Defending the Constitution, unless you're gutting it.

Well, I see from this morning’s Arizona Republic that the East Valley’s favorite neocon, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R-right of Attila the Hun) isn’t resting on his laurels. After successfully enacting Senate Bill 1070, that forward-thinking new state law that demonizes anyone with brown skin as a potential deportation target and incidentally creating a bonanza for the private prison industry, Pearce has now set his sights on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that any person born in the United States is an American and a citizen of the state of birth.

Joining our hero in this important cause is a group called “State Legislators for Legal Immigration”, ostensibly formed to introduce coordinated legislation in different states that would effectively nullify the Fourteenth and  seek to deny babies born of illegal immigrants on American soil automatic citizenship, which has been part of the Constitution since 1868 and has been affirmed in several court decisions over the years.  Pearce didn’t release any details about such a bill in his stand-up before the media, saying that the details were still being “fine-tuned”. 

This is the latest salvo in Pearce’s war on immigrants, joined by many other like-minded right wing crazies.  Supposedly, the so-called “anchor babies” are swamping American society, overcrowding our emergency rooms, swelling schoolrooms, and causing every societal ill from glaucoma to housemaid’s knee.  The trouble, of course, is that there are no reliable statistics available to give us an actual idea of how many of these kids there are.  This fact is conveniently overlooked by the proponents of this ill-advised junk, who are using it as the latest weapon against those who aren’t “like us” (white, male, old, and stupid).  While we should be concerned about the increasing power of corporations over our rights, political expression, and our democracy itself, these folks insist on diverting our attention from the obvious and setting us against each other.

 

Here’s a little Civics 101 lesson, guys:  If you object to an aspect of the Constitution, there’s a simple tool to “correct” it.  It’s called the amendment process.  This is accomplished in one of two ways.  The first, the only one used in history, is for both houses of the Congress to pass an amendment by a two-thirds majority; the bill is then sent to the states for ratification, usually with a time limit.

The second method, never used thus far, is for two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a Constitutional convention, which would meet to propose one or more amendments, then sent to each state legislature for ratification; three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendments in order for them to take affect.

So why aren’t these patriots simply proposing amending the nation’s founding document to correct this horrible wrong?  Simple. It takes too long.  Certainly, in order for this crowd to reap the rewards of again charging up the “underinformed” voter and getting their faces all over Fox “News”, they need, swift, decisive action now, hopefully before the next election cycle.  Doesn’t matter that any such legislation will ultimately die in the Federal court system as unconstitutional (see SB 1070, so far). The point is to keep ramping up the volume to the gullible folks who, in a time of economic turmoil, need to blame someone for the mess this country’s in.

In a political era unmatched in history for irony, I find the conservative “defense” of the Constitution, which they trumpet at every turn, laughable.  Sure, they’re all for the Constitution—until they’re against it.  Sorry, folks, it’s all or nothing. If you don’t like it, change it. 

The state of men's underwear in 2010

Q:  "Mr. President, all the world's dying to know.  Is it boxers or briefs?"
(Laughter)
A:  "Usually briefs. (Aside to the rest of the audience) I can't believe she did that."

(Exchange between a 17 year old student and President Bill Clinton in a 1994 MTV town hall-style forum)


Note: The same question was asked of then-Senator Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008.  Obama artfully dodged the question.

I shopped for underwear the other day.  (Ain't retirement fun?)  These expeditions are generally rare for men, especially unmarried ones such as myself.  Married guys usually get their shorts via their wives when Mrs. notices that the median age of the tighty whities in the sock drawer is about 15 years.  Bachelors, on the other hand, usually decide it's time to swap out the ol' undies when more than two holes appear.

While I'm not quite that careless when it comes to my unmentionables, I do tend to let things go in this area.  However, having noticed that a few pairs of briefs were looking a tad worn, not to mention the fact that their waistbands were about as tight as cooked spaghetti, I decided to include new skivvies on my next trip to Target.

Now, there was once a time in America that a man's choice in underwear was pretty simple; see the above exchange between Bill Clinton (in the pre-"blue dress" days) and the high school kid.  It was either boxers or briefs.  Pretty simple, huh?

I've always been firmly in the brief camp.  This is probably due to my mother's always having purchased briefs when shopping for my dad, my brother and myself.  I grew up with briefs.  My first exposure to boxers was the first time I had to shower with other guys in junior high PE class.  I don't remember the ratio of boxers to briefs, but it seemed to me at the time that wearing boxers looked a little sloppy.  I never gave it much thought after that, and having shared showers with guys in gyms and dormitory shower rooms in the years since, hadn't really bothered to notice the relative numbers.

But a funny thing happened somewhere along the line.  I'm not sure when it happened--maybe sometime during the second Reagan administration.  (Yet another vast right-wing conspiracy.)  We went from a nation of boxers and briefs  to an America populated not only by those undergarments, but also of low-rise briefs, bikini briefs, string bikinis, boxer briefs, and God knows what else.

This is what confronted me as I cruised through my local Target store the other day.  What started as a simple shopping mission (I needed dog bones and a new garden hose, too) became  as challenging as solving the Pythagorean Theorem.  Instead of simply picking up a couple of packages of shorts and moving on to the hardware department, I froze.  The options were dizzying.  I felt rivulets of sweat in my palms and hoped no one was around to notice my panic.

Forget Hanes versus Fruit of the Loom (I think Jockey is overpriced.). They're the same in price and quality. I was confronted with an overdose of selections, all modeled, of course, by hunky 30-somethings with a particular "asset" which was probably targeted at gay men or the aforementioned wives who might be a little
'lonely", if you get my meaning.

This was my dilemma:  to find size 32 waist briefs.  Sounds simple, right?  Wrong.  While I could have my fill of bikinis, strings, and boxers, finding 32 inch plain old briefs (in color. I'm modern enough to have ditched white shorts a long time ago.  Besides, this is the 21st century, for God's sake.) was nearly impossible.  What diabolical power had decided to eliminate this essential part of my wardrobe from the market?  Reflexively, I started to blame George W. Bush, but realized that even he couldn't have been responsible for this.  Now Dick Cheney, well, that's something else.....I forced myself to clear my head and continue looking.

I'm 53 years old.  Although not obese, I've got the typical slight middle age-beer-no crunches paunch.  Although  I've kept my size 30 jeans somewhere to dream the impossible dream, I've pretty much kept the waistline under reasonable control.  But I inherited, from good old Mom's side of the family, the infamous "Darby butt".  I have a bit of a protruding ass, which is fine in one's 20s, not so much in one's 50s.  This limits one's options re: underwear, especially in this brave new world where men's unmentionables are as varied as are the ladies'.

Obviously, strings and  bikinis were out.  Low rise briefs, questionable unless I lost ten pounds.  But I needed underwear NOW, not after a month at 24 Hour Fitness.   My panic was growing by the minute as I pawed through the racks of everything but what I actually needed!  I simply could not succumb to boxers.  Visions of junior high, with skinny, athletic guys in those baggy suckers made me mentally cringe.  Plus, being the nonconformist I am, I couldn't violate my principles.

Just before some Good Samaritan might have called security to summon assistance for a man suffering an epileptic seizure,  I found them.  Hanes Comfort Band Briefs, size medium.  I nearly shrunk to my knees and thanked the Deity for my good fortune.  Suppressing tears, I threw them into the shopping cart and prepared to move on.  I wasn't crazy about the colors (four pack, black and gray, though I'm sure the black might be enjoyed by my next lady friend....they tend to like that shade of undies..oh, never mind...), but was happy I had actually found them.

But then I took a second look at the boxer briefs.  What the hell.  I threw caution to the wind and found some nicely-colored shorts and tossed them into the cart.  I'm proud to say that I can now walk out to the driveway at 0600 to get the paper in those babies and a Tshirt without being arrested for decent exposure.  Win-win!

Football, race, and unity..1971-2010

I watched a showing of "Remember the Titans" tonight.  Had seen it before. Black coach takes over a previously all-white Virginia high school football program in 1971, when, as those of us who lived back then, was a period of racial strife. See the Boston bussing crap of the 70's--this wasn't Dixie only.


The coach (Denzel Washington) has to try to get the black kids and the white kids together as a team in a very turbulent time in American history. Frankly, as a kid at the time, I never saw this stuff.  I was an Air Force kid, and had lived in so many places that race and ethnicity really didn't mean a thing to me.  But although I was born on an Air Force base in Mississippi, I've had very few travels to the South since. 


I reflect on this flick as I think about  all the "us and them" mentality we're seeing now.  I'm not going to rant on my usual things about the forces who are trying to divide us these days--the economic power that wants to make us so mad at each other that big business stays in charge of our government.  But I see that this racial division still exists today, albeit with a new wrinkle.


Look at your kids, and look at you. When interracial dating and marriage were an anomaly in the 70's, they aren't now.  This generation doesn't have the bullshit prejudices that many of us had.  The prerogative of all of us should be to teach our children the basic tenets of our Constitution--that we're all equal and that "the pursuit of happiness"  is a cool thing. 


I see these people ranting about the Islam community center two blocks away from Ground Zero, and I see a people misled by, again, those who would divide us rather than keep us together as Americans. They could put up a Mormon ward or synagogue or a Catholic church there, for all I care.  The point is that they have the freedom to do it.  We can't lose that.  If we do, we've lost our country.


Of course, the movie ended well.  Blacks and whites became friends.  I'm sad that  we've not learned the lessons from 9/11 and turned a page.  Good flick to watch and upon which to reflect.  E Pluribus Unum means "out of many, one."

The mosque, Dr. Laura, and race in America

This has been a strange week.  We've been treated to a longtime radio talk show host melting down on the air, not for the first time, and a President backtracking from one of the best speeches he's made regarding the Constitution.  Very entertaining, and of course distracting the masses from the real problems that face us in these troubled times. 


First, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, the veteran radio "counselor" whose doctorate has nothing to do with psychology or psychiatry (basically, she's qualified to be a gym teacher), repeats the "N-word" several times over the air during an exchange with an African-American caller whose white husband seems to be insensitive to his friends' racial slurs in her presence.  As usual, the good "doctor" responded with her trademark insensitivity, ranting about how the election of the first (half) black President should basically silence the debate about race in this country, conveniently forgetting the Obama-as-witch-doctor posters, the insane threats on his and his family's lives, and the general racist tone among his opponents.  Never addressing the caller's problem, Dr. Laura proceeded with a rant about First Amendment rights and the acceptability of "nigger" among the black populace.


Dr. (and I use this title loosely) S, of course, after the expected outrage, had to apologize, much like after one of her frequent anti-homosexual rants of a few years ago.  She then, on Larry King Live, that bastion of hard-hitting interviewing, announced that she was abandoning her radio career, as she felt that she needed to be able to exercise her First Amendment freedom of speech rights without the specter of all of her opponents' hovering over her.  Even the senescent Larry King seemed dumbfounded by her stupid rationale, as hopefully were most viewers.


I first caught Dr. Laura many years ago on local radio.  At the time, she seemed to be a "tough love" kind of gal, and I found myself agreeing with her on many of her responses to callers.  Matter of fact, logical.  But at some point, this woman slipped around the bend.  Her rants against gay folks were not only philosophical, but apparently personal and introspective.  Might have had something to do with her amateur nudie films from the 70s that surfaced a few years back.  I don't know.  I don't pretend to be a professional therapist, unlike her.  But as time went on, I couldn't continue to listen.  Especially after witnessing the rise of hate radio in the 80s--the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Levins, Ingrahams, et. al.  The vehemence of her attitudes toward people who legitimately sought her advice was just too much.


I'm sure Ms. Laura will succeed.  There are enough right wing nuts in this country, bred of an anti-government and anti-progressive (and definitely anti-critical thinking) groups who would love to have her speak.  She'll do well, and maybe be more successful on the lecture circuit than she was before this.  As P.T. Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.


On to President Obama.   This administration seems to have an uncanny knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.  Witness Mr. Obama's recent proclamation of the majesty of the First Amendment regarding the "Ground Zero Mosque" (actually, a Muslim community center with a prayer room which is to be located three blocks from the Twin Towers site).  The President stated simply that the freedom of religion allowed Americans of all faiths to worship freely; his support for this simple, yet basic, American concept was eloquent and simple.

Fast forward a couple of days, as the usual spew of vitriol from the hate media made its scheduled appearance.  POTUS backed away from his earlier remarks in a particularly clumsy fashion, stating that he was not referring to the location of the "mosque", only of the overall concept of freedom of religion. So much for the "inspirational leader" for whom a majority of Americans voted two years ago. 

The President, on the campaign trail in 2008, gave a wonderful speech regarding the state of race relations in America.  He might want to give another one, particularly with one-fifth of his countrymen believing him to be a Muslim, which not only speaks to the "dumbing down" of America, but also to the climate of fear of that mysterious "other" so well cultivated by the Bush Administration.  I think it's time for our first African-American President to revisit this issue and confront the hate being fomented by those who would divert us from the real issues confronting us.

 

The Jet Blue Dude and the state of the American worker

By now, of course, everyone has experienced the fifteen minutes of fame of Steven Slater, Jet Blue's poster boy for customer service and "angry young flight attendant".  While a bit of a seriocomic episode in these tough economic times, there are a few lessons to be learned.


A bit of examination into Mr. Slater's self-described life and career shows a somewhat eccentric guy who may have too much of a flair for the dramatic.  But what we know from the media of the episode, we can glean a few things and maybe extrapolate a bit.


First, JBD reminds us once again of what modern air travel has become.  I'm old enough to remember the days when flying was considered a luxury.  Heck, when I was a kid, my parents dressed me up in preparation for an airline trip.  The men wore coats and ties, the women wore dresses.  Yes, this was the Mad Men era of the mid-Sixties, before the social upheavals later in the decade upset a lot of so-called "norms".  But flying was a luxury in those days, and an air trip was considered something special.


With airline deregulation being the principal cause, something changed.  You may know where I'm going with this, so will head you off right here.  Yes, flying is now more affordable for more people.  That's a big plus in convenience and has been of benefit to millions.  (Of course, there was a price.  With no requirement that airlines had to serve a certain number of cities, flying to the smaller burgs in this country can now cost about as much as a second mortgage.  Ask your friends who live in, say, Omaha or Fargo.)  


The trouble is, with air travel now available to the masses, a certain level of civility has been lost over the years.  No, I don't rent a tux every time I go on a trip.  But when I see some Goth kid boarding my flight to San Diego, I kind of wonder about things; ditto the aging Harley chick covered in tramp stamps.  Things have changed, and not for the better.  What was once the domain of Greyhound has expanded to our primary mode of travel. 


Point Two:  Where dia all these fees come from?  One airline has actually started charging for carryons.  Perfect.  You pay to check a bag, or you pay to carry it on.  Don't even start with all the other charges, a la peanuts, Coke or water.  Out of control.


Solution, maybe, though an albeit unpopular one.  Regulate the airlines again, requiring them to serve everyone, even in the non-New York cities.  Reinstate the Civil Aeronautics Board (sorry, Gen-Xers, an old agency) but allowing the airlines to charge reasonably accurate fares to these outposts.  And the airlines need to actually charge what a flight costs.  Yes, this will cost some business in the short term, but can profit in the long term.


And one other thing:  Build a high speed rail system.  Time to institute a competition to the airlines.  Every other developed country in the world has one, or at least a version of it.  President Obama has proposed this, albeit in a too limited basis.  But it will put people to work and give citizens an affordable alternative to the chaos in the skies.  See some nice scenery, too.


And to Jet Blue Dude:  Good on ya, bro.  Lots of folks can't afford to just up and quit, and this little episode will probably give you your fifteen minutes as well as bit of scratch.  But you might want to delete this job from your resume when you decide it's time to look for a job.

To Constitution or not to Constitution?

To hear our Republican "friends" in Congress, apparently every one of these esteemed Senators and Representatives are direct descendants of the Founding Fathers, dedicated to defending the sacred Constitution from every perceived threat, from gun control advocates to "activist" (i.e., "liberal") judges.  These fine patriots consistently position themselves as advocates for strict interpretation of our country's founding document, fighting against the radical policies of our socialist/Fascist/Communist (take your pick) President and his allies in his quest for government takeover of America in the Congress--the Democratic Party.


Funny thing, though.  Apparently there are some portions of the Constitution that don't pass muster with these great Americans and must either be ignored or changed.  In the last few weeks, we've seen a few examples of this.


In my home state of Arizona, the legislature and unelected Governor enacted Senate Bill 1070, a measure that blatantly ignores the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which dictates that Federal law supersedes State and local laws; the enforcement of immigration is a Federal responsibility, but our "representatives" chose to take over this task, citing facetious threats of hordes of illegal aliens overwhelming the state and rampant crime erupting (conveniently ignoring official crime statistics showing that property and violent crimes in Arizona have decreased 40% from 1995 to 2008).  The direct assault on the 14th amendment, protecting the individual against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law was another facet of this piece of legislative garbage.


And the stupidity didn't stop with the local pols.  Both our Senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, defend this mess to the hilt, pandering to the loony right wing "base" which has sadly become what's left of a once-great political party.  One can understand this behavior from the senescent McCain, who is locked in a primary battle with an even more ridiculous figure, former Representative J.D. Hayworth, who makes Attila the Hun look like Gandhi.  But the Senate's Republican whip, Kyl, is in on the action as well.  More on this below.


When a Federal district judge wisely enjoined the more onerous provisions of this law pending further judicial action, the howls from all these self-serving "patriots" naturally arose.  Judge Susan Bolton was labeled as an "activist" (note that she was recommended by Kyl for appointment to the bench by President Clinton), and the knuckle-dragging loons, egged on by talk radio charlatans as well as the aforementioned public servants, began calling for her impeachment.


So, since the xenophobes have been (temporarily) thwarted in their efforts to violate the 14th, which was put into place after the Civil War to protect individual rights, what to do?  Why, repeal it, of course! 

None other than Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the few sane Republicans left in Congress, suggested that the 14th should be revisited; this from the guy who, along with our own McCain, was one of the few GOP proponents of real immigration reform. (Of course, this was before the Teabaggers and their corporate backers swallowed up the party.  Things can change on a dime these days.)  Of course, Kyl followed, following his tradition of lemming-like behavior in waiting for someone else to make a controversial point, then getting on the bandwagon. This isn't the state of Goldwater and Udall any more; real leadership is gone from the political landscape.

And back at home, state Sen. Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, is preparing to draft legislation which would deny citizenship to "anchor babies", those born in the United States of illegal alien parents.  Again, completely ignoring the 14th Amendment and wasting taxpayer money on a clearly unconstitutional effort. 

However, there's hope.  SB 1070 will wind its way through the Federal court system over a long time, probably ending up in the Supreme Court; until then, and unless a higher court overturns Judge Bolton's injunction, the Hispanic citizens and legal residents of Arizona can hopefully breathe a little easier and not be concerned about being pulled over for DWB (Driving While Brown).  Stay tuned. 

Welcome

Welcome to my new blog.  I'm hoping to indulge my love of writing and current affairs by communicating thoughts here.  Here's what you can expect from this blog:

• I'm extremely interested in politics and policy---kind of a "wonk".  So you'll see a ton of posts on the issues of the day.
• My political leanings are decidedly progressive, and I come by this honestly;  I left the Republican Party years ago when they tacked toward the loony evangelical right.  I guess I would have been called "middle of the road" back in the day when we weren't so polarized as a nation.  I still think of myself that way.
• I won't be sharing a lot of aspects of my personal life except when they're exceptionally entertaining.  I live a quiet life in retirement, and appreciate a sense of normalcy after a thirty year career.
• Comments are always welcome, but of course will be moderated for content.  I'm firmly committed to civil discourse; in fact, one of the reasons I'm starting this blog is to encourage reasonable debate, of which we see so little in the media these days.

• Ironic humor will be presented often.  Dry wit combined with intelligence will be highly prized here.
• I'll be tinkering with the "mechanics" of the blog often (fonts, colors, layouts, etc.) depending on my mood.

  So there we are.  Enjoy!

China as the new Japan

A lifetime ago, our country faced a threat from a newly militarized force in Japan.  We paid the price at Pearl Harbor, had a few defeats afterward, but won the war in four years. Along the way, we beat the Nazis with the help of Britain and Russia.  We also helped rebuild the nations we had vanquished and began "the American Century", as many historians have so dubbed it.


Today, we face a similar threat, but on a different level and on a different plane.  China (which we called Red China in my childhood) has bargaining chips, and a burgeoning military, that can bring the United States to its knees should it chose to do so.  As a Communist dictatorship, this nation enjoys the ability to not only embrace the profits of capitalism, but also to deny freedom to its citizens and to threaten the world's currencies by virtue of its huge and growing economy.  


As I write, the United States, while still having the strongest and best military forces on the planet, is in a crisis not seen in our history.  We are mired in record budgetary shortfalls, courtesy of economic and trade policies begun in the 1980s and accelerated from 2001 on.  We have not only spent our national treasure on needless tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, we have attempted to pay for two unneeded wars without asking any of our citizens to pay for them.  We have also enacted a prescription drug benefit which, like the aforementioned wars, was also "off budget" until the current Administration decided to tell the truth about what we're dealing with.


I will state that I support President Obama, with reservations.  As a former Republican, who gravitated away from that party with its movement to the corporate/evangelican/craziness, I'm a Democrat.  But I'm not so blind as to ignore the corruption that money has inflicted on both parties.  But that's another topic for another day.


China represents a national and economic security crisis that we cannot ignore.  As that nation owns so much of our debt, upon which we rely to operate government and supply needed help to Americans on a day to day basis in this day of 9 percent unemployment, we must rethink our tax and trade policies.  I intend to expand on this in future missives.  I welcome your feedback.

Wildcat

A human moment

Sometimes, the "little things in life" take on a larger importance than we think as we go about our hurried lives...


Yesterday, I was in the middle of my usual Sunday routine; brunch at my favorite hangout in Scottsdale, then off to my brother's Taj Mahal-like pool to watch the Giants/Diamondbacks game with a few beers. (Yes, there's a television outside. Talk about decadence.)


Needing fuel for the Batmobile and for me (beer), I stopped at a Circle K to gas up. As I was putting gas into my RAV4, I noticed a late model Murano inching back and forth at a nearby gas pump. The lady behind the wheel got out and attempted to place the nozzle in her tank, with little success. She was an elderly woman, maybe mid 70s, not infirm, but clearly not used to self-service fuel.

I went over to the woman, and asked if I could help. She accepted, and I advised her to move her car closer to the pump so that we could get the nozzle in. After a few attempts, she jockeyed the car close enough so that I could reach the tank. I thought she'd be fine after that, and moved back to the RAV to finish my fueling.

Out of the corner of my eye, though, I saw that the lady was still having trouble, pushing her credit card in and out of the payment slot. I returned to her, and discovered that she was using her driver's license to pay for her gas. Little thought in the back of my cynical brain: What the hell is this woman doing driving? I told her that she needed a credit or debit card to pay for the gas, or pay inside the store. After a couple of minutes fumbling in her purse, she produced a VISA card.

I took over at this point, showed her how the system worked, and decided to stay with her until the fueling was complete. As we waited, (the damned thing was almost empty, based on my knowledge of a Murano's fuel capacity), she explained to me that she was new to all this--her husband, who is ill, always filled up their vehicles. She had been on the west side of Phoenix feeding her son's dog (son was out of town on business) and realized that she was running on empty.

I found myself taken with this woman--maybe as my mom died a few years back, it was nice to help someone out who needed it--and God knows I did enough of that for Mom when she was declining. I brought up the "old days", when a gas station was truly a "service station", and guys would come out and fill your tank, check the oil, and wipe the windshield. In my 50s, I remember that stuff as a little kid. She shared a few personal things which I won't repeat here, but as we conversed, I knew that she was okay...just needed a little education in the America of 2010.

Fueling complete, I showed her how to get a receipt and had her replace the nozzle and replace the gas cap, with a friendly bit of advice that she might try it a few times for practice. In the back of my mind was the thought that she might find herself on her own soon (as my mother had in 2002, though far more independent than this lady) and it wouldn't be a bad idea to know how to gas up your car.

She thanked me profusely-not cloying, but genuinely grateful for my help. I bade her goodbye and went into the store for the beer and an iced tea refill for my Big Gulp....

Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But driving to my brother's home, I felt a strange feeling of peace. I was a Boy Scout a long time ago, and remember that "good deed" stuff. I was brought up with the sense that people help each other out when they need it. Over the years, it's been my observation that we've become a little too "Me-centric" rather than a community--in our relationships, our communities, and in our nation. The Internet, email, texting, and all the modern conveniences haven't helped us really relate to each other, either.

No point here. I never offered my name, nor she hers. It was just a nice, human moment, with a good, warm feeling afterward. We can make a difference in many ways, large and small, like this one. As I floated in the pool, drinking a Miller Lite and watching the national pastime, I reflected on it. A good day, all in all.