(Most dogs are loyal and loving – and, if you’re lucky, you will never have a better friend)

I never had a better friend than my yellow Labrador Retriever, Fred. He belonged to me and vice-versa. He sat beside me on my couch. He slept beside me on my bed. When I arrived home, however long I’d been gone, it was the greatest event that had ever occurred in his doggie life. And he showed it, in the most body-wagging, tongue-licking terms. Fred loved me, and that love was returned in manifold ways.

As with most of the dogs I’ve known and loved, I didn’t find Fred, he found me. I have a huge soft spot in my heart for lost and abandoned dogs. Fred came to me as a fluffy five-month old in the arms of a neighbor. Since I was out walking my Doberman, Duchess, at the time, she spotted me instantly as a “dog person”. That, and the fact that I paused and petted and received copious licks from little old Fred, who didn’t yet know that was his name.

The neighbor lady explained that she had found this yellow Lab puppy wandering aimlessly in the neighborhood, suspected he’d been abandoned, and could I take him in, just for a “few days”. “Well,” I said, “it’s okay with me. But I live right there, and I’d appreciate it if you’d knock on the door and see if it’s okay with my wife.” I went on my way with Duchess, knowing that when I returned home, I’d have two dogs, not one. Things were as I’d known they would be.

First, Cindy said, we had to name the dog. Without hesitation, and for reasons I still don’t know, I replied, “His name is Fred.” Apparently it was, because he answered to that name from day one.

Fred was never a problem. He had no taste for going to the bathroom indoors, and since we always left the back door open and I walked him and Duchess four times a day, there were none of the unwelcome surprises that usually come with house-training. The only trouble was that Fred immediately loved Duchess, as a mother figure I guess, and she abhorred this little interloper who was invading her territory. She never bit him, but there was the sort of snarling and showing of massive teeth that Dobermans are capable of. Fortunately, I had trained Duchess well, and a single harsh word from me put an end to the hostilities. Over time, Duchess resignedly accepted Fred and eventually came to regard him as something of a sidekick.

When he still young, Fred developed in interest in books. Not paperbacks, but those expensive, leather-bound volumes we kept in bookshelves. If Cindy and I went out, and were gone too long, Fred would select one of those books, delicately pull it out of its place on the shelf and engage in his version of reading, which consisted of chewing up the volume in question. It was his way of ameliorating stress, and punishing us for being gone so long. When he got older, and after many scoldings, he outgrew that habit.

Fred had a laundry basket full of toys, mainly of the soft, squeaky variety. He tended to regard any stuffed animal as his by right, so any acquired by my wife wound up in his basket. Fred had a favorite toy; a squeaky teddy bear. But it was not always his choice as “toy of the day”. It always amused and fascinated me to watch as Fred nosed through his basket and selected the toy that seemed to him appropriate. He would lie down and chew on it, making it squeak, but he never damaged it. Fred seemed to have an innate sense that he’d want to play with that toy at some later time. No sense in tearing it apart. Any visitors would be presented with it, and have to assure Fred what a good and superior toy it was before he’d be satisfied and go torture it some more.

But of all toys, Fred cherished the tennis ball most of all. A few times a day, I’d say “Ball?” and Fred, barely able to contain his joy, would go get one of his seemingly endless supply. We’d go out in the front yard, and Fred would chase and retrieve that ball until he was barely able to stand, always dropping it in my hand and sitting down until I threw it again. I taught him that. Fred was so eager to please and do things that earned him a “good boy” that it took me only two days to train him to go and fetch the paper every morning. He was, in all respects, a loving, loyal and altogether splendid companion. God, I miss him.

Fred died at the dignified age of 12. I plan to adopt another yellow Lab, whose name, I just know, will be “Charlie”. Among the many blessings God has provided us in this life, dogs must be among the first rank. Among the many tragedies that accompany our time on this imperfect earth, one of the greatest must be that we are almost always doomed to outlive our beloved pets. I believe we will be surrounded by them in the life hereafter.

(The new President goes briskly to work on day one. What, precisely, does he mean by “change”?)

The newly-inaugurated President arrived for work bright and early and obviously energized. Among the first of Barack Obama;s comments recorded by the press was, “What an opportunity to for us to change this country!” Well, hey, not so fast there, Hoss. There’s not so much wrong with this country that the ebb and flo of a market economy won’t change radically over time. Sure, government intervention may well be called for to accelerate that change in the short term, but “changing the country” whatever Mr. Obama may have meant by that, almost certainly is uncalled-for.

One of Mr. Obama’s first moves was to freeze for one year the salaries of those White House staffers earning at least 100 Grand a year The gesture was largely symbolic, since no one currently clocking in there commands that lofty figure. Reportedly, rumblings of “I wish!” echoed through the Executive Mansion.. It follows, then, that weeping was not heard when the new President issued an order that no member of his staff may give gifts to lobbyists. No, not even a ’Ginzu Knife’. Seriously, though, the President announced that his administration will have the strictest rules on lobbying of “any in history”. Okay. Keep in mind, however, that some guy who buttonholes a white house official and pushes protection for, I dunno, the “yellow-throated warbler”, is in fact lobbying. Personally, I’m too ignorant of bird nomenclature to know the difference. I do like the thought that they’re around somewhere, though.

On something more of a “country changing” note, Mr. Obama circulated the draft of an Executive Order closing the prisoner camp for known or suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, within a year. He then signed it, opening a round of inter-departmental debates the headaches from which he has yet to experience Judicial disposition of the 245 detainees also is to take place within that time, governing authorities to be named at a later date. There are a few who should be summarily tossed into tanks of feeding-frenzied sharks. We’ll see. Certainly, none should simply be released back into the general population for the safety of all concerned, although I put no act of tragic “kindness” past the liberals.

So, getting back to this concept of “changing the country”: the trillions that may be dedicated to economic stimulus (so-called), bank bailouts, health care, automotive company welfare and who knows what-all, seriously threatens to convert the United States from an economy driven by private industry to one that is driven by government. Considering the enormity of that change, it could well be said to be “country changing”. My conviction, my prayer, that it will not happen coincides with my less-than-happy knowledge that it’s the guys with wealth who call the shots. I consider that one of the paradoxes which keeps this country largely on an even keel.

The new President had lunch with his senior military officials. I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama asked more questions than otherwise. He seems smart enough to have done so. It has been widely reported well before now that the master plan is to hand Iraq over to the Iraqis within 16 months and concentrate our considerable combat power on the al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. I entertain no doubts that the conflict must spill over into parts of Pakistan, and therefore prayerfully hope that Pakistan’s government stabilizes and remains steadfast.

President Obama also spoke by phone with leaders in Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Iran, speaking also to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Assad, in an effort to cement the cease-fire between Israel and militant members of the Palestinian faction Hamas in Gaza. Since the alternative appears to be the utter destruction of Gaza and more unrest in the Middle East, we can hope those talks bore fruit.

Finally, I want to correct an omission I committed on Tuesday. Thank you, George W. Bush, for eight years of intelligent and dedicated leadership. Because of that leadership and your fearlessness in taking the fight against terrorism to its source, the United States has been protected from attack since 9/11, 2001. I hope against all reason that I express my gratitude on behalf of all Americans both to you and your courageous wife, Laura.

(Obama gave an inspiring , uplifting Inauguration speech – time for reality) 

There can be no doubt that President Barack Obama is a gifted orator. Without stumble or gaffe, he delivered what surely must go down in the annals of inaugural speeches as one of the finest and most noble. He offered peace to all, defeat to those who lust for its opposite and a new era of prosperity to those Americans who are willing to work and sacrifice toward its fruition.

To his credit, he referred seldom to the bearded “Greatest, most powerful nation on earth” theme, which has been the mainstay of so many inaugural addresses. Obama spoke to us as adults, quoting scripture (and Thomas Jefferson) in saying,”…the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and deserve a chance to carry out their full measure of happiness.” That last phrase is crucial, because one person’s “full measure of happiness” might find him on a farm in Vermont, whereas another’s might find him behind prison bars. Again we are being spoken to as adults, who have choices.

There was precious little of the bellicose in Obama’s speech. But he made himself clear enough: “We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us and we will defeat you.” That line invoked its share of cheers.

I suspect conservative eyes began to roll and lips turn down when the new President alluded to his domestic agenda. “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, can they can afford care, a retirement that is dignified?” I will pause here to assert that is not the job of government to see that those desirable things are provided but that they are made possible. The American ideal of government is that it should see to it that all, according to his or her merits, have the unfettered opportunity to obtain such blessings through their own accomplishments. I have never met a Democrat who believed government was too small or doing too much, except in the arena of foreign affairs. And they’re mistaken there, too.

Jesus said, “The poor will always be with us.” Was that some anomaly in the philosophy of the most compassionate man who ever lived? Hardly. This country is blessed with countless charitable organizations whose calling, and there are some bad ones, so discretion is called for, is to ensure that the poor receive subsistence and at least some of the comforts of life. The alternative is an errant government leviathan whose interest is mainly in its own growth and prosperity through the giving of emoluments at others’ expense.

Worse, leaving such things up to the bureaucrats leads to a form of inhuman apathy: “Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?” If Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” had been set in America, I suspect Ebenezer Scrooge would have been a Democrat. After all, if government is confiscating my money to look after the needy, why should I care?

Don’t get me wrong. I am not an extremist. There are individuals who have needs that only government can provide. It’s just that there are many fewer of them than government would have us believe.

President Obama gave a fine speech, as balanced in content as any that could be given by a Democrat. Much of it contained eternal verities and truths about American culture. But this is a man, together with a like-minded Congress, who has it in mind to spend trillions on “Economic Stimulus”, business bailouts, health care and what have you. Beware of Democrats bearing gifts.

(Spending all that needed money for a big party? C,mon!)

Here’s how I think a Presidential Inauguration party should go: an orchestra in tuxedos plays some tunes during which the few thousand guests dance; after which caviar on fancy crackers are served; the President and First Lady perform their traditional dance; the President delivers his Inaugural Address; everybody goes home. It would be simple and dignified, in keeping with the gravitas of the occasion. We are not crowning a King. However, things have changed since the days of John Adams and we must needs change with them, I guess. I plan to be watching re-runs of “Law & Order” and “Monk”.

An estimated two million people have braved the cold and possibly wet Washington mall weather on Tuesday to hear the President’s Address. Ten thousand guests will repair to any or all of the raucus balls which will be staged, going on into the wee hours of the morning, featuring the usual bevy of singers and performers. I wouldn’t want to be on the cleaning crew Wednesday morning.

The days-long festivities kicked off at the National Theater Sunday, with performances by Bruce Springsteen, Bono, Stevie Wonder and others, even including stand-ups by Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. The party has continued since. I bear no grudges. I am proud pf my country for electing its first black president, especially considering that, not so long ago, black people had to use segregated drinking fountains and bathrooms, segregated schools, even segregated sections of public transportation. It was only 70 years ago that my own state of Florida and others had laws against marriage between black and white couples. It is a tribute to the growing tolerance and true liberality of the American people, and to the increasing realization of the principles upon which this country was founded, that this unprecedented event has taken place. Of course, I say that even though Obama’s politics and that of the Democrats generally are anathema to me. That’s just how it goes sometimes. Anyway, after two years of Democrat rule in the House and four years of Obama, I fully expect another Republican Revolution. And they’d damned well better live up to their conservative beliefs this time!

There is another form of liberality, which has nothing to do with its original meaning of liberation from the crushing heel of government. Quite the opposite in fact. When government imposes excessive taxes on its people, and imposes social and cultural change, often against the peoples’ consent, that it not liberality. It is oppression. The reason I bring the subject up in the context of the Presidential Inauguration, is that the whole damn shindig is estimated to cost 160-million dollars. Now, I grant you the people are entitled to celebrate under the circumstances. But 160-billion, when Washington is talking trillions to stimulate the economy (hah!), bail out the automakers and the banks and who knows what else – well isn’t it just a bit unseemly to spend an Emperor’s ransom just for big party? I would say that “unseemly” is an understatement.

It is a relatively small example of liberals spending like there’s no tomorrow and, let me assure you, those halcyon days are well behind us. As a harbinger of what to expect, it’s hard to think of a worse example.

On the other hand, there are certain things I like about Barack Obama. His determination to wipe out the al-Qaida and Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, for example. And the moral courage required to choose a pastor to offer up the prayer for his administration and our country who opposes gay marriage.

The first year of Obama’s administration will reveal a lot. In fact, the pre-inauguration statements he’s made reveal a lot, many them questionable at best. Over the next four years, may God bless our country, the world’s last great hope for freedom and democracy.

There are those, of course, mainly in the Military, who oppose closing the Guantanamo camp at all. Others are of the opinion that a new prison camp should be moved stateside, and the prisoners judged before Military Tribunals. I think we can forget about that option.

It is President-elect Obama’s stated intention to sign an executive order to close the Guantanamo prisoner camp, where some 250 suspected terrorists are being held, maybe on the very day of his inauguration. Obama apparently plans that the prisoners be tried before the Federal Judiciary. This raises some problems. Obama would face serious political consequences should any of the 50 Guantanomo prisoners due for release or others who might be released by the courts, commit acts of terror, here or abroad. Among the 61 detainees released so far, the Pentagon has reported they have done just that. It is worth noting too that, by order of a U.S. Judge, 17 Uighurs, Muslims from China, have been ordered set free in the United States. Pentagon lawyers are appealing, and the Uigurs remain in Guantanamo for now. Suffice it to say that the American people, who are split on the question anyway, would take it ill indeed if terrorist prisoners, freed by a liberal administration, did any harm to U.S. citizens. I think “outrage” would be the proper word.

There are more complications yet. !00 prisoners at Guantanamo are considered very dangerous men, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged al-Qaida accomplices. Senator Lindsey Graham, R.S.C., who has served several terms in Iraq and is a reserve military lawyer, told the McClatchy Newspaper, “These are warriors, not common criminals. We can create a system to keep them off the battlefield. But that system has to have transparency, due process and checks and balances.” I have a feeling Lindsey did not add “and strict confinement.”

Another question, would those prisoners made to undergo “waterboarding”, which the military, in defiance of members of Congress and Human Rights Organizations, denies is a form of torture, even be eligible for trial? Among others, who say that admissions obtained by torture are inadmissible in courts of law, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch says if legitimate cases cannot be put together, “You…release the person because there are a lot of dangerous people in the world. The danger to the United States is more Guantanamo’s existence than the handful of people being held there. It is helping create the next generation of terrorists.”

The kind of rhetoric Roth uses is nothing but tripe. The reasoning, for example, is that when Israel took arms against Hamas terrorists who were attacking their citizens, they were simply creating more terrorists. The answer, I guess, then is to do nothing, and let your country be attacked without provocation. Ultimately, I suppose the answer is to stop fighting evil, violent men altogether, on the premise that doing so simply encourages them. This leaves the rest of us as victims. It is pure, unadulterated, Grade-A Horse Manure.

Getting back to Guantanamo: efforts have been underway for some time to convince foreign countries to accept the 150 or so considered less-dangerous “small fish” as forms of refugees. Not much success so far. Albania has taken in five of the Chinese Muslims. Shouldn’t be too hard to keep an eye on them.

There are other proposals that promise to make the disposition of the Guantanamo prisoners a lengthy and politically difficult affair. For Heaven’s sake, if Obama is so sympathetic to these terrorists and their associates, then just ship them off to some distant tropical island and deliver supplies on a regular basis. It wouldn’t solve the problem, but it would make the liberals feel all warm and fuzzy.

Look, this is not brain surgery. Those prisoners on Cuba are known or suspected enemies of our country. Try them in the Military courts and imprison those who are convicted for a long time. Execution of Mohammed and his four known associates suggests itself as a pretty good idea. We are a just country. Justice sometimes is harsh.

(She’s not shy and she’s not fading away, like most failed VP candidates)

Ordinarily, losing Vice Presidential candidates quietly fade back into their former niches, Not Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. She is energetically making it clear that, as she sees it, and as I do too, the news media done her wrong, never taking her seriously. She was just this first-term governor – a conservative novelty, an “Alaska hockey mom”, John McCain sprung on us at the 11^th hour. Excuse me, but bull****.

Palin, with her upbeat, enthusiastic campaigning style energized an enthusiastic following of conservatives, without which – who knows?- McCain’s defeat might have been more convincing than it was. When Saxby Chambliss was facing a crucial run-off election for the U.S, Senate in Georgia, one that might very well have determined whether the Democrats would have a veto-and-filibuster proof 60-seat majority in the Senate, Sarah Palin drew thousands of cheering Republicans to rallies on his behalf. In the end, Chambliss walloped Democrat Jim Martin, getting over 57% or the vote. Can that be solely attributed to Palin? Probably not. But I submit that she helped Chambliss incalculably with her charismatic oratory, and it’s worth noting that turnout was much higher than usual for a run-off election.

Over the past few weeks, Governor Palin has been in the news more than a few times. She is going “not gently into that good night.” Palin has been highly critical of a news media that marginalized or inaccurately stated her positions during the Presidential campaign. She has voiced her unhappiness with ’Saturday Night Live’ regular Tina Fey, whose resemblance to the candidate inspired a number in unflattering skits on the show, which the Governor considered unfair. But Palin is a good sport; she appeared on ’SNL’ herself.

Palin has not spared the McCain campaign, saying she believes she was “mishandled” to some degree by her handlers. For example, after her first interview with CBS‘s long-time, politically savvy and left-leaning Katie Couric didn‘t come off as well as could be expected, she was scheduled for two more. Had better judgment prevailed, .Palin’s advisers would have written Couric off as a bad match for their candidate.

But Governor Palin has never avoided a scrap. Several times, in her two terms as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (?) and in her two years as the first woman governor of the state, she has gotten into political scuffles with commissions over her political positions and her firings, not only of a commissioner, but of a state trooper who tazed an 11-year-old girl, Palin stood her ground.

She was criticized during the campaign for claiming she opposed Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere”, which would have connected Ketchican Island to sparsely-populated Gravina Island. It’s true that Paln solicited federal funds for the bridge. It’s also true that Gravina is the site of an international airport that handles 200-thousand passengers a year and a ferry service that carries 400-thousand annually. In the end, however, Palin canceled the Gravina project, so her campaign claim was accurate. If you ask her, though, she’ll say a bridge between the two spots is appropriate, given the airport and ferry traffic. This is entirely my own observation, but it looks as though we’ll have to wait until a crowded ferry goes down in the frigid water before “nowhere” becomes something again.

Sarah Palin’s positions on a number of issues make her something of a darling among conservatives and right-leaning Christians – a potent political base, especially in the primaries. She supports discussion of creationism in the public schools, though not necessarily as part of the curriculum. Her position on abortion is that it should be allowed only if the life of the mother is at stake. Palin opposes embryonic stem-cell research, is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association who supports mandatory firearm education, opposes same-sex marriage and supports capital punishment. She believes in lower taxes, Most of those stances put Palin in the mainstream of the American electorate.

Governor Palin says the last thing on her mind right now is a run for national office in 2012, but grassroots organizations are springing up with eye toward making her our first woman president. Conservative commentators are fragmented as to what her current activities should be: some saying she needs “time in the desert”, just being a good, conservative governor, others saying the time to start spading the ground and planting the seeds is now. I will say this. Any politician who can, in just a few years, go from being a member of the Wasilla, Alaska City Council to becoming a viable vice-presidential candidate deserves attention.

Sarah Palin is getting it, and rightly so. But four years is a long time. Palin needs to pace herself to avoid the American tendency toward cynicism when over-exposure is suspected. I believe four years of Democrat hegemony in Washington will do as much for Sarah Palin as anything she can do for herself.

In just a few days, the cost of President-elect Obama’s Economic Stimulus package has gone from 750 to 850 billion dollars. Only another 150-billion in add-ons and ‘special projects’ and we’ll be at a trillion. You can do it, guys!

That’s not a number most of us ever deal with or really have any conception of. Expressed mathematically, it looks like this: 1,000,000,000,000. It’s a thousand billion. Carl Sagan, rest his soul, and other astronomers may be comfortable with using such figures to attempt to quantify, say, the number of stars in our galaxy or the number of galaxies in our universe, but they are used publicly to inspire awe and wonder, with no real expectation that individuals really will be able to grasp them. Tell you what: the numbers being tossed around on Capitol Hill are filling me with awe and wonder, alright – and not a little fear.

A lot of the ‘Economic Stimulus’ money is supposed to be used to overhaul the nation’s infrastructure – highways, bridges, ports – things like that. Also, investment in corporations that are engaged in so-called “Green” technology, working on environmentally friendly cars, trucks, heating and cooling systems and industry of that nature.

But on whose payroll will all those highway workers be? How big a stake and how much oversight will Congress demand in exchange for its investment largesse? Plenty, or I haven’t spent the better part of 30 years reporting on all these shenanigans. And of course, with encyclopedia-sized volumes of new regulations come armies of new bureaucrats, all of them needing payment, and whose departments undoubtedly will go on the lengthy list of programs which receive automatic budgetary increases every year. To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirksen, “Ten billion here, ten billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” And Dirksen was a Democrat. The soon-to-be administration says all this spending will result in over 3.5 million new jobs. The word they cleverly leave out is government. If you get a construction job working on one of these “infrastructure” projects, God bless you. Just remember that, whoever the subcontractor is, Uncle Sam is the paymaster and the money deducted from your check merely is going back its source in reduced form. Forgive me, but I can’t do the math by which this works out to a net gain.

Here’s my plan: cut taxes across the board, especially business taxes, and do away entirely with the pernicious capital gains and inheritance taxes, which are nothing but an excuse for government to pillage your wallet for a third or fourth time. If we must lend federal money to banks and automakers, and it seems we must, make it a condition that they cut the fees they charge for processing a mortgage or financing a car. When working people have access to credit, and see that it’s safe to spend money again, they will spend it. And how. The bargains to be gotten, in housing alone, make that a given.

If this thing is handled right, we can turn the current recession into a major economic boom. It’s been done. I have no ideation that he’ll do it, but I suggest Barack Obama talk seriously with survivors of Ronald Reagan’s economic advisors, especially Art Laffer. I’ve stolen this line from economist Thomas Sowell before, and I’ll do it again: no nation on earth has ever taxed its way to prosperity. Many, including the Roman Empire, have taxed their way to ruin.

(Sought-after species are adapting genetically to harvesting and hunting)

There’s no doubt: humankind is at the very top of the food chain. Other animals cannot construct defenses to our growing population and demands on their numbers. They can’t manufacture rifles or make nets to scoop up and destroy us. The animal kingdom is, to put it bluntly, at our mercy. And, to some humans, the prospect of tens of thousands of dollars for rhino horns, to name one offbeat commodity, supercedes that quality. As a result, some species are on the brink of extinction, while others are adapting to human activity in ways that should make you wonder if nature has a mind of its own.

In some cases, mainly in the aquatic world, these adaptations (some scientists consider it evolution…yeah, whatever) actually appear to be responses to our efforts to preserve them. Decades of setting size limits on fish that legally can be taken are resulting in smaller sizes generally. Almost as though an invisible hand were at work. And their breeding cycles are changing. For example, the Atlantic Cod, which once had a breeding cycle of six years, now has one of five. And again, the big fish are getting smaller.

Evolutionary-minded researchers, with whom I can go along when it comes to easily demonstrable adaptations and genetic mutations within species and even families of animals, believe the planet’s “Super-Predator” – Homo Sapiens – is forcing an unprecedented acceleration in the pace of evolution. Again, I’m with them until we get to the unproven postulates of Darwinism.

Consider this: in the natural, non-humanoid world, predators go for the easiest catch – the smaller and slower. Now take many of those predators out of the picture and substitute man, who, with the best of intentions, takes only the larger, on the theory this will let the rest grow up and reach breeding age. Seems reasonable. But let’s engage in a small fantasy: the genes of these animals have a sort of collective unconscious that keeps track of what’s going on. “Hmmmm. The humans are taking only larger members of our species. Let’s all get smaller.” It may well be fantastic, but it seems to be what’s going on. Some call it “reverse evolution”. As one example, they point to full grown African male elephants with small tusks, which would give an ivory poacher pause.

The simplest and most accurate way to look at it is that is you thin the numbers of members of any species with certain attributes, you leave the gene pool flooded with animals lacking that feature. And the result will be that those animals will breed, producing more and more of a population that doesn’t have what we’re looking for. One of the dominant genes in that species has changed and may mutate further.

The first mammals were very, very small, enabling them not only to evade the giant predators of those early days, but to survive whatever cataclysms or catastrophes that ended 165 million year of dinosaur dominance. Are mammals and others preyed upon by our species showing signs of surviving the same way? Interesting question.

It’s pretty clear that all species, over time, will adapt to environmental realities. All species make their mark on the environment, too, small or large. But no species has the tremendous environment-changing power of humankind. Given our own observations, why should it surprise us if other animals adapt to us in various ways, as a matter of self-preservation?

I suppose I am what you might call a “common sense” environmentalist. People forget that humans are part of nature, part of the environment. We must do what‘s necessary for our own survival. But I also believe our Creator has made us stewards of this planet and of all the living things on it. What we do must be cautious and measured, simply because we have such power, which can sometimes work against us in strange, unexpected ways.

What researchers are observing in the way the animals we hunt or harvest for food and other purposes is a case in point. Size limits ought to reexamined in this new light. Dozens of studies, outlined online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicate we are affecting adaptive evolution in animals as small as snails and as big as elephants. It’s worth noting that our own survival may depend on our interactions with all those other animals. One doesn’t need to be a scientist to issue this caveat: be careful! Humans may be at the apex of creation, but they are not God.

(Obesity has become a major health problem among Americans)

That title a little offensive? Would it be better if I substituted “obese” for “fat”? I don’t see how. Facts are facts and here’s one for you: the most recent statistics indicate that more than two-thirds of U.S. residents now are either overweight or obese and, for the first time, the obese outnumber the merely overweight. Better than a third of Americans qualify as obese, meaning more than 20 pounds over their proper weight.

I think I need hardly recount to you all the health problems associated with obesity. Coronary disease, heart attacks and strokes lead the parade of serious consequences that accompany being that much overweight. I didn’t know it at the time, but I have been obese more than once in my life. When I was 29 and weighed 230 pounds (I am 5’10” tall), I may have looked like a football player, but I was dangerously obese. Check your height and weight charts – they provide a range depending on body type. What you discover might shock you, even scare you. Let’s hope, if you find you are too overweight or even tip the scales into obesity, it does scare you – enough so you’ll do something about it.

The solution in most cases seems obvious: lose weight! Exercise! There certainly are people with eating disorders, but not in the numbers we’re talking about. Also, these are highly stressful times and many people, even those who don’t have what the American Psychiatric Association calls a “personality disorder” with regard to food, find comfort in eating when they’re stressed. However, simply changing habits, whether it’s eating, exercising or getting more sleep, is not easy.

Years ago, a group of researchers set out to see how many times people had to consciously change an ingrained habit before the new behavior became more natural. They did this by the simplest, and one of the most ingenious, methods I’ve ever heard of. They randomly selected a large number of office workers and switched their wastebaskets from one side of the desk to the other. Then, they watched and kept track. Outcome: it took an average of more than 350 repetitions before the workers stopped tossing paper and trash on the floor, where the waste basket used to be.

If one of your eating habits is regularly stopping by Burger King or McDonald’s for a burger, fries and a shake, we’ve just identified a major contributor to being overweight or obese. I looked up some data and did some addition. And I don’t mean to pick on Burger King or “Mickey-D’s”: it could be any of dozens of similar outlets for food that simply oozes calories and fat. So, you go to Burger King and have a Double Whopper with Cheese, a Medium order of fries, and a medium-sized “Triple-thick” vanilla shake. That seems roughly average. Well, altogether, your quick meal accounted for 1690 calories and 102 grams of fat, 43 one of them of the worst, saturated variety. That accounts for all or most of the calories you should take in per day, and more fat of both kinds (around double) than anyone recommends. And you weren’t designed to ingest those all at once

At McDonald’s, a similar meal of a double “Quarter-Pounder” with cheese, medium fries and medium vanilla shake would amount to 1670 calories and 103 grams of fat, 33 grams of it saturated. You can get the bad news on cholesterol from any of countless websites that offer a count of fast-food nutritive values.

People with drinking problems often observe, rightly, that its seems as though every other TV commercial is for beer, wine coolers or mixed drinks. They’re right. Next time you spend a season in front of the ‘tube’, try counting up all the ads for fast food. And they always play up the products for “man-sized” appetites: triple this, overstuffed that, with plenty of cheese and beef and other calorie and fat-intensive ingredients. They don’t help someone who’s trying to lose weight. And I don’t believe new government regulations are the answer. We’re talking about individuals and their behaviors.

I’ll leave you with this: more and more of our children, at younger and younger ages, are obese. This sets them up for obesity later in life, with all its associated health problems. Losing weight and exercising sensibly are not complicated. Again, they are simple, but they are seldom easy. But the choice is ours. How do we choose to live and die? We often don’t have a lot to say about the latter. Avoiding obesity gives us at least a degree of personal power, and will mean feeling and looking better during our limited time on this planet. And that’s a lot.

(Hamas remains intransigent; Israel is considering several options)

Hamas has made itself unfortunately clear: it will accept no end to the current crisis except the opening of all entry routes into Gaza. Also, speaking in Egypt over the weekend, the Hamas Politburo chief, Khaled Mashaal, said that any international peacekeeping force will be regarded as an “occupying entity”. Translation: Hamas will consider peacekeepers as fair game for attack. Mashaal, who operates out of Syria and was in Cairo ostensibly to consider truce proposals, said the Israelis have suffered greater losses than they have admitted, and that Hamas fighters are taking back the initiative. Mashaal could have saved himself a trip.

Israel is looking at three main options. There is the possibility of overthrowing Hamas and installing Fatah and the Palestinian Authority as the government in Gaza. That is regarded as the least likely of outcomes. Another option is to press ahead until conditions for a cease-fire are met – an end to arms smuggling into Gaza and to the firing of Hamas rockets into civilian southern Israel. And a former director of Israel’s National Security Council mentions a “middle option”: Israel could take over the southern tip of Gaza, including the city of Rafah, which is the main source of the tunnels through which weapons are smuggled to Hamas from Egypt. None of those alternatives suggest a quick end to the fighting, and even the last would mean continued attacks on Israeli troops. So how does it end?

From where I sit, it’s inevitable that Hamas will have to beaten into submission in order for any but its own conditions to be met. That’s going to mean minimally weeks more of fighting. And, because of the way Hamas does business, it will also mean more unavoidable civilian casualties. Will Israel stand up to the increasing condemnation of those casualties from the international community – to the reconstitution of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and more attacks from that direction – to the chance that militants in the West Bank will break away from Fatah and open a third front? I know, from the thousands of Israeli reserves that have been called to active duty that those last two eventualities have been taken into account by Tel Aviv.

Another element will come into play in just a very few days. Barack Obama will be inaugurated as President of the United States, and there will be a period of instability as the change of administrations takes place. How will Obama’s people, especially Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, approach the Middle East morass? Will there be an erosion in official support for Israel? It seems likely, but what it will mean in practical terms remains to be seen. The Obama administration would be treading on very dangerous ground indeed if it undertook to deprive Israel of U.S. military aid to any significant degree. Whatever they see as necessary for their own survival, the Israelis are our staunch allies and friends – the only ones we can truly count on in the Middle East today.

There are, of course, a number of irons in the Mideast fire: Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and its nuclear ambitions and more. While they may not all seem directly related, they are in fact interwoven such that a move on one front engenders new scenarios on the others. Combined with the domestic economic woes the nation is facing, I am glad I’m not Barack Obama. If he doesn’t have a lot of gray hair after four years in the presidential refiner’s fire, I’ll eat my hat. One of them, anyway.

Much as we might wish and pray for them ever so fervently, there simply are no easy answers, no soft options. Israel is fully engaged in Gaza and will not stop until Hamas agrees to cease its rocket attacks and arms smuggling is brought under control. Hamas simply will not stop, period. There can be only one end under such circumstances, and few are going to like it. Israel refuses to continue living with a hostile neighbor that attacks its citizens regularly. Hamas is committed to destroying Israel. Hamas must be utterly suppressed or destroyed.