Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

The Council for Secular Humanism Rescues Florida From Theocratic Politicians

As a supporter of church/state separation, I was delighted that the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) won a court victory over state politicians who pander to religious voters last week. The very idea of such funding was an outrageous and until now successful ploy by right-wing fundamentalists in this benighted state to compel all taxpayers to support religious indoctrination. It always seemed a gross violation of the Florida and US Constitutions; the state's 1st District Court of Appeal has now affirmed this perspective. 

The case involved Florida taxpayer funds going to faith-based substance abuse transitional housing programs in Florida prisons. The CSH termed this Christian religious indoctrination and the appeals court concurred - reversing a lower court ruling that allowed the practice. 

Under Jeb Bush and his fellow Republican successor, Governor Charlie Crist, payments were made to faith-based organizations for social services. Prisoners of Christ and Lamb of God Ministries received public funds to provide faith-based services (e.g., prayers).  Does anyone else think these are weird names, or is it just me? Why would any prisoner want to be imprisoned by Christ, anyway?  And Lamb of God? What's that about? Prisoners taught to behave like sheep? 

Florida statutes contain a No-Aid provision concerning religion - it's written into the Florida constitution. Let's all be grateful that CSH, based in New York but serving the US Constitution throughout the nation, has rendered a superb service for all Floridians, religious as well as secular.

Want To Reduce Or Stop Global Warming? Support Global Family Planning!

The leaders of the world are about to gather in Coperhagen to debate the nature of and ways to slow global warming.  All manner of topics are on the table - except the only one that could dramatically slow and possibly reverse the progression of global warming. That, as you might sense from the title of this piece, is zero population, in my opinion and a vast number of scientists who have studied strategies for arresting global warming and a host of other world problems.

It should go without noting but I will to be sure I'm understood: There is no harm in seeking commitments from developed and other nations to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gasses, perhaps by five or more percent by 2012 (compared with 1990 levels).  But, this and other targets under review are of less consequence than the population control approach.  Unfortunately, the poisonous menace of religious dogma keeps this logical approach off the table, at least so far.  In fact, most national leaders fear mention of the topic.  What a tragedy.

The omission of population control in general and contraception and other forms of birth control in particular should be addressed as a first item of business in Copenhagen.  The US should enlist other secular nations to advance consideration of family planning increases, with a focus on the education and attendant liberation of women in developing countries. If not, we should all start preparing for the consequences - financially, educationally and emotionally. It's going to get ugly.   

There is solid evidence that birth control is cheaper than any "green technology."  Nothing else will do more faster or with less expense.  A report entitled "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Costs" estimates a one ton reduction for each 7 dollars spent on family planning.  Since we add 90 million tons a day of nasty stuff (not an official scientific term) according to Al Gore, and the cost of eliminating a single ton with global emission reduction approaches is $32, it seems inconceivable that governments continue to permit religious forces to block family planning strategies. Consider that the Report authors also estimate "that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended."  Just education alone could do wonders to slow global warming by bring about a future with fewer emitters.

The entire matter is rather basic.  Fewer people will emit fewer tons of carbon dioxide.  Of course, fewer people also will lead to what Robert Green Ingersoll said, "less alms for the outstretched hand of superstition," but in my view, that, too, would be a very good thing.  

Cheers.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Two Suggestions For President Obama From A Speech Writer Waiting To Be Enlisted In The Good Cause

On October 12, 2009, Charles Gibson interviewed President Obama on ABC-TV about health care reform. Mr. Gibson served Mr. Obama a "gotcha" question, to wit: "Mr. President, will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new universal program that the rest of us will be on?" 

While I did not watch the interview, I learned about it from exultant conservative bloggers who gleefully noted what they called "Obama's stony silence." As noted, I do not know if the president fumbled the question, but really, what could he say? Any president or member of Congress would have to be some kind of secular saint to agree to do such a thing, since their health plans are indeed gold-plated - and cost next to nothing, thanks to taxpayer subsidies for high officials. 

However, I have a suggested response for Mr. Obama consideration, just in case this query is posed again, which it surely will be. Here is what I think he should say, more or less: 

"Life is NOT fair, as most people have realized for some time. The president and members of Congress enjoy many benefits unavailable to the populace. Other presidents and Congressional leaders created systems that favor citizens elected to high public office. Maybe they should not have done so, or the people should have insisted such entitlements be eliminated. Maybe it is time for changes in health plans beyond those reforms under consideration. 

However, for now, the system does favor those elected to certain high offices. Take the presidency, for example. In this job, you get many perks, including a bigger airplane on call at your service 24/7 than the aircraft enjoyed by most Americans. Members of Congress don't get airplanes or a really nice house fully furnished with a home office as I do, but they do, as your question recognizes, receive generous health insurance plans. I don't think the folks who manage to get themselves elected to highly contested seats (only two available) in the US Senate from each state or the 435 accomplish the same in districts across the land will be anxious to sigh up for the basic plan we want everyone to have. Perhaps this question of fairness relative to health care benefits should be revisited in political campaigns to come. Until a consensus for changes in Federal health plans is realized, I'm going to accept the current plan granted to me by the Congress. Meanwhile, I'll continue to work as hard as I can to make greater benefits, even if not quite presidential (or Congressional), available to everyone else. 

Does that answer your question?

On another matter, let me start by noting that I am a liberal. I am also an Independent who voted for Mr. Obama, and not only because I was horrified at the presence of a moron reactionary on the other side's ticket. I liked Obama during the long campaign and fully expected REAL change. I've been disappointed, a lot, so far. I expected more support for women's rights and gay rights, even though I'm not female or gay. I thought Obama would rebuild a figurative wall to keep separate church and state, but instead he gave us Rick Warren at the Inaugural and expanded rather than halted faith-based funding of religious charities. 

But what really runs chalk across my blackboard is the president's habit of ending most speeches with the ludicrous phrase, "God bless America." What the hell does that mean? Which god? How does a god bless a country? What happens if we ever, somehow, got blessed? What does that mean, anyway? If Obama does not ask for God to bless America, does that mean we won't be blessed? How many times does he have to say those words to get the blessing? How many blessings do we need? Have these matters ever been explained and, if so, by whom and what did he/she or it say?

I'd like to know what YOU think. Any comments?

The Tax Exempt Status of the Catholic Church Should Be Revoked Immediately

Injecting itself aggressively into the health-care debate, the Roman Catholic Church in America has emerged as a major political force with the potential to upend a key piece of President Barack Obama's agenda.

Peter Wallsten, Catholic Church Emerges as Big Player in Health-Care Fight, Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2009, p. A4.

An amendment to the House-passed health bill bars anyone who receives a tax credit from enrolling in a plan that covers abortion.  This ban is the result of an intense lobbying campaign by Catholic churches across the nation.  The church worked behind-the-scenes while publicly mobilizing supporters at the grassroots level. 

Political activism by the tax-exempt Catholic Church reached an odious level five years ago when Catholic bishops declared that they would not grant communion to the Democratic nominee.  While free-thinkers and others are not bound or intimidated by dogmas thought ridiculous by other than true believers (who unfortunately number in the millions), to candidate John Kerry and other Catholics, this was a big deal. 

Why would the church threaten its most prominent member at that time? The bishops did so because Catholic Kerry dared to support a woman's right to make a choice regarding abortion.  This choice was of course enabled for all women in this country in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized the procedure.  

The nation has been embroiled in legal battles between the forces of theocracy and secular governance for many years, and there is no end in sight.  Politicians at present are largely composed of believers and supporters of religious encroachment on separation of church and state.  IRS rule violations are common; religious leaders know they can get away with ignoring rules forbidding partisan political activity and other campaigning that injects religious beliefs into public policies.  The Catholic Church is the worst offender.  What a shame our presidents since JFK have not seen fit to instruct cabinet members and others in government, including the Commissioner of the IRS, to act swiftly when church groups meddle in public policy while insisting on keeping their tax-exempt status. 

In 1960, candidate Kennedy spoke to church leaders in Texas.  Imagine how Catholic bishops and other Catholic lobbyists would respond today to the late president's remarks delivered in 1960.  The following words are from JFK's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion on September 12, 1960.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

I myself believe in an America that will not allow tax exempt status for a Catholic Church that acts as a political force.  I therefore believe that the IRS should immediately strip the church of this undeserved privilege. No religious body should be allowed to impose its will upon the general populace.

An Honest Congress Would Be A Miracle

Robert Ingersoll was asked for his opinion of miracles in the 1870's.  His reply included an assessment of "miracles" described in the bible, followed by a parable of sorts.  A portion of Ingersoll's response, taken from "Sixty-Five Press Interviews with Robert G. Ingersoll" (AAP, 1983), went like this:

"All the miracles recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated.  A fellow could have pretended to be dead, or blind, or dumb, or deaf.  I want to see a good miracle.  I want to see a dog with one leg, and then I want to see the other leg grow out."  Next, Ingersoll offered a humorous parable:

"Two men were disputing about the relative merits of a salve they had for sale.  One of the men, in order to demonstrate that his salve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tale and applied a little of the salve to the stump and, in the presence of the spectators, a new tail grew out.  But the other man, who also had salve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast away, put a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and the last heard of those parties they were quarelling as to who owned the second dog.  Something like that is what I call a miracle. 

If someone could come up with a salve or other remedy for an honest Congress, I, too, would give some respect to the notion of having witnessed a miracle.  The Congress today is a disreputable institution.  The approval rating is 25 percent - lower even than that of George W. Bush at the end of his sorry eight-year reign of ruin. On Friday last, former Louisiana congressman, William Jefferson, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for taking bribes.  Congressmen and women all take bribes, in my opinion, but they are legal when called campaign contributions from special interest lobby groups.  Of course, they all insist that contributions of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in no way influences their voting, but you have to believe in biblical-level miracles to buy that.  Other former Congresspersons currently in prison for chicanery of one sort or another include Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney and James Traficant. 

Yes, given the nature of the campaign fund-raising norms or system of legal bribery that exists today, a House of Representatives with 435 honest and a Senate with another 100 honest members would, I belive, satisfy even "the great agnostic" and skeptic Robert Green Ingersoll that a miracle had occurred.

I have an idea that would facilitate a somewhat MORE honest Congress, and such a consummation would not require a miracle to come about. 

I suggest that the president appoint and the Congress endorse the establishment of a non-partisan committee to vet the ethical qualifications of all candidates for Congress.  The independent committee would develop an efficient method to assess the ethical quality of everyone elected to the House and the Senate of the United States, and assess any ethical charge brought against said member.  If found not to be ethical, the member would be expelled. 

That is my REAL wellness suggestion of the day.  It is the first in a series of REAL wellness suggestions that will appear at this space from now until the end of time or until I die, whichever comes first.  Your comments about this and/or future suggestions are warmly, lovingly and earnestly encouraged.  All comments will be listed at the site. 

All the best.  Enjoy your life - it's the only one you're going to get so make the most of it.   

Dr. Don Ardell Rumored To Be Named Chairman Of President Obama's Death Panel

On August 14, the 500th edition of the ARDELL WELLNESS REPORT (AWR) was distributed.  From now on, AWR's will be written and released whenever the muse strikes, not weekly as has been the case for the past ten years.  And none too soon.  I have it on good authority that I am in line for an important new federal assignment - and I am going to need every waking hour to manage this awesome new opportunity.  

If "Obama-care" passes, I believe I will be offered the chairmanship of the Administration's innovative new death panel.  While the president has not promoted this feature of his reform proposals, most Americans are aware of the death panel idea thanks to a certain highly regarded Republican ex-governor who knows of wondrous things, as if guided by a higher power - or something.

As Chairman of the Obama Death Panel, I'll probably be entitled to a huge salary, a big office and lots of perks, but these baser incentives do not compel me to accept the position. I will step up to answer the call to serve because I see it as my duty.  The mission of the Obama Death Panel under my leadership will be to exploit every cost-saving potential in euthanizing the old and disabled.  Basically, we'll be pulling the plug on grandma - and we're not going to do any favors for grandpa, either.   Our work will save a bundle on Medicare. 

Who would object to giving patients opportunities to learn about options for "care" at the end of their lives?

However, since I AM a grandpa, some provisions for exemptions of certain kinds of geezers will be enacted. Anyone who favors open discussion of politics, sex and religion will be given favorable status, provided of course opinions expressed in these arenas conform to views embraced by decent, God-fearing Americans. Don't worry - as a certified reader of this blog, I'll put in a good word for you when you're summoned to appear before my panel.

I expect the death panel will be charged with identifying additional cost savings - look for incentives for abortion, infanticide and native deportations. Yes, native born deportations - why limit deportations to aliens?  The real savings will be in removing unproductive citizens who do not support the American way, love Jesus, watch Fox News, fly the flag and respect the true patriots left in this country, like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  

All the best.

Let's Offer Education In The Fundamentals of Reason As A Focus Of Foreign Aid

Americans believe many foolish things, and are in no position to urge people in other nations to think sensibly, develop respect for and a basic understanding of science and avoid grotesque forms of superstition. But, we should do it anyway, at least with respect to the beliefs and practices of many tribes that inhabit the continent of Africa. This is so important it should be a focus of our foreign aid offerings.

I believe our president, as he prepares to leave America for a visit to Africa, should address these issues as part of the continuing war on religious extremists who terrorize and destroy. American foreign aid should be used to promote reason as part of assisting the poor in backward nations to become better humans.

Much of reason education could advance common decencies and secular ethics. We should offer substantive alternatives to those who, caught up in centuries of extreme ignorance, engage in and tolerate atrocities occasioned by belief in witchcraft, superstition, and malevolent magic. Such cultural norms continue to block social and economic progress throughout the African continent.

American foreign aid can counter and help dispel these tragic African cultural practices with social as well as economic development assistance. We must teach rational thought, reason, modern science and sound secular experience.

There is a private group already doing this kind of thing, but our national government could do so much more. The Center for Inquiry, an international organization dedicated to education, reason, and secular ethics (based in Amherst, New York), is leading the way to promote this agenda.

The Center has launched a campaign consisting of educational seminars, protest marches, communiqués and meetings with African and other officials, letter-writing movements and aggressive widespread consciousness-raising efforts. Their work deserves support.

One of the Center’s educational workshops is set for Cape Town, South Africa from August 29-30; another is scheduled in Lilongwe, Malawi on September 4-5. Both will highlight humanism as an alternative to witchcraft.

Norm R. Allen Jr., executive director of African Americans for Humanism and the Center for Inquiry/Transnational Programs, is a key figure in these campaigns. He has been quoted as follows in Center literature:

"What African humanists and skeptics are doing is uncompromisingly challenging these harmful ideas and offering a humane and rational alternative, drawing upon humanistic ethics and an appreciation for scientific methods of investigation.

"It is clear that “superstitions—including belief in witchcraft—are based on fear, magical thinking and inadequate education, and are regularly exploited in Africa by unscrupulous individuals in positions of influence. Through the centuries, superstitious beliefs in Africa have been—and continue to be—used to oppress women, abuse children, support racism and xenophobia, justify torture, murder and genocide, and to exploit the poor, the weak and the aged. Those decrying accused ‘witches’ still orchestrate death and destruction of lives and property for the benefit of their own power. These unfounded beliefs are being used as a tool to incite hatred and cause division and conflicts in families and communities across the continent. In Angola, Malawi, Nigeria, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, those accused of witchcraft have been murdered, tortured or banished by their communities—often by their own families. Left unchallenged, the harmful, dark and destructive effects of superstitious belief have become common and recurrent problems in Africa.”

It was not so long ago that a candidate for Vice-President of the United States was associated with the machinations of a demon-chasing preacher practicing an African form of witchcraft. Hard to believe but true.

The appearance at the Wasilla Assembly of God in 2005 of Thomas Muthee from Kiambu, Kenya was marked by prayers for (and over) Palin. Muthee called upon Jesus to propel Palin into political office (governor of Alaska). Muthee also called on Jesus to protect Palin from "the spirit of witchcraft." How ironic. Muthee gained fame with Palin’s religious congregation by claiming to have defeated a local witch in his African region, one “Mama Jane,” in a great spiritual battle, and in the process liberated the town from sin while putting out a welcome mat to the spirit of Jesus.

We should probably divert some of the educational foreign aid designed to fight witchcraft and promote rational thought, reason, modern science and sound secular experience to small towns in Alaska, like Wasilla.

For more on the Center's campaign against witchcraft, superstition and the like, contact Leo Igwe at skepticleo@yahoo.com, skepticleo@yahoo.com or humanistleo@hotmail.com or nallen@centerforinquiry.net.

The Society for Women and AIDS in Africa can also provide assistance.  Visit the Center for Inquiry website at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/.

Mr. President, Build Up That Wall!

The pervasive violations of this country's long tradition of church/state separation under President Bush were unconstitutional then and remain so today. Alas, President Obama is expanding, not eliminating, government funding for "faith-based initiatives."  This is a great disappointment, as was his invitation to the gay-bashing, fundamentalist preacher Rick Warren to pray at the secular ceremony that marked the inauguration of our 44th president.  Any praying at this civic event in the life of our non-theistic Republic is inappropriate; the prayer by this particular god-talker was outrageous.

The faith-based funding is inappropriate because taxpayer dollars are being used to sponsor sectarian religious activities and beliefs. 

Government funding of faith-based programs should eliminated.  If religious organizations want to conduct social service programs, they are free to do so with their own money.

Also regrettable is the fact that religious organizations have access to the White House to lobby for faith-based human service initiatives.

Recently, according to the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a secular organization that supports church/state separation, a meeting took place between representatives of the CFI Office of Public Policy and other church-state separation advocates and senior staff at the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

CFI's reps expressed their concerns and disappointment over the new president's failure to repeal five Bush administration executive orders and numerous agency regulations and rulings that apply to the faith-based office. Those executive orders, regulations, and rulings permit faith-based programs to engage in religious discrimination -- using your tax dollars.

Unfortunately, it seems that President Obama will not act to prevent harmful discrimination by religious organizations that benefit from your tax dollars. Also, his plan for this illegal office fails to prevent the use of public money for construction and renovation of buildings used for religious worship. It does not bar religious organizations from proselytizing in publicly-funded programs.

While President Obama has said repeatedly that he believes in the separation of church and state. Those of us who supported him so enthusiastically might want to work hard to urge him to keep his word.

To learn what you can do, write to CFI c/o srook@centerforinquiry.net or call (716) 636-4869 ext. 427.  For more information about CFI (the source of much of this information), visit http://www.centerforinquiry.net/opp.

Be well.  Protect the wall!

Urge the President To Minimize Religious Interference In The Delivery Of Medical Care

Under the disastrous era of George Bush, religious zealots were able to convince the chief executive to create a provider refusal rule. This rule requires health care institutions receiving federal funds to certify in writing that they would allow health care providers to refuse services on religious and ideological grounds. It was an invitation to sectarian mischief.

Fortunately, it took a while to get into the system, but it has been in place since January 20th.  Already, the new president has directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to rescind the provider refusal rule. However, this requires a period of public opinion gathering about the policy - and thus the purpose of this message is to urge you to do just that. Make a comment.

Here is my comment, which I plan to mail to HHS. Consider sending one of your own. You have until April 9th to do so.

Madam Secretary:

I join with other Americans who support the separation of church and state to urge that an end to the rule entitled "Ensuring that Department of Health and Humans Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."

As many have noted already, this Bush-era directive is driven by extremist religious ideology. It is an invitation to mischief and discord. It is vague and would almost certainly reduces access to health services and information for women seeking reproductive services. It could also lead to an interruption in the ability of anyone to gain assistance for a medical condition about which there is controversy based on religious dogma.

The conscience of a providers should not be given more weight than the health needs of patients. The danger is greatest in remote rural areas where alternative health care providers are few, but the situation would be intolerable anywhere. It is especially distressing in instances wherein a health care facility is funded in part by our own tax dollars.

Abortion is so loosely defined that the rule could tempt religious medical personnel to refuse to provide contraception, treatment for infertility or HIV/AIDS, information about end-of-life care or any medical procedure linked to a religious belief, however primitive.

I join with the Center for Inquiry and hundreds of other secular institutions in asking that you please rescind the provider refusal regulation as soon as possible.

Thank you very much. May the Constitution be our guide.

What Rush Limbaugh Said When He Called Me This Morning

I put no more stock in the predictive value of dreams than I do in the so-called prophesies of Nostradamus, crackpot ESP con artists or religious zanies like Pat Robertson. Nor do I read much into images or episodes of any kind experienced in dream states. The latter may be rough guides to inner turmoil, or maybe not. Perhaps some revelations or scenarios, particularly those that are vivid and emotional, should be explored with trained professionals in therapy, aided by powerful drugs. I hope not, because I am definitely NOT so inclined, even if "we are such stuff as dreams are made on and our little life is rounded with a sleep." (Prospero, The Tempest, Act 4, scene 1.)

Therefore, I did not think much about a visit last night from Rush Limbaugh, who wanted to apologize for making such an ass of himself lately (i.e., at least the last eight or thirty years). Why apologize to me?" I asked Rush. "I don't care - tell your listeners. Tell Michael Steele.

I find you obnoxious, pathetic, grotesque and an abomination. I don't take apologies for others - tell the American people you are sorry for being such a wretch and reform your ways. But please, don't bother me - I'm a wellness guy. I look on the bright side, stay positive, take responsibility, pursue happiness, exercise a lot, search for meaning and act at all times with compassion and love for my fellow man. Go away, you awful person.

When I finished, Rush looked at me in a melancholic way and said, “Don, you're the only one who can guide me. You understand REAL wellness. Please, don't reject me. I'm obese, unhappy, addicted to drugs; I have no real friends, except the lunatics who thrive on my unhinged rants. I want to reform my ways, change my life, make amends and become a decent person. I also want to shape a healthy lifestyle, have more fun, contribute to society in a positive way. I even want to help Barack Obama succeed, not fail. Won't you help me?

Well, let me tell you - I felt awful. Why had I responded so harshly? I was almost as mean and nasty as Rush - with Rush. Did I want to be like that? No way. So, like Michael Steele, I apologized to Rush. I said, “It's not too late. Don't worry about the past. Now that everyone expects the worst from you, you can be like Nixon in the 70's, opening up a dialogue with China! I'll help you. Start by telling everyone you no longer want to be the face or the leader of the Republican Party. You don't want to be obnoxious, pathetic, grotesque, an abomination or a wretch. From now on, you will promote REAL wellness - reason, exuberance and liberty. You're going to look on the bright side, stay positive, take responsibility, pursue happiness, exercise a lot, search for meaning and act at all times (with rare exceptions) with compassion and love for your fellow man. You will even root for and help President Obama to succeed, not fail. You will be a new Rush Limbaugh person, thoughtful, kind and mellow, constructive and positive.”

Well, I can tell you, when I woke up I felt great. I felt full of energy, good will and passion - I wanted to go to work and write articles that would set things right. I looked over at my lovely wife, sleeping soundly and felt hugely amorous, I woke her up, put my arm around her - but I won't go into all of that here. I'll save that for my pay-for-view site.

Anyway, before long, I remembered I don't put much stock or read much into dreams, so all good will toward Rush was gone before I fired up the coffeepot. Then again, dreams sometimes augur moral lessons and those who ignore dreams (e.g., as in Macbeth) do so at some peril. Who knows, maybe Rush will change his ways. If he does, remember this tale. Maybe I'm psychic, have ESP or can see the future. I don't think so but if Rush transforms in the very near future, I might reconsider.