Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

>     Barack Obama is running against Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Surprisingly, he would appoint her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to a position in an Obama Administration in “a second” because “there are few more talented people” Obama is quoted as saying in a recently released TIME magazine article.
    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg met yesterday with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and today met with Barack Obama. There is speculation that Bloomberg, with his extraordinary personal wealth, is considering running as an Independent for the Presidential nomination in 2008 and is picking his Vice Presidential running mate now, or strategizing, to set forth what the “total package” would be.
    What’s going on? Feel like you’re falling through the looking glass? What’s going on is called “change” and it’s very, very good
    I watched the Republican YouTube debate two nights ago. What a farce and disappointment. Actually, not so much different that the Democratic debate a few weeks ago. And I know my feelings represent the way most Americans feel about our government. It’s corrupt, it’s too big, it’s self-serving to the few, in disregard of the many, and populated by insiders who perpetuate all of what I’ve just mentioned. So, it’s a little exciting, and should stir hope in your heart, that Barack Obama would cross a line and flatly state that he would appoint not only an ex-President of the United States but his opponent’s husband to a position if elected because the man is talented.
    Sounds to me like merit-based, instead of patronage-based employment.
    As for the aspirations or intentions of Mayor Bloomberg, well yes… he is white, male and wealthy so there’s a lot of “Old Guard” and “Old Boy” there..but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bloomberg is obviously trying to think outside the box, in one direction or another, and that’s the only way we’re going to pull ourselves up out of this mess. So, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and see where all of this is heading.
    Personally, I believe there are enough of us out here ready to make the jump, in a new direction in terms of leadership, if only those leaders will step forward who have the courage to speak not only truth to power but to us as well. We absolutely do know when we’re being manipulated and when we’re being respected. We’ve always known. It’s just recently, however, that we’ve awakened to what our responsibility is in making sure that we are treated with integrity and respect…and we each definitely have a part, as well as a duty, in assuring that outcome.
    I had a little locally-based but related chuckle yesterday around this very issue. The newly elected Mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, has pledged to clean up the Philadelphia Parking Authority, recently identified as a bastion of corruption and improper use of funds. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Randell also pledged to look into the matter and seek both clarification and resolution. My chuckle came from the fact that 31 years ago I was an appointee to City government in Philadelphia during Mayor Bill Green’s Administration and it was common knowledge that the Parking Authority was both corrupt and a patronage stronghold. It always has been. So this is a perfect example of how the way government has been “leading us” changes nothing and institutionalizes less than integrity-based behavior.
    Which is why I welcome mavericks like Obama and Bloomberg. I’m not a Pollyanna and I don’t think any of them will “save us.” But a few good men and women, willing to break some molds and take some risks, can do wonders. Take Socrates, Joan of Arc, the Colonists, the Founding Fathers (and Mothers), Rosa Parks, or Mother Teresa. 
    Perhaps in the not so distant future I’ll be able to write, “Take Barack Obama or Michael Bloomberg….”

> Last night I watched the Democrat Presidential debate from Las Vegas and listened to CNN’s media commentary immediately following. This morning I am reading media accounts of it and, all told, am convinced that there are at any one time alternate realities operating.
    The choice is ours as to which one we want to participate in.
    CNN’s coverage following the debate included Andersen Cooper, David Gergen and J.C. Watts.  Their astute observations and conclusions can be wrapped up in one sentence: Hilary regained her ground, Obama and Edwards missed an opportunity to stay on the attack, and the first 10 minutes of the debate that were frought with petty infighting were the best.
    This morning, other media analysis follows suit, with the Republicans choosing to stay on the attack of Clinton’s “inconsistent” statements on various issues as they continue to think she is the horse to beat in this race.
    I, on the other hand (or should I say in the other reality) watched a remarkably uplifting and encouraging debate among several intelligent and informed individuals who, after a few minutes of going after one another, gave it up in order to passionately address in as much specificity as time allowed the issues that matter to us…the American people.
    What a change!
    Change is good.
    What the candidates did, led I might say by Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd, was to cut through so much of the “political speak” and parsing of words to talk straight from the heart and shoot straight from the hip, showing us they finally hear that we don’t trust them anymore.
    This is a very good sign.
    Some even threw caution completely to the wind…and it may cost them. Bill Richardson said “Human Rights are more important than national security” which will hurt him and give the Conservative Right Wing glee and fodder for their canons. I suspect that Richardson was trying to say the two were inextricably bound and that without demanding and enforcing human rights at home and abroad we negatively impact our credibility and security. In fact, the other candidates who had time to reflect on the question tried to say something along those lines. But look at Richardson’s courage in bringing human rights to the forefront and giving it the status it deserves. Bravo!
    This was not your usual meaningless, controlled, cautious political debate scripted for mass appeal.
    This was the Democrat Party coming alive again, the party I grew up with and remember. This was the passion and speaking truth to power I want to see in leaders of the 21st century.
    Yes, they’re still not perfect and there’s still a lot of gamesmanship and manipulating of the facts going on. But be assured. Last night the pendulum swung back toward the truth and the momentum shifted.     That momentum is fueled by We The People, and now having moved in a new direction, will not cease it’s path. We The People have demanded quietly, and now more vociferously, that business as usual must go and be replaced with a system and a paradigm that support growth, integrity and human dignity.
    That’s the reality I’m living in and hope you join me here. The media and the Republicans may choose to put a more controlled spin on what occurred last night but I’d advise them to beware.
    We The People are speaking…and they better be listening… because the Democrats are.
    

>     During the period between 2002-2004, two Chinese pro-democracy dissidents named Wang Xiaoning and Shi Tao used Yahoo’s message boards to post information about China’s persecution of pro-democracy activists. The Chinese government asked Yahoo to provide the IP addresses and e-mail accounts on the postings and Yahoo complied. The two dissidents were arrested and Shi is now spending 10 years in a Chinese dungeon for his views and actions in creating the postings. Yahoo, when asked by Congressional investigators why they provided the information stated that 1) they had to comply with local law and 2) at the time Yahoo turned over the information they did not know the nature of the investigation. It turns out that a later published version of the Chinese government’s request indicated that the basis for the request and the focus of the investigation was clear at the time Yahoo complied.
    Yahoo representatives, it seems, lied to Congress.
    Now there’s a shock. 
    Congressional hearings commenced yesterday on Yahoo’s behavior. Twelve lawyers representing Yahoo prepared one lawyer, Michael Callahan (Yahoo’s Executive V.P. and General Counsel), to testify  before Congress regarding the incident. Mr. Callahan called Yahoo’s failure to honestly admit to what it had known a “misunderstanding” and said it “did not occur” to Yahoo to bring the “new information” to Congress.
    
As a former practicing attorney, I am often proud of the determination
and creativity I periodically see in the practice of law by fellow
lawyers. I am equally perplexed and ashamed by the dishonesty and
stupidity I periodically see as well.
    Let’s take it one Yahoo excuse at a time.
    First, Yahoo said it did not know the nature of the investigation when it turned over the requested information. Since a later disclosure and translation of the request document itself by the human rights group Dui Hua clearly showed this to be untrue, we are faced with the willful and knowing intention by Yahoo executives to lie.
    For profit. Surely that is what this is all about. Yahoo wanted and still wants to be in on the booming Chinese internet market and weighed it’s integrity against it’s bottom line and integrity came up light. Surely there’s enough profit in Yahoo that it did not need to proceed in this way at this time. Or maybe not. Maybe what my dear friend Ruth used to say about human frailty is true: “More is never enough.” If that’s the case, and it’s also the sole motivator for Yahoo’s corporate mission (regardless of what they say the mission is) then we cannot rely on their corporate integrity.
    Secondly, as to Yahoo’s having to “comply with local law”…well, this is where I’d have preferred those thirteen lawyers to have risen to the occasion rather than acquiesced to it. Surely thirteen U.S. educated, bright, legal minds could have used the energy they used to deceive Congress to instead come up with a rationale for the Chinese government as to why they could not have turned over the requested information.
    I think the lesson in all of this is that when we are motivated solely by our wallets without the benefit of guidance from our conscience we find it easy, and justifiable, to stray further and further from what is the highest good for all concerned.
    I used to be in business with a woman whose specialty is in the field of data mining. When this original story broke, she said “Yahoo probably complied with the Chinese government’s request because they wanted to continue to do business in China in the hopes of bringing Western ideas and democracy in through the internet. Shi was a small sacrifice for the higher good.”
    Nice spin…but I don’t think it works that way.   
    I think compromising your integrity on core principles and values is a very slippery slope.  When you justify decisions that make those compromises you just grease the slide.
    Perhaps Yahoo can take a lesson from my personal approach.
    Ever since I married 16 years ago, my husband always tries to suggest a vacation in Jamaica when we’re looking for a place to go. It’s sort of become a little family joke, but it’s none-the-less true. Whenever he mentions Jamaica and how lovely it is and how there’s a beautiful Sandals Resort there…I always respond with “I don’t vacation in a country that  doesn’t have a human rights policy.”
    Now I realize that limits where I will vacation and what I might see in this lifetime. But I like to vote with my wallet.
    Yahoo, are you listening?
    

>    On Monday, as Californians struggled with the horror of their State in flames, talk radio show host Glenn Beck made light of the tragedy expressing less-than-compassionate Conservatism for the plight of “Hollywood Liberals” and the acting community in general.  As I listened to his rant, I was momentarily taken aback by his apparent insensitivity…until I remembered his show’s motto: “The Fusion of Entertainment and Enlightenment.” Clearly, Mr. Beck was “performing” and bringing his brand of humor to a group of people, and a State, that he regularly pans.
    I got it. However, many bloggers did not.
    On Tuesday, Mr. Beck felt the need to clear up the many attempts by “liberal bloggers” to paint him as both villainous and callous for mocking Californians in the throes of a nightmare and taking joy in the loss of their homes. He clearly and adamantly denied any such thoughts and feelings and explained what I had figured out…that he was joking.
    On Wednesday (today), I would like to comment on both Mr. Beck’s original statements and the subsequent and retaliatory statements by liberal bloggers.
    Actually, I want to comment on what unites us, rather than what divides us.
    Glenn Beck has very specific political, religious and social views. I admire him for his courage in standing up, and by, those people and things he believes in. I didn’t say I agree with him. I said I admire his courage. And while some of his views appear to me to be fear-based, I have heard enough to know that in his heart he would suffer for anyone else’s suffering. He is a compassionate man.
    He is also, in his words, “a rodeo clown” who, despite his efforts at humility, has an ego that sometimes gets in his way. He’s human, like all of us. When he “joked” about the California wildfires as they were burning down homes, causing death and destruction, he was over the line. Mass suffering is not a funny subject.
    The bloggers who retaliated and sought to castigate Mr. Beck for his insensitivity had really been laying in wait to jump on him for any reason. They are his political and philosophical enemies. If they had the slightest intention of mirroring the truth, they would have had to admit that he had just gone over the “enlightenment” line and entered the “entertainment” zone. Tasteless, yes…but malevolent, no. But had they done that, they would not have been able to attack him personally on their blogs.
     Both Mr. Beck and the bloggers could have used their “bully pulpits” more wisely. 
     On Monday, Mr. Beck could have dropped his radio persona momentarily and asked his audience, the “third most listened to talk radio show in America”, to stop what they were doing and literally pray for the inhabitants of California. He is, after all, a devout Mormon who “gets on his knees every day” seeking guidance from God.
    I think it’s a safe guess to say God would not tell him to mock a tragedy in the making wherein His children were suffering.
    The bloggers need to use their space and time to uplift others, not to daily troll the media for opportunities to attack individuals who are politically or philosophically different than they.
    We all must learn two vital lessons of this century:

    1.  United we stand, divided we fall.  This does not mean we agree on everything. It means we honor the diversity and differences among us toward the common end of Oneness.
    
    2.  When one of us suffers, we all suffer.  This does not mean that we need to take on the suffering of others. But it does mean that we must open our hearts, and use our minds, to support them in the way out of their suffering.
      
    Personally, I’d like to thank both Glenn Beck and the liberal bloggers for this opportunity to give voice to something we can all rally behind.

>  Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister of Pakistan, returned to her country yesterday after 8 years of self-imposed exile. Although warned to delay the return based upon intelligence that indicated her life was in jeopardy, Ms. Bhutto proceeded as planned. The arrival brought the anticipated attempt on her life and, although she was not harmed, over 100 of her supporters were killed and hundreds more wounded when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in the throngs that greeted her motorcade.
    The ire directed towards the former Prime Minister has to do with who her perceived friends are. She is seen as a friend of the West, and, therefore, an enemy of those forces in the Middle East and Europe who are bent on imposing world-wide, terrorist-based Islamic rule.
    While much can be said for Ms. Bhutto, it is her followers and supporters that deserve our attention and respect. Every person who publicly turned out to greet her knew, with certainty, they were risking their life to do so. But like Ms. Bhutto, they refused to be intimidated or cowered into denying who they chose as “friend.”
    Bullies are as old as humankind. It’s one of our less attractive qualities.  They exist and are evident as early as kindergarten. Some children will try, by sheer force of will or body, to make another child do or say or be the way they want them to be. And too often, this approach works. The practice doesn’t stop as we get older…it just becomes more subtle…more socially acceptable. In middle school, high school and college it can most often be seen as the will of the “clique” or the hierarchy of peers or the criteria for acceptance into a sorority or fraternity. Whatever the means, the message is clear: conform or be rejected and ostracized.
    The potential for the acting out of this less than admirable human quality, in it’s extreme, is seen in acts of war. Children growing up with the quality unchecked and lacking conscience, who gain access to either political or military power, have the opportunity to escalate, exponentially, the force by which they try and impose their will upon others.   
    Threat of death is a powerful motivator.
    We are not so surprised when a former Head of State such as Benazir Bhutto faces down the threat of death and proceeds based upon her beliefs. What is amazing, and needs to be lauded, is the determination and courage exhibited by her followers who faced the threat of death to support what and who they believe in.
    The bullies are among us. They have a committed, albeit perverted, determination to impose their will upon us. They think they can tell us what to believe and around whom to rally. They think the threat of harm and the specter of death is all they need to cower us into submission.
    There is no darkness that is not extinguished by light. The way to battle the bullies is not with might. It is not to meet them on the battlefield of their choosing and, by so doing, become them.
  The bullies hide their identity and cloak themselves in darkness. The way to beat the bullies is to give energy to the Light. The way to prevail is to, at every opportunity, stand up for what is the best that humankind is capable of achieving. The way to prevail is to understand that when you feed anything you give it power.
    Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize recipient Eli Wiesel said the thing he learned in the Concentration camps was that “you do not give evil energy.” By keeping your thoughts, words and actions behind that which elevates the human condition you will be nurturing and powering the best of us.
    If you’re wondering what that looks like, it was the scene in Pakistan yesterday.
    While the terrorists and the media would have us distracted by the mayhem, blood and destruction there, I saw only the Light.
    Some things, you see, are worth dying for.
    
        
    
            

> President Bush is meeting this week with the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of the Tibetan people.  The meeting will take place not in the West Wing where the President usually meets with heads of state and dignitaries, but rather in the residence quarters. The “downgrade” appears to be an attempt to placate the Chinese who are enraged at the meeting. China has claimed Tibet as a part of China for years, while Tibetans claim sovereignty during much of the same time period and seek it still.
    This morning, Conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck was mocking the Dalai Lama’s well known smile and joyous demeanor by saying, “Well, that’s really working for him, isn’t it? Tibet still isn’t free.” Mr. Beck, it should be stated, is generally a hawk on military matters as he believes we are living in the “End Times” and Armageddon is just a Mullah away. He further believes that the only acceptable Presidential candidate in 2008 will be one willing and able to “pull the trigger” so to speak to take out the bad guys when they come for us.
    So, it’s no surprise that he misses the meaning behind the smile.
    I have never been in the presence of the Dalai Lama, nor do I know if Mr. Beck has. But I have been in the presence of a Buddhist master. His very presence and countenance so affected me that for days following that meeting I not only felt calmer, more centered and closer to the concept of world unity, but those around me visibly noticed and commented on my own changed behavior.
    I have also been in the presence of countless politicians, local and national. I have never felt calmer, more centered or more united with humanity as a result nor have those meetings ever had any lasting positive effect upon me.
    Mr. Beck’s implication is that a smile and joyous inner sense of peace will not help the world situation in any significant way. But aggression and war, the modus operandi of the politicians and people in power, have never helped the world in any significant way either and they’ve had their crack at it for at least 2000+ years now. So, before we are so quick to write off the smiling monk, perhaps we should give joyfulness and love of humanity a try.
    It’s often said that we in the West do not understand that the “bad guys” have a long range plan fostered with patience because they believe their “mission” is ordained by God.  
    Now I don’t know for sure, and this is only a guess, but I believe that observation is also applicable to how the Dalai Lama must feel about his “mission.” He too has a long range plan that is fostered by patience and ordained by a higher power.  
    If I were a betting woman, I’d place my money on the Dalai Lama and others like him. There are more and more of us re-awakening from a long, delusional sleep to the power of positive thoughts, good deeds, right speech and a joyous countenance.
   Personally, I believe in a Creator. And if truth be known, I’d place yet another bet. I bet the intention in creating All That Is, if in fact we could see that intention, would look exactly like the smile on the Dalai Lama’s face.
    I think I just heard a voice say, “Pay the woman.”
   
   

>    We’ve just been gifted a stunning
contrast in the use, or misuse, of higher education and the public trust.
Carnegie Mellon University, founded in 1900, invited 43-year-old
Professor Randy Pausch to speak as part of the University’s “Last
Lecture Series.” These are lectures by guest professors who, hypothetically, have only one lecture left to give. At about the same time, Columbia University founded in 1893 invited
51-year-old Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak and
participate in a Q&A session.
    Two universities founded during
the same era having two guest speakers of the same generation provided
us with a rare glimpse into two alternate realities.
    Professor
Pausch, husband and father of three young children, is dying of
pancreatic cancer with no more than, at best, a few months to live. For him the Carnegie’s “Last Lecture” premise is not a hypothetical. Yet the message he conveyed in his speech was in support of the sanctity and uniqueness of every human life. His
delivery was filled with joy and laughter. This man has “been more alive” in his 43 years and produced more creative accomplishments than most of
us will do regardless of how long we live. He faces death as he embraces
life…with enthusiasm, joy and a sense of wonder. He leaves his
children (and those of us fortunate enough to have heard him or read
the transcript) with a joy for life, a sense of wonder, and an
understanding for the importance of giving oneself and others enough
support, encouragement and time to be the best they are capable of
becoming.
    President Ahmadinejad, also a husband and father of
three young children, appears to be healthy of body but is diseased of
mind and Soul. He is a proponent of genocide, suppression of individual
rights, the death penalty for “moral” violations that offend Islam, and
the imposition and oversight by government of individual religious
beliefs. His message is one of separation, judgment, oppression, and the
use of deadly force to accomplish one’s goals.
    Carnegie Mellon
has used it’s venue to uplift the human spirit, affirm the highest
good, ignite the hearts and inspire the minds of those who will take us
into the future.
    Columbia has used it’s venue to feed the egos
of President Ahmadinejad and it’s own President Bollinger. More
troubling is that it’s leadership chose to give energy, and
thereby support, to the destructive rantings of a troubled Soul by
providing him with a platform and making him it’s focal point.
Columbia’s choice gave fuel only to the continuation of such behavior
on the part of Ahmadinejad and others like him.  Apparently, inspiration of the students was not even on
the program yesterday. Surely, it must have never even crossed  President Bollinger’s
mind.
    So what can we learn from these two men?
    A dear
friend of mine, who passed away a few years ago, used to say “We’re all
crippled in some way. It’s just that on some of us it shows, and on
others it doesn’t.” She meant it in the most loving way…to say how
each of us must struggle with limitation and by so doing, overcome it.
   
Professor Pausch is struggling with death. It’s visible and immediate
and he’s overcoming it by walking directly into the unknown with an
enlightened spirit and leaving for his children, and ours, a message of
encouragement and hope.
    President Ahmadinejad is struggling with
death as well. A confused and twisted psyche can’t be isolated, or as
readily “seen”, as the tumors on Professor Pausch’s pancreas but the
disease and disintegration are there, just the same. And be assured
it’s deadly. More so, really. Because Ahmadinejad, who believes that
dying for what he believes in is just, will not be satisfied to do that himself. He wants to impose death on as many others as he sees fit.
   
I think the lesson is that we create this world we pass through by where
we place our thoughts, our energies, and our time.
    Professor Pausch, by
example, has given us a priceless road map for how to traverse life,
and accept death, in a way that mirrors for us all humankind’s highest
potential.     
    On the other hand, Ahmadinejad, by example, represents a dead-end
route identified by a clearly marked “Detour” sign, illustrating where not to go and, hopefully, re-directing us on a path well lit and headed for higher ground.
    We have a soon-to-be university age daughter.
    In our quest to forever expand her understanding of the world as
well as her sense of compassion and justice, guess where she will not be going.
   

>    Lately we’ve been doing some renovating at our house which has required a lot of clearing out and discarding of things that are no longer needed or of service. It has me thinking about our elected officials.
    Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not going to go on a tirade about how corrupt and awful most of them are (on both sides of the isle) then rant and rave with no substantive idea about how to change things.
    It’s not about them, it’s about us. And I’ve got an idea about what we can do
    As I look back on my life, and also our recent renovations, I see a clear pattern and helpful indicator. Whenever I have accomplished something in my life that was important and meaningful, I did it because I knew what I wanted and placed unwavering focus on my desired outcome. It’s really simple to comprehend. However, putting it into action is another story.
    Those things that I accomplished with unwavering focus had another critical component. I felt passionate about what I wanted. As a result, there was a lot of emotional energy driving both what I was thinking as well as what I was doing about it. That’s really the key. The power of thought and action fueled by positive emotion.
    So, back to our politicians. It is our collective habit to groan and moan about how corrupt and deceitful and greedy they are and how they’re not doing the jobs they were elected to do. But all of our moaning and complaining just gets us more of what we already have because 1) we’re stuck in seeing what we have instead of what we want and, 2) all that moaning and complaining is not fueling anything other than our own frustration.
    What we need is best exemplified by those who founded this country. I’m not talking about a political debate on whether you think the Constitution is a “living” document or whether you’re a “strict constructionist” when it comes to government. Those are red herrings the political analysts and pundits like to throw out there periodically when it’s time to appoint a new Federal or Supreme Court justice.
    I’m talking about the vision, certainty and passion that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams (and all the unnamed women of the time) had that moved this nation in a unique direction and created a truly inspired governing document. They knew what they wanted and they did what they had to do to make it happen.
    We are headed for a Presidential election in 2008. There are many contenders from multiple parties. What if we stop complaining, decide what it is we really want, generate a lot of emotion around that goal, then take action to ensure we get it?
    I’m certain that if enough of us take this approach, and settle for no less than our vision, we can change the pattern and co-create a candidate whose election defies the odds and the powers that be.
    Certainty! Focus! Passion!
    Now there’s a bumper sticker.
   

>    I was amused to read yesterday that Karl Rove, political adviser to the President, was volunteering to leave the position and was doing so “to spend more time with his family.”
    My amusement was around how condescending and transparent the rationale was. Did he really think that after at least 8 years of being a “political right hand” and strategist to the President of the United States we’d believe he’s concerned about time with his family…or likely more concerned about getting out now that his candidate/President is about as unpopular and ineffective as it gets?
    But let’s take a moment and explore the reason given, because generally speaking, it’s a really important point to ponder.
    How many of you give not only serious consideration to the time necessary to cultivate a healthy family, but also actually devote that amount of time to the goal? If you’re short on either point, you’re not alone.
    We tend to prioritize all the wrong things in our 21st century lives. We focus on work (to keep up financially), we focus on stressing out the children to achieve academically and in extracurricular activities (to give them a leg-up towards college admission), we focus on “looking good” whether or not we are “feeling good” (to be part of the youth culture we revere) and we pretty much banish the elderly to someone else’s care unless they’re financially able to provide for themselves (so that we can have more time to focus on the first three things I just listed).
    So, unlike Karl Rove, we need to spend more time with our families as our first priority, not as an after thought.
    It’s no wonder so many of us feel stressed and have difficulty with our personal relationships…with spouses and children. Just as you cannot successfully cultivate a delicate flower without proper proportions of light and water, so too you cannot hope to cultivate delicate relationships without giving them the necessary time and energy they need to grow to become healthy and longlasting.
    The Universe is always sending us messages to support us in our highest good. I think Karl Rove just provided a really important one. It doesn’t matter whether the reason he gave is true for him or not.     
    What matters is what you do with it.