rabbijaffe

A few words about humilty:

A few times I have had the privilege of counseling people who were preparing themselves for a job interview. I would ask a question, and let them speak for a bit.

Inevitably I would have to tell them what I consider “job interview counterintuitive rule #1″:

There is no such thing as humility in a job interview.

If for even a moment you read and disagreed, or winced at the possibility that this might be true, please picture me grabbing your shoulders, shaking you and shouting:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HUMILITY IN A JOB INTERVIEW!!

You may not be dishonest, but you ARE the best person for this job. Here’s why…

And now you sell yourself.

As far as I’m concerned we get certain ideas imbedded in our heads, generally correct ideas, and then we mess ourselves up by not knowing when the idea is not applicable.

Humility, like all character traits, is not meant for every moment of our existences.

And here’s another truth in regards to humility about which many can easily err:

Humility should only be applied to oneself, and should NEVER be forced upon another.

Let’s make it practical, and applicable to the workplace:

Say you happen to be aware that Johnson cleaned up the conference room during his break, and now you happen to be there when someone walks in and says, “Wow, the room looks amazing.”

If you had cleaned it, there’s nothing wrong with saying, “Yeah. It sure is nice.” If you want to be humble and not take credit, be my guest.

But if Johnson did it, that would be unacceptable. You best be saying something like, “Yeah I know. Could you believe Johnson spent his whole break cleaning up the room? What a guy!”

I learned this rule the best way: By comtrasting my current employer with some of those of the past, who blew it big time on this principle. At the beginning of this year my boss ran an assembly, and every portion of the assembly had come from someone who sent him interesting movie clips. He assembled the best ones, put them in an organized manner, and presented them to the audience. For each and every clip he made sure to thank (by name) the individual who had sent him the clip, and at the end of the assembly he thanked all those who helped make it happen, severely downplaying his role.

At first I found it a little funny. Did I really need my name publicly mentioned? After all, it might have broken up the presentation and interfered with its flow. Plus, I feel no need for recognition.

But really I did, and really I do.

We all do. Even if we won’t admit it to ourselves, we all need to be recognized. There’s only so much one can take of working hard while another snatches all the glory.

The benefits of letting everyone under your employ be a hero, and be fully recognized for their contributions, are immeasurable.

An appreciated employee seeks to gain more appreciation.

An organization full of employees who feel recognized and appreciated is an unstoppable force. 

Sigh.

I write about Torah or leadership, I get a solid 15-25 really good hits. I write about Michael Jackson and, well, the hits just keep coming and coming…

But I digress.

I wanted to talk about something I learned very quickly, something which I’m still shocked isn’t applied anywhere near as often as it should.

Almost everything I write about is based on a very important business principle:

Every organization is made of many, many components. Countless employees work together to make the machine function with quality and efficiency. A major role of the employer is to do everything in his or her power to ensure that those components work at their peak capacities.

Some choose to do so through fear and intimidation. Ultimately it fails.

Others try and accomplish this through simply setting expectations.

But nothing in the world will work as effectively as gaining the respect of each and every employee.

And what’s the most important factor in ensuring their respect?

Your hands need to get dirty. Very dirty. And very frequently.

It’s so easy to be the man on the floor, tired and stressed, who looks up at a closed office door and thinks to himself, “It must be so nice to sit in a nice air-conditioned office collecting an enormous paycheck while we slave down here tirelessly so you can be rich.”

Under those circumstances the boss will never be respected, even if he’s in that office working countless thankless and trying hours.

I used to work at a kitchen where the manager/head-chef had a very peculiar role. He was not allowed to cook. In fact, it was illegal.

Why?

The employees were part of a union, and if the manager approached the grill, it was considered as if he was stealing from a potential union employee.

Have you ever worked in a kitchen before?

They’re generally very stressful circumstances, and sometimes go over the top.

What do you do when you’re watching your workers literally dripping with sweat, moving way to fast with fire and sharp knives all around them, and then all of a sudden twice the amount of customers as were expected show up?

Well, I know what this chef did.

He tied on his apron and hit the grill, and sweated and grunted along with all his workers. And he did so with his job on the line if he were caught.

And they all knew what was at risk for him.

Now that’s respect!

The boss needs to not just stand in front of his employees, but he needs to stand by their sides. He needs to show that he’s a worker, and he works just as hard if not harder than anybody else.

This is how one gains respect.

And the dividends from such an approach are immeasurable. 

I know I already posted today, and I know that Michael Jackson is quickly becoming the most over-talked about subject in the history of America, but I felt like just chiming in a few words. But first, please watch another immortal video from good ole Michael:

If you didn’t catch all that, please play back the video paying careful attention the 1:00 mark where you’ll find these unforgettable words:

“Jew me, sue me

Everybody do me

Kick me, kike me

Don’t you black or white me”

If you would like to read more about this, go ahead: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Michael-Jackson-To-Apology-For-Alleged-Remarks-On-Jews-13239.shtml

While the world bows down to the grave of a legend, there’s one person who cannot help but remembering the bizarre, alleged molester, crotch-grabbing, potential anti-Semite.

Reading through the Torah sometimes makes me wince. It seems that every time the Jews take a break from whining, they use the opportunity to complain.

“We’re thirsty!” “We’re hungry!” “We miss Egypt!” “Why are we walking so much?” “I don’t like the desert!” “No Starbucks anywhere!”

This is a group that just spent their lives as slaves and they’re incessantly protesting to the one man who took a stand to save them from their wretched existence!

But you’ll notice God’s role in all of this. I like to think of Moshe as CEO of the company for which God is the owner. God gives Moshe a lot of freedom of expression, but certainly stresses that the people need to be compensated when necessary. Moshe was angry when the people complained of thirst and hunger. “OK, fine. Give them something to drink; give them something to eat.” Were they rude, discourteous and ungrateful when they asked? Absolutely. But were their requests unreasonable? Certainly not!

God watches and grants the people their requests, despite their atrocious behavior toward their fearless leader. That is, of course, until they took their behavior too far. Their circumstance could be questioned, their emotions could be expressed, but to attack Moshe’s character was far more than could be tolerated. Korach and his posse stood before Moshe and exclaimed (Bamidbar 16:3), “It is too much for you! For the entire assembly — all of them — are holy and HaShem is among them; why do you exalt yourselves over the congregation of HaShem?”

Give me something to drink. God said, “You’re rude, but here’s some water.” Give me something to eat. God said, “Learn to ask nicely… but here’s some bread.” Moshe is undeserving of his role as spiritual leader, and we should be in the limelight. God said, “Moshe is the closest thing humanity will ever know to perfection, and you deserve less than nothing.” And the rebels were swallowed up by the earth. The owner of the company stood by his CEO and said, “An attack on a man of this caliber is an attack on Me. In this world, we earn spiritual reward and are entitled to nothing!”

And yet we live in the world of entitlement. Scores of people feel they are entitled to things for reasons that are so foreign as to appear ludicrous. And crazy old me sees this in nowhere more than synagogue. I went to a class not long ago and watched a person nudge someone out of his seat. Most people hear this and think, “OK, what else is new?” This was five minutes after the lecture had begun, in a very small room! He actually forced a person to get up and (embarrassingly) move in the middle of a talk, just because he felt like he had some sort of powerful claim on that spot.

And why!? Because he sat there several times before? Because he was a member of that particular synagogue? Because he had a fierce spiritual connection with that location? Because he was important?

Big deal! You’re in a house of God, and God Himself is the true owner of each and every seat. To feel that this seat belongs to you and you alone is a mini-rebellion against His omnipotence and an abysmal reflection of one’s faith that He is constantly overseeing us.

God was not telling Korach a onetime anachronistic message that if you stand up against Moshe you will surely perish. God was sending a message to all of us, to look at our words and actions, capture the true messages we’re sending, and understand when we’re telling the Almighty that He owes us something.

Shabbat Shalom!!

The third level (I’ll call it Level C) is a lousy situation for an employee.

It is characterized by large amounts of negative involvement.

This negative involvement can manifest itself in many different ways, for example:

1. Micromanagement. Sometimes an employer wants to “perfect” his employee so much that he gets involved in every last detail of his employee’s job, leaving the employee to feel inhibited and nervous.

An employer can often make this error thinking that only through his constant display of his own wisdom can his company advance.

But it backfires.

The “little people” make up the backbone of the organization, and in order to achieve success they must feel confident and empowered. Ultimately too much oversight will destroy the machine.   

2. Inability to criticize the right way.

The manner in which one criticizes the errors of an employee is critical. It could be the difference between an employee who is constantly growing and improving, and one who feels lower than pond scum (and produces accordingly).

The ability to criticize correctly is an art form most employers unfortunately lack, and therefore his efforts which he think are for the greater good, are actually setting everyone backwards.

And worse: When it backfires, the employer usually throws his metaphorical knife at the employee’s “inability to accept constructive criticism”, rarely looking at how his criticism is being dished out.

3. My employee is my servant.

Yet another approach to employer oversight involves, as disturbing as it might sound, a situation that feels more like a slave/slave holder relationship than that of an employee/employer relationship.

Some people honestly believe that their giving you money allows them to treat you however they feel, and dominate your every minute thanklessly.

No one in the world holds such power over you.

And it will ultimately crush an organization.

* * *

If you have a Level C employer, my advice: Figure a way to get out, and get out immediately. Is it better than not having a job? Well, probably. Especially in our economic climate. But if there’s a way out, take it.

The good news: Like the amazing feeling of taking off uncomfortable shoes that you have been wearing an entire day, ALL employers will seem fantastic from this time forward.

* * *

Level B: Minimal or no involvement, positive or negative.

Sometimes you’re in a sitaution where it doesn’t even feel like your employer knows you exist.

Believe me, it often feels great, and it’s worlds better than a Level C employer.

And, in fact, in my humble opinion there are certain situations where this is exactly the right thing for an employer to do.

In a position I used to have, a had this fantastic boss who entrusted us with our classes, and barely ever got involved.

Why?

Probably because he recognized the reality of the circumstance.

It was a supplementary job, approximately four hours a week, with lots of weeks off. No one treated their job as if it were the center of their lives, and really should not have been expected to.

He trusted us, he was there when we called upon him, and otherwise he was hands off. That was his role.

But do not get me wrong. If your main employer behaves this way with you, there are most certainly advantages, but they could easily be outweighed by some of these potential disadvantages:

1. No feedback equals not really knowing whether or not you are succeeding. I am assuming that most people wish to taste success in their field, but as each week passes without knowledge of how you are doing, it’s all left up to your imagination. This could be very unnverving.

2. No growth. Ideally an employer can do what you do better than you, and could and should be your guide for personal and professional development. Once again, as time goes by and you’re unaware of whether or not you are the same employee now as you were two years ago, this can be painful and frustrating.

3. The worst case scenario in all of this is when the boss’s first interraction with you in several months is to tell you that you are not succeeding, you have not grown since arrival at the organization, and your termination is inevitable and imminent.

Do you see why this might be bad?

* * *

Level A: Involved the right amount, the right way.

To get a taste of an employer like this is truly a rare and wonderful blessing.

The best employer:

a. Knows when to get involved, and when to trust his employee’s decisions and abilities.

b. Offers criticism that helps the employee grow.

c. Knows how to phrase his criticism so his employee understands that the goal is not to condemn him, but to help him improve.

d. Offers abundant, sincere praise.

Everyone should be blessed to have only these kinds of bosses, and when the time comes, to be this kind of boss.  

I have a perfect example from a previous job of an employer who, in my humble opinion, blew it big time on this principle.

The opposite of ‘Deal With, Isolate, and Move On’ is the the quite unfortunate “policy” of ‘Exacerbate and Dwell Upon’.

I was teaching at a school where several students were found to have been doing something the institution deemed inappropriate and a very poor representation of the school. It is hugely debatable whether or not their actions were as bad as many thought, but that is a question far beyond the point I wish to make.

The response began with an indefinite suspension of several students. Teachers were kept in the dark about their own students, forcing them to have to speak to the students’ friends to find out what was happening.

Public meetings were held to address the issue at hand. Some meetings were to weed out more information about the students involved. Others were just to create a public forum where students could discuss their thoughts and feelings with the principal.

Meetings were also held with parents, and an environment was created where this was the talk of not just the school, but the talk of all of Baltimore.

And the worst part of everything was: It just didn’t seem to stop. The school did everything in its power to spread the ‘tsk tsk’ out for months to come.

Exacerbate and Dwell Upon. Making a mountain out of a molehill.

Do mistakes happen? They most certainly do, and always will.

Are some mistakes so severe that they most absolutely cannot be termed “molehills”? Most definitely.

But the good leader knows how to judge between a mistake that’s everyone’s business, and a mistake that needs to stay local.

The good leader, when faced with the inevitable errors and misdeeds that accompany life, knows how to deal with them effectively, knows how to prevent them from becoming public knowledge or reason for disproportionate condemnation, and most importantly, knows how to then say:

An error has occurred. Let’s learn from it, yet move forward like it never happened.

Our errors should never be what destroy us.

They should be what help us to grow and become far better people. 

So, after four long and hard (and extremely rewarding) years working in formal and informal education, I finally feel confident to write about some of the important lessons I’ve learned along the way.

I consider myself a careful watcher of my surroundings. Therefore, I’m uniquely qualified to learn from every person around me. But if I were to only learn from what they do right and their good qualities, that would simply leave me open to make error after error.

What I’m trying to say is, these ten lessons are based on mistakes I’ve made, successful approaches to leadership I’ve witnessed, and the mistakes of others I hope to God I will never make myself.

So, without further ado I present:

Ten Lesson in Leadership I’ve Learned Since Entering Education

-Part 1-

Obnoxious Typing Syndrome

I suffer from a condition which I like to call OTS. OTS stands for ‘obnoxious typing syndrome’. What this means is that every time I put anything into an e-mail, the reader feels like I’m being terribly rude. I can send a few sentences asking about a person’s welfare, with only good intentions, and receive a scary response like, “We need to talk later.”

As we all know, “We need to talk later” is often an employer’s way of saying, “You messed up. Come to me so I can tell you how.”

My discovery came one time when I sent an urgent e-mail to several different people at the school where I was teaching. They were all administrators, and I, of course, had been there for a matter of months.

One of the more well-meaning of the batch pulled me over to the side and told me with completely good intentions that my e-mail came off as angry and rude.

I was shocked.

He might as well have told me I had smacked his mother.

I hadn’t the slightest clue to what he was referring.

I had remembered the e-mail. It was urgent and practical, not angry or rude.

But I humored him and went back to look at it… And he was absolutely right.

Well, sort of…

I mean, I saw his point of view… Unfortunately, so did everyone else.

That’s when I discovered that I’m one of the 62.7% of Americans suffering from OTS. We OTS sufferers can read and reread our e-mails dozens of times before we send them out, and no matter how hard we try to make them look calm and pleasant, the reader will find a way to read it as if we wrote it with a severe attitude problem.

And to date, there is no cure.

And I wish I could let everyone who suffers alongside of me know of a simple solution, but as of now, I’m still stuck.

The best I could do is let the universe know of three ways I’ve found to hop around the problem:

1. Yeah, you guessed it. Get off your butt and say it to their face. I know, I know. It’s so much easier to write a paragraph and send it to six people at once in five minutes than to waste your time calling or wandering around to talk to people. But it still remains the only surefire way of solving 99% of all OTS blunders.

But some people are not accessible.

And sometimes people ask you to send something in an e-mail so they have a record.

Other people refuse to communicate any other way but e-mail.

And sometimes we just cannot tolerate the inconvenience of a face-to-face encounter.

So, you’re left with my other two suggestions:

2. Keep it ridiculously short: “Yes Bob. Good idea.” “Is there a good time we could meet.” “I agree. Go ahead.” “Fine, I like that idea.” 

The shorter, the less room for error. I’m not saying it works every time, and some people really despise super short e-mails, but as long as their e-mail was addressed in full, when super short it is far less likely to contain a mistake.

3. One of the main problems with an e-mail is you are incapable of expressing emotion. This means the reader will give it for you, often reflecting their own mood at the time.

I feel like a total dweeb even suggesting this, but there is only one way I’ve ever found to come even close to expressing emotions in an e-mail.

You guessed it! Emoticons.

OK, sure they’re as lame as can be.

But when you need to say, “Mike, I cannot go with you tomorrow” there is only one way to make sure he reads:

Mike, I cannot go with you tomorrow. But I really wanted to go and still wish I could.

And not:

Mike, I cannot go with you tomorrow. You’re a complete imbecile and I wouldn’t be caught dead within fifteen feet of you.

How:

Mike, I cannot go with you tomorrow.

A phone call or a, gasp, real conversation still reign supreme.

But this is will get you through the week without everyone hating you. 

See you in part 2.

This post is response to a comment on my previous post.

I would like to make two essential points before I answer the main question at hand:

#1: The comment said that I implied that it was the Muslims who started the Crusades. This, of course, is not true.

However, I look at history in perhaps a different way than many others. You see, the historical event we refer to as “The Crusades” was most certainly instigated by Catholics. Later Crusades were instigated by Muslims, in response to the original one.

But why did the First Crusade occur?

Land, holy land, that was originally in the hands of Christians, had fallen by the sword to Islam. They wanted it back.

The Crusades will be forever a blemish on Catholic history. But this will not be because of the philosophy of the Crusades, but because of the atrocious behaviors of the Crusaders themselves. Their deplorable actions including rampaging through innocent Jewish villages on their way to Israel, as well as killing and eating (look it up!) their fellow Christians when severe hunger settled in.

Could it not be argued that the First Crusade was in response to the original Muslim conquering of Christian land?

If you say it was too many years beforehand, well, when really is the statute of limitations? If you say after one generation we need to forgive and forget and let the conquerers have what they took, then the Muslims had no justification for their later reconquering the land.

And if you say there is no statute of limitations, well, you have opened up an ENORMOUS can of worms (think Native Americans).

Anyhow, as far as I’m concerned the Crusades began well before the actual event we call “The Crusades”, and in my eyes never really ended. And the Muslim world has heavily (and very violently) been involved in all phases.

#2: My next point is in resonse to this statement made by the gentleman who commented on my post:

“Some of the most tolerant regimes to Jews have been Muslim empires.”

 Now, I must admit with great humility that his statement is historically flawless.

That being said, it must be understood in the context of world history. Your statement could be rephrased:

Jew lived RELATIVELY decent lives under Muslim empires throughout much of Islam’s existence.

This is relative to life under the Catholics, infamous for such things as the Inquisition or the expulsion from Spain. Or relative to Jewish life under the Greeks, the Romans, or even the Nazis.

I can guarantee you that if the lives of Jews throughout most of their history were more comparable to that of the lives of Jews in modern day America, we would talk about our tragic existence under Muslim rule. Being a second-class citizen in any society is hardly positive, and that is the best we ever achieved in any Muslim society. And Jewish life in Muslim nations in the last century resembles much of the situations of Jews during their most trying times in history.

So, in short, it is true that the Muslims did not technically start the Crusades, and it is true that Jews had a better time in Muslim countries than many others, but the history of violence in the region cannot be denied. It has always been there, it is currently rampant, and it will likely be there forever.

* * *

My main point today is in response to this very reasonable request:

“I wish you could explain for me what a settlement is, because I surely do not understand why Israel needs them. Why is this occupation so crucial?”

In short, what you call a settlement, I call a small Jewish village. These are lovely little communities scattered throughout the West Bank of Israel.

A drip of history:

In 1948 there was a grand opportunity for the Middle East. The UN was to give both the Jews and the so-called Palestinians homes in Israel.

The Jews accepted.

The Arabs didn’t.

And they attacked Israel… and lost.

In order to facilitate what they thought was a certain victory, the Muslim nations wished the Palestinians to flee the land (temporarily) so they could destroy the Jews with greater ease.

They complied.

Now there’s a refugee problem.

Israel’s fault? Are you kidding me!?

Then, in 1967, Israel beat the pants off of four attacking nations in six days. During these battles the Jews occupied three areas which are still under great dispute (and two others no longer under much dispute): The Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank.

Our discussion is mainly focused on the West Bank. There are several reasons why Jews choose to live in these communities (I have lived in three different West Bank settlements, by the way):

1. They are cheaper (and better) alternatives to the cities. The main cities in Israel are loud, crowded, and very expensive. You can live in a settlement for a fraction of the price, with a far greater lifestyle (bigger home and small, unified communities).

2.  We believe every inch of Israel is sacred and belongs to the Jews.  

3. Everyone knows that politics is just fancy, organized blah-blah. The real victor in any Middle East conflict is who’s on top when all the smoke clears. There is no point in having on-paper control of a territory, with no actual control. The Palestinians know this idea well. They try like crazy to control the West Bank through occupation. Anyone who has been out in those areas knows the Arab villages have no boundaries, and they are constantly building new houses to fill the area. These house are often unoccupied. Their sole purpose is to fill up land, and give the image that the land is Palestinian dominated. Like I said: The true victory.

In conclusion, this so-called occupation, this settling of land that was barely occupied before we arrived, and practically desolate before we made something of it, this land which we gained from people who left us for dead in defensive wars against nations who couldn’t fathom the idea of a Jewish state in their turf, is our right. We settle it because we want to. And because we can. Because it is the Land of Israel, and a fundamental and beautiful part of the Jewish homeland.

Israel should be forever blessed!

The last few weeks have been very frustrating for me.

I’ve sat by and watched very important people make very fancy speeches…

And I’ve watched the world think something is different now.

Barack Obama dazzled the world with his beautiful speech in Cairo, Egypt. Beautiful, but laden with inaccuracies, exaggerations, and misunderstandings.

People clapped. A lot. And now there are some who think millenia of angst, religious dogma, and ignorance have started the process of dissipating away.

I think our fearless leader, President Obama, and the world at large, need to get real and peer a little more intensely at the history of the world. The Muslim world, since it came into existence over a millenium ago, has violently and aggressively controlled its region. This is certainly not the first time there have been battles over the land of Israel. The Crusades alone lasted for hundreds of years! 

Radical Islam will not go away. There are literally millions (perhaps billions) of people in this world who believe that God Himself has dictated to them that the Jews and the West are the enemy. No speech or conversation will ever change this.

War happens. War will always happen. It will happen because of large things and small things, it will happen offensively, defensively, and preventatively. We will never rise to a stage in history where all countries will be able to talk through their differences.

It sounds nice. But it’s not reality.

Barack Obama stood in front of the world. He shook a finger in kindergarten teacher fashion at anyone who has acted in a way for which he disapproves.

Binyamin Netanyahu responded. He accepted the concept of a Palestinian State.

The world cheered. 

His acceptance was accompanied with demands that anyone who has been a careful watcher of the Middle East KNOWS will never be accepted by the Arab states.

I don’t blame him.

I thought he successfully appeased America while making commitments he will unlikely be held to.

Netanyahu was responding to unreasonable demands. No more settlement expansion is as reasonable as the White Paper’s restriction of Jewish immigration to Israel after World War II. Barack Obama does not know what a settlement is or what it means to be a settler. He likely never will.

And equating the status of the Jews during the Holocaust with the status of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel is thoroughly inaccurate, and hurtful at best. Every time I hear such comparisons they make me ill. They are based on ignorance and lies.

What I’m trying to say is:

Peace in the Middle East would be a very nice thing.

But the world should brace itself for disappointment.

I’m now contemplating what to write about after finishing my previous series. This dangerous interim period is when I just write about whatever came to my mind in the past day or so…

Yesterday I walked past a car with one of those cute bumper stickers. I don’t remember what it said, probably something trite like “Stem-cell Research is Pro-life.” 

A torrent of thoughts shot through my mind at that moment.

One of the most heated and central debates in the United States of America has basically been reduced down to cute bumper sticker catch phrases, and every one of them skirts around the real issues, and the real topic of discussion.

Listen:

Let’s think about the stuff that all reasonable people can agree upon:

1. Killing people is wrong. That’s applies to any age and for almost any reason. Hence, we have no movement which is called Anti-Life.

2. Women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. This applies to all circumstances. No one is walking around telling women that men or the government must make choices for them. Hence no movement called Anti-Choice.

3. Killing an abortion doctor is hypocritical, does nothing to add to the cause of those who oppose abortion, and is straight up immoral.

4. Abortion should not be used as an after-the-fact birth control. Abortion is not a replacement for personal responsibility.

That being said, the disagreements in this debate are clowded by manipulative propoganda, while the real issue is danced around by everyone, all the way up to the president of the United States.

The real issue is: What is the definition of life? The president thinks this issue is above his pay grade:

If once and for all this can become the central feature of the discussion, and through years of painstaking debate and research cand come to some type of conclusion, the debate is over.

The most ardent pro-choice activists do not think it is OK to beat a baby to death. If an unborn fetus were defined as a living being, I find it inconceivable that anyone would be amiable to the concept of an abortion.

On the other hand, if it were agreed upon that this fetus was nothing more than a temporary cosmetic blemish, then it is hard for me to understand why a woman would not be permitted to “fix” it.   

What is the definition of life?

The debate begins here.

The debate ends here.

The people of our great country deserve real answers to real questions, and not catchy slogans and pithy propoganda.

Don’t we?