top of page
Search

One of the most cherished tenets of our Constitution is that set forth in the First Amendment - the guarantee of all Americans to be able to say what we want, without fear of prosecution.


Many people throughout the world do not enjoy this freedom, and there are places where you could be imprisoned, or even executed, for speaking out against the State or its Dear Leader.


By own blog could land me in jail in another country, even though I've never threatened anyone.


There are limits to free speech, as there should be - all of which are tied to the potential harm of others as defined multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court.


But when a presidential candidate threatens to imprison members of the press for merely doing their jobs, it's cause for alarm.


A "slippery slope" doesn't begin to describe the perils we face if somehow a four-time indicted, twice impeached, revenge obsessed, thin-skinned broken man who cannot admit defeat gets his wish to seek revenge against those who dare criticize him or his actions.





 
 
 

One day after leaving my class at the John O'Connell School of Technology in San Francisco almost 50 years ago, I routinely approached the bus stop where I would catch my ride home.


A man with a gaping wound on his head and obviosly impaired was lying in the gutter pleading for help.


The city bus had arrived a moment earlier and the driver was blaring his horn in an effort to get the man to move out of the way so he could continue loading and off-loading passengers.


I watched incredulously for a few seconds as others rushed by with furtive glances at the helpless man, but did nothing.


I finally put down my backpack and with all my might, dragged the poor fellow up on to the sidewalk, after which I went in to the nearest shop and asked the storekeeper to call for help.


I consoled the man as best I could until a van finally arrived and took him away.


I grew up in a small farming community in South Dakota where everyone helped each other, no matter how large or small the need.


This big city experience was a new one for me and I've never forgotten the indifference of passersby that day who obviously didn't want to become involved, or worse yet, didn't care.





 
 
 

As Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization between 1969 and 2004, Yasser Arafat was then one of the most famous and colorful men in the world.


Ehud Barak, a highly decorated Lieutenant General in the Israeli Defense Forces, was Prime Minister of Israel during part of Arafat’s reign as head of the PLO.


So in 2000, after intense negotiations, Barak offered up a 2-state solution to the Palestinians, which was eventually rejected by Arafat.

Some said it was because Arafat loved the jet-setting and attention that came his way during that time, and if he struck a bargain, he would lose power, prestige, and maybe even his job.


There were no doubt other reasons as well that could be arguably justified.


Nevertheless, this was perhaps one of those millions of pivotal moments throughout history where things might have been different if we human beings were better at settling our differences.


But it seems we have a tendency to dig in for a variety or reasons and ignore that priceless virtue of compromise.



 
 
 
bottom of page