TAKE NOTICE---A PRINCE, A PRINCESS, AND PERSPECTIVE

Have you ever noticed how some people seem to float through life with the greatest of ease---and others are constantly caught up in this drama or that trauma? What's the x factor, the thing that allows some to rise to or above challenges and pitfalls while so many seem barely able to survive what life throws at them. Is the ability to remain steadfast and even cheerful in the face of adversity a learned trait, or is one born with it? Studies show that while money certainly helps, it does not completely insulate from life's hard balls. So consider for a moment one young man's stellar, but not always happy journey and his happy "ending" ---so far.

This weekend we saw a prince marry a commoner in Great Britain. That used to be the stuff of fairy tales, and if done, not at all amusing---now it's a welcome sign of a more modern ,reasonable, and far more acceptable monarchy. Opinions and perspectives have changed. We remember Prince William as he marched with his younger brother and father behind his mother's casket 30 years ago and how sad he looked. We grieved with him and wondered if he would survive that tragedy. Would it define him, force him to see the world as an ugly, mean, and dangerous place---or would he manage to move on healthy and strong? Of course, he had many advantages, but still one wondered if the sadness would color his life and keep him from reaching his full potential. Would that we could all have the riches and entitlements that Prince William was born into, yet a recent poll found that human happiness does not come necessarily from wealth---much of it comes from intangible things--like good relationships, health, exercising, helping others---but falling in love tops the charts. All the world loves a lover, and the lover's world turns from black and white to vivid color over night. But everything is really the same---it's the beholder who has changed.

In the book, "The Noticer", by Andy Andrews, the author tries to show that it's all about one's perspective that can make the difference between a life spent struggling and complaining, or one which sails and soars in spite of one's circumstances. It all has to do with how you look at things, and whether you are noticing the right things at the right angle. The author used a character by the name of "Jones" to bring perspective to the lives of those living in a small town. Jones would show up out of nowhere and help a man about to commit suicide,a husband about to leave his wife, or a discouraged business man. In every case, Jones, who seemed to resemble a spiritual being,but without any obsequious mention of it, managed to adjust their vision, so that they began to see their lives differently. It has to do with values and attitudes, of course, but it was a good reminder that how we respond to events has much more importance than the events themselves.

At the end of the book, the author asks whether the reader has ever had a "Jones" in their life,someone to show them the way when inevitable darkness descends. I could not say that I had. But then I began to remember times in my life when there had been isolated incidents-- and one might say, a "Jones" appeared out of nowhere to help me find the way, or to look at the situation from outside my isolated lens. For me, they have usually been strangers, who once having come to my aid, have disappeared never to be seen again. There was the reputedly rude, uncaring cabbie in New York, who loaned me $3.00 for his fare, when I was dead broke as a young flight attendant, the unapproachable looking nun on a train in Italy who seemed to arrive out of thin air and showed my friends and me where to safely sit when we were totally confused, the overly friendly gentleman I was sure had ulterior motives, but who guided me through the of streets of Venice to my hotel when I was lost, and asked for nothing in return, a wise old window washer who spoke words of comfort to a pain I had buried and thought out of sight, until he addressed it quite out of the blue and lifted my spirits, and on and on, sign posts along my way, held by people I didn't notice or expect answers from until they helped me to find and to view things differently. Andy Andrews' message is that, contrary to what we have been told, it is the small stuff in life that matters---not the big job, the fancy car, the ideal marriage, the perfect children,etc. The woman who referred this book to me told me that it had changed her life. It did not change mine, but it reminded me to look at things from all sides, before locking into one view point.

I hope as I have been helped, I have been someone's Jones or simple sign post along their way. Could it be that's our real lesson, the thing we need to notice most? That what is the most important in this life is to take the focus off of self and direct our gaze at the beauty that is always there, the peace that floats all around us even in the midst of turmoil, the wisdom that is inherently deep inside for the tapping, and most importantly, the person in our life who may be in need of a different perspective---or a hug. Look around, take notice, and see beyond to a place called understanding--or heightened perspective. You will sometimes see it in the eyes of children---they have not yet been blinded by the abrasions of the world. You may also find it in the the very old---some lucky ones rediscover their sight again as they see the circle of life coming back around to complete their journey, and they finally gain a new appreciation which eluded them in their pre-occupied lives. That appreciation is a perspective free of what ifs, should haves, fear, pride, greed, or anxiety about the future---it doesn't agonize over the past, it moves forward, it forgives, it submits, it accepts what is,it changes what can be changed, it keeps trying, it bows gracefully and finally to fate, and it has faith in a higher power. It continually tweaks the cloudy prism through which we see, until we see, not up against, but beyond to clarity and hope . It shimmers with a knowledge that speaks to the soul, and silently whispers--- all will be well, be still, and see the light that shines even on the darkest days.

This weekend as the world watched Prince William marry his love, Kate, we felt what we all hunger for---a fairy tale love story and respite from all the dreary world news. May they live happily ever after and may we see if for just for a moment, an example of a perspective that perhaps we could not see when Princess Diane died, and everything about her and her family seemed dark and overwhelmingly sad ----that all things do indeed pass, and joy returns to live another day. While watching the royal couple today, as they settled into their horse drawn carriage, Princess Katherine, as she will be called from now on, turned to William and seemed to say, "Are you happy?" Smiling back at her, he seemed to be saying, "Yes, are you?" "Yes", she replied. And the world seemed to smile upon them. Long live the prince and his princess---and their new found happiness. And may they find the perspective to make it last---because even fairy tales don't always have final happy endings.

Now, no one has to remind me that the life of a prince is no proof that we can all rise above the adversities of a life more common--but this weekend's story book wedding was a shining example of triumph over sadness and happy re-beginnings. We kind of needed that, but we ordinary mortals also know that many of us suffer much worse difficulties than the prince---and still manage to overcome and live life to the fullest. I think of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who was shot by a would be assassin, and is battling her way back, perhaps never to be quite the same, but unwilling to give up. There are people in my own family who, against all odds, have come out the other side of tragedy, perhaps scarred, but stronger and smiling. The point is that the human spirit is an awesome thing, and if fed ,nurtured, and disciplined, it will see us through to the end---because the x factor is the soul that knows it is built to last, even without royal blood---or maybe because it is of the most royal of all.

EASTER BREAK and A TRUMP CARD TO PLAY!!!

I can't take it anymore---politics, that is. I used to enjoy it all, but it's getting curioser and scarier all the time. Now we have the S&P (Standard and Poor credit rating system) warning us that our credit is in jeopardy. No kidding---I'm surprised they haven't said so sooner. Maybe it's a conspiracy to keep us all dumbed down until it's too late. We're almost broke, and about to raise our debt ceiling into oblivion. No surprise either that Obama shook his oratorical finger at S&P for having the audacious nerve to announce this bit of unsettling news---just after his speech which was supposed to lift our spirits, and set the stage for his re-election. We're really in trouble if S&P or anyone else not directly under Obama's thumb must seek permission before speaking out to the public. Last time I checked, that is their job---unless we are becoming an ipso facto dictatorship. Perhaps that's too strong a term. So far, the most visible punishment to those who incur the presidential wrath is public humiliation, the latest victim ,that of Paul Ryan who was invited to Obama's ho-hum speech, only to be excoriated for his revolutionary 2012 budget proposal, while sitting in the front row. How dare he upstage the president---does he not get it? Obama won.

So, let's take a little break from it all---and decide to look at the bright side. Uh, where would that be exactly? We're in debt up to our eyebrows and no one is even going to want to loan us any more money. The USA is now thought of as a bad credit risk---sorry, Uncle Sam, but your debt to income ration is, well, in the tank. What does this mean? Will we have to go begging, print more money, or sell ourselves off to China and start learning to bow in more ways than one? We could all move to Denmark, as a suggested better place by one of our readers--but before long, I'm afraid we might start a revolution,because we wouldn't be able to stand the lack of variety and challenge. We need motivation, incentive, and risk. to be really good. It's called competition and without it, excellence usually takes a back seat to acceptablity or mediocrity.

But just when I'm craving peace and quiet-- along comes Donald Trump---yes, the Donald! Who in the Sam Hill does he think he is, anyway?? He's not a politician,at least in the strict sense of the word, and he's not even a community organizer. What he is, however, is a very successful business man, uncannily likeable, unless you don't like his hair cut and his swagger, but then a bit of swaggering often comes with earned confidence. He is also a celebrity of sorts, a sort of popular icon, due to his high profile business acumen, not to mention his TV show, "Celebrity Apprentice", and his relentless branding of the Trump name. Like him or not, Mr. Trump has now garnered a lot of attention and is one of the current poll favorites for a possible run as presidential nominee for the Republican party or possibly as an Independent. This man has Chutzpah--who else would dare to take Obama on as he has, bringing up the old birth issue and saying that Obama may be the worst president in history? If he's not careful, he could find himself sitting in the corner of the Obama classroom. Whether he has what it takes to be president or even a respectable nominee remains to be seen, but it makes for good political theatre, and is a refreshing break from the every day political predictability and constant media down playing of the Republican party. Donald Trump says we still have the power to make a come back if only we will assert ourselves by demanding higher paybacks from the Chinese and other governments with whom we do business. In other words, he's claiming that we still have the bigger stick, and we should use it, while we can, and not be so concerned with being thought of as big bossy Americans anymore. Interesting approach in this day of diplomatic ultra-nicey-niceness. Whether this brash man will be a wild card among the professionals and trump all, split the party ala Ross Perot, or simply be a 15 minute distraction, nobody knows just yet, but Mr. Donald Trump of "you're fired!" fame is all over the news, and his numbers are phenomenally climbing.

I once met the Donald at a charity ball. He is an imposing man, polite, and rather--- well, extra confident, but what did I expect? Mr. Trump does not believe in false modesty. We had a very short visit, but I gathered my nerve and suggested he use more women on his show, which at the time, was predominately populated by men. I'm not even remotely insinuating that that is why you now see an even number of both sexes on his show---I'm just sayin'. Anyway, I liked him---I still do. Anybody who has the courage to speak up against popular power and media slant, and has some new ideas, gets my attention---maybe not my vote, but definitely my attention. Who knows? Perhaps he'll even change that comb-over hair-do if he decides to run for president,and that could make all the difference. The temptation is to follow a man who acts like a leader; the caution is to make sure he isn't just acting.

So,as we prepare for an Easter week-end, may we pause to reflect on what we do have, rather than what we do not. One piece of very good news this week was that the oil disaster of last year turned out to not nearly as devastating as once thought---things are returning to normal quite nicely. The earth takes amazingly good care of itself, in spite of our dire predictions and over wrought concerns. Now let's get rid of the moratoriums, resume pumping our own oil--- and watch the price of gas go down. There is still time to work out our problems and become financially healthier. There is an election coming up, and we can still vote our minds. There is also the outside chance that luck will play a part in our destiny and either the present leaders will experience an epiphany moment and be blessed with uncommon wisdom, or someone will come along to lead us out of the wilderness. After all, it is Easter weekend.

President Obama, perhaps sensing the collective despair, seemed to "get religion" this week and spoke of Jesus Christ and how "there is something about the resurrection" and vaguely left it at that---not sure what he meant, but at least he was trying to infuse our spirits with a bit of inspiring spiritualism. Maybe that's our best hope for finding a brighter side---there's always room for a miracle, a re-birth, a salvation of a nation who at the moment seems terribly lost.

Easter is all about taking a break from the mundane, second chances, and realizing there is a much bigger picture, but we must not speak of it too freely in public places. There's a viral internet story going around about a Seattle school who, in the interest of secularity, re-named Easter eggs "Spring spheres"---how very self-consciously anti-religious. Guess we're above and beyond any kind of religious association as a nation---much too sophomoric--- and certainly asking for heavenly help these days would be seen as weak, but I'm grateful that every presidential speech, including Obama's, still ends with "God bless the United States of America"---I hope He's listening. But I wonder how long before somebody removes that phrase from our speeches---and replaces it with, "May the Force be with us", or "May we get really, really lucky".

Have a happy Easter--may your proverbial cup of joy over floweth, and may your baskets be filled with lots of colorful, spring spheres!!!

OBAMA'S VISION---TO FIX, TRANSFORM---OR GET RE-ELECTED??

So now the real budget battle begins---President Obama threw down his first gauntlet last week, as he gave a speech, which was strangely timed right after the conciliatory, 2011 budget agreement the week before. Not to be undone or outshone by Paul Ryan,author of the new sweeping Republican budget proposal, Obama finally came out fighting, and made it clear he's in the hunt this time, big time. Perhaps feeling, it was time to shut Ryan up or down before it gets out of hand and people actually start listening to it, the president presented an outline of his budget proposal, which in comparison to Ryan's is tepid at best, and which will never pass the House. At the same time, he tried to come across as a centrist, referring to Lincoln and Reagan, as reasonable and compromising men and even talked about "rugged individualism". Really? But as he gathered steam and hit his stride, the truth became clear---he does not believe in a smaller government----especially not now," as long as I am President". It was a confusing speech, designed to present himself as a believer in a traditional America, where independence and free markets rule, yet trumping all of that with the umbrella of a more expansive and expensive government budget--- needing, demanding more of its citizens' income---especially the "wealthiest among us". Of course, he also talked about eliminating some discretionary spending in domestic programs, cutting back on military spending, and how his healthcare plan will help reduce the budget. His overall budget would cut 4 trillion from the budget in 12 years. However, there were, notably and regretfully, very few specifics on how all this could possibly achieve enough reduction in the budget to make up the monstrous deficit and continued spending. And he knows it.

Obama is betting on taking a softer approach in hopes that the people of this country are too reluctant or ill informed to do more, even if it means disaster in the future for us and our children. He knows very well that more dramatic steps need to be taken in order to rescue us from financial disaster, but with the second biggest election of his life approaching in 2012, he is not about to rock the boat with massive entitlement cuts. He's gambling that the old "soak the rich" refrain will play better with the masses, and that the Republican/Ryan plan will be viewed as the machete wielding, evil, and uncaring enemy of his more "socially responsible" vision of an America. Casting himself as the guardian of all that he claims we hold near and dear, namely medicare, medicaid ,education, cleaner energy, and scientific research, not to mention our security, though that will be trimmed, Obama wants to have it both ways----be the generous benefactor (by spending for all of the above), yet mentions no specific ways to generate the cash---except for vague references to some minimal cutting, and higher taxes, especially for the rich, who will probably find other ways to structure their income, in order to avoid being taxed to the hilt. According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, which quoted figures from the IRS income tax statistics for 2008(the most recent year for available data), the top 10% of income earners already pay 69% of all total income taxes. The top 1% (earning over $380,000.00) pay 38% of their income to taxes. President Obama said they should be expected to pay a little bit more--how much more is fair?

In the meantime, the Ryan bill, which claims to cut the federal budget by over 6 trillion in 10 years, mostly by making drastic changes to medicare and medicaid, has passed the House, and though it will never pass the Senate, at least it's a starting point for the Republicans and a clear signal that they are sincere about actually wanting to do something major and bold to fix the sick state of our economy and not just apply band aids of rhetoric and ineffective cuts.

President Obama's poll numbers are once again slipping into the 40's, perhaps a sign that Americans are more than a little concerned. And while he may think that his vision of America is what all of us, or even a majority of us share,he may have under estimated our zeal and passion for independence from an over powering, over taxing government. And while we may value health care, education, scientific research, and welfare needs for the truly needy, we do not wish to sell our souls in order to be kept by a "big brother" government---or as some might call it a "nanny state". As much as Obama tries to portray himself as in alignment with our founding fathers, he is hardly that. His own choice of words, such as "progressive", "investments", and "personal sacrifices" reveal that he and his followers believe in quite a different America---one in which government is central to the lives of its citizens---or put bluntly, they believe in Socialism, or a close version of it. It would be far more admirable for Obama and his ilk to admit this, than to deny and shroud their purposes, for there are those who believe as they do, and would like to come out of the closet; and those of us who do not, are not fooled.

And so, the battle begins for the future of this country---who knew it would come down to a budget and not a philosophical debate? But,entitlement programs cost money---lots of it, and so we must decide how much of our money we are willing to spend in order to support everyone, and yes, how much we are willing to demand of others to give to support all of us.

There is an angst, a sorrow, and almost palpable mourning going on in this country for those who feel its very foundation and underpinnings are slowly being dismantled, piece by wrenching piece, in order to make way for a new America---one in which her greatness will only be a memory, but one in which the new way will be to take care of everyone's basic needs first. A truly lovely idea. The problem, of course, is that there is nothing new about this "new" way. It has unfortunately been tried, tested, and overthrown or discarded many times by other countries---even China, after many years of communism, is reveling in its new capitalistic freedoms. And closer to home, one only needs to look at Europe and its crumbling financial structure. We were actually the "new" way of doing things. Nowhere and at any time has there ever been a country as successful as ours, as strong, or as rich.

The coming months and next election will determine who and what we will choose to be--the choice for a debt free and robust economy should be clear, but the path is not. President Obama would have us believe that we can keep spending and taxing. That's not sustainable, and we all instinctively know it. We cannot keep spending and hoping that taxes are the answer. We'll either run out of rich people, they'll run out of money---or out of town. Consequently, sooner or later, the middle class will have to take on most of the burden. The other approach is to cut until it hurts and we return to a more balanced budget---but then, there's at least a chance we'll recover. Take your choice. This is getting serious---Obama may have an election to win or lose, but our stakes are much higher---we have a country which is in profound trouble. In the days to come, we need more specifics from President Obama, as to how his plan will work towards a long term fix, or will he simply put off what will need to be done later. Ryan's plan is more extreme, but at least recognizes the size and scope of the problem and offers possible solutions. There appears to be no easy cure , and much has to do with ideology and agendas---so we all must enter into what is sure to become the next great national conversation, and be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices.

A president's vision is only as valid as the people who stare back at him---may we let him know what we see, and may we somehow manage to merge our differing visions and rise up---leaner, wiser, but not transformed beyond recognition.

FOLLOW THE MONEY-----UNTIL IT'S GONE

Money makes the world go round,but in the case of the national budget---it may be the reason the United States government will not go much at all and may ,in fact,shut down. Unless the Republicans and the Democrats can come to terms with each other by midnight Friday night,consider us closed for repairs. Faced with a horrendous debt overload of over 14 trillion dollars, something has to be done---but where, who, and what? The Dems have timidly offered 30 billion in cuts, and initially, the Republicans offered 65 billion---both a mere pittance, and hardly a demonstration of leadership from either party. But, hey---election year is coming soon, and neither party wants to be the punching bag and hated villian for the other. It's politics as usual, even as our ship is sinking---does anyone have the courage to do something besides bail water with a hat, while the waves of bankruptcy loom in the horizon?

At this point in time, the two party representatives are still behind closed doors, quibbling over a few billion dollars---none of which is going to make a whole lot of difference. The budget needs a complete overhaul, whether by spending less, or taxing more; and here's the kicker--- this is just for openers---the real battle lies ahead, as we shall discuss later. Obama seems to have stepped away from this one, leaving the dirty work to his senate soldiers, and admonishing both members of congress to behave like adults. May I remind the president once again, that he is not our father, and congressmen and women are not his children. Perhaps Mr. Obama should decide to get his hands dirty and enter the "sausage making" debate, rise above both party's ideologies and lead us away from shut downs, political threats, and inevitable bankruptcy. But that could mean big compromises, which could mean political suicide, and Obama is not about to become a loser. As he once said, "I won", and he intends to keep it that way.

In the meantime, however, along comes Paul Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee, who yesterday unveiled a new plan for 2012 ---one which would cut the budget, not by a few billion, but over 6 trillion! Of course, the Dems went apoplectic before the plan was even rolled out, accusing Ryan and the Republicans of all manner of viciousness and draconian measures. But, unbelievably, this plan is out there, standing bravely and brashly, election or not---predicated on the hope and presumption that Americans are ready to at least listen to a possible solution, a path out of the wilderness of unsustainable debt,hard core though it may be. A huge gamble for the Republicans,it will mean a dramatic overhaul of our Medicare and Medicaid system---but that's where many say the main hemorraging of the budget is located. It will also mean that we will have to take more responsibility for our own health needs--what a concept! Will it work? And most importantly---will the American public go for this extreme and audacious plan? Or will we once again, succumb to the easy "kick the can down the road" game, and be lulled back to sleep by the groans and moans of the Democrats, who insist we must keep spending to stay afloat. We shall see---but for now, we are in limbo, as both parties posture, pull, and politic over billions, instead of the trillions needed to make a significant difference. Kudos to Paul Ryan for exhibiting uncommon valor and bracing truth in a political world of mostly smoke and mirrors.

It is disappointing that so much of our lives depend on the whims of political sway, and so much of what comes out of Washington is influenced by partisanship, not real solutions. But in the case of this budget crisis and the future battles ahead, there is much more profound issues at stake that transcend mere budgetary concerns. It has to do with the core differences between the two parties, and they are glaring and more polarizing than what this country has seen in a very long time. When taken down to the bare bones of it all, the Republican party believes in cutting the deficit by reducing the size of government and entitlement programs, and the Dems will never be convinced that anything other than more and higher taxing is the only way to run a country. One party believes in individual, self-supporting people allowed and expected to care for their own needs; the other believing the government should play a much larger role in caring for the peoples' basic needs. Somewhere there must be a balance, which is why we all believe in our two party system--we are not inclined to left or right extremism. As we wait for this current budget crisis to reach a compromise, we will see what awaits in 2012, when the going will get much tougher---and we get much closer to economic disaster . Some are predicting that this country will not survive past 2037 if we don't come up with some serious solutions soon. That is a more than a sobering thought---one that should give all of us pause and reason to perhaps do more than just observe.

For those who think higher taxes for the rich, is the answer---math and data show that there are not enough rich people to close the huge gap between what it takes to run our ever burgeoning government and what such taxes would bring in--- therefore the bulk of taxes to pay for all the government expense would come from the middle class---another sobering thought,as we consider that much of our earnings will be taken just to run the government. For those who think we should dramatically cut and change our current system---good luck. Change will not come easily or be all one sided---but come it must, if we are to survive and thrive. Don't necessarily pick a side--but do look at what's happening and vote your conscience and your informed mind. It isn't just about donkeys, elephants, tea parties or unions---it's all about us and how we want to live--with more freedom or more entitlements.

Money may make the world go round, but there's only so much to go around---do we want to become a "nanny state" where the government takes more and more of our money to care of more and more of us and our needs, or be allowed to keep more of what we make, and in turn create more revenue for the government? Do we want to "spread the wealth" by taking from those who made it? And is that moral? Or do we believe that it is immoral for a few to have so much more than so many others? Are we a nation or a "family"? Those are the ultimate questions---and one which we will be forced to come to terms with in the very near future. They have been asked before--and answered before by other countries. The spectre of Europe and their failing economies hover and haunt as examples of welfare gone to extremes. As we struggle to find our balance and our compromise with each other,the future of this nation is in great jeopardy---will we rise again, or will we drown as we pull each down into the riptides of disagreement and irreconciliable differences?

For now, we all wait to see what a handful of politicians decide regarding how our money should be spent or not. Ironically, we're close to broke, and yet the argument continues as to whether to spend more or less.

These are perilous times for the United States of America, and perhaps a wake up call to all of us that thought we could just "leave things to the politicians". But where to start? Follow the money? How about follow the leader---if only we had one. Keep your eye on Paul Ryan and those like him who will risk their careers to speak the harsh truth of reality. No more money, honey---time to get tough, as the clock ticks toward midnight.

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.