Some Lunch Break or The Eyes Of A Dove

I am fortunate enough to work at a company in which the owner had the creativity and foresight to install a nice-size fishing pond in the front yard of the business.  She went a step further and had fish installed in the pond.  Going one step further yet, she had small desert-loving trees planted, rock shores set in place around the pond, and a small patio built on the northeast corner of the pond.  In the months that I have worked here, I have spent many a lunch break just enjoying this peaceful oasis in the desert. Of course with the coming of winter, the fish were less active and there were many days when I (no longer being a robust young man) simply could not sit out in the cold.

Ah, but one of the things about Texas is that winters can include some very summer-like days, such as today, in fact.  So after eating my portion-controlled lunch, I could not resist the urge to go outside and sit in a certain comfortable chair on the patio.  There, half in the sun and half in the shade, I could watch the tranquil waters or the occasional leap of a shiny perch, and while away the last fifteen minutes or so of my lunch break.  With the temperature a balmy sixty-five, I left the confines of my office and walked across the rock walkway to the patio.  My favorite chair was there waiting, so warm and inviting in the half-sun light. 

I took my place in the chair, sunk into the solar-baked cushion, and let the sun infuse my poor rheumatic bones with glowing heat.  And that is when I saw her...at least I think it was a her, and so it she will be a she for the duration of this little story.  Apparently the rock pathway had muted my footsteps, and I was wearing soft-soled shoes.  For whatever reason, the little gray dove did not hear my approach until it was too late.  The poor bird was too afraid to fly, even to move at all.  Then I saw that the dove's wing appeared to be broken, because she kept the wing sort of half-folded but away from her body.  And she was looking straight into my eyes.  Have you ever had occasion to really look into a dove's eyes?  You have never had the opportunity to look into the eyes of a dove for many reasons, but if you ever get the chance, you should.

This little dove (no, she was not a baby, just of the small and fragile variety) kept her big brown eye locked into my own.  Of course I know she must have thought that Death was standing only six feet away.  She must have been terrified.  But she did not move.  At that moment I was distracted by a passing vehicle.  When I looked back at the dove a few minutes later, she was still watching me.  It appeared that she had relaxed somewhat, as her body was no longer so desperately pressed to the ground as it had been when I first became aware of her presence.  Of course I have no "evidence" that this was the case, but it appeared to me that the little dove was looking deeper into my eyes.  And I did the same.  It seemed like I could look passed her eyelids and see deeply into a being that was so innocent and that seemed to possess no guile or even the capacity for deception.  And I wondered what the little bird saw when she gazed into my own.

I suppose my imagination ran away with me, but I felt like the dove was sharing a little tranquility with me.  And I was reminded that in the ancient days it was a probably a gray dove similar to this little dove that brought the olive branch back to Noah in the Ark, letting him know that life was returning to the lately flooded earth.  That same dove was released a few weeks later and did not return.  Noah knew then that the earth was dry and that he could release everyone and everything from the Ark.  I was also reminded that it was a white dove that flew down from the sky and landed on the Good Shepherd's shoulder that day after Jesus was baptized by John.  The little dove landed on the Lord's shoulder while a voice from somewhere above declared that the Good Shepherd was God's Beloved Son.

By now the lunch hour had dwindled away.  It was time to go "clock in."  The little dove still sat in that same spot just off the rocks, just above the water, its wing still extended and folded at an awkward angle.  I feared that my friend, El Gato Gordo, would soon come along on his patrol and find the little dove sitting there, flightless with its broken wing.  While I do not begrudge GG his meal, I did not want the little bird to become that meal.  So, suddenly forming a plan of rescue, I very slowly and quietly approached the little dove.  I could see that her tranquil repose was suddenly replaced with what can only be described as a "deer in the headlights look."  Just as the tip of my finger was about to touch the dove, she gave a swift beat of her wings and flew away to some distant tree top.  For she had no broken wing, or any other apparent ailment.  And I had no pet dove to rescue.  But I know I was blessed in those waning minutes of my lunch break, when I was allowed, for just a little while, to gaze into the eyes of a dove.

Drones Over America - Part II

I promised to blog about the capabilities of drone aircraft operated by the police. Unfortunately some sort of glitch with my IP kept me off the air. So I found another location from which to ply my trade.


It seems inevitable that police departments around the nation will adopt drone technology. First, let me say that the idea of the police using drone aircraft is in itself not a bad idea. There are legitimate uses for drones. But having said that, I would also like to add that I do not follow the “I don’t care if they use drones because I have nothing to hide” mentality. Although I do not have anything to hide, that does not justify mass surveillance by the police. Remember, we are all innocent of a crime until proven guilty. And if a person is NOT even SUSPECTED of committing a crime, surveillance, no matter how discrete, is not justified.

Drones now being manufactured for civilian agency use come in various sizes and with varying degrees of technology, from about the size of a hummingbird to the size of a Boeing 737, the main fleet jet of Southwestern Airlines. For the purposes of this blog, however, I am thinking in terms of smaller machines, those with wingspans of ten feet or less. But even these smaller drones come packed with technology that James Bond could only have dreamed of. And technology for drones is evolving every day.

So what are the capabilities of today’s typical police drone? Obviously first and foremost is the drone’s capability of carrying very high-resolution cameras, infrared cameras, radar, and even X-ray cameras. With the various camera array possibilities, the drones can also be equipped with the latest software including facial recognition software and the ability to track persons inside of buildings and PRIVATE RESIDENCES. These drones are also capable of remaining aloft at high altitudes for significant lengths of time, some as long as forty hours. Better cameras and advanced software mean that drones can “see” and recognize a person from as high as two miles, and as far as twenty-five miles down range.  And possibly, even inside a the person's home.

So far as is known, police drones are not equipped with weapons, although this too is an area that is evolving quite rapidly. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that drone manufacturers are working on weapons applications as we speak. For instance, drones would certainly be useful for disbursing chemical irritants over crowds at mass gatherings. Similarly, drones could be modified to deploy less-than-lethal or even lethal weapons in dangerous situations such as hostage crises or entry of hostile locations. Facial recognition software implies that drones could be used to locate and “arrest” specific persons or even to deploy lethal force if the offender had proven to be dangerous to approaching officers. An extension of this technology would be the ability for drones to deploy some means to stop fleeing vehicles. The technology is now or will be available for all these purposes. You and I have to decide if we WANT or NEED this technology.

This is one of those “embarrassing” times when I find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union. As a policeman in years past, and as a rational citizen now, I have found myself at odds with the ACLU many times. But I am forced to fall in line with the ACLU in their opposition to the widespread “routine” use of drones as a means of controlling or “keeping an eye on” the public. Surveillance cameras of all kinds have proliferated through America, the land of the FREE, with alarming rapidity. Drones operated by the police simply represent another layer of this surveillance. The ACLU is currently studying the implications of the use of drones as concerns our freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, as well as our right to privacy. But it is really a simple question, after all the rhetoric is stripped away. Do we want policemen or anyone else watching us all the time? Is it “okay” to observe and even record people’s activities when those persons are not suspected of some crime? Will we “feel safer” knowing that a drone could be somewhere watching us at any time?

I am not naive. I know that surveillance cameras are in use in many stores, courthouses, public offices, and even on street corners. In fact, you and I are on camera many times each day whether we see a camera or not. I am not opposed to the use of cameras and other technology within certain bounds; however, I do not feel “safer” or more secure just because there are cameras around. Many times “safety” is touted as the justification for more surveillance. In reality, surveillance cameras do not “make” any location or person safer; instead, they make really good recordings, allowing for the arrest of criminals AFTER the crime is committed and the harm is done. Just as calling 9-1-1 does not instantly produce a police officer, neither will more and better cameras result in faster response time – just in better identification of the criminal.

I do not believe that we have to sit by as police departments and other agencies attempt to purchase and deploy drones. Citizens may approach their councilman or mayor and voice their opposition to wider and more efficient surveillance. If the expense of maintaining and operating a drone were considered, it may be that the cost would be prohibitive when weighed against the possible benefits. Taxpayers could voice their opposition to local taxes being used for this purpose, and we can all demand that our senators and representatives refuse to authorize spending for drones other than military drones. We as citizens can demand of our politicians that laws be enacted restricting the use of drones without probable cause of some kind. The use of drones by police for locating a specific criminal, for locating lost or missing persons, or for tracking fleeing felons, are all justifiable uses. But neither the police, government agencies, the CIA, nor anyone else should be able to fly drones simply to spy on you or me as we go about our daily lives. Peace of mind is not only being relatively safe in our daily lives, but also in knowing that we are not on “candid camera” 24/7.

I'm Behind The Times Again or Drones Over America - Part One

As usual I am behind the times again.  I recently read of remote-controlled “drones” from the military being used to aid local law enforcement officials in North Dakota.  The use of the drone in a rather routine law enforcement situation raises all kinds of constitutional and privacy issues.  One issue raised is the possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (which states that local government can only use federal military resources under certain constitutional circumstances or when authorized by Congress).  That is an issue for at least a “whole ‘nother” blog.

I thought I was fairly up-to-date on the use of drone aircraft in the United States, mainly that they were not being used for domestic law enforcement, certainly not for spying on American citizens who have not been charged with any crimes.  Let me tell you, I not only missed the boat on this one, I did not even get close to the dock!  You see, the use of a United States Air Force drone to assist in the capture of three cattle rustlers earlier this month is just the latest of many such incidents.  How many, you ask?  And well you should.  In fact, however, you can ask all you want, but the answers will not be forthcoming from the Federal Aviation Administration, which must authorize all drone flights within the United States.  The FAA is currently under suit for information from a certain law advocacy organization, but so far has failed to honor the request for information.  Nonetheless, it is suspected that several hundred drone flights have taken place across the United States since 9/11.  These are the flights that are “known of.” I mention that because CIA flights (assuming they are flying over United States air space, which of course, is illegal) would NOT be “known of.”  Please pardon the grammar, I am a little upset.

Let’s forget about the CIA or any other spy organizations for a minute, and just talk about the “legitimate” agencies throughout the United States that could employ (read ARE or WILL BE EMPLOYING) drones.  This list includes major police departments or joint-police force operations, state enforcement agencies, and federal agencies.  Here, let me separate legitimate uses from those that are less than savory.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, in the form of the Border Patrol, is probably legitimately using drones to patrol the border because there is simply not enough manpower at the moment to control the border.  Thus, drones allow agents to be deployed as needed when trouble is spotted.  Another legitimate use of a drone might be to aid in searching for missing persons where large areas must be searched and hi-tech could lead to a successful outcome.  For instance, a drone equipped with infrared-technology might locate a lost hiker when human and canine searchers could not.  Unfortunately, the lack of FAA candor concerning information about drone flights in the United States seems to imply uses other than those mentioned above.

At the beginning of this blog I briefly mentioned an incident that occurred this month in North Dakota that brought national attention to the fact that law enforcement agencies were using military drones for routine civil law enforcement purposes.  But now I know this certainly was not the first law enforcement use of drone aircraft.  In 2008 on a ranch outside of Houston, Texas of all places, the Houston police sponsored a test flight of a drone.  The test was attended by several other police departments and by the Department of Homeland Security.  The test was NOT attended by the press, who were barred from approaching within several hundred yards of the test site.  The press, in fact, were the last people the police wanted in the area.  Since there was an information black-out, I have not determined who owned the drone, that is whether it was a military drone or whether it was built by one of the many “civilian” drone manufacturers operating in the United States.  Homeland Security being involved could imply that the drone was military, but the small size of this particular drone could also indicate that it was a non-military aircraft.  That is really not the issue here anyway.

A certain Houston news reporter heard rumors of the drone test flight and approached the test area as closely as the police would allow.  When he was barred from entering the ranch (which of course was private property), the reporter summoned the channel’s helicopter.  As soon as the chopper approached the test site, the pilot began receiving radio transmissions from someone, possibly a police pilot.  This person told the news flight that the airspace around the ranch was restricted and that the FAA would take action against the news pilot and the reporter if the chopper did not vacate the area.  Calls to the local FAA Houston office revealed that there was no restricted air space in the area and that the FAA office was not aware of drone test flights in the area.  The news reporter in fact recorded the test flight. 

Obviously law enforcement agencies are looking at drone technology.  The problem is that these drones can be used for many purposes other than the legitimate scenarios described above.  The Office of Homeland Security is apparently behind the proliferation of drones to local law enforcement agencies, or is at least partnering with these agencies to make it possible for local police to be able to add drones to their arsenal.  Maybe (this is my own speculation) such federal “assistance” comes with some string attached, such as that Homeland Security can “patch into” the local drone system for information. 

Next time:  What “Police Drones” Really Mean For You and Me

Goodbye to Papa Joe

A truly great man passed away today after losing his battle with cancer.  Joe "Papa Joe" Paterno was the winningest coach in football history, even surpassing the record of a lesser known football coach, Eddie Robinson, the legendary coach of the Grambling Tigers.  Joe Patterno eventually won more games, but only in the 2011 football season.  But Joe Paterno was about more than winning football games.  He was a man of principle, a man who walked tall just as he talked.  With Joe Paterno what you saw and heard was who you got.  His football coaching as well as the life lessons he passed on to his athletes and to the students of Penn State as well have lived on in the thousands of lives he touched over the years.

I cannot remember a time in my life that he was not leading the Penn State Nittany Lions, striving for victory, but always urging the best from his team no matter the outcome.  It was the same with his life.  He always urged the best from himself and from those around him, even from those, like me, who never knew him except from his larger than life persona seen each fall on sports television.  It speaks volumes for this man that his influence spread so far beyond those he knew in day to day life, spreading all over the nation by the time he was asked to leave Penn State last month.

There are those already rearing their heads in the news and in sports commentary proffering their solemn praise of Joe Paterno, but then always qualifying their stories with statements like "until the news broke in December" or "he walked the walk until Coach Sandusky was indicted."  As if Joe Paterno was the one who abused those children, or even that he was the one who did not go to the police.  Joe Paterno took Coach McQueary personally to the powers that be (or were) at Penn State.  That was his job - he did it.  He did not witness the act McQueary saw, who by the way DID NOT call the police when he saw the rape in progress. 

I for one do not "qualify" my respect for Coach Paterno with caveats like those above.  I believe Paterno did all if not more than he needed to do.   I think this opinion is borne out by the statements of regret and rehashing later made by Penn State officials as they came to realize that they had done a great injustice themselves by bowing to pressure from the howling talking heads of the media who were screaming for Paterno's head, while paying scant attention to the facts regarding the discovery of Sandusky's criminal attack on a poor young man.  I respect Joe Paterno and honor him for his commitment to his athletes as well as the other students that walked the halls of Penn State over the years.  I admire him for being the great football coach he was, standing in the same light with Bear Bryant or Bobby Bowden.  But I admire him most for carrying his talk right into his walk, for caring about those around him, for his desire to share his experiences with young people in order to help them become all they could be.

It is truly a measure of the character of the various talking heads, the various college officials, and yes, even the general public, who joined in the pathetic hue and cry for the head of Joe Paterno instead of simply praising the justice system for the arrest and indictment of Coach Sandusky.  Remember him?  The guy that molested all those boys?  Paterno did what he was supposed to do, and Sandusky is in the process of receiving that lot that falls to child molesters.  I admire someone else for his courageous honesty in the face of this most undeserved firestorn, too.  Jay Paterno stood tall and told the talking heads that if he won the Big Ten Championship, he would take a "sticky note" and replace his father's name on that grand award, the Stagg-Paterno Trophy, that the Penn officials had removed with the haste borne of desperation in the face of the media outcry.

Joe Paterno is gone now, but his legend lives on, unblemished and unmarred.  I wonder if anyone will be able to say the same for the talking heads and the Penn state officials who brought so much undeserved pain and heartache to Joe Paterno.  I somehow doubt it.  In fact, I believe that most of these people will leave the same mark in this world that one leaves in a bucket of water when he removes his finger tip.  Think about that for a minute.

Rest in Peace, Papa Joe, and my deepest sympathy and prayers to the Paterno family.

The FBI Does Not Need SOPA or PIPA

There is an interesting and actually spectacular news story today about the successful raid of Kim Dotcom’s estate in Auckland, New Zealand.  At the same time, Dotcom’s millions of dollars in assets were frozen, and will remain so for the duration of his legal troubles.  And what are his legal troubles?  His corporation, Megaupload.com has been shut down, and Dotcom as well as several company officers have been indicted in what the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is calling the largest copyright infringement case in history.  As captivating as this story is, the more important point is that this “dot.com” or online business was identified, investigated, documented, and shut down ALL WHILE USING EXISTING FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW.  I said that with bold letters to emphasize that this huge bust was made WITHOUT the aid of the house bill known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or its Senate counterpart the Protect IP Act (PIPA).  Does this mean that maybe the tools to protect online copyrights are already in place? Hmmm…

Both SOPA and PIPA have been praised by various politicians and heads of various mega corporations as being necessary to stop online piracy and other abuses of intellectual property rights on the Internet.  Other parties have pointed out, however, that both bills go much further and appear to allow government and media moguls to curtail and even censor the American people’s use of the Internet.  Under the pending SOPA and PIPA bills, any Internet site that was “believed” to be infringing on someone’s copyright would have been required to shut down immediately until the dispute was settled. The disturbing aspects of this requirement are threefold.  One, of course, is the “guilty till proven innocent” scenario.  The second problem is that the bills are vague as to what exactly would have to be shut down.  As one critic pointed out, if a website had some content that appeared to violate someone’s copyright, the entire website could be required to shut down.  For example, one pirated video placed on, say, YOUTUBE, would be just cause to require the entire operation to cease.  YOUTUBE would be out of business in just a click of a mouse.  Finally, entertainment sites such as Napster and Rhapsody could be locked up in court for years with thousands of claims of copyright infringement, again likely shutting down or bankrupting such websites. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the FBI for proving to us what we already knew – that the laws already on the books are indeed adequate to protect the intellectual property that may be at risk on the Internet.  I would also like to point out the government’s love of creating bill titles and acronyms that express exactly the OPPOSITE of the bill’s intent.  I am thinking here of course of the USA PATRIOT Act.  We all know by now that the “Patriot Act” is actually the most treacherous attack on the United States Constitution ever engineered in the history of this nation.  I believe that the massive bills known as SOPA and PIPA, while touted as major advances in controlling intellectual crime on the Internet, are actually at best poorly thought out bills with unforeseen consequences.  But at worst, they represent another in a series of treacherous attacks on our freedom.

The Naughty List

One of the pleasant things I do in my spare time out here in the outback of Texas is to read the Gatesville Messenger, conveniently delivered to my mailbox twice weekly.  During the Christmas holidays, however, there was so much activity and travel that I did not get to read the December 24th GM edition until just today.  This particular issue of the GM featured "letters to Santa" that I suppose were collected from the school kids there. One letter that caught my eye was this one, short and to the point.

Dear Santa,
I wish you would not put me on your Naughty list.
Liam

This little boy did not ask for presents.  He did not say that he had been a good boy.  He did not even "bribe" Santa by assuring him that there would be a glass of milk and a plate of cookies waiting near the fireplace.  Just one simple request.  Don't put me on your Naughty list.

In the current circumstances in which I find myself, the simple letter written by this little boy expressed something profound that is on my mind.  Like that little boy, I do not want to be added to anyone's Naughty list.  Now, I do not know if Liam had been naughty or nice, but I have a feeling he had a few naughty moments.  I believe this because Liam, is a little boy...he is human.  And like Liam, I myself am human and suffer from those moments in which I do something...well, naughty.

In my childhood days, my something "naughty" was rarely more serious than sneaking a cookie or not doing my homework.  These days, something "naughty" is serious, maybe even heartbreaking, and with far-reaching consequences.  I did something "naughty" and like Liam, I do not want to be included on the Naughty list.  Not Santa's list, but a list kept for future reference by the Good Shepherd.  I do not want to be on that list.  And like Liam, all I have to do is ask.  Not for lots of presents, not for all my "blessings," but simply that I not be included on that list.  The Good Shepherd says that all I have to do is ask.  But he never grants that request.   No, instead, not only am I not added to the naughty list, but I receive blessings that I did not ask for, and that I in no way deserve, just because He loves me.

There are hidden gems all around us that "accidentally" lead to bigger truths, to profound observations.  Liam's letter to Santa, only one simple sentence penned by a small child, turned my heart to a bigger truth. Even though we often err as humans, which is only normal, our mistakes do not have to become part of some "permanent record," the kind we were all threatened with as school kids.  Instead, all we have to do as ask, and the Good Shepherd removes that little item from the "Naughty" list.  Not only do we never have to worry about that mistake again, we receive blessings tenfold, for which we may never even ask for at all.

Our Un-Patriotic President

As the 2012 Presidential Election draws nearer, I would like to bring something to your attention, something that has bothered me greatly since Mr. Obama was elected in 2008.  That "something" is the fact that President Barack Obama, "our" President, as I am reminded over and over by those who voted for him, has chosen time and time again to turn his back on the Star Spangled Banner when the colors are honored, and has also failed to place his hand on his heart as our flag is raised and our national anthem is played.  The major news services rarely show this, but every now and then accidental shots of the non-patriot President are seen on the major networks.  Other times, photographs are used on independent news sources and turn up on the Internet.  These pictures depict "our" President repeatedly refusing to salute the flag or honor the national anthem.  This conduct from the "commander-in-chief" of our military forces, as well as the "leader" of our nation is quite disturbing to me.  No, I meant disgusting to me.  The President should, as should we all, honor the flag and the national anthem, while holding the memory of those who served in this nation's military, and in particular those who gave their lives, sacred and dear to the heart.

Now, I acknowledge that Mr. Obama is doing nothing more than exercising his constitutional right of free speech.  You see, no government official or policeman can "force" President Obama to salute the flag or honor the national anthem.  Mr. Obama has every right to turn his back on the flag.  I am not disputing this fact...no, I am actually very happy that we live in the nation where people still have the freedom to DISHONOR the flag and that sacred things for which it stands, if those people so desire.  My concern is not Mr. Obama's exercise of his freedom, but instead is that the good and educated people of this nation seem ready to meekly walk to the polls and vote for this man again. 

Everyone has the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.  For me, unfortunately, the candidate of my choice rarely gains more than one or two electoral votes.  But in any case, I hope that you will carefully consider the implications of having a President who is publicly disrespectful of the American Flag and who does not salute during the national anthem.  Do you really love his policies so much that you want this man to continue in office?  Do you really believe that a man who is openly unpatriotic can really have the best interest of this nation in his heart?  Granted the choices are poor from almost any angle we choose to look.  But, to me anyway, it seems the poorest choice of all to reward the most unpatriotic President in the history of this nation with a second term in office. 

Let's assume we weren't sure during the first election, and we believed in this man and his promises; a man who was swept into office on the biggest wave of popularity since JFK ran for President in 1960.  Since Mr. Obama's election, however, that wave of popularity has crested and ebbed away.  Obama has essentially kept one promise - the end of the Iraq Occupation, which has cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.  This is a great accomplishment, one for which I sincerely thank the President.  Having said that, I believe Mr. Obama has done enough for this nation, both in the positive sense and in the negative, too.  Will it be any better under some other candidate of this year's flock?  I don't know, but I surely know it will not be any WORSE!  I do not need to see Mr. Obama elected TWICE to know this.  If Obama is re-elected with the citizenry knowing what we know now, that Mr. Obama cannot or will not salute the flag or honor the nation that has made him the most powerful man in the world, then we deserve whatever fate and the President have in store for us in 2012 and beyond.

Desert New Year's

I would like to wish everyone a Happy New Year! Yes, I know it is now eleven days into 2012, but this is the first time I have been in a blogging mood in some time. You see, Christmas Eve and the following days, all the way to New Year’s Day, were days of turmoil and pain for my spouse and I. After over a quarter-century of marriage, and after gaining the “wisdom” that someone over fifty years old should have gained, I still managed to hurt the one I love, and to cause pain that has lasted into the New Year.

Yet a marriage of twenty-eight years is a marriage that has stood many tests, has weathered many a storm. The branches may bend, almost to the point of breaking, yet the strength of the entire tree is able to hold firm in times of trouble. And so it did in this case. Still, feelings were hurt and a beautiful heart was broken. And I had a much more important and urgent task at hand besides writing this blog, as important as this is to me.

I am happy to say that S and I have made new vows to each other, and that we have embraced the New Year with gusto and high hopes. It is so amazing and so wonderful that after spending twenty-eight years with each other, we still have things to learn about each other, adventures to share, and life to live together to the fullest. I can only say that this marriage, even with all the ups and downs, reminds me of that most wonderful passage found in St. Luke, Chapter 6:38 (Jesus speaking)

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

You see, when one spouse gives to the other, that spouse will receive a similar, or even greater, measure in return and vise versa. Ideally the measure will be like that mentioned in the Good Shepherd’s words above. Unfortunately, when one of the spouses ceases to give back in full measure, the marriage suffers. The spouse most giving begins to feel that the other spouse suddenly finds her no longer as interesting, as appealing, or as beautiful, as she once was. And the spouse who no longer gives also begins not to receive or acknowledge the love and valuing that the other spouse still gives so unselfishly. The two now begin to grow apart, setting the stage for eventual pain and heartache.

In reality, the good spouse, like the Good Shepherd, has a forgiving heart, and has never stopped giving in full measure. Like the Good Shepherd continues to love and bless a constantly sinning people, so the good spouse continued to love and cherish the greedy and selfish person her spouse had become. With the time spent together during the holidays, my spouse and I were reunited in love and spirit. Like the Good Shepherd, my spouse had not drifted away, but stood there waiting and watching for me. And like the Good Shepherd, she came to me with open arms while I was yet at a distance.

I hope everyone has a Happy New Year, and I join you in celebrating the happiest one I could ever wish for.

Deadly New Year for Law Enforcement

Most of us look forward to the New Year with at least some degree of anticipation that the coming year will be much better, or at least as good a year, as the one passing. Unfortunately, some people do not have dreams of higher hopes or future successes; instead, they continue to wrap themselves in their problems and demons of the past year. Sadly the fruitless lives of two such people intersected with two police officers in widely separated locations on New Year’s Day. The results were tragic.

Sergeant Abimael Castro-Berrocales started the morning on patrol in Cobo Rojo. At about 9:30 AM he stopped a speeding vehicle. He was shot twice in the face as he reached the driver’s door of the vehicle. Other patrolmen responded immediately. The officer was rushed to a nearby hospital but died a short time later. The suspect has not been identified as of today.

Less than an hour later, but several hundred miles away, at Mt. Rainier National Park, Washington, Park Ranger Margaret Anderson was responding to a another park ranger’s call for assistance because a vehicle had fled the scene after the ranger had stopped the vehicle for a traffic violation. Ranger Anderson was in the vicinity and positioned her patrol car to block the oncoming violator. The suspect stopped his vehicle next to Ranger Anderson’s patrol car and immediately opened fire with a shotgun. The ranger was struck while still inside her vehicle. The suspect fled on foot.  Rangers and police officers that responded found weapons and body armor inside the suspect’s vehicle. It appeared to officers that the suspect was prepared for a prolonged gun battles. The suspect’s body was found today, with gunshot wounds believed to be the cause of death. Criminals and danger are always present in police work, not even pausing for the holidays. I am proud to honor Sergeant Castro-Berrocales and Ranger Margaret Anderson as they made the ultimate sacrifice for us on this New Years Day, 2012.

I hope for all police officers that this year will not be as bloody as the last. In 2011, in the United States, a total of 163 local, state, and federal police officers were killed while performing their duties. On New Year’s Day 2011, a total of eleven officers were killed in less than twenty-four hours. It was suspected that a conspiracy might have been involved but that has not been proven at this point. May God be with each officer each minute of every shift. I wish that no more officers would be hurt or killed this year. But the reality is that death and severe injuries await officers at every turn in the corner, with every call. I offer my honor and admiration for the officers who carry on every day in spite of the possibility that any one of them may be called on at any time to make that ultimate sacrifice for you and me.