and possibly the Senate, it won't be because they hid their intentions.

They have been very vocal about the fact control will mean a direct assault on everything

President Obama achieved in the last two years, particularly his health reform plan. They

know they cannot repeal it. So, they are on the record as saying they intend to starve it to

death. They will force votes on repealing it; but they know those will fail and those votes

are really aimed ay the 2012 presidential race anyway. In the short term, they will use their

control over the appropriations process to deny money to the various bodies, boards, and

commissions necessary to regulate both healthcare reform and financial reform. (Wall Street

is pouring money into Republican coffers at unprecedented levels.)

In the area of healthcare reform, Republicans say they will block funding for the new

IRS agents needed to enforce some mandated tax increases. A new board to oversee which

Medicare procedures are the most cost effective and produce the best results would get no

money. Money to pay for a long term care insurance program would be denied. (I love that

one because so many Americans face financial destruction due to the cost of long-term

catastrophic health costs.) Republicans would also block funds to help states set up insurance

exchanges guaranteeing no competition at all for health insurance companies and no reduction

in premiums nor expansion of healthcare to 32 million more Americans.

The GOP doesn't stop at healthcare. Wall Street and business leaders have already given

them a list of regulations passed in the Financial Services Reform Bill that they want to stop

from being implemented. Once again, more regulation requires more oversight. Oversight

needs overseers and they have to be paid. No money, no oversight. Just as the GOP gutted

the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), as well as the Federal Reserve, it will now try

to prevent the new Consumer Protection Agency from coming into being and make it as

difficult as possible to regulate banks and commodity brokers, hedge funds, and future

speculation as well as Goldman Sachs and the boys. They don't try to hide any of this. They

brag about what they intend to do and how voters will reward them for their efforts. Oh, did

I mention they will also try to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the uber-rich even though they

would add billions to the deficit they care so much about reducing? Many of their young

Turks even threaten to shut the government down if they don't get their way.

Elections have consequences. The Republicans do not offer one single solution to a

sluggish economy or the lack of job creation. Their message is to turn back the clock to the

days of 2001-2009 when America was experiencing a "golden age" of prosperity. A healthcare

system whose costs are rising so fast they could sink the ship of state is in no need of reform.

A financial services industry which drove this country into an economic sinkhole is just fine as

it is. What they do propose is to try again to privatize Social Security and Medicare, cut

benefits, and turn everyone's retirement over to the casinos on Wall Street. They will increase

the military budget and continue wars which should be ended.

A lot of progressives are angry with Obama and the Democrats for good reasons.

However, you will not be able to say you didn't know the consequences of a GOP takeover of

the House. They are telling you straight up what they will do. You can't have your head in the

sand. Are you angry enough to let them implement their political "way-back" machine? Are

you frustrated enough to let Wall Street win again? Do you really want to fight the battle to

preserve Social Security and Medicare again? It isn't enough for you to vote. You have to talk

to neighbors and friends all over the nation and get them to turn out as well. I don't know if

it's too late, but I will give the Republicans credit. They are totally upfront about their vision

and direction for this country. Is it a vision you share as well? What do you think? I welcome

your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

THE QUALITY OF MERCY...

An earthquake devastates Haiti and the world is moved to come to their aid. Billions

of dollars are donated. In less than a week, a celebrity telethon is organized by George

Clooney. Millions are raised. A tsunami hits southeast Asia. Once again hearts are touched

and billions donated. Presidents Bush and Clinton join forces to come to the region's

assistance. The worst floods in Pakistan's history have inundated large sections of that

country. Parts are totally inaccessible. Waterborne diseases are spreading and the death toll

is rising. The Pakistani government, like the Haitian government, is inept at delivering aid.

Yet, donations to help the people of Pakistan don't even come close to the amounts raised in

either Haiti or for the tsunami victims. Why?

Pakistan is a Muslim nation. Americans seem to have a negative view of Islam; although

if they knew as much about Islam as they do Christianity, they are not tremendously well

informed. Islam is not popular; but the victims of the tsunami were Muslim too and yet the

outpouring of sympathy and help was quick and substantial. Religion would not seem to be

a reason donations are lagging for the people of Pakistan. So, what is it?

I don't like Pakistan. A Pakistani scientist, A.Q. Quan, became the Johnny Appleseed of

the nuclear proliferation movement. He sold nuclear weapon technology to North Korea,

Libya, and other outlaw nations. He was never punished and is considered a hero in Pakistan.

Pakistan formed the Taliban to take over and rule Afghanistan in order to counter India's

influence in the country. Pakistan's intelligence service has close ties to terrorist groups and

has orchestrated attacks throughout Kashmir, as well as attacks on the Indian parliament and

the city of Mumbai. American intelligence agencies believe Pakistan has tipped off terrorists

so they can avoid U.S. raids or attacks. Pakistan gave bin Laden and Mullah Omar safe haven

in their country and Americans have died because of that sanctuary. Recently, Pakistan

arrested several top Taliban leaders. Allegedly, they were cracking down on terrorism and

helping their American allies. In reality, it turns out the arrests were for holding preliminary

talks with Afghan leaders about some sort of peace agreement. Pakistan does not want a peace

deal because it would benefit India. My feelings about Pakistan are not unique. Pakistan does

not evoke much sympathy in the West. It is a nation whose cooperation we have to buy. The

U.S. is much closer to India than to Pakistan. We have to bribe the Pakistani government to

go after al Qaeda. We have to beg them to shut down the terrorist safe havens. Pakistan has

nuclear weapons and we are frightened these weapons could fall into the hands of extremists,

so we are nice to them. We give them billions of tax dollars in aid. At the end of the day, most

Americans, and maybe most nations, say a pox on their house and hearts are hardened to their

plight. Is this the reason help for flood victims has been so slow in coming?

It's wrong. While Christians like to think of their religion being superior to Islam; the

essence of Christianity is the command to love God with all your heart, all your soul, and to

love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 25 says the key to salvation is what you do for the

least of your brothers and sisters. The hero of Jesus's parable about loving one's neighbors is

a Samaritan. Samaritans were hated by the Jews. Samaritans were religiously unclean and

heretics. Samaritans were the lowest of the low right there with lepers. Yet, it is a Samaritan

who cares for a Jew and saves his life. The question which prompted the parable of the Good

Samaritan was "...who is our neighbor?"

Christianity is the most radical philosophy of living ever articulated. To be a Christian,

and no one has to be one, you have to love your enemies, forgive an infinite number of times,

turn the other cheek, get rid of all of your possessions, take care of the weakest and least

among you, and take up your cross and follow Jesus. In a Christian universe, the meek inherit

the earth, peacemakers are blessed, and the poor in spirit earn the kingdom of heaven. How

does this jibe with the lack of sympathy and aid for the victims of the floods in Pakistan?

We are debating the nature of Islam every day in the news. Attacks are increasing on

mosques around the country. A proposed Islamic Center in New York is creating civil unrest.

A "Christian" minister threatened to burn copies of the Quran and fundamentalist Christian

leaders have labeled Islam a religion of violence. While casting aspersions upon the Muslims,

the "Christian" West has been unwilling to open their hearts or wallets to fellow human beings

enduring unspeakable tragedy and horror. How do you square that circle?

Only you know what is in your heart. Perhaps it is worth spending a few minutes

wondering why the humanitarian response to the disaster in Pakistan has been so muted and

reserved. Maybe you have a different answer. However, for those who want to say this nation

was founded on Christian principles, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. What do you

think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

NOTE: Often more than one blog is posted at a time, so be sure to check for previous blogs.

NOTHING FROM NOTHING MEANS NOTHING...

For about eight years, I taught Hebrew and Christian scriptures to high school

students. It was an opportunity to help them learn how to think about scripture. Why do

we read it? What are we looking for? Do we read it literally or does the context matter?

What does it mean to say the Bible is absolutely true, but not always factual?

One of the first lectures I would give would be on the nature of God. God, as creator,

created all "things". By definition then, God could not be a "thing". God must be "no-thing"

in order to be the creator. Oh, the weeping and gnashing of teeth from parents when their

young adolescent came home and told them God was nothing. All of this was good for students

and parents as it forced them to abandon cliches about God taught in Sunday school; and let

go all the ways we anthropomorphize (whew) God. The students also discovered mystics like

St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila who talked about ascending a mountain to find

God, only to find when you got to the top you found "nada". It has been said that God created

man and then man returned the favor. Yes, the calls to the school were swift and sure, but

not career ending.

The eminent scientist Stephen Hawking has a new book out in which he claims many

universes were created the same way ours came into existence. He says there is no need to

have a God as creator. All of these various universes rise naturally out of the laws of physics

and they don't need any "super" natural assistance by God to come into existence. For some,

this maybe a shocking conclusion and may sell some books. For me, it is cause to say,

"...therefore what?"

The universe is governed by the natural laws of physics, mathematics, and quantum

mechanics. The concept of anything being "super" natural is a contradiction in terms. "Super"

is used in this context as a euphemism for outside of or beyond nature. There is no existence

in any universe not governed by the natural laws as articulated by science. No matter what

the universe, the rules still apply. This also applies to God. When God acts in the universe,

the natural laws still apply. There are no exceptions. God cannot cause 2 plus 2 to equal 3

or change the speed of light. All "things" have a beginning, but God is not a "thing", and

therefore has always existed. Whatever the stuff of the "big bang" or the "big bangs", it is

not irrational to suggest all of that has coexisted with God throughout time. (Time itself is

a concept which really doesn't exist. Past, present, and future; all exist at the same moment.)

Hawking is suggesting universes can come into existence without any "super" natural help

from God. OK, so what? There is no conflict here. Believing God to be the source of physical

existence, positing God to be the source of life, even using terms like Creator for God, are not

precluded at all by Hawking's M-Theory or by string theory or the general theory of relativity.

There is no conflict between God's act of creation and the physical laws of the universe. They

can coexist quite nicely. As with Stephen J. Gould and Christopher Hitchens and others in

the Godless genre of writing, they are fighting a war against a fundamentalist view of God.

As smart as he is, Hawking makes the same mistake. If he read Alfred North Whitehead or

Charles Hartshorn, if he had the benefit of a teacher like Father Francis Baur, O.F.M. (as I did),

he would know about a theological world view called "process" theology. Cosmologists and

theologians have been thinking about all of this for a long time and long ago abandoned the

"super" natural God of the white beard for whom words like omniscient and omnipotent were

used. This is the God of those wishing to check their brains at the door and pick up their

crayons. This is the God of the Sunday school or Catechism or Catholic grammar school, but

not the God of thinking adults.

It does not require a leap of faith to believe in a God who creates and does so within the

physical laws of our universe or any other universe. It does not require one to abandon science

to believe God created "things" while remaining "no-thing". It is proof of how powerful and

ubiquitous these fundamentalistic childhood images of God are; to see the purported smartest

man in the world railing against them and making headlines by writing a book debunking the

God of our childhoods. A much better avenue of inquiry would be to ask yourself why God

created at all? What motivated the act of creation? What does it say about each of us to

acknowledge God choosing our existence? It would be fascinating to see Mr. Hawking struggle

with those questions. I struggle with them every day. What about you? What do you think?

I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

IT'S A SECRET...

Six federal judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to prohibit a man who

had been kidnapped and tortured by the United States to sue the people who were

responsible. Five judges wanted to let the suit go forward. In their ruling, the six judges

agreed with President Obama and his contention that a lawsuit might reveal state secrets

which could harm national security. We can get into Obama's hypocrisy on this issue another

time. I am trying to figure out just what secret is so important that its protection means a man

so egregiously violated by our government will not be permitted his day in court. What secret

is so vital to our national security that serious human rights protections are suspended and

the criminals never brought to justice and held accountable?

If there were a trial, it would certainly come out our government engaged in tactics more

identified with the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Iran rather than a nation of laws.

Is this a secret? It is public knowledge, under George Bush, the CIA used American companies

to fly kidnapped victims to foreign countries so they could be tortured. The man who wanted

to sue was kidnapped, flown by an American subsidiary of Boeing to Morocco, where he was

handed over to be tortured. He was then taken to Afghanistan for more torture and eventually

ended up at Guantanamo. He is currently free in Britain because they decided there wasn't

enough evidence to try him for any criminal acts. None of this is a secret. Since it's already

known, how could a lawsuit hurt national security?

It is a matter of public record, the CIA was kidnapping people all over the world to

transport them to Eastern Europe, Egypt, Morocco, and even Syria, so they could be tortured

outside the purview of American law. A court in Italy convicted a number of CIA agents, in

absentia, of the kidnapping of an Italian citizen off the streets of Rome. A current law professor

at UC Berkeley's School of Law, John Yoo, wrote opinions advising President Bush he could

ignore any law or abrogate any treaty in his role as Commander in Chief. None of this

information is secret and it doesn't need to be protected. (That our taxes go to pay for

Mr. Yoo's salary should probably be kept a state secret.)

It is not a secret Bush and Co. set up a series of "black" prisons all over the world to

engage in illegal international crime. It is not secret many of the people they kidnapped had

not done anything wrong. A Canadian citizen was taken to Syria and tortured for more than

a year before anyone realized it was a mistake because his name was similar to a well known

terrorist. What is it these judges thought they had to protect? This country engages in

assassination of our enemies. We fly drones all over Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran,

Egypt, and other countries as well as our own border with Mexico. We now know Obama

thinks it's legal to kill an American citizen without a trial or conviction in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment. The government illegally spied on us and American telecom

companies helped them. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security have abused the

provisions of the Patriot Act, claiming national security as a defense. The Vice President

outed a covert CIA operative for political purposes and got away with it. Do our enemies

not know we listen in to every conversation, tap every computer, intercept their mail, and

issue orders for their death?

This government kidnaps and tortures people. Attorney General Eric Holder says we

don't do that anymore. Actually, he said we still kidnap, we just don't torture. Is that the

secret which needs protecting? Are they lying to us? Is it possible Obama hasn't changed

procedures to counteract what occurred under Bush/Cheney? Is it possible many of the worst

illegal practices initiated during the Bush years are still going on despite pronouncements

from the President?

Everything I have listed is public knowledge. There is enough there to easily win a lawsuit

against the company who provided the jets to transport the victims. What we know on the

record is enough to prove what the government was doing should be punished. So what is it

those six judges felt they had to protect? Since when is the judiciary, which is supposed to be

a constitutional check on executive power, in the business of protecting illegal and immoral

government actions? We have all been told no one is above the law in this country. We now

know that statement is not true. You can torture, kidnap, maim, steal, murder, and commit

all kinds of mayhem and use national security as a shield to protect against ever being held

accountable. It really troubles me what secrets are being protected by those judges. What is

the government up to? How comfortable are you when the courts give the government carte

blanche as long as they cite national security as a defense? Do you have any ideas what secrets

we are missing? What could they be doing which is more important than the rule of law?

What do you think? I welcome your comments. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

TOMORROW IS NOT GUARANTEED...

On Thursday, September 9th, a thirty inch natural gas main exploded in San Bruno.

Homes were damaged and destroyed and average folks tossed into a whirlwind of fear, shock,

anger, sadness and pain. Lives were lost, some quite young, and whatever the "plan" had been

for people living in the area, it changed at that moment.

On September 11th, 2001, thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands directly affected,

and a nation thrown into shock. This wasn't an accident or natural disaster; it was a deliberate

action perpetrated by evil souls deluded into thinking they were acting in God's name. Just as

we remember that day nine years ago, the community in San Bruno will remember what

happened on that Thursday night in September and everyone will reflect on how their lives

were changed and how the "plan" is now different in some way.

There is a story in the gospels about a man who has a huge harvest and decides to tear his

silos down to build bigger ones to hold all his bounty. Jesus seems amused by his actions and

reminds his audience the man dies before the new silos are finished. Someone once told me,

"...man plans while God laughs."

A new program has made its debut on Showtime called "The Big C". It is about a teacher

who discovers she has terminal cancer and how this knowledge changes her. She doesn't tell

anyone. She changes priorities in her life, approaches her students and her job with new eyes.

She takes chances and makes choices she might have been afraid to make before. Her attitude

towards her husband and family takes on a whole different perspective. It's a classic take on

the question, "...if you knew you only had a week left to live, what would you do?"

When we are young, we think we are immortal. We take chances and foolish risks as we

see life as an endless series of events and possibilities. When I turned fifty, I went into a huge

depression realizing the majority of my life was over and I was on the downside of the curve.

For each person, the progression is different, but we all go through it. Unfortunately, I didn't

learn enough. It didn't hit me hard enough. I didn't come to appreciate all I had been given

and proceeded to make rash, reckless, and silly decisions more in tune with an adolescent

than a mature adult.

We are not guaranteed tomorrow. I don't want to get into a political screed on

September 11th and terrorism and Islam and an analysis on all the bad decisions we made as

a country after the events of that day. People went to work that day full of plans for the future.

People were just sitting down for dinner, or watching the first NFL game of the season, or just

arriving home from work in San Bruno when their world exploded in flames. If you had told

either group what was going to happen a day ahead of time, how do you think that knowledge

would have changed their "plans"? What about those who survived? Will these events change

how they view the future? Decisions which have been put on hold, abandoned, or ignored;

will they be revisited? There but for the grace of God go I; does this insight change how we

plan and act?

In my world time has stopped. It is as if it's a different dimension or as if I've gone

through a wormhole into a different space/time continuum. In this world, time has slowed

down to a crawl. In the real world, your world, your day is so crammed you wish you had

another hour or even an extra ten minutes. Here, anything which speeds up time is welcome.

You have planners and schedules and calendars and parent's meetings, school events, painting

and pulling weeds, and none of you get enough sleep. You put off until tomorrow anything

which doesn't need immediate attention. The things easiest to delay or push off until later are

usually the people in our lives. We put off the "date" night. We tell ourselves we will spend

special time with our children or loved ones eventually. We seek the path of least resistance;

and on that path people we love are willing to wait, so they do. Relationships require work,

friendships have to be maintained, and our loved ones need to be loved. Yet, there is always

"manana". The events in San Bruno and New York, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania,

remind us we aren't guaranteed tomorrow. I can tell you from personal experience, there is

nothing worse than taking your life and the people who love you for granted; and waking up to

have it all taken away by chance, accident, or your own foolish choices and sins. You suddenly

have crystal clear insight as to what is really important; but there isn't anything you can do

about it.

On the night of September 11th, 2001, I spent three hours talking politics and foreign

policy and asking why anyone would want to do this to us. I got into arguments. My patriotism

was questioned and cries of prejudice and bigotry were heard. My bosses called me up saying

this was a time for consolation and reflection and said I was committing career suicide. I was

wrong and they were right. It was a time to reflect and to remind those listening how elusive

the future really is. It was an opportunity to issue a wake-up call to all of us, especially me, to

live today; don't take anything for granted and be aware the end will come like a thief in the

night and we will never know when it will happen.

My heart and prayers go out to all those affected in San Bruno and on September 11th.

I am so thankful members of my family emerged shaken but unhurt. Please don't make the

mistake I made and put off until tomorrow the really important actions you should do today.

Kiss your wife, husband, or significant other. Hug and hold your children and loved ones. Tell

good friends they are loved and live with the guarantee nothing is guaranteed. I welcome

your comments. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com