OBAMA ---MIND BOGGLED OR BRILLIANT??

If Obama's speech on Libya Monday night was meant to clarify---he missed the mark. We still don't know much more than before the speech, which was at best confusing, and at worst looked an awful lot like war, or as some are calling it, the "not war". It was as though Obama was forced to show up and say something about the fact that we're bombing Libya; but he really would liked to have mailed this one in,or just voted "present", as he did so many times as a senator, preferring to stay out of the messiness of actually voting yes or no on this very untimely, inconvenient middle east problem. He doesn't want to say why we began a bombing campaign in Libya, other than it's for humanitarian reasons. Of course, the ousting of Gadhafi as a mission wasn't even mentioned---that would be far too harsh and would take on the look of a regime changing action---or war. And since he didn't even seek congressional approval for war, that could be very troublesome. Oil, and our interests in it was not mentioned either, as that would smack of American greed and Obama is trying to change our image to that of a kinder, gentler nation. The problem is---that to be dead honest, Gadhafi must and will go, which will have to lead to a regime change; and without the Libyan oil issue, we may not have bothered with Libya at all. The Congo and the atrocities taking place there were not enough to arouse our humanitarian instincts or actions toward the Congolese--they bleed, but they do not have coveted oil.

Of course, Obama knows all of this---what's disturbing is that he refuses to call a spade a spade, or in this case, war, war---choosing instead to delay any aggressive military action and instead ride reluctantly in on the coat tails of the United Nations and only for the supposed cause of righteousness and salvation of the Libyan people. Not only does this preserve his reputation as an anti-George Bush war president, but it will play much better in the media and his image in the upcoming election of 2012. But this is not over yet, and it remains to be seen whether we can get out of Libya without sending in more forces and perhaps even "boots on the ground". If we don't, then are we really fulfilling our role as the leader of the free world by leaving it up to NATO and if we do, there are those who say it would never have been necessary to do so, had Obama made an earlier decision to provide a "no fly zone" over Libya--and that we were too timid to act. Will this encourage other rebellions? Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain are already joining the parade of Arab unrest---and there are no guarantees for freedom and democracy just yet. There are even those who fear a caliphate or block of Muslim extremists taking over these countries. A chrystal ball would come in handy about now---instead, we have to play this fluid game by ear---and with our eyes wide open. This looks like the beginning of a long dominoe falling process, involving the Arab countries and our roles in them.

And so, as Nato takes over (with ours being at least half the weapons at their disposal and our military leaders leading the attacks)Gadhafi is still in Libya, the rebels are still fighting, and who knows who will take over after Gadhafi is gone. Sorting the good guys from the bad guys is not easy in the middle east, and there are rumours now that Al Queda members are part of the rebel movement, which could mean we're actually helping our enemies become even more dangerous to our health and well being. To date there is no exit plan, nor true mission statement if Gadhafi refuses to leave. NATO, or not, we're still in it--but not necessarily to win it, by making sure the new government is on our side. That, you see, is no longer exclusively up to us, having handed off the reigns of power to others, rendering us to a subordinate position---a new and different label for us.

So, what's the end game? And does President Obama have a clear bead on all of it--is he mind boggled by all of this--or did he pull off a great diplomatic finesse, by flying beneath the radar, and waiting for others to join us? But strangely, as to show everyone he's still the boss, he then incongruously insisted in his speech, that he took full responsibility for leading the effort for a "no fly zone" after over two weeks of deliberation. The French and the British might take issue with that statement, as it were they who finally took the initiative, not Obama.

As always, there are those who say Obama is woefully unprepared for these monumentally troubling times---and those who claim he is just the opposite--a brilliant strategist, intent on transforming this country to a less aggressive, more beloved one. History will tell, but one thing is sure---the middle east is rising up and becoming whatever and whoever is left standing after the riots. We dare not take our eye off this huge paradigm shift---and humanitarianism may not be enough if we are to survive the rippling effect of struggles within the eye of a storm called "power"---which is not always to the people, but to whoever wields the biggest stick.

President Obama, this may be your biggest challenge yet, as it certainly involves our very security as a nation and your most important responsibility to us. Are you ready to shine, and make this your legacy as the President who leads us, and possibly the world, through these times of international crises---or will you shun the glare of American exceptionalism and leave it to others? And if you do the latter, will we then finally become what you and some would like---a kinder, gentler, nation, not so resented or envied---but then not quick, smart, tough, or respected enough to lead?

In case you might be thinking that this is a complete indictment against Mr. Obama, it is not. It is, instead, an incomplete assessment and impression of this almost mysterious man, whose past associations and some ideologies still defy clarity of vision and engender suspicion; and whose words, though masterful, are insufficiently clear as to his actual goals. It is also a reflection of the doubts and serious concerns of many citizens who are watching him administer with great hestitation and uncertainty in the affairs of huge consequences for all of us. Brilliant or completely overwhelmed, this president is hopefully learning fast that you can't please everyone, but that you must sometimes make bold, timely decisions, based on what's best for most of us, not the fickle winds of politics or party--then pick your pony, and ride. If you do that, you'll at least gain our respect, if not our love.

Brilliance can be blinding---so maybe we just don't understand the ways of Obama, but inaction, hestitation, mixed messages, and taking credit where none is due is mind boggling.

NOW WHAT???

There used to be a comedy team called "Laurel and Hardy" on television years ago. They coined a favorite line which for years was in the American vernacular. It was---"now look what a fine mess you've gotten us into!" We may have to bring those words out of retirement as the Libyan crisis begins to look more like a real fine mess, than anything else. Nobody seems to know exactly who's in charge, what our mission is, and how we're going to get out, now that we're in. President Obama, the ever reluctant decision maker, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, first declared that Gadaffi must go, then did nothing for days apparently hoping that the despot would leave upon hearing his warning, dithering away critical time while Gadaffi gathered his forces. When at last, after making clear that we would only play "follow the leader" with an assault on Libya, Obama gave the orders to join Germany, France and other countries with the U.N.'s resolution, in a bomb campaign for "humanatarian" reasons. All well and good, except that now things haven't gotten much better---Gadaffi is still there, still fighting back, and who knows who will be in charge after the smoke clears. Everyone seems confused---Obama wants out, and suggests turning the mess over to NATO. Surprisingly, France want to take the lead and the credit, and the military is in a "no win" situation--they are now referring to their action as a "kinetic" manuever, a strangely ambiguous term meaning "movement" and apparently meant to deflect any charge of "war". Insisting all along that the objective was not to kill Gadaffi, but only to protect the rebels and civilians, the military must be asking themselves what they're really doing there.

To make matters worse, our congress is now getting in on the act by accusing Obama of going to war without consulting them. But, you see, this is not "war"---this is simply an act of humanitarianism--- or so claims President Obama. It's all very confusing and disconcerting because it's probably going to get worse before it gets better. And does anyone get the feeling that nobody really knows what to do? Who actually is the leader here--are we actually going to follow the French??

President Obama may wish the French would just take it off his hands. He cannot comfortably call this a "war" for a couple of reasons---number 1, he was elected hugely on the basis of his anti-war stance , namely" George Bush's Iraq war "; number 2--Obama really does not believe in America leading the charge against other countries' uprisings---even those whose overturns may be justified or whose eventual incoming powers could seriously affect our best security and economic interests. His view, as stated during his campaigns and since , is that we should no longer be an "Imperial" nation, but just one of many nations agreeing to act together, if at all---thus, his reluctance to enter the Libyan crisis. But circumstances seemed to demand our support of a people clamoring for emancipation from the long rule of Gadaffi. This wasn't Egypt, where there was no military blow-back and little violence. So,reluctantly and perhaps too belatedly, Obama entered the fray and stated that Gadaffi must go--but he didn't scare off, so we had to go in--- not to get him out,you understand--just to protect others from his violence. Right, but,uh, he's still there, and gaining ground. In order to get him out, this "kinetic" move may have to involve more than humanitarian efforts---which is probably why Obama wants out. Assasinations and/or "boots on the ground" wasn't what he or we signed up for. Whether it was right or wrong to get involved with Libya, we did, and to get out gracefully is not looking like an option. If Libya falls into the hands of Al Queda or other anti-America groups, we're worse off than before. If It remains under the rule of Gadaffi--well,it goes without saying that he may be a little ticked off with us, and probably won't be turning the other cheek. Gadaffi still has to go, only now it's going to be very messy. It seems to go without saying--you can't have it both ways--either we lead, or get out of the way of someone who will.

We are seeing a young President learning on the job here---and if weren't so frightening,it would be hard not to feel some sympathy for this very likeable, but enigmatic and inexperienced man having to make so many world changing decisions. It's difficult enough to deal with the problems of one's own country without the added burden of the changing Arab nations, the complexity of which few of us understand,including our politicians. But true leadership demands informed, bold decision making, and sometimes even "on the fly", as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates characterized the White House start/stop decision process. There isn't always a lot of time for deliberation or contemplation. That's not Obama's style, and he seems over his head on this one. Does the approaching election in 2012 cause this confusion and paralysis of action? Presidents must lead, one way or the other,and true statesmen lead from principle, not politics. George Bush, whatever you may think of him and his decision to go to war against Iraq and to stay the course, certainly did not do so for political gain. He weighed the evidence at hand and the options and took a stand--he lead. He did what he thought best for his country---let us hope President Barack Obama is doing the same-- not what best advances his ideals, or his chances for re-election. I happen to think Obama is primarily leading from his principles, but is having a hard time lining them up with the real world. That's his dilemma and his cross. May he find the courage and wisdom soon to be up to challenges unparalled before in this country. Like him or not, we're counting on him to know all the facts available and to act--not wait until it's too late.

Who knows what comes next? The Arab countries, especially Yemen and Bahrain, are bubbling in a dangerous brew of unrest and uncertainty. Each country is different with a mix of religions, tribes , military, and rulers. Obama must somehow mesh his ideologies with the demands of whether to become deeply involved in the rapidly morphing Arab world---can he afford not to? Can we? We have recently learned that Egypt is now being taken over by the the "Muslim Brotherhood" and they and the military were in collusion all along. Now we shall see whether this new arrangement will bode well for the cry for democracy -- and our vested interests. We shouldn't be concerned about our interests? If not us, who?

The experts on the Arab crisis du jour, Libya, seem to be thinking we can only take it a day at a time, as there are no clear paths or destinations. It all seems surreal and uncharacteristic for a country that used to know what we were doing. Will someone please light a match to shed some light? Forget the match--probably not a good idea right now--already too much going up in flames, including our reputation as a world leader, and possibly our very security as a nation if we continue to dither and leave the decisions to others. As I end this column, it now appears that NATO will be taking over the reigns on the Libyan "kinetic" manuever.

If this new hands-off policy that President Obama prefers, is to be our new normal, then let us hope that we will have abnormal luck in remaining the world's super power---and not find ourselves in one big fine mess. In the meantime, you might want to pick up a book on Sharian law.

THE BIG ONE

It hit Japan hard and fast last week, and now we watch as they cope with a relentless one-two- three punch. First, the 9.0 earthquake, then the tsunami, and finally now the uncertainty of possible nuclear radiation danger. The expected loss of life is 10,000 or more, the destruction is beyond what we've seen in some time, and the misery of those left without homes and heat is difficult to even hear about, much less be able to do something helpful. It is advised that the best place to send contributions is the American Red Cross for Japan. It all seems more like a movie than real life, as each day brings us more images of the results of this unexpected, savage assault by the force of nature. The bad news is that Japan is extremely vulnerable to earthquakes--the good news, that they are also among the world's best prepared, and have the economic resources to rebuild.

Japan is the world's 3rd most powerful economy, and their connection to us and many other countries is vital, and critical to commerce all over the world. Even now, as we worry about the possible effects of their nuclear plant damage, our stock market is in a very precarious mood. We are far away, yet so close, and as the wind blows, we get closer. The jury is still out, and there are mixed opinions as to whether we have need to worry about our own health, especially on the west coast. Stay tuned, but listen closely, as the truth, as always, will be hard to find at first. The environmentalists will seize upon this to advance their agendas against all nuclear energy, the media will spin and toil to bring drama and personal editorializing to their reports, and the scientists will likely disagree or be influenced by the politics of the situation. It appears doubtful at this point in time that we are in danger here----keep close watch, but don't get out the gas mask or the iodide pills just yet. Perhaps we would be better advised to be better prepared for an earthquake of our own---I hear survival kits are becoming much more popular, as well as stocks of canned goods and water. According to seismatologists, California is due for their own big one within 30 years, and Washington state is also at high risk. Talk about living on the edge---the United States, and particularly the west coast, is woefully unprepared for such a catastrophe. Perhaps Japan's tragedy will be our wake up call.

In the meantime, there are other "big ones", that may not appear so threatening, but are as we speak, moving forward with great speed and possible earth shaking results of a different kind. Libya and other Arab countries are on the brink of turmoil and change---and not necessarily one which will benefit the United States. As one government falls, another will take or regain it's place, and the worry is always that either terrorist groups or anti-American regimes will gain further strength and control of the middle east. The question is---should we intervene to take control of their destiny, thereby affecting our own? Our president seems to be wrestling with the same question,regarding Libya and the defeat of Gaddafi, and to date has not made a decision, preferring instead to defer to the United Nations, even though France and Germany have given the green light. Having stated unequivocally that "Gaddhafi must go", Obama has not backed up his own ultimatum,leaving it to look like an empty threat, and many to wonder where his thoughts are and what the world must think of our leadership. Granted, the decision to lead by force in this situation is admittedly a hard one---who are our enemies versus our friends, and who best will protect our interests? The answers are not at all clear, but morally and consistent with our stated values, it would seem we should have stepped up without delay and protect those who are rebelling against a cruel, oppressive, and terrorist leaning dictator and losing their lives in the process. And why pose as defenders and protectors, then back off? Is the hesitation to decide one way or the other a lack of diplomatic experience on Obama's part, or is it his core belief that America should no longer lead, but follow according to the United Nations---and that we should be thought of only as a player on the world stage, not a leading country who will stand up for our security, values, and democracy---that, in his mind, would seem arrogant and bullying? It would seem Obama's vision of America is that we should assume a more humble posture to placate our enemies and become more magnanimous---- and less leaderly. It's difficult to know exactly what Obama is thinking, much less what his true compass is---but times like this are confounding even some of this staunchest supporters, who are stymied by his lack of follow up to statements and generally passive attitude regarding events in the middle east. It is becoming increasingly clear that we are in the hands of someone who has a decidedly different style of leadership---or lack thereof. And while we dither, Gaddhafi grins and dares to be taken down. Late breaking news at this moment informs that the U.N. has decided to take the dare---hopefully, it's not too late, as Gaddhafi has vehemently sworn to violently go after his opposition.

As events unfold both here and in the middle east, Japan's earthquake reminds us all that in the end, nothing much else matters, but life and loved ones. All other concerns seem trivial by comparison---yet life goes on and we must deal with all of it, knowing there isn't much we can do about natural disasters, except prepare, but much we can do as a people to remain healthy, strong, free, and productive. In the drama of human events, how much better to be a lead actor and example to the world, not simply a tired, spent, and timid nation, afraid to move for fear of political reprisal or world opinion. As our politicians threaten to shut down our government, due to their refusal to come to terms with our broken budget, one wonders where the leadership is and when and where the next crisis will come. Rahm Emanuel, once a member of Obama's cabinet and now the mayor of Chicago, once said at the beginning of Obama's presidency, "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste". He meant there was always political gain to be made during such times. It seemed like a nefarious statement at the time--now it seems more like a curse that needs to be undone. Prayer, anyone?

"The big one" in the future may not come in the form of an earthquake, but in the creeping ruin of a nation who once knew lofty greatness, the likes of which the world had never seen, but fell from grace---due to fear of heights, political gridlock, and a settling for back seat mediocrity. Prepare.

AS THE WORLD BURNS----HIDE OR HEED?

"You can run, but you can't hide", goes the old saying when things get tough. As gas prices soar, the stock market sinks, the middle east simmers in civil wars, and our government is threatening to shut down due to the budget crisis, don't you sometimes feel you need a vacation from it all? I've heard several say they simply refuse to watch their t.v. or read the newspapers any longer---too depressing and stressful. But do we dare turn our backs, close our eyes, and stick our heads in the sand? Well, it's tempting--- one wants to take a slow boat to China---uh, make that a fast plane to Tahiti or anywhere peaceful and cheap. No, forget Tahiti or even Hawaii--plane fares are rising along with the price of gas. How about Mexico, fun, warm and close by? Can you say drug cartels who take no prisoners---with no respect for the law? Yes, the resorts are quite safe, but who wants to support a country that can't afford its own citizens a decent living and continues to be intimidated by drug thugs? Well, at least we're not in Libya, where Ghadaffi seems to be winning the war against his own people quite handily by shooting them dead in the streets. Too bad we can't help them out, but that would seem over bearing and pushy, unless we can convince others to join us. Never mind that what they're fighting for is freedom, that it would be in our best interests to help bring that about, and that this dictator is out of oontrol, cruel, and sympathizes with terrorists. Our president and his administration have a different world view, which is that we should not appear to be the boss of the world. Obama's done a good job along those lines, as fewer and fewer people think of us that way---we're getting down right mediocre, unenviable---and unthreatening.Isn't that the way to be popular---not stand out so much, be nothing exceptional or special ---go along, to get along? Of course, that could mean we're now thought of as weak, indecisive, and vulnerable--- but oh well, perhaps that's the price of humility and being just one of the gang, instead of a confident leader. Let China do it for awhile. I'm sure they'll be happy to contribute to financially solving world problems and help other countries build their democracies. And it's doubtful they'll care whether the world loves them.

But before you hop on that plane, keep reading----vacuums are always filled---perhaps if it isn't China, it will be a one global government takeover---hm-m-m, haven't we heard this phrase before? It's been mentioned frequently by some very respected politician, as if they know it's inevitable. There are those who wish exactly that and those who think there are power brokers behind the scenes shaping such a world even now, as we naively stand by, thinking that all will work out eventually with or without our help. It is said that those in power count on most us not being truly informed, except for tiny bits of information which we are fed by Washington and the media---they are called "talking points" or news "bytes" and speeches are dumbed down to fit those quickie time slots of our attention. It's not that they think we are stupid or uneducated, it's that they think most of us don't take the time to delve deeper or care enough to stand up for our beliefs---after all, isn't it all "just politics" and the politicians' job to worry about the price of corn? And speaking of corn, did you know that now, by Obama's decree, and lobbied heavily by the EPA, all gasoline must have at least 15% ethanol in it? This means we get less mileage and higher gas prices---strange, but true--and not found on the front page or heard on t.v. much--nobody's complaining, because few people seem to know.

Another cause for worry and the worst case scenario is one that's floating around, but not spoken of much--too ridiculous and not at all conducive to polite, non controversial conversation---it's name is Shariah law, and is what some, not all, devout Muslims wish for not only in this country, but world wide. It is an Islamic faith based type of government in which everyone would adhere to very strict Islamic doctrinal laws, such as execution by stoning and the repression of women. Unlikely? Perhaps, but not all law and government power groups become so by noisy and violent arrival. Some come softly and stealthily, while no one suspects or conceives of the possibility. Does Nazi Germany come to mind?

And on a different and much more disturbing note, as this is being written, there is a congressional hearing being held in Washington D.C. regarding the danger of extreme Muslim Jihadist infiltration into our country via the radicalization of Muslims in America. Representative Peter King is leading this hearing, and is mostly being portrayed by the media as prejudiced and biased against all Muslims. That is probably no more true of Mr. King, than it is of the average American. We are a fair minded people, who welcome all faiths, cultures and ethnic groups, but we are also concerned about our security and perhaps this very real and present danger. The other issue is how long it has taken us to have the fortitude (or permission?) to even voice such a concern,as Mr. King brings. Right or wrong, he should have the right to offer it up for discussion and dismissal, or have it recognized as a serious concern. Kudos to Rep. King for courage. May we all weigh the facts with balance, tolerance, and fairness.

And so, as we enter springtime, when there is a thirst for peace and good will--- let us stay vigilant and present in the moment---even as we may wish to escape. As we watch our representatives refuse to seriously tackle the national budget, including our president,it is hard to think positively. Does anybody have what it takes to confront and solve unpopular issues? Enter Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin. Here's a man with uncommon valor, no matter whether you agree with him or not. He took a look at the state budget and decided that the unions had to kick in a little more and give up their collective bargaining rights or everyone was going to suffer with massive layoffs and higher taxes. By the way, this did not include the right to bargain for salaries, as was so infrequently reported by the press. Last night, in spite of the Democrat Senators' ploy to refuse to vote on this issue, the bill was passed by the Republicans. Amazing and laudable in this day of government shut-down threats, due to weak Washington officials who so far have only come up to a 65 billion reduction to our 14 trillion and growing deficit, and don't have the courage to do anything other than fight among themselves, like children instead of the wise and brave men and women we hoped they would be.

What to do about all the unrest and unpleasantness? Leave for greener pastures? Tune out? There are no greener pastures---we're as green as it gets, and some would say greener. Stay tuned in, read all sides of the issues, but don't believe everything you read, and keep the faith. This is the season of hope, and there is always that---but hope can only float for so long. Get involved, contact your local and national representatives, and dare to speak your mind---the dialogue of a nation depends on all of us talking, and must not be filled with only those bold enough to be heard. Take that slow boat to where ever, but bring along your Ipad---you'll need it to keep up, and keep up we must, or we may get left behind, as those who lead will assume we don't know or care to take the time to get involved---and we do, don't we??

Here's an idea---instead of grousing about the high price of gas, we could start with more voices demanding domestic oil drilling---then watch the price of gas go down, airline fares will follow, and even the civil wars in the middle east may be affected as they see we are not going to be so dependent on their oil,thereby allowing us to be more pure in our diplomatic connections with them. What a difference one bold action can make---are there any more Scott Walkers out there? Yes, I believe there are---they come from us,the people who elect them and give them voice--- but only if they hear yours first, loud and clear. Did I hear a t.v. click on-- or off??

FROM DUST TO DUST----ASH WEDNESDAY USHERS IN HOPE

Whether you believe our existence is the result of "the big bang" or the hand of God, we all pretty much agree we come from matter, a sort of universal dirt---and that eventually our parts wear out, and our bodies return to dust. Dying is a part of living, and eventually we all accept our fate---but every Spring, there is proof that it is possible, at least within the world of nature, for life to overcome death. It is encouraging and comforting, but still the controversy goes on between people who believe in the possibility of human resurrection and those who don't. If you look around about this time of year, you will find some who do, and they are known by a cross---not the kind worn around the neck, but on the forehead. What's up with that? They are wearing their faith for all to see, like a temporary tattoo, which is almost in your face and shocking in this day of political correctness, which frowns upon ever discussing religion, let alone one's own personal faith. But before you judge this tradition, and those who practice it, realize it is done, not so much to evangelize or promote, but as a sincere sign of humility, repentance, and connection to a long ago event. It is making a quiet, but profound statement in an otherwise almost taboo conversation. The more I see it, the more I love it--it bears witness to an old, old story.

The Christian faith uses spring as time of renewal and repentance for our sins. It is called the Lenten Season, and builds up to Easter, when the Christian faith is fully realized in celebration of the death and resurrection of a man called Jesus Christ. This is the core of the Christian faith, and though much is made of Christmas, it is Easter that gives such profound hope and meaning to those who call themselves Christian. But inherent in the joy of Easter, is a duty to recognize the high price that was paid in order for humanity to be saved. Saved from what? Ourselves, and our inability to re-connect after this life back to our Source. It seems something went terribly wrong and messed up the original divine plan--so plan B went into effect, and it was called Christ, Emmanuel, Savior of the world. Incredible story? A fairy tale? There are those who insist it is a grand embellishment and deification of a simple, but good man, who at most was possibly sent to be an example---forget the part of his rising after the third day of his death. Please--that would be an unforgettable miracle, and we all know miracles are rare and not at all scientific. Yet, miraculously,that story has lived on for over 2000 years. Rare.

Next Wednesday is called "Ash Wednesday", the official beginning of the Lenten season, which lasts for 40 days and symbolizes a banishment from God during that time. In recognition of this day, many Christians will go to their churches, and some will have a cross drawn on their foreheads in ash to emphasize the one thing Christians believe will free them from--- the literal hell of sin. That one thing is repentance, and it is the only price asked of us, in return for forgiveness of sin. What a quaint idea, sin. It is a word we joke about these days, but it is an inescapable part of the human condition. Charlie Sheen will tell you all about it, though he may not call itt hat, and we will watch sadly as his life pathetically falls apart because of it. He is not alone. We all know our own sins and those of the world we live in. Few Christians discuss their faith in public,fewer still discuss sin--but it is that which makes us human and which allows us to understand and forgive each other.

The Easter story is that once upon a time, a man called Christ, died on a cross for the sins of the world, so that we might have a second chance, a clean slate---a new springtime. When he died, some of his last words were requests of his God to forgive those who had unmercifully and unjustifiably crucified him. How very odd, and not at all human like. His final words were, according to Christian scripture, "It is finished". What was finished? His unbelievably selfless mission, and the completion of plan B. It was not only a triumph of good over evil, but Himself correcting the fatal flaw of humanity, which is our irresistable attraction to sin, and somehow finding a way to bring us home in spite of it. He promised to do just that, and Christians everywhere rejoice every Spring in that promise.

Well,that's quite a tall tale. Different faiths put different spins on it,but the main message still rings loud and clear down through the years-- it's not the cross, but the man who died on it, and why. Take it or leave it, it's the story of Easter. But before you dismiss it as child's play, give it yet another thought---especially at this time of year, when everything old becomes miraculously new again--and all of us could use a little hope for a better ending and a God who knows how to forgive and keep promises. And remember, there once was a time when we thought the world was flat---until we knew a little more.