Don't Tread on Me, But I'm Gonna Tread on You

You knew I was going to blog about this, didn't you?

A large, angry Rand Paul supporter (along with his tea party co-horts) assaulted a MoveOn.org activist and stepped on her head. Here's the video.

No, I don't think all Tea Partiers are violent. But should we be surprised this happened given the rhetoric about "feeding the tree of liberty with blood" and invoking "second amendment remedies."

The a-hole who did this says the video takes his actions out of context. Really? In what context would it be OK for a man to hold a woman down and step on her head for disagreeing with him and having the nerve to say it out loud. Maybe in the long-lost good old days of 1789 that would have been fine. But in 2010, it's actually a crime. Have fun in prison!

Watching him stomp on this woman, I can feel his hatred of her permeating off the screen. She had no weapon, she made no threats. She just wanted her dissenting POV to be seen and heard. So they held her down and stepped on her. And this is the party that thinks the federal government is oppressive? What's it going to be like if these yahoos get elected?

Rand Paul's reaction has been slow, but he finally did condemn the actions. Thanks, Rand. Big of ya, Rand.

With the hateful, inciting rhetoric we have heard this election season, I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't happened more. This is what happens to people who live in a democracy who are told that if they don't win at the polls, they have the right to become violent. And that's what these boneheads have been told. They think they are part of a revolution when actually, they are part of an election campaign.

Allow me to respond to this bullying by saying, "Hey, don't tread on me (or anyone else) you bone-headed, ignorant, woman-abusing, unChristlike coward."

The federal government may be big, and at times inefficient, but it never beat me up and stepped on my head.

Buy Your Stock in Hostess and Frito Lay Immediately!

Who is winning the war on drugs?

Drug cartels.

This is a really interesting and timely article about the legalizing of marijuana. From an economic standpoint, there is a lot of upside to legalizing pot.

We will reduce the costs of law enforcement, prosecutions, incarceration, and prison construction. And we will generate revenue by taxing it.

From a health standpoint, we will regulate the strength (THC levels).

Read the article to see what I mean.

Pot is not as harmful to the body as either alcohol or cigarettes - two vices that are already legal.

Yet we continue to keep marijuana illegal because, wait, why is that again? Habit? Fear? How about ignorance.

Famous economists have analyzed the drug war failure and concluded that by keeping drugs illegal, we are basically just helping the drug cartels maintain a monopoly and get really rich.

What would happen to the Mexican drug war if America legalized drugs? It would virtually stop in its tracks. It is the illegality that leads to the violence, underworld nature of the business. Just look at our history of prohibition in the US.

Legalizing and legitimizing the marijuana growing, processing, and selling businesses would transform a huge part of the drug underworld into an above-board endeavor that
contributes to society rather than costing us billions in tax dollars.

If you're squeamish about legalizing pot, let me ask you this: Do you drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? What is really the difference?

If you don't drink or smoke, and you are resistant to legalizing another vice, think about this: Should every vice be a crime? Particularly vices that are relatively inexpensive and mostly lead to people becoming more mellow and craving junk food?

I'm not necessarily advocating taking up the toking habit. I am advocating that we stop pretending that smoking pot is some evil, deadly activity when it is not as dangerous as many things we see and do every day. And I am hoping that we can recognize both the bad economic effects of keeping it illegal and the good economic possibilities of legalization.

The up side of this far outweighs the potential downside IMO. So let me know if you're on board. And pass the Cheetos.

The Mad Haters' Tea Party

My mind was wondering around aimlessly today when it formed the name "Mad Hater" and immediately, I pictured NY Senate candidate Paladino.

It then occurred to me that some of the hateful innuendo - and overt statements - made by Tea Partiers really did make this year's election a Mad Haters' Tea Party.

We are told the Tea Party has emerged because people are "angry" about how government works, or doesn't work.

Fine. But what is the Tea Party angry about?

Deficits? Where were they for the 8 years when W ran 2 wars without even trying to pay for them? I didn't see any tea bags stapled to John Deer hats from 2000-2008. And did you know that the budget deficit for the last fiscal year was 8% lower than the prior year? So, we are actually reducing the deficit while we ended combat in Iraq and have scheduled the end of combat in Afghanistan.

And bail-outs? Did you know that the bank bailouts will likely result in the US government actually making money? Most of it is paid back already. The last bit is being paid in stock which can be sold over time - for a profit. And the auto bailouts: saved thousands of jobs and will also be paid back. Plus, the taxes on income and car sales are additional revenue that resulted directly from the auto bailout. All in all - both winning policies.

Big government and entitlements? When the mostly white, older Tea Partiers sign up to give up their Medicare and Social Security, I'll believe they're serious. Until then, they're just a bunch of hypocrites. What I hear and see are demands to "Keep You Government Hands Off My medicare!" Riiiiiiight.

Yup. They're mad alright. Mad as a hatter.

They believe that taxes are the highest ever when in fact they are the lowest they've been in more than half a century. (While fighting 2 wars, mind you.) They actually think their taxes have gone up since 2008 even though they actually have gone down.

They think crazy stuff like: the President is a Muslim sleeper agent; the President is a socialist; the President was born in Kenya; the President wants to destroy America. (Weird how everything is about him.)

They think gays shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military, get married to each other, adopt children, or teach school. Just because they are gay. And they think gay is icky.

They think the Civil Rights laws are bad and the Constitution should be applied as intended when written, which means segregation - by race and gender - will be right back in style in these lovely Tea Party communities. Does that give you a warm feeling all over? It gives me the shivers.

They think public schools are a waste of money, so if you cannot afford private school, good luck to ya. (Hope you can read this.)

They think we should exchange chickens for health care (though this Tea Partier did lose).

They don't think there should be separation of church and state, so if you're Mormon in Alabama, Jewish in Wyoming, or Muslim anywhere, you better learn to pray with your shudders closed.

And this may be my favorite: they want to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Wow. Could they be more misogynistic? I doubt it.

What I do not understand is why the media treats these crack-pots extremeists like legitimate candidates with legitimate points of view. Can they say any crazy thing and still be taken seriously? Even Karl Rove makes fun of them and he's on their side!

When that Buck guy from Colorado was on Meet the Press Sunday, he was asked whether he believed homosexuality was a choice? He said yes. He was asked what he based that on and he stammered around and admitted that maybe there was some inborn tendency, like alcoholism, but that ultimately, it was a choice. (So, short answer, based on his own uninformed opinion.) There is actual science on this issue. Had David Gregory not been such a sycophantic cupcake, he would have cited scientific studies, and opinions of known scientists to the contrary, and shown Buck for what he is: a guy who thinks gay is icky because his Bible told him so. And then he should have asked: "So, Mr. Buck, when did you choose to be straight?" Buck has a right to his POV, but shouldn't intelligent people in the media try to show what, if anything, that POV is based on?

[It isn't liberal to expect more than front porch philosophy and Sunday School dogma from politicians. It is the job of the media to press on these issues. The Tea Party is taken seriously because the media has taken them seriously rather than debunk them the way it is supposed to.]

IMO, for a lot of Tea Partiers, their anger is about people of other than European heritage playing a larger role in American society, including in the White House. That is the America of the future. The Tea partiers are not going to stop the change that is coming by unravelling 100 years of racial, sociological and cultural progress. But they are going to try.

Yes, they want to "take our country back." They want to take our country back to 1789. Research your history. 1789 sucked.

It's Really About the Condom-ints

In Vermont, Devin McLaughlin sued the local Burger King claiming he bit into a Whopper and found himself chewing on an unwrapped condom.

OK. This story is weird. First - EW! Because I know you all immediately wondered, "Does "unwrapped" mean "used?" Answer: Apparently not.

Second, he CLAIMS he bit into a clean condom that some jerk at BK apparently thought would be funny to put on his burger. So? Admittedly the a$$ who put the condom there (if it happened) should be fired. But, frankly, I'm not sure this even happened.

Third, are there no car accidents and DUI cases in Vermont that some moron lawyer actually agreed to take this case? How was he damaged? He's not he first guy to taste latex. Get over it.

But most importantly, this blog is about the clever comments below the article.

"Maybe next time he should order his burger plain....no condom-ints.............."

"Don't lie you bit into a condom and found a disgusting whopper inside :)"

"Why put a condom in a Whopper? To prevent a Whopper Junior, of course..... Do you want fries with that?"

I thought these were hysterical. LOL

Do you have a clever comment about this rubber maybe burger muncher?

Who Is John Gault? Really!

Some of you who are more conservative than I am might have read my Bio and then some of my blogs and thought I was making that Ayn Rand thing up. Nope. I understand her POV (I think) and it definitely changed how I view the world. But I think a lot of other people don't really understand very well at all.

That first paragraph sounds kind of obnoxious. Let me re-phrase. This is how I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

(1) The world of her novels is extreme and unrealistic. The world is not divided into a small percentage of capable "makers" and faceless mobs of parasitic "takers." It just isn't. Most of us are willing to work for what we get even if we do carry with us a sense of entitlement that others may not agree with.

(2) The books are not about campaigning to deprive those we think of an "undeserving." In fact, the protagonists in the books simply work around the "takers" to accomplish what they are driven to pursue. Their disdain may be apparent, but our heroes do not leave industry to undertake politics in order to make sure people they think are undeserving do not receive any benefit. They do their work and reap their rewards. The welfare of the "takers" is simply not their concern. Indeed, in Atlas Shrugged, they just leave the "takers" behind and form their own community. (Oops! Spoiler alert!)

(3) Not all "takers" are lazy and unproductive. If the books teach us one thing, it is that some of the most parasitic people are the ones that have high titles and much claimed accomplishment. And unless you are following them closely and know their secrets, you cannot know the truth of this in the real world.

(4) Not all "makers" are successful and wealthy. In the Rand-world, I refer to Roark. It's hard to name real world example because they are unknown. But don't we all think they exist?

(5) Ayn Rand suffered from a little self-loathing if she thinks a woman in her right mind will fall in love with the man who raped her.

When I read these books, they gave me a way to put context around the way I view myself and the way I view others. But I don't view people as "makers" and "takers." I try to see people not as what they have done, but as what they are capable of doing. Admittedly, I put the books through my own filter. But don't we all? It's just that to me, the thing that separates a maker from a taker, a self-sufficient, deserving person from a parasitic, undeserving person, is not what the person accomplishes, but what the person accomplishes with the tools and opportunities available to him (or her).

Someone who grows up in abject poverty and who spends his or her childhood dodging bullets in the streets simply may not be capable of getting into and graduating from Harvard business school without some help, no matter how smart. Does that help make that person a "parasite?" Or more to the point, do we just give up on that person ever being more than a statistic unless he or she is able to overcome such humble beginnings? Not to me. IMO, that person - every person - should get a little assistance to help him or her achieve full potential.

On the flip side, someone who grows up well off, goes to the best private schools, and ends up masterminding a massive Ponzi scheme, bilking people out of millions of dollars is the ultimate "taker" because he has simply ignored what he is capable of doing - through honest, real work - and stolen from people.

It's not a double standard. If the person who gets help to reach his potential runs Ponzi schemes, he is a thieving taker too. And if that wealthy privileged person works and does honest business, he is our Rand hero.

But is goes further than obeying the law, doesn't it? Consider Donald Trump. Mr. Trump is not a thief or a crook as far as I know, but he has used Bankruptcy with numerous of his companies to build his empire. When he would overextend on a project, he would bankrupt that project, to protect his other successful ones, and just keep going. But what about the creditors who lost millions because he didn't pay them back? He could have. He has the money. But he had a legal way to avoid paying his way, so he did. TAKER, not MAKER. That is not what any Rand hero would do.

Lots of liberal don't like Ayn Rand because of how her philosophy has been used to support a war on the poor. And it definitely has: eliminate the minimum wage, no more unemployment benefits, end medicare, etc. But these class warriors leaning on Ayn Rand have completely missed the point: A Rand hero will always pay workers what they are actually worth, because to not do so would be to take something undeserved. A Rand hero will not lie, cheat, or steal to make a profit, because that would render the gain undeserved. A Rand hero would not dump pollutants in rivers and release poisons into the air because that is stealing as well. Unless and until American industries start behaving like Rand heros - doing their part honestly and only taking what they deserve - it is simply hypocrisy run amuck to ask and expect the working (or unemployed) poor to buck up and be the perfect Randian soldiers.

Bottom line: Rand's books are compelling and interesting. They sure make us think. But her novels no more reflect the real world than Alice in Wonderland or the Harry Potter stories. It's fun to discuss and argue about, even take away some lessons. But we really should not pretend that any group or person in this country exemplifies the traits of the "maker" hero. I've never seen it. And neither have you.

The Real "Bully" Pulpit

This is Boyd Packer of the LDS Church who recently made comments about homosexuality. He is likely the next leader of that church. Elder Packer spoke of homosexual tendencies saying, "Some suppose that they were pre- set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.”

(I include this as merely an example (and not to single out the LDS church from others) because it happened recently and was easy to find, and also because I live in Utah and this is the predominant faith in my community. Virtually every Christian denomination, not to mention other faiths, can take responsibility for its leaders making similar statements in recent times.)

All of the recent (and some not-so-recent) efforts to reach out to bullied youth, especially gay and perceived to be gay youth, to prevent suicides are laudable. I enthusiastically support these efforts and hope you do too.Counseling bullied young people is a great thing. Stopping bullies is great too. But what if we stopped telling them who to target in the first place?

In this country there are high-profile and influential people who say hateful, bullying, things on TV, on the radio and in churches that give license to bullies and indeed, teach the bullies who to target.

Do I need to post the hateful anti-gay statements for you to know what and who I mean? Well, I'm not going to. Partly because it's sickening. And partly because it's not really what my blog is about. No doubt, they are part of the problem. But many of us can point that out and say, "That's wrong! It's cruel and mean!" It's the nice bigots I'm talking about today.

Rhetoric doesn't have to be "hateful" in the conventional sense to be oppressive and bullying. In fact, when protesters gathered in response to Mr. Packer's statements, this is what the LDS church said:

“Of course, the Church recognizes the right of groups to voice their opinion in the public square. However, those familiar with the Church’s doctrine on the importance of marriage and family know it is based on principles of respect and love for all of God’s children. We have continually emphasized that there is no room in this discussion for hatred or mistreatment of anyone.”


I've heard it all my life: "Hate the sin but love the sinner." But is it "loving" to campaign to deny that person you consider a sinner the same legal rights you enjoy? And what Mr Packer did was basically call homosexuality sinful and perverted. His words were "impure" (i.e. sinful) and "unnatural" (i.e. perverted). That's not love; it's bigotry, and it's a form of hate no matter how much you smile and say it isn't. It's hate no matter how much you apologize that it's just that way "because God said so." It's still hate, even if you say God created it.

One religious person I know said she loved her friend who is gay even if his lifestyle is sinful and she cannot condone it. Well, I'm sure he's grateful for that begrudging affection. Moreover, did he ask her to condone his lifestyle? I didn't find out.

And why was she even referring to his "lifestyle." Doesn't she mean "sex life?" I'm sure she's not concerned with whether he wears black or oxblood colored dress shoes, or if he prefers the mambo to the cha-cha, or if he prefers BMW to Audi, or if he prefers Italian to Mexican food. She's judging his sex life.

When churches of any denomination condemn "the homosexual lifestyle," they are really saying that gay sex is immoral because it involves two people of the same gender. If they were platonic roommates, would anyone care? And, these same churches say, because gay sex is immoral, gay people should not be allowed to marry one another or have protection from being fired or be allowed to adopt children or have their partners on their health insurance or whatever else they are trying to do to discriminate. The list is long. All because they are uncomfortable imagining someone else's sex life. Here's a clue - stop worrying about it and mind your own damn business!

[Without dissecting them in detail, I think we all agree that there are many common sexual practices engaged in by gay couples and straight couples alike. So does that mean straight people who engage in those activities are also engaging in an "immoral lifestyle?" Should we prevent them from marrying and adopting too? Or is it simply the absence of a single sexual act that renders gay sex "immoral?" (I really did not intend to take this route. I just ended up here. Don't worry. I'm almost done.) Is this starting to seem silly? That's my point! It is silly! Because it really comes down to condemning people because of their private sexual behavior, behavior that most people are loathe to disclose even to their doctor. It's private! No one judges - or even speculates about - the freaky stuff heterosexual married couples might do with each other, but apparently, these dirty-minded religious people cannot help but judge the imagined "deviance" of same-sex couples. It's stupid.]

More importantly, IMO, condemning the "gay lifestyle" as immoral makes no more sense than condemning the "left-handed lifestyle" or the "redheaded lifestyle" as immoral. People are born what they are. Morally condemning homosexuality from the pulpit or the floor of the US Senate or House of Representatives is bullying just the same as shoving that young gay man into a locker or making a spectacle of him on the internet. Just because it's said from a pulpit, or by an adult, or while wearing a suit doesn't change what it is: oppression of those who are different and the abuse of power to inflict pain and suffering. Like I said - bullying.

As for those of you who insist that homosexuality is a choice, I say this: same argument applies. Mind your own damn business! It's a free society! People should have the right to love whom they choose without fear of reprisals or repercussions.

Is it ironic or merely sad that in this society, there is often less condemnation for hating the "right people" than there is for loving the "wrong people?"

My Sister Asked Me to Write This

You have probably seen this in the news by now. In rural Obion County Tennessee, the fire department refused to assist a family whose home was burning to the ground because they forgot to pay the $75 annual service fee.

Being outside the city limits, the Cranicks were required to pay a fee of $75 each year to subscribe to fire-fighting services. They forgot. They had a fire. The fire department refused to come help. They lost everything.

This is absurd.

Absurdity No. 1 - No one disputes that he should have paid the fee, not even Cranick. But he offered to pay "whatever it took," to get help. They still refused. Commentator Smirconish suggested that the fire department should have responded and then put a lien on the home for the costs of the fire-fighting services. What a good and rational idea. Instead, they wanted to teach the Cranicks a lesson I guess. Well, lesson learned: In Obion County, Tennessee, principles and fees are more important that people or their homes. What a great lesson.

Absurdity No. 2 - This is what happens when you start privatizing everything. Do you know why we have speed limits? For everyone's safety because some people would drive at top speed everywhere, safety be damned. Know why we have taxes imposed and services provided, so this crap doesn't happen. How much easier - and more rational - would it have been to just assess everyone the $75 every year and then provide fire services to them all? Simple!! So why wasn't it done this way? Because of people's stupid, irrational obsessions with preferring privatizing everything. I call BS on that. It's stupid. As evidenced by the photo above.

Absurdity No. 3 - The Cranicks knew that in past years, people were given fire fighting assistance and allowed to pay the annual service fee the next day. You can see how "forgetting" to pay would be easier when you can simply pay after you need the service. I wonder if the residents of Obion County were given notice that NO fire service would be provided - and no opportunity to pay the fee after the due date - if the fee was not timely paid. Shouldn't people know the consequences of their acts and omissions prior to taking a step forward? They already had an expectation that they could get help if they needed. Were they informed of the change? It seems not. (For more details about what the Cranicks experienced, google the video interviews of Mr. Cranick with Keith Olbermann.

Absurdity No. 4 - This is what happens when people put "being right" ahead of "doing the right thing." Of course, they didn't pay the fee, so the fire department was "right" that they had no obligation to help the Cranicks. But does anyone dispute that ignoring their neighbor's cry for help was NOT the "right thing to do?" As adults, we (hopefully) learn the difference and try to put aside our egos and do the right thing. I wish, for the sake of the Cranicks, that the Obion County fire department had been able to act like adults.

The Cranicks lost everything: 3 dogs, a cat, all of their clothes and belongings. Everything. Is that the proper consequence for forgetting to pay a $75 fee?

Oh, and if the loss of everything was not enough, Mr. Cranick gets mocked on Glenn Beck's radio show here.

Good Mormon Glenn Beck mocks compassion (while his co-host mocks all southerners) and argues that it's all about the $75. He must think we're stupid. There are more alternatives than voluntarily paying to get protection OR not paying and getting no protection. (1) Assess the fee to everyone and everyone gets fire service. (2) Save the house and place a lien on the house for the cost, or the fee. (3) Save the house and then sue the guy for the money. I could go on, but you get it. With all of these reasonable scenarios, the house gets saved and Cranick is held responsible. It is not either/or!

Moreover, Beck makes some weird parallel to "Obama Care" claiming that "Obama Care" is like putting out the fire without requiring the fee. Well, now he's not just being stupid, he's outright lying. The Health Care Reform law requires everyone (or almost everyone) to purchase health insurance. That's the fee. Indeed, the mandate forces personal responsibility where none was required before.

If the service fee in Obion County had been mandated, I would not be writing this particular blog and Mr. Cranick would likely still have a home, 3 dogs, and a cat.

So you tell me: What world do you want to live in? The one where everything is privatized and people risk losing everything with a small omission? Or the one where there are safety nets for people (which are paid for by assessments and taxes)? And be honest. If you have ever relied on the police, fire department, FEMA, or the VA, or if you have ever benefited from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability or WIC, you know that government safety nets can literally save lives. And it can be done in a way to requires personal responsibility.

Remains of the Day

Today, the Supremes declined to hear the appeal of some of the families of 9/11 victims who have sued New York City because they believe that some amount of human remains - their relatives' human remains - have been dumped in a landfill and not "properly" buried.

A lower federal court found the city had handled things properly by searching for human remains and personal belongings in the rubble prior to disposing of it in the landfill. The families of 1100 victims have been provided with NO remains to bury, despite these efforts. The families also insist that 223,000 tons of materials was not "sifted" prior to it being dumped.

As with any circumstance, we are presented here with legal issues and moral issues, some related to religious doctrine. The Courts, presumably, are only addressing legal issues. (I don't really know what those are. In other words, I don't know what duty the city owed or owes to the families to find the remains.)

Left with no further recourse, I suppose the dissatisfied families either have to accept things as they are or work out something with the landfill and find the money to pay for - whatever additional actions they want.

My Mom always says that she does not want flowers at her funeral. She wants flowers to enjoy while she is alive. She doesn't care how her dead body is decorated.

From this maternally-endorsed philosophy, I have adopted this POV: the body is merely a vessel that holds the person (mind, ego, personality, spirit, whatever you want to call it) inside it while alive. Once dead, the body is as meaningless as a side of beef(except for donated organs which can save many lives). I know not everyone agrees with me. And I have no problem with those who choose to revere human remains. But to me, it's just not that important.

What matters is not how you treat people when they are dead. What matters is how you threat them while they are alive. In summary, "let the dead bury the dead."

I wonder how much NYC revenue was spent retrieving the remains and belongings that were retrieved. I don't really begrudge the expense. I get it. People want something to say goodbye to, to have closure. But wouldn't the money have been better spent on medical care for those Ground Zero workers who now suffer from respiratory diseases and other ailments from cleaning up the site?

Why do we feel so compelled to treat dead people with reverence while we feel no such reverence towards our living fellow human beings? I know this does not apply to everyone. There are people who advocate for those sick and disabled by the Ground Zero pollution/dust/gases/smoke, etc. I just wish there were more such advocates.

I certainly do not intend disrespect to any of the families involved. They are, no doubt, still suffering a sense of grief that I cannot fathom. But it does not follow that we must sift the entire contents of a landfill to try and give them the closure they desire. Like the families of sailors who died and were buried at sea, or the relatives of soldiers lost in battle whose bodies were never recovered, they will have to find closure in other ways.

(This does not really fit into the "Above Your Raisin'" theme. But I thought it was noteworthy and interesting.)

It's Never Too Late to Apologize.

The United States today officially apologized for (unethically) experimenting on a number of Guatemalan people who were intentionally infected with sexually transmitted diseases to study the efficacy of penicillin. The apology was offered to the nation and people of Guatemala, especially those deliberately infected.

The apology came from President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius.

"The scientific investigation, called the U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Disease Inoculation Study of 1946-1948, aimed to gauge the effectiveness of penicillin to treat syphilis, gonorrhea and chancres."

When I heard about this story I was horrified. Even in 1945 and 1946, shouldn't we have known it was unethical to perform medical experiments on unknowing, unwilling human beings?

These experiments exhibited a dehumanization and utter disregard of the victims' rights. I, for one, am embarrassed. But I am glad we finally apologized.

I think we sometimes forget that we tend to view our country differently than those in other parts of the world. Some, I am sure, covet our way of life, our freedom, and/or our relatively peaceful political process. But others probably see us as arrogant, self-righteous, and overbearing. To some extent I suppose all of these characteristics have been exhibited by our government and by us at different times.

As a nation we are as imperfect as we each are as individuals. And one of the most important lessons we learn as adults is to take responsibility and apologize when we make a mistake, or even when we regret some intentional act that harmed someone else. Throughout our history, we have made mistakes. Perhaps our willingness to apologize shows we are finally growing up as a nation. I hope so.