I have seen a lot of news articles and spots on the opinion shows about the issue of the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Now I seem to be getting emails concerning the same subject and to be honest with you I am getting a little tired of it. So I am going to give you my take on the subject.

The whole argument is based on the clause in the constitution that the government shall not sponsor a state run church. This is the meaning of the “separation of church and state”. It means that the government will sponsor nor recognize one church above any others and thereby sponsor or promote a particular church or religion. This was originally a rebellion against the Episcopal Church of England, and in my opinion a pretty good idea.

But this does not preclude the government from acknowledging faith in a myriad of forms. What my issue with the current debate lies is the extent of the acknowledgement.

The words “under god” are hardly the issue. Since the founding supposition of religion is the belief that there is a god (or goddess or being or entity, etc) of one kind or another, why would there be an issue for any religious group that the words are used. After all we all interpret the words we use for ourselves, when you say “under god” you may mean some Judeo-Christian concept of god while pagan could conceivably be thinking of the Goddess and it is all good. But where do you put the atheists? (Notice I do not include agnostics in here since they simply do not know and would hold to a particular god if shown proof for such existence.)

Well, there is a simple answer to this, and that is with everyone else. Since the founding fathers in there wisdom chose not to recognize one religion or faith above others, to not have a faith is perfectly acceptable. In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, if someone is not comfortable with reciting the pledge they should not recite it or leave out the offensive words if they so choose. Isn’t the point of the pledge to instill a sense of citizenship and unity? It is not a prayer, and it should not be looked upon as such a mantra. Also, if someone chooses not to say it or leave out words are they not doing what this country is striving for, the exercise of their personal liberties? Leave them alone, they are bothering no one.

On the other hand… Atheists, you are not getting what this country is all about. Yes there is no state sponsored religion, but that does not mean the government is existing in a vacuum and not taking notice of the actions of religious institutions within the country. The vast majority is comfortable with the words “under god” in the pledge (although did you know that it was Harry Truman who put the words there?) so this being the case in a society that runs with the idea of majority rule, you are over ruled. Again, you do not have to say the pledge, you do not have to say the words that offend you, that is not the idea of the pledge. Be happy that you are exercising your freedoms, and more than most, so in fact you are to be honored for that you do know how to exercise your rights in the first place. There are many people that do not understand the idea of exercising personal freedoms so you are a leg up in terms of civil activism.

So let’s look at the words “In God we Trust” on our money. For all the same reasons as the pledge this is a non issue and the words on the money do not sanctify the use of the money. You can ignore the words and still use the money to your hearts content and everyone it perfectly happy. And if the words were not there, the money would be just as good. So if the government chooses to remove the words it is a non issue because, again, then words are not what the money is about. In fact there is a lot more Free Mason symbology on the one dollar bill than the simple “In God We Trust” motto. I do not see people lobbying to have this removed, although if the meanings of the symbology were widely revealed and the roots of such, it would be more offensive than the motto. So keep it, don’t does it really matter?

The Ten Commandments on courtroom walls. Here I agree with the current court rulings that these should be removed. The reason is the Ten Commandments espouse a specific doctrine that is not held by all, although it is held by a majority. But the setting they are in MUST be as nonsectarian as possible. A courthouse is a place that anyone can be judged equally based on the laws of the land, not the laws of the Bible, and if they are judged differently based on their religious views it is not justice at all. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian in nature and as such have no place in a hall of nonsectarian justice. We are not being judge by the laws of the Ten Commandments why should it be part of any legal edifice.

Governmental holidays and observances. There are two ways to go with this and both are equally acceptable to me. First option is that we ban all religious holidays and observances from governmental notice, no more Christmas break, (or winter break as it is now called) or days off for particular religious observance. Personally, growing up Jewish, I had to deal with this all the time. I was allowed to take off days for my holidays but the teaching continued and I had to make it up while the Christians and Catholics got their days off (me included) but did not have to worry about making up the work.  Also the Christmas parties were a bit much for me to take. Eliminating these would level the playing field for everyone and that would be fair. The second option, the one that is not working now, is that we are tolerant of all holidays and do not discriminate against those that have to take time off for their observances.

The real solution I would suspect is somewhere between the two options. I think that we do need to ban sectarian parties within government run institutions, avoid special notice of particular observances, but we also have to flexible when observances are needed. It is a fine balancing act and one we are never going to get exactly right, but we should try.

So this issue of words in pledges and on money and courtroom halls have some, but in my opinion, very little merit. Words may be the way we communicate, but words are not everything we live by. I believe the actions we take determine our intent and words are just a supporting character in the play. So let’s all grow a little skin and let the words slide off us a bit, it is really not worth our time, effort and collective strife to worry about.

What has more wind and spin than a hurricane? The media.

We all watch the horrible images from the disaster areas along the Gulf Coast, but what is bothering me more and more is the fact that we are seeing the SAME images over and over again from the disaster zone. And it is not as though the images are nice images, they are in fact disturbing, showing people at their worst.

Why? Why is it the networks show these terrible images repeatedly? Does it not seem to most that images of hope are what is called for. In a time when everything is so dark, it would be wonderful to see the images of human strength and perseverance. But the networks are not interested in the good side of the disaster, but only the bad aspects of human nature when pressed to an extreme. This salaciousness is what sells time and advertising I guess and so this is what they broadcast.

Over the last few days the media has had a field day slamming President Bush for not doing anything any sooner. Well guess what… as they go to the experts they are all saying that there really was nothing more he could have done, it was not feasible to move more supplies in the middle of a storm. Slow and painful admissions on the media’s part that they may have overstated the case for Presidential negligence have been forth coming when you watch the reports closely.

Likewise, the supposition that support to the disaster area was slow because the majority of the citizens were black is now being countered with retorts of that very notion. The media backtracks on a stance when they see they are beginning to become politically blasé and shift to newer stances. They are fickle and spin whatever it is that people want to hear.

But let us not put this all on just the US media, no. Middle east media reports the disaster as if the storm were the hand of god to strike us down, and again there is partying in the streets in the middle east at our distress, just like on September 11, 2001. Foreign media spins the situation to it’s political views, showing the US as a dictator in Iran, unwilling to help our own people while denigrating the people of Iraq. “Better to stay in Iraq than to help our own people.” Obviously a misinformed opinion, but what can we do.

So, when watching all this coverage remember what a particular MSNBC commentator said, “You are seeing this through a straw, and only what is at the bottom of the glass” and consider what you are seeing.

80% of New Orleans in under water. That was the statement made today by FEMA and President Bush. With that kind of statistic, one has to ask, should we bother rebuilding New Orleans at all?

I know, I know, New Orleans is home to many people, what do I want to do, displace them all? Well, not to be crude, but yes. After all they are all leaving the city anyway, why are we considering saving the city at all and not making plans for a new city somewhere near by?

New Orleans has the advantage of being a major US seaport, and that has not changed. In fact that sea port and surrounding areas would by need be at or slightly above sea level, so that part of New Orleans could be salvaged. I am talking only the areas under sea level. Does anyone else think it is really dumb to put a city below sea level where the survival of the city depends on a few scant feet of concrete and aging pumps? Does it not seem to be asking for trouble? I think so. So Abandon New Orleans.

Imagine, a brand new city, planned from the ground up for growth and the future. Imagine a new model for a new world. New Orleans has the rare opportunity to turn this immense tragedy into a shining new example for the future. Get all the best planner in the world, get all the technologist and architects and engineers and dreamers and schemers and realists together and make something that this world has not seen in the new century, a new city that will blaze the way for the coming century.

“You may say I’m a dreamer,
But I’m not the only one,
I hope someday you will join us,
And the world will be as one.”

New Orleans could be renamed the City of Imagine, and imagine the possibilities that we could come up with, and the hope that could come from Katrina.

Now the pundits start. Who is at fault for Katrina? Is it the President? Is it bad emergency planning? Bad engineering on the levee’s in New Orleans? Is it the militaries fault for not having enough people to help? Is it the fault of foreign countries for not sending aid? Is it the rest of the countries fault for not sending emergency services and food stuffs? Is it Walmart’s fault for not having enough stores to be looted? Who cares.

The brunt of the blame is being laid at President Bush’s feet. Why? Did he send in the hurricane to start it all? I don’t think so. Has he been slow to act? Who could he really have been faster? Really, he is just one person, and even with all that power that he controls I do not think that he could have sped relief any faster.

The say he should have known better. How? Katrina was MAYBE a category one before hitting New Orleans and then jumped up VERY quickly to a category three. There was no time to make plans in the already inclement weather to do additional preparations. Hell, Katrina was not even classified a category four until after it made landfall. What exactly would you have had the President do? Was he supposed to look into a crystal ball and fore see that this category one hurricane would do what it finally did?

Afterward they say he did nothing. Ok, he called out the National Guard and FEMA and they started operations as they always do, well rehearsed and to the best of their ability. We did not even know the level of damage until the next day, and then calls were already being made to neighboring states for aid. What else could he do?

Could he personally have fixed a broken levee? No. Was he supposed to pull troops back from Iraq? Why? By the time they would get back the damage would be done and there is nothing more they (the US Iraq-based troops) would be able to do. Besides, that would cause more problems in the middle-east than would be solved on the homeland. Was he over extending himself because we have troops in the middle-east? No, come on. Besides, was he supposed to know Katrina was going to hit three years ago? This is all more political bullshit.

If there is blame to be placed I would have to guess that it is with the civil engineers that deemed the levee’s of New Orleans should only withstand a category three hurricane. To me, would it not be wise to protect your city against the worst that Mother Nature could throw at you? After all, if the levee had stood there still would have been devastation, but it would not be to the magnitude that we are looking at now. So, the millions they saved on the levee’s they build are now counted against the billions in damage as it failed and the cost of the lives that were lost. Who is to blame again?

But when it all comes down to it there really is no one to blame. Mother Nature is stronger than we can suspect and Katrina was a flexing of Mother Natures muscles. Nature can erode mountains, make oceans, clean anything off its’ surface, what makes any of us think that any of our cities are nothing more than temporary monuments to our own aggrandizement?

So let’s stop the finger pointing and clean up. It will not be the last time that we have to do that, so let’s just stop complaining.

Where is the world?
Where are its people?
Where is the help for us
when nature bites us?

What did we expect? Do we really expect the world to come to our aid when a natural disaster strikes us as it did in Malaysia? The answer is no. Why should the they bother helping the richest country in the world. They did not send aid in 1994, they won’t in 2005. Sure, they will send some token help, to say they did, but they will not contribute in any meaningful way.

In 1994, during the Northridge Quake aftermath, I remember that there was supposed to be a lot of foreign aid, but I never saw any of it. I was looking. It is really hypocritical of every other country that takes aid from us then not to send any kind of aid back that it can afford. Even countries that we have not helped directly should be sending aid here for the simple matter that since the US does help in disasters in such a major way everyone else does not have to shoulder the additional burden. So where is the aid?

It’s not coming… it never will. We, the US are just big ol’ softies, we help everyone. Other countries? Well, they just let it go, not in my territory, not my problem.

So, the next time a country is hit by a natural disaster let’s all remember what the world did for us and not send a dime.

No, we’ll help. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. I wonder why other countries do not think the same way?

This is an opinion. It is not meant to be an attack any group of people, but rather to shine a light on a problem in this country that is more rampant than we may have guessed.

As the media is covering the disaster that is New Orleans we are seeing scenes of people in great distress. Most of the scenes are featuring people of dark skin and ethnic origin. The reason for this is rather simple; the population of New Orleans is prominently ethnic and black. The areas hardest hit are poorer area well below sea level and thus we see many more dark skinned people than Caucasians. This has lead to a very bad assumption.

Today some black leaders have averred that the slowness of relief was because the needy people are of color. This is so wrong. Do any of the leaders really know the scope of the problem here? It is not like in Los Angeles after the 1994 Earthquake where roads were accessible (albeit precariously) and the major damage confined to a rather small area.

Katrina took the region by surprise and admittedly, they were not ready for that scale of destruction that happened. In fact, it the levee system of New Orleans had not failed this would not be nearly the issue it is. In fact look at the news footage, it is mostly of New Orleans, surrounding areas while hard hit are not in as desperate a situation.

But it takes time to mount a relief. This is not something that happen in a day, but rather weeks. In fact in LA after the ’94 quake, it was days before the National Guard made itself known. We as citizens had to police ourselves from looters.

But the assumption here that slowness of relief is because the skin color of the people affected is prominently dark is ridiculous. In fact, the rescuing faces on the news are generally light skinned. The government is doing what it can, private sector is helping in a big way, but it has nothing to do with skin color, it has to do with scope of the disaster.

How dare black leaders push for further entitlements using this disaster as an excuse. Black leaders are not helping by suggesting this, they are only hurting by promoting racist feelings in a time where people need to work together. What they should be doing is telling their constituents to be strong, work as best they can to help themselves and be proactive, not to just wait for help. They should be encouraging people to move to higher ground, places where the army can provide tents and support for the displaced. Encouraging people to be calm and law abiding and work with civil authorities. But to promote an attitude of racism at this point only does a disservice to the agenda they are trying to promote.

It angers me to see this type of political posturing during a time of crisis. Shame on all politician no matter the persuasion for attempting to politicize this situation. Shame on you all for you do not realize how you have hurt yourselves and your constituents. 

It has now been the better part of a week since the US has had to deal with Katrina and her destructive path. Florida was lucky and just grazed by the power that she was to have as making landfall in Louisiana and Mississippi. The scenes from the areas hit squarely by Katrina are heartbreaking, but I think you need to know, you are not seeing everything, and if you did, you may not be as upset.

I guess I have I have a unique view of the situation as I was one of those very near the epicenter of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. I was one of those people living in a tent for months after the quake, and it was a bad time, but not as bad as the media made it out to be.

The media reported the looting and riots and made it seem that the devastation was over all of LA and that all of LA was a wasteland. This was all a matter of editing by the media to show only the most salacious bits to boost their ratings. And boost them it did.

We are seeing on the news the same “devastating scenes” over and over again out of thousands of hours of footage they (the media) have shoot since Katrina passed. We see only the most desperate, most mentally distraught, most salacious of scenes to keep the audience interested and outraged, all in an effort to boost ratings.

Don’t get me wrong, what happened is bad, in fact It is far worse than what happened in Northridge because of the water situation, but what I want to stress is that you are only seeing what the media is showing you and you may not be getting all the news that is fit to view. In fact, there are stories of people helping people in simple ways that are not making it to the news. Stories of neighbors sharing their water and whatever was left in the freezer after the electricity went out. There are stories of people camping out and coming together as a community to ride through the bad times of this disaster. You are only seeing the worst of it, not any of the people helping people stories that are happening right now. I know, I lived it.

Just as in Iran where the troops are a lot more welcome than the US population has been lead to believe, so we do not see the nice things happening here, but rather only the stories of human strife and suffering. Why, because it sells advertisements, and keeps you watching.