My Biodata, Photos, News

When Trust Is Broken

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:10:00 +0000

Consider these examples:
1. Media attention in the Middle East has focused on violent upprisings in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The UN Relief and Works Agency reports 432 deaths occurred in these areas from December 1987 to March 1989.

But have media adequately placed the violence in context with situations in other parts of the world? For instance, during the same period, 512 homicides occurred in Washington, D.C., the U.S. capital!

2. Much air time and ink are devoted to the increasing Japanese investment in the United States. Not stressed is other nations with large direct investment in the United States: Britain, Canada and the Netherlands. Or large investments of the U.S. in other countries.

3. "Almost nothing was said about the approximately two million Cambodians who died between April 1975 and the end of 1977 as a result of actions taken by their Communist rulers," says self-styled media watchdog Reed Irvine, founder of Accuracy in Media.

"The information was available to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the networks. But in 1976, while this slaughter was taking place, the Post ran only nine news stories that even alluded to the human-rights problems in Cambodia. At the same time, it chose to run 58 stories about human rights in Chile. Even worse was the Times. It published four Cambodian and 66 Chilean human-rights stories."

4. A Washington Post reporter contacted the Washington embassy of a certain African nation about the country's troop strength; an official there did not know. The reporter guessed and, in an article, reported the number of troops as 18,000. The next day the reporter back and told him the figure had been found: 18,000.

5. Some time ago a well-known newsweekly ran a piece on the health risks of overexposure to sunlight. But a scientist interviewed by the newsweekly told The Plain Truth the article extrapolated the data too far in a section on commercial tanning parlors, thus potentially misleading readers.

Of the delicate relationship between the press and the public, one newspaper publisher says, "Once you break that bond of trust... you can never put it back together."

Media Under Fire

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:30:00 +0000

Charges of carelessness and shallow thinking have long dogged the press. Seventy-five years ago, H.L. Mencken wrote: "One of the principal marks of an educated man, indeed, is the fact that he does not take his opinions from newspapers...

I know of no subject, in truth, save perhaps baseball, on which the average American newspaper, even in the larger cities, discourses with unfailing sense and understanding."

More recently, Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, "Hastiness and superficiality - these are the psychic diseases of the 20th century and more than anywhere else this is manifested in the press." But more and more observers accuse the press of darker crimes than merely misreporting facts. They cite ideological bias, excessive negativity and too much assumed power and self-importance.

"Relating to Readers in the '80s," a survey done for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, found 50 percent of those asked disagreed with the statement: "Newspapers are usually fair, the bend over backwards to tell both sides of the story."

Only 13.7 percent of respondents to a National Opinion Research Center poll said they had "a great deal of confidence in the press." A Chicago attorney put it even more bluntly when he told Time: "There is no longer a prevailing feeling that the press is fighting to right a wrong. The sense is that the press is venal, out to make a buck."

Can one trust even widely available, well-established publications and broadcasters to give a complete, accurate picture? Can one even trust their critics?

All I Know Is What I See In The News

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:18:00 +0000

On November 2, 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev told a group of his countrymen, "We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism." He added, "We shall never turn off that road."

In the United States, NBC News reported Mr. Gorbachev "concluded that the Soviet Union was moving toward a new world." The vast majority of Americans did not hear the whole quote, nor were they given any hint of Mr. Gorbachev's support for the longtime Soviet goal of a new world of communism.

Was the reporting simply inaccurate? Was there not time to air the whole statement? Did NBC's Moscow correspondent misunderstand and thus misrepresent what Mr. Gorbachev said? Or, as some critics charge, did NBC edit Mr. Gorbachev's remarks to improve his image in the eyes of Americans?

How can you, reading and listening to the news media, know what to believe about the issues of the day? You need to know, after all, what's going on in the world and how to respond. How can you judge what news sources tell you?

Ongoing Family Planning

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 07 May 2009 10:49:00 +0000

If you haven't been making plans for the older generation in your family, it's time to start. If you are, or soon will be, responsible for elderly parents, get together as soon as you can to plan a strategy for the next decade.

As someone reaches the age of retirement (usually between 55 and 75 years of age), one should develop a plan, talk about where to live, how to spend the free time, what kind of additional contribution can be made. Don't consider these years the end of it all. Most people who retire have many productive years ahead. That has led some to consider working longer than they might have planned.

Many companies, in fact, are reevaluating mandatory retirement ages. They realize a mid-60s employee has a lot left to give the company. However, for the retiree it's important for the whole family to form a part of the support group. Encourage studies in a local college, involvement in a community help group, taking up a new hobby - painting, walking with friends, reading up on a new topic, playing an instrument.

Get careful medical advice, then plan a sound dietary and exercise program tailored for you. That alone could add happy and productive years to your life. Most important of all, let those wise years of life influence those around you - children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces, neighbors and friends from your local community.

Consider writing a brief autobiography to pass valuable lessons or knowledge of your heritage on to your grandchildren. It's surprising how little we've told our own families. To those who are yet younger, reevaluate your thoughts and theories about growing old. Do as the Bible admonishes - give respect and honor to those who have lived a long life and gained valuable experience.

Express your love and appreciation for your parents and grandparents. Call them often. Visit them as much as you can. Extend your family from the oldest to the youngest. It's one of the best investments you'll ever make.

Myth and Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 07 May 2009 09:56:00 +0000

It's a myth that all old people are sick, incapable of learning and needing someone to watch constantly over them. It's also a myth that most need public care. In fact, many, if not most, older people are quite capable of caring for most of their own needs. They can live in their own homes or apartments, leading active, productive lives.

They can learn new things, perhaps attend college classes. Some have learned to play a musical instrument or trained to run a seniors' marathon. Many find pleasure and reward by serving others who have physical and emotional needs. Perhaps the most important matter of all - they can provide a wealth of wisdom and experience to pass along to the younger generation.

All these valuable experiences will not be conveyed if at age 65 or 70 we put everyone away in a "warehouse" for old people. But the young and the old lose out. Sadly, many young people today lack patience and temperance. Listening to the wisdom only years of life and experience can bring is indeed wise.

Paul, for instance, advised the older women "that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children" (Titus 2:4). The older generation must pass on life's lessons. To learn from parents and grandparents about marriage and rearing children is to learn from those who have been there and know what it takes. Honor, love, respect and care for the aging are important responsibilities.

Respect Age, Mobility and the Family

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 07 May 2009 08:01:00 +0000

Aging, one a matter of respect and dignity in the Western World, has now become, for many, a burden. Often individuals have not personally prepared for the latter years of life; thus a financial burden looms heavily. The first step in looking at aging is to see it in the positive light God intended - and not regard it as a necessary evil.

From ancient times God instructed people to honor the older generation. That instruction is recorded in the Scriptures. Through Moses, God said, "You shall rise before the gray headed and honor the presence of an old man, and fear your God" (Lev.19:32). Later Solomon wrote, "The silver-haired head is a crown of glory, if it is found in the way of righteousness" (Prov. 16:31). Somewhere along the way, especially in this century, we in Western society seem to have lost our perspective on aging.

The Word of God says to respect and honor the older generation. Today, we seem to have an aversion to growing old. Even worse, we often look on the elderly as a burden rather than an asset. What a shame! The apostle Paul showed the value of respecting older men and women in the letter he wrote to the young evangelist Titus. Older men, he said, should be examples: "sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience" (Titus 2:2).

The passing years develop these admirable qualities in an older man. If young men only realized what they could learn from the older generation, how much better life would be. Our mobile society has led to many young adults being hundreds or thousands of miles away from parents. Contact is by letter and phone. There may be annual visits home for only a few days. Families drift apart. Facing the care of elderly parents leaves us in a quandary.

But there is a way. It's time to reverse the trend of broken families and careless attitudes and plan for the years ahead. How do we solve the problem? The answers to the problems are largely the responsibility of the family. National governments and local communities can, of course, have programs for those in need. But if families assume the first responsibility, the government's burden by way of taxes will be much lighter.

When Society Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:51:00 +0000

Many in America and several other Western nations practically worship being young. They have not stopped to consider either their aging parents or their own passing years. An inflationary economy often causes young couples to invest in the here and now without proper regard for the future. By the time their children are grown and gone from home, a couple who thought they had a few years of properity to enjoy before their own autumn years of life find they have an unplanned - for concern - their own aging parent or parents. To solve this dilemma, many, as Parade magazine called it, "ware-house" the elderly in nursing homes. In far too many cases the results have been tragic. Loss of dignity, self-esteem and identity are but a few of the negative results of some group care for the elderly. Inadequate facilities, poor treatment, improper medical attention and neglect have become major issues in the debate over nursing homes. Of course there may be a proper time and place for full-time care facilities. In cases of sickness, or even for companionship, some ederly prefer a group care facility. The important thing is that the family works together. So, where do we start?

Facing The Autumn of Life

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:20:00 +0000

Do you know which segment of the population is growing fastest in industrial societies? Is it newborn babies? Teenagers? Young marrieds? No, it's the elderly. Population researchers predict that by the year 2020, men and women 65 and older will make up, for example, more that 44 percent of the U.S. population. Similar statistics affect Japan and Europe. Can the industrial nations maintain their standards of living with the graying of their populations? According to new projections from the U.S. National Institute of Aging, by the year 2040, the average life expectancy for American men could rise to as high as 87 years. That's 17 years longer than today's avarage. The same study projects American women could reach an average life expectancy of 92, up from 78. That reminds one of the anecdote, "If I would have known I'd live this long, I would have taken better care of myself." So, if people are going to live that long, we'd better be planning for it.

Which Way Europe?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 03 May 2009 12:56:00 +0000

Mr. Gorbachev has certainly inspired a hope for a better world, particularly among Europeans. But one fundamental question remains. "The idea of a 'common European home' finds understanding among prominent...public figures of...Europe." What happens to a Europe no longer under the shadow and influence of a United States and Soviet Union? After all, Mikhail Gorbachev's vision, turned into reality, must lead to an essentially new Europe. Can the Europeans remain at peace left to themselves? The record of history is not reassuring. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) called them "nations of eternal war." Will this epithet apply to the future? Today's world is only a global village. No nation would escape if another European-centered war erupted. Enter Jesus of Nazareth. What would he say about Mr. Gorbachev's view of a better world? He would certainly agree that nations must beat their swords into plowshares, if humanity is to survive. He told an enthusiastic disciple who was ready to fight, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52, New King James Version). That applies to nations as well as individuals. In our age, if one advanced nation takes up the sword against another, all will be involved. The world is too small for any would-be isolationist strategy. Jesus would also heartily endorse the world's need for "a new way of thinking," as Mr. Gorbachev put it, if mankind is to enjoy lasting peace and prosperity.

View From Europe

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 May 2009 23:29:00 +0000

It is on Europe itself that Mr. Gorbachev has had his greatest impact. For example, some West German opinion polls show him to be a very popular political figure in German eyes. Said one political commentator: "Mikhail Gorbachev has com to symbolize the hope of Europeans, particularly Germans, for the end of the Cold War and the start of an era of true peace." Why this optimism on the part of some? Precisely because Mr. Gorbachev has had to move dramatically. He has in quick succession proposed, partly as a consequence of major economic problems, a number of cuts in manpower, missiles and military hardware in Europe. If he can continue to change Soviet foreign policy, something of a new world, and especially a mew Europe, is sure to emerge. Certainly, what he is saying can strike only a responsive chord among Europeans. Mikhail Gorbachev is bullish on Europe,but knows the Continent must get about the business of ensuring peace. "Europe is indeed a common home where geography and history have closely interwoven the destinies of dozens of countries and nations," he wrote in Perestroika. He stresses the need for European nations to work harmoniously "together, collectively" and follow "the sensible norms of coexistence." That's how, he says, "The Europeans can save their home." Mr. Gorbachev knows Europe has had problems maintaining peace on the Continent throughout history. He says, "If the world needs new relations, Europe needs them above all."

Two U.S. Presidents Influenced

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 May 2009 08:03:00 +0000

Mr. Gorbachev's changes caused former U.S. President Ronald Reagan to change his thinking, particularly regarding the "Reagan Doctrine," which called for challenging Soviet revolutionary aims around the world. At first, Mr. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" bent on conquest. After meeting with the Soviet leader at three summit talks, Mr. Reagan's administration generally became convinced that Mr. Gorbachev no longer believed in achieving communist world domination through force. Now, U.S. President George Bush has offered to alter long-standing American Cold War policies toward the U.S.S.R. Mr. Bush, too, has been influenced by "Gorbymania." He said, "Our doctrine need no longer be [the] containing of a military aggressive Soviet Union." That's a change foreign policy!

Cooperation a Must

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 May 2009 05:00:00 +0000

Mr. Gorbachev speaks of a "future world community" that "will be different from the one we have today." To achieve this new tomorrow, says Mr. Gorbachev, "We will have to work together again to find ways of distributing wealth among all the countries of the world." He pinpoints exactly where change must begin - in the human psyche. Writes Mr. Gorbachev: "Revolutions always begin in the mind." He says we must be about the business of "liberating the mind from prejudices - political and social, national and racial - from arrogance, self-conceit and the cult of force and violence." He tells us we cannot politically put old wine into new wine-skins. "The world is no longer the same as it was, and its new problems cannot be tackled on the basis of thinking carried over from previous centuries," he wrote in Perestroika. Mixing space age and biblical metaphors, Mr. Gorbachev warns his readers, "We are all passengers aboard one ship, the Earth, and we must not allow it to be wrecked. There will be no second Noah's Ark."

A Call for Radical Change

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:51:00 +0000

As time went on, however, an uneasiness set in among Western policymakers. Mikhail Gorbachev was making some real changes. His control of Soviet state machinery continued and expanded. Mr. Gorbachev's pronouncements were electrifying the world, especially the Europeans. Analysts and policymakers in United States and Europe now didn't know what to make of him. Meanwhile, he continued making his mark in world politics with daring initiatives. Some were beginning to call our time "The Gorbachev Era." A July 27, 1987, Time magazine began: "We knew he was going to be different. We did not know he was going to be that different." Four and half years after coming on the scene, Mikhail Gorbachev, at least for the present, is a reality to be dealt with. He is calling for nothing less than the total restructuring of his own nation and for a change in the way all nations relate to each other. Mr. Gorbachev wrote in Toward a Better World: "The world must definitely change if civilization is to continue to exist." His call for change is revolutionary. "A most important task is to work out a new mode of political thought and probably a new international law," says Mr. Gorbachev. He has been calling for "a new way of thinking...characterized by respect for people and nations."

Gorbachev Goes to Moscow

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 02 May 2009 00:11:00 +0000

On March 11, 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev become Genderal Secretary of the Central Committe of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Mr. Gorbachev inherited a floundering Soviet Union. Observers called it a Third World country with a superpower military establishment. Communism under Mr. Gorbachev's predecessors had not achieved promised lofty economic and social goals. The Soviet Union's economy had stagnated while the nation was booged down in an expensive 40-year struggle with the United States. The Soviets also became involved in a civil war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was ruled by a crothety and unresponsive bureaucracy. In 1987, Mr. Gorbachev wrote two books, Toward a Better World and Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World. Both titles revealed he is after something truly revolutionary for his nation and the world at large. Mr. Gorbachev has been boldly explaining how he wants to restructure the Soviet Union's relations with the world, in particular with the United States and Europe. When he started making these pronouncements, they were sometimes discounted as only Soviet propaganda. Concessions, it was thought, would not be forth-coming. Later, some experts viewed them as the dreams of an idealist reformer. They were sure Mr. Gorbachev would be ousted by the conservative elements of the Soviet hierarchy.

Two Hopes For a Better World

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 01 May 2009 23:42:00 +0000

Jesus and Gorbachev. Gorbachev says the world must be restructured. Jesus described the collapse of civilization, followed by a spiritually changed world. It may seem strange to mention Mikhail Gorbachev in the same breath as Jesus Christ. The Soviet president is a very this-worldly leader of an officially atheistic nation while Jesus said his kingdom or nation was not of this world (John 18:36). Yet, the two individuals - even though for different ends - could be said to have something important in common. In their time, both have addressed the dangers to a world threatened with destruction. Both have proposed far-reaching changes in the way humans run their affairs. They both, too, look to a future world - one from the communist point of view, the other from God's point of view. Both have declared society must be quite different from what it is today - if it is to survive.

Bible Issues in Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 01 May 2009 10:14:00 +0000

They begin to see controversial biblical issues in perspective. They begin to see what seemed like rather quaint laws concerning land tenure, debt release, diet and social hygiene aren't so impractical. These laws could, given a chance, show us the way out of the terrible mess we have made of our civilization with its homeless, urban poor, dispossessed farmers, hideous diseases and ravaged environment. It would not mean going back to the Middle Ages either. God's laws, when properly understood, are compatible with genuine progress. That doesn't mean there are no questions. There are always very real problems God-fearing people must face. The Bible shows that adjustments can be made in applying the revealed laws of God to new circumstances. Jesus himself showed a certain flexibility. But he always acted within the spirit and intent of the law. See, for example, Mark 2:23-28. There is a vast difference between that and deciding for ourselves what is convenient. There will inevitably be times when God-fearing persons face situations where compromise is not possible. They must choose to obey God rathe than man, and take the consequences. These are the experiences that build faith. Faith established this way is not simplistic. Neither is it naive, anti-intellectual, or any of the other put-downs. A faith built on living "by every word that comes out of the mouth of God" is a profoundly maturing and seasoning experience. There are no shortcuts, no lowering of standards, no concessions to what "seems reasonable." But the person who has chosen that road will find understanding. It is not the Bible that needs reformatting. It is us.

Put to the Test All Things

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:36:00 +0000

The way is so simple and obvious - yet so many overlook it. They research, analyze, confer and argue - but the best way to prove the relevancy of the Bible today is to do what it says. "A good understanding have all those who do His commandments," advises Psalm 111:10. If you want to understand God's Word, put it into action. The Bible is God's instruction manual for living. It's not unlike the intimidatingly thick instruction book that came with the word processing program I use. As I use this program, more and more of the instruction book makes sense. Similarly, I will be able to do what the Bible says if I follow the instructions. If I decide not to follow the instructions, life isn't going to work out as I might expect. So the key to undestanding the Word of God is to put it into practice. But that is easier said than done. It demands a commitment beyond what most people are prepared to make in this permissive age. It involves changing - your habits, your routine, your priorities, the way you handle your finances, your family and your relationships with friends and neighbors. The are changes for the better, and some of them do hurt at first. But they can be made. I know hundreds of people in dozens of countries who are doing so. As they put the Bible teachings into action in their lives, they understand the intent of them more and more.

Changing The Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:07:00 +0000

Is it really any different today? About one quarter of the world's population claims allegiance to Jesus Christ. But as the bishop of Newark pointed out, Jesus' teachings, and those of the rest of the Bible, are only acceptable to us if they agree with our own preconceived ideas. The way of life he taught, with its uncompromising emphasis on meeting God's standards, is no easier to accept in the 20th century than it was in the first. We no longer have the opportunity to physically do away with Jesus Christ, but does not standing in judgment of his teachings represent a similar attitude? It is, of course, very human to want to alter a standard we find hard to meet. Here the Bible is particularly vulnerable. It lays down the law on some very personal aspects of life-like marriage, sex and personal morality-rather differently from some modern standards. And frankly, don't even some of the easy-to-understand teachings seem a bit impractical for the real world? "Love your enemy," "turn the other cheek," "do good to those who despitefully use you" and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Nice principles, but do you know anyone who really practices them? So come on, let's be reasonable, many no doubt say. Why not give the Bible a good going over? Throw out what is not acceptable, bring the rest into line with modern values, and pretty soon, everyone will be saying what a useful book the Bible really is after all. The fifth-century theologian Augustine rightly observed: If you believe what you want to in the Gospels, and reject what you want to, it is not the Gospels you believe, but yourself. Does this mean then, that we should embrace every word of Scripture without question, accept everything at face value just because it is there in translation? No-such a faith would be blind and simplistic, and the Bible itself does not require that. "Test all things," wrote the apostle Paul; "hold fast what is good" (I Thess.5:21, New King James Version). But how do you test?

Venerable Beads

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:44:00 +0000

One of the more controversial examinations of the Bible is coordinated by a group of scholars known as The Jesus Seminar. They are systematically scrutinizing the gospels to decide if Jesus really did say what the gospels claim he said.

After examining from many points of view a verse quoting Jesus, they vote on its authenticity with a system of colored beads. Black means Jesus said it, red implies he did not, while pink and gray signify varying degrees of probability. The aim is to produce a version of the Bible printed in black, red and varying shades of pink and gray.

To be fair, a red bead does not mean that the seminar believes the verse should be removed. The latest announcement from the seminar is that they don't think Jesus ever said he was going to return. This has Christians from many different persuasions concerned. We sympathize - for we believe very firmly that Jesus said he would return. When properly understood, not only the gospels but the entire message of the Bible attest to this.

However, The Jesus Seminar would seem to be a particularly difficult group to argue with. If they have decided Jesus never said he was coming back, how do you convince them that he meant it? This I fear is an argument that won't be solved unless or until Jesus does return - maybe not even then for some. Jesus Christ often found himself confronting learned and scholarly men who had painted themselves into an intellectual corner. So sure were they in their interpretation of God's Word that they could not - or would not - accept the evidence of the messiahship of Jesus.

Jesus Christ was a popular and well-accepted figure-until his teachings began to correct and undermine the personal standard of righteousness of the religious leadership. They couldn't change him, so they rejected him. "We know that you are a teacher sent from God," admitted Nicodemus, but that did not stop certain of the people he represented plotting to destroy Jesus.

Are We Sharpening Our Understanding? Or Missing The Point?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:20:00 +0000

It was titled "Would God Re-Write the Bible?" by John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark, a few weeks ago, I read an item from a U.S. East Coast newspaper.

A new look at the book. Bishop Spong challenged the clergy of his diocese to undertake a thorough reexamination of the Bible. He appointed a task force to "engage scholars, scientists, evangelicals, Catholics, fundamentalists, and atheists who might have anything to tell the church about the Bible and its authority for our day."

The bishop's point is that although mainstream churches say they believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, they often don't treat them so. He writes: "Have we not come to treat the Bible dishonestly by quoting it where it buttresses our arguments and ignoring it everywhere else?" And he challenges: "Have we clergy thought about these things? Are we concerned? Do we care?"

These are good questions and the bishop must be congratulated for honestly confronting them. He told the clergy of his diocese that if done well, this study could be the most significant and controversial matter they have ever addressed.

Now, I am not sure how the bishop regards this magazine. So, if the Newark task force wants to hear from anyone who has something to say about the authority and relevancy of the Bible for our day, they might find this interesting, and perhaps even helpful.

U.S. - Soviet Relations

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:03:00 +0000

Critics among America's allies had already judged the President as one who saw the world in terms of the American Wild West. They did not see the cool realism in his policy. Mr. Reagan put pressure on the Soviet Union, while extending the hand of cooperation the solve tensions. The U.S.S.R. faced up to the fact that its Achilles' hell was economic. It could not keep up an arms race with a superpower that seemed to have almost unlimited borrowing power.

It was March 8, 1983, in Orlando, Florida, that U.S. President Ronald Reagan bluntly defined the world that then existed. The Free World, he announced, was in mortal battle with an evil empire - the U.S.S.R. "They preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the earth - they are the focus of evil in the modern world," declared Mr. Reagan.

There followed four Reagan - Gorbachev summits: Geneva, November 1985; Reykjavik, October 1986; Washington, D.C., December 1987; and Moscow, May - June 1988. The unthinkable had happened; glasnost within the Soviet Union expanded to relationships outside the U.S.S.R. And the consequent economic realisties within the Soviet Union demanded a major restructuring of the communist system if the ultimate goal of a new communist world were to be achieved.

The result is an astoundingly different world. Whereas once the leaders of the two superpowers flew to neutral nations or, occasionally, to each other's capitals, they now journey into each other's spheres of influence.

The Iron Curtain has been not just literally but politically sundered between Hungary and the West. European Community leaders have opened the door to Hungarian participation in EC affairs. All this just three short years before Europe becomes the world's largest agricultural and economic market without frontiers.

Surge of Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:49:00 +0000

We ought all be familiar with the major influence Islam has on the politics of the Middle East. And the influence of Jewish spokesmen of the orthodox far right in Israeli politics. And of the evangelicals in U.S. politics. But there is another area where religion is being heard in the moral and political arena. Europe is now center stage on the political scene.

There are three major views of the future of Europe. One is of the single market of the European Community, essentially a secular economic view with vague political goals. Another is of Mr. Gorbachev who speaks of the "common European home" in which he sees the Soviet Union also residing.

Then there is a third view, unnoticed before late 1982, and unnoticed still by many who think of religion in European politics as only a historical curiosity. This third view is that of Pope John Paul II, who sees a Europe with-out spiritual frontiers. A Europe in which morals rule from Atlantic shores to the Urals. An entire continent that has rediscovered its spiritual roots, that has healed the religious disunity of centuries.

In the Pontiff's view faith in Marxism is dead in Eastern Europe, as well as faith in Christianity in much of the West. He intends to reawaken that faith in the Continent's historic Christian heritage - its roots - and build a bridge between East and West Europe. Parliamentarians, meanwhile, may concern themselves with the question of restricting the activities of sects and other religions that have come into Europe.

Management of World Debt

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:44:00 +0000

Western economists, as the decade wore on, were fearful of a collapse of the debt market. Would developing countries make their interest payments? As it turned out, some have been able to. Others, such as Argentina, have not. The nations of Western Europe have consequently decided to take the lead in the economic field. France in particular has declared there is no alternative but to forgive 1/3 of the debt of each relevant developing country.

Oil doubled in price 1979-80. The shock was too great for fragile economies. The silver market crashed in 1980. A general deflationary trend set in worldwide. By late 1982 the United States economy began a recovery. European economies only later followed suit. East Asia weathered the economic storm. But Latin America and Africa as a whole became disaster areas, with great disparities between rich and poor.

In simplest terms, much of the developing world for nearly a decade has been drowning in debt not entirely of their own making. Only a few bright spots exist. One such nation, Bhutan, in the eastern Himalayas, has managed its natural resources with great economic wisdom. A contrasting example of a nation with no debt, Romania paid off its international debt at great speed-but at the cost of reducing its people to poverty.

This European lead in proposing specific debt forgiveness policies and the decision to have Europe manage the economic rescue (an initiative launched by President Bush) of Poland and Hungary is evidence the United States has lost significant superpower status. This brings us to the last drastic change in events of the 1980s.

The Environment at Risk

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:47:00 +0000

Problems with the environment certainly have been around for more than 10 years. But they were not taken seriously, especially in Europe, even as late as the beginning of the 1980s. Today Green parties are in every country in Western Europe.

Green parties, unforeseen as power-brokers by most politicians, grew because of the Soviet nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and the Rhine industrial pollution of 1987.

Earlier, the European Community tried to resolve the dumping of raw sewage at sea, in particular by Britain. The target date for enforcing water purity requirements throughout Europe is 1993. The standards were supposed to have been implemented in 1985, but Britain had at the time only five inspectors. (Japan, by contrast, has had thousands of inspectors to fight pollution in their heavily industrialized islands.)

The list of environmental issues confronting us now, at the end of the 1980s, includes the greenhouse effect, the ozone crisis, deforestation, acid rain, the extinction of plants and animals, toxic waste, pesticides and water pollution, air pollution and the death of forests. Not to mention trash and indoor air pollution.

Solving these problems will not come easy. It demands willpower, time and money - large sums of money, to undo past mistakes. And that brings us to the next drastic change in the '80s.

AIDS and Illegal Drugs

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:32:00 +0000

Paralleling the spread of the virus inducing AIDS is the sudden explosion in the use of crack cocain. Crack, a smokable form of cocaine, was first noted in three U.S. cities in 1981-two of them in Southern California. But it was not until 1986 that crack became the "fast food" of the illegal drug market.

It may now be hard to believe, but in 1980 no one had heard of AIDS. It was first recognized and defined in 1981. Yet today few countries are free from AIDS. World Health Organization officials warn that the officially reported cases probably number fewer than half the true total.

But there are other forms of drugs on the market, some requiring a needle to convey a drug directly into the bloodstream. Who would have thought, in 1980, that the long-known use of the needle to administer drugs would become a political issue because of AIDS?

The HIV virus that causes AIDS can be transmitted from one person to another through contaminated blood on needles. Should, therefore, drug addicts be provided clean needles to prevent the spread of AIDS?

And what about the parallel political issue unforeseen in 1980: Should government funds be used to distribute literature on "safe sex" or to distribute condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS among homosexuals and bisexuals and at-risk heterosexuals?

Questions such as these were never dreamed of in 1980. Yet today they have become major social and political and moral issues. Herpes deflated the sexual revolution among heterosexuals, but are we willing to use the moral vaccine of chastity against AIDS?