http://www.publishedauthors.org/t11170-a-memorial-day-message

http://www.publishedauthors.org/t11170-a-memorial-day-message

Seeking the Antidote for the Poisoned Well of Modern Politics

We’re off to the races again and the current crop of presidential contenders is popping up like so many mushrooms in the night. The coming year will bring with it an endless stream of money-driven ads, personal attacks and talking heads with their polarizing spin intended to align the electorate in accordance with its political charge (Ds to the left, Rs to the right and everybody attacking the center, trying to beat it into conforming with either a D or an R polarity). Liberals are Liberals (except when they re-brand themselves as Progressives, of course) and Conservatives are Conservatives and never shall the train meet in the middle. Once the battle lines are drawn and the likely voters in the middle who cannot be beaten into submission are small enough so that they can be effectively ignored, we go to war in a take no prisoners, the end justifies the means fashion that eventually leads to a “winner” in the D and R boot camp that can lead the country to the usual political civil war that is our election cycle. When the dust settles and the winning general gets the prize of free rent and board at the People’s House for four years with all the golf, free first-class vacations and fund raisers they can manage in order to prepare for the next election cycle. The country is left to lick its political wounds, beaten, bruised, bloodied and blue. Whoever wins, the losers vow revenge and begin an immediate counter-revolutionary campaign to undermine the winner and, if possible, destroy him/her with death by a thousand paper cuts.

            We do the exact same thing every year and hope for a different result, turning democracy or people’s rule from the original Greek into democrazy in our Americanized version.

            But it need not be this way. Political operatives manipulate us only because we allow them to, because we buy into the polarization and the reduction of complex issues to a simple binary 0/1, black-white, yes no answer that ignores the tremendous shades of grey that any thinking person can detect while looking at any complex issue with a modicum of objectivity. The truth is we don’t want to be bothered with the huge swaths of grey areas and promptly attack people who point to them as delusional, misguided, uninformed, obstructionists who would stand in the way of PROGRESS. Those who worry about the grey areas and fail to see only the black/white choices offered them (be they observers from the left or the right of the political spectrum) are lectured ab infinitum in an attempt to refocus their vision on the black or the white ends of the spectrum. If they do not drink the Kool-Aid and don the required blinders to view the world in the “right way”

            Binary thinking is dangerous. All true believers engage in it, be they of the (ultra) Conservative, (ultra) Liberal, Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Anarchist or other absolutist persuasion. Racists use it. So do race-baiters. So do misogynists. It leads to the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” ethos of all radical wingnuts that makes it a capital offense (quite literally, all too often) to hold an opposing point of view. It makes it impossible for people to have honest disagreements since anyone who disagrees with the “right-thinking” dogma are “enemies” to be “destroyed” by “any means necessary.” The seething contempt we see in political attack ads (and the somewhat subtler versions in too many supposedly objective “news reports,” interviews and “round table” discussions in both network and cable news channels) reinforces this type of binary thinking. The cheap tricks of partisans who try to stifle debate by obstructionist tactics or simply by raising their voice in an attempt to drown out opposing points of view also reinforce and perpetuate this mindset.

            The political well has been poisoned for too long—from the beginning of our fledgling democracy in fact (for all of their many strengths and intellectual gifts even great men like Jefferson and Adams behaved very badly in the political arena and contributed in no small way to the brackish political waters that we’ve been forced to drink from their time forward). But its waters are not beyond redemption. All that is needed is an electorate willing to embrace the following simple rules:

1.     Recognize binary thinking for what is: the providence of the intellectually lazy, the weak minded and the uninformed. There are very few political issues with unambiguous black-and-white answers. Most issues that affect our society, including issues of law, ethics and public policy, are highly nuanced. To the man with the hammer the whole world is a nail. But we are all blessed with a far richer set of tools in our personal toolboxes garnered from our life experiences, our education, our independent study, our work and our avocations. People who wield only a hammer will have the same response to every issue: “we need more taxing and spending and equitable distribution of wealth” for those who wield the hammer with the left hands, or “we need to lower all taxes, decrease all government regulation and empower business” for those who wield it with their right hands. Unfortunately, hammers wielded by the left or right hand are just at clumsy and destructive when used on screws and absolutely useless when attempting to loosen or tighten a nut or mend a cracked copper pot. Hammers have their uses, but they cannot replace screwdrivers, wrenches or welding equipment and any effort to put them to those tasks will inevitably yield disastrous results that will be made only worse by increased hammering.

2.     Acknowledge and respect the viability of opposing points of view. Sometimes opposing points of view are irreconcilable with our own and compromise is simply impossible. But this conclusion should not be reached lightly and must be acknowledged as the exception, not the rule, in political discourse. I would no more try to convince a Marxist to adopt my point of view than I would try to pour the contents of the Atlantic Ocean into a hole in the sand in my local beach. A Marxist trying to convince me to adopt Marxism as my political philosophy would have a similar fool’s errand. Before reaching my conclusion, however, I actually read Marx and Engels, took numerous political science classes as an undergraduate student, and even a class in anarchism. I believe I understand the basic tenets of Marxism, Anarchism, and for that matter Fascism far better than the average political commentator or the average demonstrator at any fringe rally. I understand too the basic differences between the Liberal/Progressive and Conservative ideologies, and the essential tenets of the Democratic and Republican parties. I know I can articulate them in any debate at least as well as the average politician who proudly wears any of those labels. I also understand the roots of those differences, the different world views that inform them and the equally different schools of ethics that justify them as well.  Law is my area of expertise. But politics and ethics are also long-standing subjects of interest to me. The connections between law, jurisprudence, politics and ethics are self-evident. Understanding and respecting other points of view is the first step to building meaningful bridges towards compromise.

3.     There are many paths to good public policy. No ideology can claim to have cornered the truth market. People of good will who have the best interest of society in mind must embrace this simple fact. Lasting compromise that is acceptable to people with very different political philosophies can only be reached when neither side is asked to betray its core beliefs. On some issues, compromise is simply not possible because it would require one side to cross a bright line that it is unable to cross in good conscience. Abortion is one such issue where irreconcilable ethical and religious views can make compromise unacceptable to people on both sides of the reproductive freedom debate with inflexible views on the subject. But no such bright line exists as to the vast majority of political issues. An honest understanding of and respect for opposing points of view makes it possible for us to view the world through others’ eyes, to understand their basic assumptions and to plot a viable path towards common goals that circumvents unscalable peaks and catastrophic chasms.

I had the pleasure of a recent dinner and a couple of beers with my dearest friend since High School. He was the best man at my wedding, a person who for me personifies integrity and in whom I have absolute and unquestionable confidence. As is always the case when we spend time together (even over the phone) we turned to the subject of our very different politics and world views and how we’ve been able to bridge these on every single issue since our late teens. In many respects we could not be more different. He is tall, very dark and very handsome. I am on the short and quite dumpy side these days. He was always an excellent athlete and I always tended more to the sedentary couch potato type. He is the strong, quiet type—usually reserved. I am more boisterous and outwardly emotional. He is a life-long Met fan—before the miracle Mets of 1969-- and I’ve always rooted for the Yankees, even in the painful 60s and 70s. He is a left of center life-long Democrat and I am a right of center life-long Republican. He is a Southern Baptist and I a Catholic.  (He was a delegate for the People’s Party when we were in college while I was a Reagan republican then and now.) You get the point. Yet we have been the closest of friends since our first year at Brooklyn Tech where we first met. We are both very bright and, in our own way, very opinionated. We are both very interested in politics. Neither his nor my politics are in the least bit motivated by self-interest. We are kindred spirits in this and in too many other things to list here. Rather than politely tolerate our differences on politics (or sports, for that matter), we’ve spent many hundreds of hours in deep discussions about them—arguing, advocating and invariably always—ALWAYS—reaching a compromise position that we could both live with were we able to set policy ourselves. We’ve even good naturedly ribbed one another about the people we’ve supported over the years, and discussed serious concerns about their weaknesses from our disparate points of view. No issue has been off the table ever—not the death penalty, not abortion, not gay marriage, not race relations, not welfare reform, not absolutely anything that we both feel passionately about and often differ on. We’ve never parted angry from intense discussions and we’ve both had a very real impact on each other’s world view—a discussion we turned to again at our most recent meeting. Our secret is very simple: we have absolute, unshakeable trust in one another and in one another’s integrity. Our belief systems are strongly held but not inflexible. We truly know and understand the other’s world view and can articulate each other’s arguments without a thought—and not in a mocking or condescending way or simply to set up a straw man that we can then knock down. The fact that we disagree on some really important issues gives us both equal pause as to the absolute righteousness of our own point of view. We keep each other honest out of the simple and genuine respect for the other’s views.

As the political campaigns gear up, by all means join the debate, call out politicians who are hypocritical, clueless or corrupt, and argue for your point of view. But show respect for opposing points of view that reasonable people may hold with which you happen to disagree. Governor X who is a Republican may be a complete idiot. That does not make all republicans idiots. Senator Y who is a democrat may be corrupt and clueless, that does not make other democrats corrupt or clueless. Call out public servants who do not serve the public well, but don’t poison the well by hyperbolic, broad-brush attacks on parties or political philosophies. And never simply parrot what others say. That is good advice that goes well beyond politics.

Political Correctness:

For a president who has boasted about the power of his pen and who has not hesitated to use it to legislate from the oval office through executive orders to advance his agenda and sidestep Congress, President Obama has resisted using it to save American lives by imposing a travel ban from West Africa to the U.S. Instead, his Acting Surgeon General has contradicted the centers for Disease Control and assured Americans that the Ebola virus is difficult to transmit--something that might come as somewhat of a shock to the nurses in Spain and the U.S. who contracted the disease while treating infected patients and following established protocols. 

If medical professional in protective suits can become infected, what hope is there for the luckless traveler unfortunate enough to sit next to a sneezing/coughing/sweating Ebola-infected traveler on an airplane, bus, subway, restaurant, school or workplace? If the virus can live for many hours on hard surfaces touched by an infected patient's sweat, mucus, blood or other bodily fluids, (to say nothing of penetrating protective clothing designed to be impenetrable) the deflection from the Obama administration's various spokespersons during press conferences and talk show visits has as much credibility as the statement from the President about there being "not a shred of evidence" about misconduct by the IRS in its targeting of Conservative organizations and denying of tax-free status applications for Conservative groups in violation of federal law during a post Superbowl interview with Bill O'Reilly.

One has to wonder whether there is a shred of credibility left for the current administration--for the man behind the curtain telling us not to trust our eyes, ears, noses or brains but rather the pretty, reassuring messages on the screen that all is well.

As dangerous as Ebola may be, it is not the worst pandemic affecting us today. That dubious honor belongs to a far more wide-spread illness with which we are all being intentionally infected by both government, the media and the entertainment industry: political correctness. This is by no means a new disease; its roots date back to the 1960s and grow from the well fertilized soil of relativistic ethics and left of center political theories that planted it with careful tending by a sympathetic media and academics. Public safety must take a back seat to possibly giving offense to West Africans/African Americans/liberals/open border advocates/Ebola victims or making any of these groups feel bad about themselves.

Preventing harm to the economies of West African countries trumps the health and safety of the American public. These are the actual reasons that President Obama will not impose a travel ban on travel from Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. The rest is just a smokescreen--a mendacious narrative that distorts facts in order to justify doing what the administration wants to do--nothing. 

Temporarily banning travel to the U.S. by anyone with a passport from these three countries or from any other country that shows travel to these affected countries in the past three months is a first step in stemming the flow of additional infected individuals into the U.S. It is a logical, rational, and effective solution demanded by an overwhelming majority of Americans in recent polls.

Yes we should allow humanitarian relief and travel to these countries by special permission aboard military aircraft or chartered flights, but NOT on regular airline flights. Constructing a patently absurd rationale for doing nothing is unconscionable.

I predict President Obama will eventually give in to the demand for a travel ban, but not until there are additional deaths in the U.S. from Ebola-infected victims. Perhaps when a child dies of the disease transmitted by an infected teacher or classmate school or in daycare, or by an infected passenger on a flight the administration will see the wisdom of imposing a travel ban. Why must more people die before the political machinery acts? On whose heads will those deaths be? 

Doubtless some will reject what I write off hand as a partisan attack on the President. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats since I first voted at the age of 18. Yes, I've voted mostly for Republicans, but Robert Kennedy and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan were also heroes of mine, alongside President Ronald Reagan, and William F. Buckley, Jr. And my best friend was a former delegate for the People's Party when we were both in college.

This is not about politics, but rather about a secular religion of political correctness being forced on the American public. It was incubated in college campuses in the '60s and '70s and moved well beyond the Petri dishes of academia into the general populace nurtured by the media and the Hollywood elites to a point where we have become a nation paralized by this disease. Civil discourse is discouraged on topics found to be "offensive" to the social/political/lifestyle predilections of the few. Those who challenge political correctness and the preferred narrative of the left are subjected to ad hominem attacks and labelled as bullies / racists / mysogynysts / homophobes / reactionaries (and sometimes all of the above) in a vile attempt to silence voices of dissent by any means necessary. These are the tactics of the extremists from time immemorial and call to mind such paragons of utopian bliss as Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and the Stalinist Soviet Union, to name but the tip of a very cold, dirty and dangerous political iceberg.

So what is the current Administration doing about the Ebola issue? judge for yourself based not only on the record but on today's news report in The Daily Mail of President Obama's naming of an "Ebola Csar":

"Obama names Ebola czar with NO healthcare experience to take over bungled response to crisis"

"Ron Klain will coordinate the Obama administration's Ebola response efforts

• He is a longtime Democratic Party political operative and generous political donor with no background in medicine or public health
• Klain was chief of staff to Vice Presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden
• Managed Gore's legal team during the 2000 presidential election recount in Florida and ran debate prep for John Kerry in 2004
• Kevin Spacey portrayed him in the movie 'Recount' – and his character in the movie 'Outbreak' died of Ebola
• Klain boasted that he was responsible for hiring Obama's second White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2797340/obama-taps-political-operative-no-health-care-background-ebola-czar-job-new-cases-emerge-lawmakers-demand-action.html#ixzz3GQkJ7mje

Were this not tragic, it would be very funny. You simply cannot make this stuff up. If President Obama simply created an "Disinformation Csar" or a "Ministry of Propaganda" there would at least be a refreshing ring of truth from an administration that promised transparency but has thus far delivered all the transparency of a lead-lined bunker.

Worshipping on the Altar of Political Correctness

Pressure has always been applied to authors to "conform" to the conventions of their time. And there have always been those who want to BAN anything that OFFENDS them. Ironically, (and hypocritically) the very same people who ridicule those who would ban (or burn) books they find offensive/subversive/dangerous are the first to point indignant fingers at those who use language (or, worse, espouse ideas) that offend them. No society that yields to such forces from either the right or left of the political spectrum will long remain a democracy.

Political correctness has reached an absurd climax in the U.S. today. Outright racist language is attacked, and rightfully so, though only if it is used by the "wrong" people. (Read: whites can't use the N word in any context, but blacks can--and they can also call whites "crackers, "whitey," and other equally derogatory words with impunity.) A black man or woman calling another black man or woman an Oreo as a derogatory term is perfectly acceptable (meaning they are "black on the outside but white on the inside") in writing, on television or in casual speech. A black person referring to any lawyer as a "Jew" is also perfectly fine and does not raise a problem with the thought police on network television (as in "I'm going to call my Jew", meaning my lawyer, who could be white, Christian or Korean for that matter as the term is just a synonym for "lawyer" in some quarters) But the use of "niggardly" which as we all know refers only to ones unwillingness to part with cash, being stingy, miserly or ungenerous and has absolutely nothing to do with a racist term, is loudly called into question as a "racist" term because, you know, it sounds too much like the "N" word and heavens forfend anyone actually have to know the meaning of a word prior to raising the alarm and getting their grievance aired on national television.

Likewise this week the term "white is the new black" referring as anyone with the IQ above that of a potato knows to be a fashion statement--that the color white is replacing the color black as the "in" color in fashion circles.  No matter; it offends the sensibilities of the senseless and must be called into question, quashed and banned from the language lest anyone suffer the slings and arrows of a perceived slur. Never mind that absolutely no one complained when the highly popular cable show "Orange is the New Black," which obviously also refers to the same fashion cliche, first aired or at any time during its highly successful run. If prison jumpsuits were red rather than orange and the show was titled "Red is the New Black" then perhaps there would also be some outrage at the possibility of some Native American taking offense since the term could conceivably be construed as a racial slur as well. On the other hand, "Yellow is the New Black" would likely not raise many hackles as no one seems to have any sensibility whatever against real or perceived slurs against Orientals these days and blacks would likely not see any problem with that comparison as only comparisons to "whites" are banned. And if any Oriental complained, they'd be dismissed as nut jobs, told to grow the hell up, or perhaps labeled as "racist" for even suggesting that a racial slur was intended by such an obviously racial-neutral term.

Race baiting and the marketing of hatred is big business. Just ask any self-proclaimed "Civil Rights Leader" flocking to the scene of any area of civil unrest chanting "NO JUSTICE NO PEACE." For my part, I will always speak my mind and write exactly as I please, and I will support the rights of others to do exactly the same as is their Constitutionally protected right. Anyone who does not like it is free to not read what I write and/or criticize me as she/he sees fit. That is the hallmark of a free and healthy society. Those who take offense are free to whine and pout at will; what they cannot do is impose their will on anyone other than those who lack the courage to oppose them.

_________________
Victor D. López

Recent Books:

Business Law: An Introduction, 2nd Edition
Business Law and the Legal Environment of Business, 2nd. Edition
Intellectual Property Law: A Practical Guide to Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks and Trade Secrets
Mindscapes: Ten Science Fiction and Speculative Fiction Short Stories

The Imperial Presidency

King Obama I? For "progressives" the Constitution is a living document (read: one is free to change, reinterpret or ignore it when it stands in the way of "progress"). President Obama, however, has gone one step further: just ignore it altogether.

Rule by fiat has its advantages--by the time Congress gets angry enough to take action in the courts (or the House gets outraged enough to draft articles of impeachment) his term will likely be over. But the damage done to the balance of power and the Constitution will remain as Obama's legacy.

Those who applaud the selective enforcement of federal law, the undermining of the federal legislature and the marginalizing of the Constitution will rue the day when the pendulum swings as it invariably does from left to right and right to left (Carter-Reagan, Bush-Clinton, Clinton-Bush,Bush-Obama,Obama-????). When a conservative recaptures the White House and Senate and inherits a supercharged Executive Pen with which to legislate from the Oval Office (and can appoint like-minded nominees without worrying about Senate filibusters thanks to Harry Reid's trampling on the time-honored veto power of the senate to oppose presidential appointments for partisan gain), the cheerleaders from the left and relative silence from the traditional media will be replaced by squeals of righteous outrage and hoards of Chicken Littles (read: reporters) who now placidly snore through the most imperial presidency in memory will awaken to regale us with a cacophonous chorus with which to announce the impending end of civilization as we know it.

Here is a memo to gleeful and furious partisans alike who applaud or decry blatant abuse of executive powers for partisan purposes: When a train is traveling at 300 miles per hour towards a solid wall, the ultimate effect is the same--and predictable with 100 percent certainty--whether a conservative or liberal are at the controls.

The Ongoing Battle to Secularize Christmas

A small but very vocal minority in the United States is waging an ongoing battle to secularize Christmas.  A multi-front attempt for years waged in the courts under the guise of protecting the First Amendment Establishment clause that prohibits the establishment of any one religion by the Federal Government–a clear attempt by the founders to prohibit the U.S. from establishing the Church of the united States along the lines of the British “Church of England.” Unhappy at their ability to erase all references to religion and all displays of religious observance in the courts, proponents of a “god-free” America have increasingly focused their efforts on attacking religion on grounds of “inclusiveness” and general political correctness. In a country where the only recognized sin  appears to be political incorrectness, wishing someone a “Merry Christmas” has actually been banned by some retailers in recent years, only to reverse themselves when people made their displeasure known. In the more recent past, a group of atheists posted a billboard in New York’s Times Square demanding that Christ be taken out of Christmas, asking rhetorically “Who needs Christ in Christmas — No one.” And today, as I write this, I saw a news report on CNN about the classic Christmas song “Holy Night” having its words changed when performed by school children in a choir at one American school  to omit references to both Christ and to the Virgin Mary. Atheists have long complained about the Pledge of Allegiance containing teh phrase “One nation, under God . . ..” May I suggest “One nation, paralyzed by political correctness” as an alternative?
 
I accept a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Chanukah” or “Happy Winter Solstice” for that matter in the spirit in which the greeting is offered. My Jewish Friends and colleagues usually wish me a Merry Christmas and I them a Happy Chanukah (or Happy belated Chanukah this year when the holidays do not coincide). How a well-intentioned greeting can be offensive is itself offensive to me. Billboards on Times Square broadcasting “Who needs Christ in Christmas — Nobody” on the other hand are extremely offensive, as are the idiot attempts to “sanitize” “Silent Night” by omitting references to Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary in today’s news from some misguided school in the U.S..

Can you imagine the universal (and righteous) outrage if anyone put up a billboard in Times Square with similarly intentionally offensive comments about religious holidays like Ramadan, Chanukah or, for that matter, any religion but Christianity? Humanists, atheists and run of the mill cranks and wingnuts of all stripes should take notice, in case they did not get the memo: Christmas is exclusively about Christ. It is not about consummerism, Rudolph, Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost or blooming chestnuts roasting on an open fire, any more than Easter is about chocolate bunnies or baskets of goodies doled out to children.
In our insane politically correct society, anything that offends anyone must be co-opted, changed or banned. (Unless, of course, offense is directed at targets for which the political left feels disdain and contempt, like Christianity (and, to a lesser extent, all organized religion), Conservatives, Republicans (from the right, left and center), Tea Party members, the military, and so on.

If anyone is offended that Christmas is a Christian holiday and “feels bad” about it for much of December, then the response is to secularize the holiday. Ban the wishing of a “Merry Christmas,” and push for getting Christ out of Christmas. And, of course, let’s inject race into the equation. Santa Claus should not be portrayed as a white man. The fact that the character is based on a white Christian Saint of Turkish/Greek origins is, well, irrelevant. Does any thinking human being other than a bigot actually believe that GOD gives a flying fig about the color of St. Nicholas’ skin? Of the race of His only son? Or of yours, mine or of the misguided fools who put up the billboard on Times Square?

I respect all religions and I equally respect agnostics and atheists who question all religion or reject it outright. How could I not, having had friends and colleagues whom I dearly respect who are atheists, Jews, Muslims and, yes, even Wiccans? (Yes, I actually know a good witch or two and care for them no less or more than my good Catholic friends.) I do no impose my religion on anyone or, in general, wear it on my sleeve. If you do not practice a black mass or worship Satan, I will respect your religion too and expect the same courtesy in return. I also give very wide berth to those who would push any religion–including mine–on me or anyone else. But I will not tolerate anyone co-opting a religion or a religious holiday for their own use.

If you like the spirit of Christmas but are not Christian, no problem. Erect your own holiday tree, Chanukah Bush, Winter Solstice Tree, or Frosty the Snowman and have a great time. The spirit of Christmas transcends the religious significance of the holiday; good will is not the province of any single religion and is, in fact, independent of religion altogether. Having said that, Christmas is, has always been and will always be first and foremost about Christ. Anyone who did not get (or does not like) the message is free to foam at the mouth, howl at the moon, and to celebrate (or invent) their own holiday to coincide with the Christian Holiday. Americans can celebrate the season any way they wish, or not celebrate it at all. They can rail against the blatant commercialization of Christmas (and I will agree with them on that front). What they cannot do is redefine a High Holy Day for the vast majority of Americans to suit their political, philosophical or religious predilections. Doing is, well, un-American.

On the Passing of Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela’s heroism, quiet strength and incredible courage are qualities that we can all agree on, however difficult it may be for us to agree on the value (or lack thereof) of other world leaders. He is someone fully deserving of praise, emulation and remembrance. God bless him for he was truly one of His best creations.

It takes a man like Nelson Mandela to change our perspective. No one has had a greater reason to be bitter, angry, or to embrace violence in the name of justice/revenge. No one was less likely to do any of these things than he. Some speak of change and some effect it. Some pontificate on the value of their ideas and some add enormous value through the power of their ideas. Some speak endlessly and say nothing while some waste no time in idle chatter and go about changing the world for the better through their actions, their example, and their principles throughout their lives.

Outgoing NYC Mayor Bloomberg very wisely named a school for Nelson Mandela that he had visited much earlier in his life after being released from an unconscionable imprisonment in South Africa. I wish we could name a world for him. What a transformational figure and what a reminder of the tremendous capacity of the human heart for compassion, decency, and quiet dignity. I will never be able to think of him without smiling as I have never seen him through the years in the best and worst times of his life without a smile.

No matter where we live, no matter our station in life, we have been enriched by his life and are poorer for his passing. Heaven is richer, though, and he leaves us a boundless good will that will be his legacy.