PRESIDENTIAL HANDSHAKES

Thomas Jefferson danced to a different tune with regard to many socially acceptable activities of his time. Examples included liking the ladies and drinking a bit. He was a man  amongst men. Common men as well as aristocratic.

 

Equality was his passion. He penned the Declaration of Independence. He was one of our most revered Presidents.

 

Jefferson was the third President of the United States.The first two were George Washington and John Adams. Initial ruling colonists, they were not sure how to conduct themselves when greeting guests at official functions. Washington and Adams ended up conducting themselves in a regal fashion. They would bow stiffly from the waist. The other person would bow in a similar fashion in return.

 

Jefferson was uncomfortable with the bowing. At an official function on July 4, 1801, he shocked guests by not bowing. Instead and to the surprise of those present, he shook the hands of his guests. Every guest was treated in the same way, regardless of position. Foreign diplomats uncomfortable though they were, were required to greet Jefferson with the handshake rather than bowing.

 

From that Fourth of July to present date, all U.S. Presidents have used the handshake. Not only at official events, but at all activities including campaigning.

 

Which brings us to Abraham Lincoln. He shook hands before making history.

 

It was January 1, 1863. Per custom, the White House was open to visitors. It was a New Year tradition. The President would meet and greet each visitor by shaking hands. That January 1, Lincoln shook thousands of hands.

 

Afterwards, Lincoln and his Secretary of State William Seward were alone in a room. Lincoln had an official duty to perform. Sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

His right hand was swollen. He complained to Seward how much it hurt. Lincoln questioned whether he would be able to sign the document. He feared his signature would look weak.

 

Some time later, Lincoln made the following statement: "The signature looks a little tremulous, as my hand was tired, but my resolution was firm."

 

Since Jefferson, every President has shaken hands rather than bowing. How strange it would appear today if we were to see a Presidnet bow.

 

THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION

I just finished listening to the NRA's first comments regarding the Newtown tragedy. NRA CEO Wayne La Pierre spoke on behalf of his organization at a televised press conference.

 

A more arrogant and off base presentation I have never heard. And I have listened to many as a trial lawyer of almost fifty years.

 

La Pierre suggests that easy accessibility to firearms is not the problem. Nor are our laws. Rather he blamed everyone els and everything else for the shootings. The NRA was not responsible in any fashion. His solution to preclude any further Newtowns was to have guns in schools. Armed guards and/or armed teachers. His position that what stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

I believe La Pierre's comments did much to injure the cause of the NRA. He set them back a number of years. It will be difficult for those elected officials who dance to the NRA's tune to continue to do so. Let me phrase it differently. It should be. We never know with today's politicians.

 

This is a wake up time for America. The time for words is past. Action is required .Dictated. Demanded. Significant laws to restrict gun activity. Anything less is to invite another Newtown.

 

The United States Supreme Court bears responsibility for Newtown, also. The Court came down with two decisions in 2008 and 2010 which aggravated/expanded the problem. The end result of the decisions was that a person is allowed to carry a gun inside and outside the home for purposes of protection. In my opinion, the Second Amendment does not say this.

 

The Second Amendment word for word reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Why did James Madison write the Second Amendment as he did back in the 1780s? The answer is simple. The United States at the time had no standing army. If an army was required to defend the new Nation, citizens would be called. From the farms and the cities. And they were to bring their guns with them because the government had no guns to give them.

 

What does the reading of the Second Amendment have to do with the right to keep a gun in the home or carry one on the street for purposes of defense? Nothing.

 

I have to smile. We have heard for years that the Suprme Court should be made up of strict constructionists. Persons who would  interpret the Constitution as written. Not those liberal type judges who stretch the law and in effect make law. The Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 was controlled by a strict constructionist majority. However, they did philosophically what they were opposed to. The Court liberally construed the Second Amendment. Stretched it in my opinion.

 

I ask this question of all die hard NRA/Second Amendment supporters. What is more important, the purported right to bear arms or a child's right to grow up? That is the issue as framed by Newtown.

 

America is at a cross roads regarding guns. I am hopefull immediate appropriate steps will be taken to alleviate the problem. Otherwise, Newtown will not be the last time our children will be a shooting gallery.

 

 

 

BIG BROTHER

We all recognize government can be Big Brother. One we do not need nor want. It is accepted that Big Brother has no place in people's lives. Not only should the government stay out, also other people. My business is my business. Not someone elses.

Recall George Orwell's classic 1984. People were constantly watched by cameras integrated into their television screens.

It took a while, but what was described in Orwell's book is here. There is now the capacity for a person's TV set to watch that person. Phrased another way, some one can watch a person while that person is watching TV.

And hear conversations, also.

All via camera and microphone.

.

It is others watching while I watch TV in my bedroom and living room. Watching while I have sex with a wife or girl friend. It is watching as I argue with some one in the living room. There is no discrimination. Everything is filmed and recorded.

A joke this is not.

Verizon filed a patent in 2011 for a set top box. The box would operate when the TV did. Total visual and audio would be captured and available instantly to outsiders. Comcast and Google already have similar patents, either for the box approach or directly embedded in the television set itself. Samsung's 2012 plasmas and LED HDTVs already have camera and microphone built into the unit itself.

Intrusive! No question about it.

The purpose is marketing. The various organizations mentioned wish to tailor advertisers to what TV viewers are doing. Doing is the operative word.

If a couple is arguing, an advertisement for a marriage counselor might be in order. If cuddling or love making, advertisements for romantic getaway vacations or flowers.

Beware!

TOYS 'R US AND GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Sweden is a bit different. Dances to its own tune occasionally. Its approach to sex is one example.

There is another.

Gender neutrality. Sweden's position is that male and female are to be treated alike. No preferential treatment one over the other. Described by the Swedes themselves as equality. Equality in the work place and society. A Swedish obsession.

One example of the obsessive ends Swedes go to achieve gender neutrality is how teachers refer to students. Not as him or her, he or she. Rather as friends.

In 2008, a sixth grade class in Sweden was studying gender discrimination. The Toys 'R Us catalogue drew their attention. The six graders decided the catalogue was discriminating and not gender equal. For example, boys generally were shown wearing blue and girls pink. Girls wore princess dresses. The boys never. Guns for boys, not for girls. Dolls for girls, not for boys. Girls pushing baby carriages, boys playing with miniature soldiers. Girls with tiny kitchens cooking, boys with sporting equipment. Girls alone playing with Barbie dolls. No boys doing the same.

The sixth graders felt everything in the catalogue should be for both sexes.No stereotyping. I have to ask at this point: A princess dress for a boy?

Sweden has a State Agency to hear gender discrimination complaints. The sixth graders filed a formal complaint. Justice is slow moving in Sweden. The State Agency decision came out this year. The State Agency agreed with the sixth graders. The decision included phrases such as outdated gender roles, narrow mindedness, and degrading to both genders.

Toy 'R Us took heed. Out went the old catalogue. In came a new. Just in time for Christmas.

The new catalogue is under scrutiny .It did not go so far as to put a boy in a princess dress. However, it did dress the girls in blue and boys in pink in some instances. It has boys playing with beauty instruments. Hair blowers and the like. Doing a doll's hair.The boys are also shown doing housework like ironing and vacuuming. The girls were portrayed holding all types and sizes of guns and playing battle games. The girls were on the sport pages advertising gloves, bats, basketballs, footballs, and the like.

Will the new Toys 'R Us pass muster? Time will tell. I suspect it will, even though no boy was portrayed wearing a princess dress.

Is this right? I don't know. I never really thought about gender equality in this fashion. Sweden may be at the forefront,  the wave of the future. Thirty years from now as male and female roles and responsibilities in society will have changed, persons of that era may look back at Sweden 2012 and ask.....What was the big deal? Why all the fuss?

ABUSE OF POWER

This story really happened. Two weeks ago.

 

The place is Piedmont, Oklahoma.

 

Quietly repeat Piedmont in your mind. Slowly. With emphasis on the first part. It is significant with regard to this true to life happening.

 

Jennifer Warden owns a lovely home on a cul de sac in Piedmont. A quiet neighborhood.The home sits on 2.5 acres. Jennifer has lived there for eight years. Her 21 year old daughter Ashley Warden and her three year old grandson Dillon Warden reside with her.

 

Three year old Dillon was outdoors on the property.His grandmother and mother nearby. Dillon was somewhere near the end of the driveway. Suddenly, he pulled his pants down and peed. I suspect Dillon was recently toilet trained. Every one should have been proud that he did not wet his pants.

 

Not so. Dillon almost got his mother Ashley arrested.

 

There was a police officer sitting in a police car nearby. Officer Ken Qualls. He observed Dillon urinating.

 

He gave Dillon's mother Ashley a ticket. Based on her son's behavior. The ticket was for public urination in public view. The police officer was the sole witness. Other than grandmother and mother, only he had seen it.

 

The fine for public urination in Piedmont is $2,500. Better to split a gut!

 

Grandmother and daughter Warden were outraged. They went to the police station the next day and complained. To no avail. Their words fell on deaf ears. They even took the position that giving a public urination ticket because a three year old pissed on his own property was an abuse of power.

 

The media became aware. A news worthy story. Soon Piedmont and much of Oklahoma were upset.

 

The message got through. Piedmont's Chief of Police appeared soon after at the Warden home. He personally apologized. The ticket was withdrawn.

 

The Wardens had a concern, Would Officer Qualls now subject them to a vendetta? The Chief assured them he would not.

 

Abuse of power occurs infrequently. But occur it does. Generally, it is a relatively new police officer whose position goes to his head. Or a military person whose uniform gives him a sense of superiority. Then there is the office manger who speaks in sexual terms to a female subordinate or brushes against her when he passes by. More recently, the FBI agent in Tampa who started the investigation which lead to Petraeus' fall from grace.

 

Abuse of power is part and parcel of our lives. Though rare, it must be dealt with. Simply and swiftly. As the Wardens did.

 

HONOR KILLING

Recently in the Pakistani administered town of Kotli, 15 year old Anusha was murdered by her parents. Anusha and her parents were Pakistani. They also were Muslims.

 

Anusha's perceived wrongdoing was she would turn her head to look at boys. Such conduct was viewed by her parents as bringing shame upon the family. Dishonor.

 

Her parents were 53 and 42. Anusha had six brothers and sisters, all under the age of 10.

 

Anusha's mother threw acid on her. The intent was that the acid would result in Anusha's death. It did. Two days later.

 

The reports were unclear as to whether Anusha received  medical attention. Most suggest none. She was left on a cot or the floor in her home to die. A slow agonizing death over forty eight hours. The reports indicate the parerts had no money to pay a doctor. I came across one report that indicated  Anusha received  medical attention after 24 hours.

 

In the Muslim world, such deaths are known as honor killings. A daughter's death upholds  family honor. Family honor is viewed as more important than the life of the daughter.

 

Some areas of Pakistan have begun frowning on honor killings. Anusha's home town is one of them. Her parents have been arrested for murder.

 

Anusha's case is not an isolated one. In the year 2011, there were 943 honor killings in Pakistan. Only 20 of the 943 young women killed received medical attention. Even worse, in many situations the daughter was subjected to rape and gang rape before being murdered.

 

Why do these killings occur? Why do Muslim parents feel compelled to murder for honor's sake a young daughter?

 

I thought it might be required by the dictates of the Quran. Turns out, honor killings are not. Honor killings are the result of man made law. Muslims are a male dominated society. Women are considered possessions. Over the years, the custom of honor killings has developed.

 

The Quran is to the Muslim what the Bible is to the Christian. In both instances, man made law has developed which is not to be found in the written word of each religion. Difficult interpretations have arisen. Honor killings being one.

 

Do not think that honor killings are limited to Pakistan or a Muslim nation. Muslims are immigrating to European nations and  North America. Honor killings have been documented in Europe and Canada. I am not aware of any honor killings in the United States.

 

I have written this piece for awareness purposes. Muslims are immigrating in effect to the four corners of the earth. They bring with them their old world customs and religion. Neither should be a problem. But where the Muslim is concerned, they are.

 

The Muslim comes to a new country and wants to live by the old country's rules. They want the new country to enforce  criminal and civil law based on the Quran and what they believe the Quran says. Besides honor killings, that would include stoning a woman to death for adultery, cutting a person's hand off for stealing, making it easy for a man to divorce, making it difficult for a woman to divorce. And so on.

 

Such is called Sharia law. I have written and spoken of the dangers of Sharia law for several years. Generally, my words fall on deaf ears. Americans do not want to believe that any one coming to this country would want to live under the old laws. But, they do.

 

The message is beware! Be vigilant. Be concerned.

IS A FERTILIZED EGG A PERSON?????

When does life begin? At the moment of conception when the female egg is fertilized by the male sperm?

 

There is a clamor for answers to the questions. Not so much  from society as a whole. Rather from a small minority who seek to impose their religious beliefs  on the majority. The battle waged by this small group is ongoing. Their beliefs are rooted so deeply that resolution appears impossible. Anti-abortionists are now into their second and third generation of supporters.

 

The issue of when life begins was raised recently from a legal perspective in the case of Person hood Oklahoma v. Barber. Last week on October 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal on the issue from a decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Oklahoma Supreme Court had ruled against an anti-abortion group. The anti-abortion group had had placed on next week's election ballot in Oklahoma an amendment to the State Constitution. The amendment would define an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception. Which as a practical matter is the moment the female egg is fertilized.

 

I am interested in the issue strictly from a legal perspective.

 

A walk back in legal history is required to understand what is going on.

 

When I graduated from law school in 1960, a fetus was not considered life. There was no life unless the fetus was born live. Which meant that the baby had to be delivered and breath. Breathing was the most important part of the concept. It meant the baby was alive. Then and only then did rights accrue to the baby as a person, as a human being.

 

Abortion in 1960 was a criminal offense. It had nothing to do with the abortion issue as we understand it today. The law was only concerned with back room deliveries with a bent metal hanger.

 

Years later abortion became the fanatical issue it is today. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the issue some fifty odd years ago in Roe v. Wade. A woman was free to decide if she wanted to abort a pregnancy. If so, it was legal and proper for the woman to have the abortion and the medical profession to provide the assistance.

 

Via Roe v. Wade, abortion was considered a woman's right. The right to choose, to control her own body.

 

A small but vocal group could not accept Roe v. Wade. The battle to overturn the decision or minimize its application has been ongoing for more than five decades.

 

In the 2012 Presidential election, abortion is in the forefront of issues being discussed. A supreme effort primarily by the Republican right has been initiated. The approach is to deny to women many of the personal freedoms they won 50-60 years ago. Things like the right to contraception, as well as the right to abortion. The battle has a male/female component. It is primarily  men attempting to dictate to women what they can and cannot do, especially as regards their bodies. It makes me wonder what century we are living in.

 

The newest gimmick by the anti-abortionists is to seek to redefine when life begins. It is called parenthood. Attempts are ongoing to change federal and state laws so as to define a person/human life as beginning at the time of conception. If successful, it would mean that the fertilized egg has all  rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

 

If the redefinition took hold, it would be a crime for a woman or anyone to assist her not only with abortion, but also contraceptive use and in-vitro fertilization. There are probably further ramifications I cannot think of at the moment.

 

Anti-abortionists in Oklahoma thought they saw the road home regarding the issue. They had the question put on this November's ballot as a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma State Constitution. Groups disagreeing with the anti abortionists went to court to have the proposed amendment declared unconstitutional and thrown off the ballot.

The group was successful. The Oklahoma Supreme Court said the amendment was unconstitutional and struck it from the ballot.

 

The anti-abortionist were not dissuaded. They appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

 

The United States Supreme Court decides cases two ways. The Court actually hears oral argument and decides a case. Another way is for the Court to refuse to hear a case. In such instance, the decision of the court below from which the matter is being appealed is considered the last word. It is the law regarding the issue raised.

 

By refusing to hear the case and making that refusal known on October 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court said in effect that it agreed with the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Inherent in the actions of both Courts, was the fact that there are years of precedent supporting abortion. From Roe v. Wade to today. The Oklahoma Court said Roe v. Wade was still good law. The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Oklahoma Court by refusing to entertain the appeal.

 

Quite frankly, I was surprised by the United States Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case. The Court is basically conservative by a 5-4 majority. Is the conservative Supreme Court moving away from its previous hard line conservative positions? I do not know. The decision in the Parenthood case might lead one to think so. In any event, it is clear  that the United States Supreme Court has no intention of hearing a parenthood case. At least at this time.

PET CAT EUTHANIZED BY MISTAKE

This scenario recently occurred.

Coleen Conlon lives in Gardner, Massachusetts. She had a pet cat. Lady. Eight years old.

Lady had fleas. Coleen had her son take Lady to the vet for a flea bath. Lady had previously been cared for by the veterinarian. The veterinarian was the Broadway Animal Hospital. The Hospital was owned and operated by Dr. Michael Sheridan. A respected veterinarian in the area with thirty years experience.

Dr. Sheridan's Hospital provided forms to be signed by anyone requiring pet services. There was a form for flea services. There was a form for euthanasia. There was a form for every type service.

The son was mistakenly given the wrong form. He did not read it. He signed and returned it. Much like most of us humans do when we are being admitted to a hospital.

The form the son signed was for euthanasia. Not a flea bath.

When the son returned, he was informed Lady had been euthanized. The form mistake was discovered.

Coleen, her son and the rest of the family are distraught. Dr. Sheridan is sympathetic, but says the son should have read the form before signing.

The facts have the making of a law suit.

The question is what is the monetary value of a pet cat negligently killed. The answer depends on the State where the pet resided and the negligent act took place. In this instance, Massachusetts.

Let's begin at the beginning.

The law initially and for centuries was that a pet was property. Not human. As property, it could only be valued based on far market value less depreciation. Simply stated, Lady in this instance would be worth whatever the cost of buying a new cat, depreciated by the number of years Lady had already lived.

What is the dollar value of a pet cat under the fair market rule. Most cats are adopted. Taken in. I am unfamiliar with the price range of an ordinary cat. However, I cannot believe it would be much in dollars. $20-40 perhaps? Now subtract from that amount the fact that Lady had already lived half her anticipated life time. Subtract 50 per cent from the estimated fair market figure of $20-40.

That number represents the value of Lady in this day and age under the fair market approach.

Most States follow the fair market value rule. Pets are worth next to nothing in those States. The feelings of the pet owner are not taken into consideration.

Pets have increasingly become a member of the family, so to speak. Pets are loved as one's own offspring.

A new approach to pet valuation has developed and is developing. Though presently the law in only a few States. The developing legal concept is known as companion law. Companion law does not limit recovery for a dead pet to fair market value. It takes into consideration the same things that the law considers when a human is negligently killed. Emotional distress and uniqueness of the relationship.  Even the pet's pain and suffering.

Where does Florida stand? Where does Massachusetts stand?

The cases are split in Florida. Some courts recognize the progressive companion theory. Others, the fair market value of the pet.

Lady and her owner Coleen lived in Massachusetts. Massachusetts offers no help at all. I even question if a claim can be made under the fair market value theory.

Massachusetts has a statute that defines who and how recovery can be had in a death case. The statute applies to "...persons closely related."  Massachusetts courts have consistently held that a pet is neither a person nor is it legally able to be closely related. Ergo, Coleen would get nothing.

Only one State has dealt with the problem legislatively. Massachusetts makes its decision based on a statute. However, the statute is written for humans, even though applied in pet situations.

Tennessee has met the issue head on. Tennessee's law directly deals with companion pets. Legislatively and signed into law by the Governor. The statute permits lawsuits. With limitations. Top recovery is limited to $4,000. Better than nothing. The statute is limited to dogs and cats.

The law generally has many problems/issues with which to deal. Pet recovery is not near the top. However in a creeping fashion, the States are beginning to deal with the problem. The law is moving in the direction of companion statutes. At some point in the next 25 years, most States will be on the side of valuing the pet and permitting recovery. In 50 years, the issue will no longer be a problem. Companion recovery will be the law in every State. The law of the land.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

The adage different strokes for different folks applies to countries, also.
Greece, Italy, and China are perfect examples.

U.S. citizens must pay taxes. Every one. Even the rich. Unless of course
they legally have secreted funds in a Swiss bank account or off shore in
the Cayman Islands. There is legal tax avoidance. If the avoidance however
is illegal, such persons will be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent
of the law. Tax avoidance is not tolerated in the United States.

Greece tolerates tax avoidance. That is one reason why Greece is in trouble
economically. It is considered perfectly proper to avoid taxes in Greece.
Greece's tax delinquency is in the billions of euros.

Occasionally Greeks will be pursued for back taxes. Rarely, however.
Especially in the two years immediately preceding an election.

For the  the few arrested, there is no fear. Greek tax courts take 7-10
years to bring a tax avoidance case to trial.

Greek ship owners are a separate breed when it comes to paying taxes. They
are treated well by the government. Receive favored treatment. Much like
the fabled 2 per cent in the United States. That is why Greek ship owners
have tons of money while Greece itself is broke.

Italy has Silvio Berlusconi. A perfect example of the ineffectiveness of
the Italian court system. An example also that a people will tolerate
anything from a favored elected official.

Berlusconi was once Italy's Prime Minister. Was is the operative word. When
no longer the number one politician in Italy, he was arrested for four
years of tax fraud. His trial concluded last week. Berlusconi was found
guilty. He was sentenced to four years in jail. The sentence was
automatically reduced to one year because of an amnesty law. The amnesty
law recognizes that Italian jails are overcrowded. The law reduces
dramatically a criminal sentence.

Such does not bother  me. 

POPCORN LUNG LAWSUIT

Wayne Watson of Denver, Colorado, enjoyed popcorn. He enjoyed it so much that for a period of ten years he would eat two bags of microwaved popcorn each evening.

 

Watson developed what is known as microwave popcorn lung. A condition similar to lung cancer caused by smoking and mesothelioma caused by asbestos. Watson is suffering. He cannot work. He soon will die. His suffering and death caused by the fumes arising from the artificial butter in microwave popcorn.

 

A jury agreed such was the case. The jury recently awarded Watson $7.2 million.

 

Turns out microwave popcorn, prior to this lawsuit of course, contained a chemical called diacetyl. A toxic substance known to cause  an illness similar to lung cancer. An individual develops popcorn lungs when fumes from the heated popcorn containing diacetyl are inhaled.

 

Watson is going to die. Life has a court room value. However, $7.2 million on its face appears excessive. Not in Watson's case.

 

The manufacturer of the microwave popcorn had known for several years of the dangerous implications of inhaling the butter flavorer containing diacetyl. The knowledge was obtained from the numerous Worker Compensation cases brought by their employees who had inhaled diacetyl fumes while working to make the microwave popcorn.

 

Once a manufacturer has knowledge of the dangerous propensities of its product, it is obligated under law to cease and desist in its manufacture. The manufacturer is also required, if he is stupid enough to continue to knowingly produce the product, to place a warning on  the label of its product of the product's dangerous  propensities. Similar to the warning on a pack of cigarettes.

 

In this instance, the manufacturer did neither. It knowingly continued to manufacture the microwave popcorn containing the diacetyl and at the same time failed to provide the consumer with any warning.

 

The $7.2 million verdict was divided into two parts.

 

Watson received $2.2 million for his pain, suffering and and all direct ramifications of the inhalation. This is known as compensatory damages. The law allows a wronged person to collect money for all damages directly flowing from the wrong doing of the manufacturer.

 

The remaining $5 million was awarded Watson as punitive damages. When a manufacturer does something so bad as to shock the conscience of the community, the manufacturer must pay an additional amount by way of penalty. It is a warning to the manufacturer that it should not have done what it did. In Watson's case, (1) knowingly continuing to manufacture the microwave popcorn with knowledge it was dangerous and (2) further failing to warn it's inherent danger stretches matters beyond credulity.

 

The manufacturer was penalized for its egregious wrongdoing. The huge punitive award is punishment to the wrongdoer and warning to the rest of the world not to do things such as occurred in the instant case.

 

A lot of good the $7.2 million is going to do Watson.The manufacturer has the case on appeal. By the time the appeals process is exhausted, Watson will be long dead.

 

 

HOOVERVILLES, HOOVER BLANKETS, HOOVER SOUP

Herbert Hoover came from an interesting background. An engineer and businessman, he became a millionaire.

 

His business acumen was recognized. He was called upon to help when others were in trouble.

 

Europe was devastated following World War I. Food especially was a problem. Hoover was asked to head up a massive relief effort to save the European masses from starvation. He did. His was a gigantic humanitarian effort. He went after the necessary monies, found the food supplies, and got them to those in need.

 

He devised appealing gimmicks to get the American people to cooperate in the effort. Things like Meatless Mondays and Wheatless Wednesdays. The term Hooverize came into being. It meant going with less so that others might be helped. Hoover "Hooverized" the American people, big and small alike.

 

Hoover was touted as Presidential material. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized Hoover's Presidential capabilities. In 1919, Roosevelt  said Hoover is "...a wonder and I wish we could make him President." Thirteen years later Roosevelt would defeat Hoover in a Presidential election.

 

Hoover had little time to enjoy his Presidency. Within one year, the crash of 1929 occurred. World wide. Worse than the economic problems we are experiencing today.

 

Initially, America thought the right man was in the White House. Hoover had fed millions and saved Europe a little more than a decade earlier. He was being called upon again to be a savior, a humanitarian.

 

Hoover did not react as anticipated. He did not help. He was philosophically opposed to government handouts. His description. He would create no entitlements  to help the people.

 

Time to place everything in perspective.

 

Shanty towns developed. They housed the poor. They became known as Hoovervilles. Similar to today's homeless. Some of whom live under bridges and in mangroves.

 

Newspapers were in vogue. People wrapped newspapers around themselves to keep warm. Hoover blankets they were called. The cardboard boxes people wrap themselves in today to keep warm.

 

Food. There was an insufficient supply. What there was, few could afford.  Thin gruel and soup kitchens became popular. The meal was known as Hoover soup. The Today's church kitchens and street begging.

 

The Hoovervilles, Hoover blankets and Hoover soup are not terms of my making. They are the names the people of America subscribed to their way of life during Hoover's years in office.

 

America was perplexed. How could this successful and wealthy fellow citizen known for his generosity fail them when they were in need. People were depressed.They could not understand the poverty they were experiencing. Moreover, they could not understand how their President was opposed to government handouts. Handouts that they viewed as assistance in their time of need.

 

Hoover lasted one term. Roosevelt handily defeated him.

 

Roosevelt immediately went to work to help his fellow Americans. He made the government step in. He devised programs and had laws passed to provide immediate assistance. Federally funded work projects and financial plans to assist were born. The banks were closed, reconfigured and reopened. The government became involved. Roosevelt's government helped people. Help that was not considered a handout. Roosevelt viewed government as a tool to assist its peoples in time of need.

 

The age of entitlements was born.

 

Today, the United States is at a cross road. The very purpose of government is being questioned. Reanalyzed. This year's Presidential candidates present opposite ends of the spectrum as to the issue. More so than ever before. One of the candidates has a background and philosophical mind set similar to Hoover's. The American people have to decide how they want to live.

 

Are we our bothers' keepers? Or, do we turn our backs on those less fortunate?

 

We the people will decide by our votes in November.

CATHOLIC CHURCH....."200 YEARS OUT OF DATE"

Before any one starts beating up on me for what I am about to write, let me say I am qualified to tell this story.

I was born Catholic. Baptized and confirmed Catholic. Attended Catholic grammar school, high school and college. I was an altar boy in grammar school and high school. Sang in the Church choir in high school. I was married in the Catholic Church. My children were baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church. They all attended Catholic grammar and high schools. Some attended Catholic colleges. All were married by Catholic priests. Their children, my grandchildren, have all been baptized Catholic.

I now am a fallen away Catholic.

My credentials established, let me speak of Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.

Cardinal Martini was for many years a member of the Church hierarchy. He represented a liberal voice in the Church. In the 1900s and early 2000s, he was considered the next Pope. John Paul II was Pope at the time. However, Cardinal Martini was stricken with Parkinson's disease in 2002. The Papacy was not his to be. Though he continued to be an influence in Rome, his disability incapacitated him for the rigors of the Papacy.

When John Paul II died in 2005, a German Cardinal became Pope. Pope Benedict II. A doctrinaire as contrasted with Cardinal Martini who was a liberal.

Cardinal Martini recently died. Before his death, he was interviewed. He died four days after the interview. His death bed interview was recently published.

Cardinal Martini said the Catholic Church was "...200 years out of date." Its churches big and empty. The rituals and cassocks pompous. Culture aged was the way he described the Church.

He claimed "radical change" was required. Starting with the Pope and Bishops.

Cardinal Martini spoke of the pedophilia scandal. His position was that the Church was obligated to transform itself because of the scandal. He was referring to the way the Church had handled the pedophilia priest problem.

The Cardinal had some strong and novel opinions/beliefs regarding certain issues. From his perspective, condom use was acceptable in some cases. He also recognized the existence of the modern family which he described as a new kind of family. People fell out of love, husbands abandoned wives. A woman is left to raise and care for the children alone. She lives without love. Under these and similar situations, he felt divorce and remarriage was proper.

His thoughts eye openers, window openers. Fresh air time again.

Will Cardinal Martini's positions have an impact on Church teachings?

Who knows. We will have to wait to see who succeeds Benedict II. If the new Pope is liberal as opposed to doctrinaire, yes. Even then, it will take a long time for change to occur.