Will America's nuclear waste repository ever open, and, more important: should it?

It's sad to say that this can't even be called "stunning hypocrisy," because hypocrisy has become par for the course for John McCain.

From last month, McCain's reaction to former President Carter's plan to meet with Hamas:

It is a grave and dangerous mistake for an American leader to meet with a terrorist organization like Hamas...The very idea that a former President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief would meet with a terrorist organization demands a clear stance from all presidential candidates. Refusing to take a stand, as Senator Obama has done, is not the strong leadership we need today. If Senator Obama is not decisive enough to condemn former President Carter, how can he be strong enough to deal with the threat they pose to America and to our allies?

...and during a conference call with conservative bloggers:

I think that the people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare.

I think it is very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly.

But two years ago, during an interview with James Rubin, was this exchange:

Q:  Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

MCCAIN:  They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.

It seems that McCain has shelved that "new reality" on dealing with Hamas in the interest of furthering a chosen line of attack against Barack Obama.   Unprincipled and hypocritical, and of course, completely in line with his goal of carrying out George Bush's third term.  And in fact, following Bush's attack yesterday on Obama as an "appeaser," McCain took the opportunity to expand on Bush's remarks:

And the belief that somehow communications and positions and willingness to sit down and have serious negotiations need to be done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do, which then enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists and is directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans, I think is an unacceptable position, and shows that Senator Obama does not have the knowledge, the experience, the background to make the kind of judgments that are necessary to preserve this nation's security.

When John McCain said that he was "fine" with staying in Iraq for 100 years, he proved that he doesn't have the judgement to be the Commander in Chief, and with his hypocritical attacks on Barack Obama over Hamas, he proves that he doesn't have the character either.

Speaking before a National Rifle Association convention today, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — and ardent supporter of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign — was interrupted by an “unexpected offstage noise” and commented that perhaps Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was ducking a gunman:

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Politico’s Ben Smith notes, “Joking about Obama getting shot at is probably not the fast track to veephood.”

• Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick -- isn't buying the line about McCain getting the U.S. out of Iraq by 2013, as he parses exactly what the presumptive nominee said in his speech yesterday.
• Gary Hart takes on  John McCain:

  If John McCain seriously believes we are at war with al Qaeda in Iraq, that alone is such a serious error in judgment as to rank him with George W. Bush at his worst and therefore disqualify him from any chance to govern this country.

  This isn't a typical Democrat versus Republican story; Hart and McCain have been tight friends for decades, with Hart serving as an usher at McCain's wedding.

• Alan Keyes is gearing up to start his own third party.
• Chinese bloggers are bucking the state controlled media and breaking the real news in China, thanks to a website hosted by Watson Meng in Durham, NC.

  The site, Boxun.com, relies on a host of bloggers and citizen journalists — mostly in China — to break stories, often faster than state-controlled Chinese media or foreign news services. The site is banned in China, but Chinese people can skirt that Internet censorship through proxy servers hosted in the United States.

  Posting on Boxun (pronounced "bow shwin") is not without risks. Numerous contributors, including three in the past several weeks, have been jailed in China.

  "It's really aggravated the [Chinese] government because it takes stuff outside and puts it on display internationally," said Bob Dietz, of the New York nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists. "For us, the site is required reading."

• In other news from China, it is estimated at five million people are now homeless in Suchuan Province as a result of the earthquake.
• The Georgia bar owner that created the offensive "Curious George" Obama shirts may have received a little more publicity than he would have liked. The numerous reports caught the attention of publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt  - who said they are not amused and are considering legal action.

  "Houghton Mifflin Harcourt did not nor would we ever authorize or approve this use of the Curious George character, which we find offensive and utterly out of keeping with the values Curious George represents," said Richard Blake, the company's spokesman.

Considering the kind of folks attending NRA events, this was probably a heck of a joke for them.

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the race, there's been speculation about what his role would be in a Democratic administration, if any. VP? No way. My thinking for months has been that he'd never want to go there again but even if he did, he brought so little to the ticket in 04 why would the nominee want to pick him this year? So, what then? My response has always been: Attorney General. What better job for a man who holds social justice as the cause of his life?

Looks like Edwards may feel the same.

When asked whether he'd want to be Vice President, Edwards was surprisingly emphatic:

"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen....It's just not something I am interested in."

But when asked whether he'd be interested in Attorney General, he began to play coy.

"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we'll worry about those things."

John Edwards is not good at playing these games. Remember when he was on MSNBC recently, he was asked who he voted for and even as he said he wouldn't reveal it, he accidentally used the pronoun "him" referring to his candidate preference. So, I have to take this as an indication that he does want AG and in fact, I suspect, he's probably been in talks with both Democrats about that very role. He'd be perfect for it and what a change it would be after the jokers who've held the position these past few years. Not only that, but as Bowers points out:

While there were some who thought he was overly messianic in his anti-corporate campaign rhetoric (people like positive messages), that strikes me as exactly the attitude we need from an Attorney General.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, john edwards, attorney general (all tags)

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the race, there's been speculation about what his role would be in a Democratic administration, if any. VP? No way. My thinking for months has been that he'd never want to go there again but even if he did, he brought so little to the ticket in 04 why would the nominee want to pick him this year? So, what then? My response has always been: Attorney General. What better job for a man who holds social justice as the cause of his life?

Looks like Edwards may feel the same.

When asked whether he'd want to be Vice President, Edwards was surprisingly emphatic:

"No," Edwards said in no uncertain terms on NBC's the Today show when asked about the possibility. "Won't happen....It's just not something I am interested in."

But when asked whether he'd be interested in Attorney General, he began to play coy.

"I don't really want to get involved in that speculation," he said. "Right now we have to focus on getting Barack Obama elected to President of the United States, then we'll worry about those things."

John Edwards is not good at playing these games. Remember when he was on MSNBC recently, he was asked who he voted for and even as he said he wouldn't reveal it, he accidentally used the pronoun "him" referring to his candidate preference. So, I have to take this as an indication that he does want AG and in fact, I suspect, he's probably been in talks with both Democrats about that very role. He'd be perfect for it and what a change it would be after the jokers who've held the position these past few years. Not only that, but as Bowers points out:

While there were some who thought he was overly messianic in his anti-corporate campaign rhetoric (people like positive messages), that strikes me as exactly the attitude we need from an Attorney General.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, john edwards, attorney general (all tags)

On Wednesday afternoon, Hillary Clinton sat down with Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric, and Brian Williams — in that order — for one-on-one interviews to air on the respective networks Wednesday evening. That same afternoon, buzz was building over a major endorsement for Barack Obama to come that evening (later revealed to be John Edwards).

But on Wednesday night in the flagship live broadcast at 6:30 pm ET, only two of the three networks aired the Clinton interviews on-air — NBC and CBS. On ABC, the network instead aired the endorsement of Barack Obama by John Edwards, which was happening live at that time.

An ABC representative explained that ABC decided to carry the Edwards endorsement live rather than air the Clinton interview:

There are five feeds of "World News" that air across the country at different times. The first feed, which you would have seen if you were watching in New York, did not include an excerpt from Charlie's interview with Clinton, but the other four feeds did. So those watching in Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, and many other cities across the country did see it. [Wednesday] was a very busy news day as you know, coupled with the fact that a major breaking story -- Edwards' endorsement of Obama -- happened right as we were going to air. Unlike NBC and CBS, we decided to air part of that event live for our audience that sees the 6:30 program live. We then shifted our lineup accordingly for the subsequent feeds.

A surprising omission — or was it? Perhaps the person who would have been least surprised might have been Hillary Clinton, who may have had an inkling over the course of the day that her fortunes were shifting. In the clip below, from MSNBC Thursday, Brian Williams explains that he watched Hillary Clinton's tone shift from interview to interview, presumably because she learned new information between each one. Watch Williams' assertion below, and decide for yourself whether Clinton's tone shifted between interviews. The videos from each interview are embedded below — the ABC video comes from KABC in Los Angeles, and is presumably but a snippet of a much longer interview Gibson conducted earlier in the day (although on ABC's impossible-to-navigate website, they've only posted 1:45 of the interview).

Brian Williams discusses watching Hillary Clinton's tone shift between interviews with ABC, CBS, and NBC:

ABC interview (from KABC, Los Angeles affiliate):

CBS interview:

NBC interview:

Racism in the United States is real. Social scientists know it, the Republicans know it, the Clintons know it ... and African Americans absolutely know it. Racist appeals are being used against Obama, and a new "postpartisan" generation of white Christian preachers is in a unique position to respond.

Americans need to understand that there are two ways to react to racism in American life: One is to exploit it, as politicians from Nixon to Clinton have in my lifetime. The other is to change it and help eliminate it. Will Rick Warren and others heed the call?

My recent post on West Virginia's primary, where I spoke (perhaps a little too bluntly) about the racist subgroup of voters there, ignited a firestorm of angry reactions. Most of them were on the "no, YOU'RE the racist" plane of discourse. (Some of the extremist pro-Hillary websites also chimed in - the kind that claim Kos of DailyKos is a secret CIA agent. They're out there, but I won't encourage them by linking to them.)

These responders want desperately to believe that racism is a thing of the past, and that it had no impact on this week's primary. So, first, let's talk statistics: Those who said I was calling all Southern whites racist aren't very careful readers. In my first paragraph I said there is "an avidly racist percentage" of this group. Second - and this is important - I didn't call them racist: they called themselves that. Roughly 1 in 5 white West Virginia voters said race played a strong role in their vote, and they went overwhelmingly against Obama (80% for Clinton). And if 1 in 5 said that, a lot more than that feel that way.

Let's look at the numbers: Clinton beat Obama by forty percentage points. 1 in 5 white voters equals 20% of 95% of West Virginia voters. That means nearly half of Clinton's victory margin comes from voters who say race played a major part in their choice. And that's a very understated number, since most racists are reluctant to admit their prejudice to a complete stranger. If you double that 1 in 5 to account for the shame factor, her entire victory is theoretically attributable to this bias.

Now comes the next wave of anti-Obama race-baiting: This is the part where the Christian leaders come in. White Christian religionists are circulating a series of anti-Obama emails. A friend sent me one last night from Celeste and Loren Davis, American missionaries who are actively converting Africans to Christ with U.S. contributions. The Davises generated an email which is getting widely circulated on the Internet, saying things like this: We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here ... Obama, under "friends of Obama" gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in east germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country! ...

Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn't win, and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fullfilllment of the 9-11 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July!

He is not an American as we know it. Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad ...

By the way, his true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won't that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!? ... Jesus Christ is our peace, but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won't be so.

American missionary work is big business in Africa, and business is good for the Davises. (Never mind that after twenty years they can't spell "Barack," and don't know the difference between a "tribe" of millions and a "family.") The Davises are part of the Christian Dominionist movement that has been trying (with a good deal of success) to hijack American government for many years. But time is working against them. As minister and social researcher George Barna1 has documented, younger generations of Christians are rejecting the rigidity, prejudices, and political extremism of the Falwell/Robertson axis.

A new generation of ministers has risen up in response. Most prominent among them are Rick Warren (who's already been attacked by the Davises as "un-Scriptural") and Joel Osteen, both of whom have rejected a political role for themselves in favor of neutrality in the public sphere. There's a new generation behind them, too, and it's coming up fast. These young Christian leaders are represented by preachers like Jay Bakker, Jim and Tammy Faye's son, who recently brought a group of gays and lesbians to worship at Osteen's megachurch in Texas.

With Obama the inevitable Democratic nominee, it's time for these Christian leaders to speak up - not for Obama, but against spreading bigotry in Christ's name. (And if you think this is an argument for choosing Hillary over Barack, forget it: The Davises have attacked her as part of a worldwide Socialist conspiracy. Her nomination would mean another six months of Vince Foster lies - not to mention sexual innuendos from traditionalists who think a strong woman must be gay, and that "gay = bad.".)

This campaign is a history opportunity to attack racism at its roots. Here's what Reverends Warren, Osteen, Bakker et al. can and must say to the Christian community:

1. Lying violates one of the Ten Commandments.
2. Inflaming racial and religious hatred violates Jesus' message.
3. Americans should choose their leaders based on policy and character, not faith-based lies.
4. Racism in all forms is contrary to the word of God.
5. Christians should stop giving contributions to people like Loren Davis.

It's not only in our country's interest to have these faith leaders say this. It's in their interests, too. The generational tides are shifting away from Christianist politics and bigotry, even in white Christian strongholds. These leaders can both accelerate that shift and remain part of it.

I'm agnostic about what happens after death, and I don't believe in Heaven in the Biblical sense. I'm one of those "Jesus is a spiritual teacher" types, which according to the Davises makes me a "New Age" servant of "Satan as an angel of light." Still, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. But if I'm wrong, I hope I'm allowed the mercy of standing behind the Davises in line for the Pearly Gates. It would be some comfort to hear Jesus say to them, "Depart from me, you that work iniquity."

(That's Matthew 7:23, Rev. Davis, in case you want to look it up. A little review of Matthew might do you some good ...)

A Night Light

The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

1George Barna's research organization publishes some very useful research on faith in the United States.

Not gonna get rolled.

Eleven years ago, the neoconservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC) set out its statement of principles advocating the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, putting the country on the road to a preventative invasion of Iraq. Signatories included future Iraq war architects Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Elliott Abrams, as well as neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. From PNAC’s statement of foreign policy goals:

The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.

But just as the neocons are attempting to run from responsibility for the Iraq war, it appears PNAC may be abandoning its own website. Here’s the message that greets visitors to PNAC’s site:

WATERTOWN, S.D. — Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.

Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals _ comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them. McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders.

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days, " Obama told about 2,000 voters at a town hall-style meeting in a livestock barn.

Obama said McCain had a "naive and irresponsible belief that tough talk from Washington will somehow cause Iran to give up its nuclear program and support for terrorism."

During his swing through South Dakota, the Democratic front-runner said he had intended to focus on rural issues, but felt compelled to respond to the criticism from Bush and McCain.

"They aren't telling you the truth. They are trying to fool you and scare you because they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits," said Obama. "But it's not going to work. Not this time, not this year."

Bush did not mention Obama by name in his speech, but Obama and other Democrats said the implication was clear.

"That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world," Obama said. He vowed to turn the foreign policy debate back against both Bush and McCain, rejecting the notion that Democrats critical of the war in Iraq are vulnerable to charges of being soft on terrorism.

"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said. He blamed Bush's policies for enhancing the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.

The Illinois senator also said that he has state "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas."

Other Democrats accused McCain of hypocrisy Friday, saying the certain GOP presidential nominee had previously been willing to negotiate with the militant Palestian group Hamas.

In Charleston, W.Va., speaking before Obama's speech, McCain told reporters: "I made it very clear, at that time, before and after, that we will not negotiate with terrorist organizations, that Hamas would have to abandon their terrorism, their advocacy to the extermination of the state of Israel, and be willing to negotiate in a way that recognizes the right of the state of Israel and abandons their terrorist position and advocacy."

McCain contended that Obama wants to "sit down and negotiate with a government exporting most lethal devices used against soldiers. He wants to sit down face-to-face with a government that is very clear about developing nuclear weapons. ... They are sponsors of terrorist organizations. That's a huge difference in my opinion. And I'll let the American people decide whether that's a significant difference or not. I believe it is."

In an op-ed published Friday in The Washington Post, former Clinton State Department official James Rubin said that McCain, responding to a question in a television interview two years ago about whether U.S. diplomats should be working with the Hamas government in Gaza, said:

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy toward Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so ... But it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Rubin, who interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News, said McCain is "guilty of hypocrisy" and accused him of "smearing" Obama.

___

Associated Press Writer Glen Johnson in Charleston, W.Va., contributed to this report.

You saw Billo lose it. Here's what was happening behind the camera.

Here we are at the beginning of the end of Season 4. "There's No Place Like Home Part 1" was a great start to a season finale and once we have all three parts, I think this episode will be even better. This may be just first act, but boy, what a first act it was! We had the arrival of the Oceanic 6 in the flash-forward, and holy crap -- their return was rather intense. If the great flash-forward wasn't enough, the island story was jammed packed as well. We had a mountain of C4 on the freighter, a journey to the fabled Orchid Station, "saving" the survivors by raft six at a time, Jack bleeding out of his gut, Keamy ready to kill them all, and Locke actually physically moving the Island?

Yeah, Part 1 definitely showcased the new breath of life the fourth season gave to the show. I was thinking to myself last night that not once have I sat and watched the show this season and said, "I'm bored." I couldn't say that about season 3 and definitely not about Season 2. The writers' and creators' demand for an end date to the show have saved Lost from mediocrity. THANK YOU the powers-that-be! I have the same wonderment and zeal that I had when I watched the first season of Lost, and that is no easy task.

They're Branding You "The Oceanic 6"

Wow, they pulled out the big guns for the flash-forward: what happened when the Oceanic 6 first got back home. I must say I got a little misty-eyed when our survivors got to meet their families again. It was also nice to see Jack's mom, who we haven't seen since his first flashback in Season 1. And how great was Sun's takeover of Paik Industries? How heavy was Jack finally learning that Claire was actually his half-sister? How creepy was the "Numbers" in Hurley's Camaro dashboard? And of course, how great was Sayid and Nadia's reunion (even though we know it will be short lived)?

Geeze! That's A Lot of C4

Well, I guess we found out what that device on Keamy's arm last week is for. If Keamy goes down, the freighter must blow up. This leads to a lot of questions; we know Sun and Aaron will survive safely, but what about Michael, Desmond, and Jin? Their fates seem to be in peril, and with Jin's possible impending death, it doesn't look too good. Also, would Michael get his death wish so soon? They better not even think of killing Desmond. I want one happy ending in this story, dammit!

"I Always Have a Plan"

So Ben has a plan. What is it? He seemed very courageous walking straight into Keamy's arms. We know that he will live past this moment from his flash-forward, but from what happens between now and his arrival in Tunisia? Ben is currently at the Orchid Station; in his flash-forward, he was wearing a jacket from the Orchid Station. In his FF, his arm was injured and he had his beating stick that he handed to John before he walked into Keamy's control. What is he going to do and whose side is he on? Is Ben going to screw over John in the end for his own benefit? Or is Ben actually going to be a team player?

Thoughts and Side Notes

• What does Faraday not have in his notebook of wonders? Seriously, I wonder if Widmore or Ben would like to get their hands on that notebook.
• I believe the Oceanic 6 cover up will be the big picture of next season. I don't think they can really cover it in the last 2 hours of this season, but with the seeds that were laid in this episode, there is a lot of story to cover on why The Oceanic 6 lied about the crash.
• What is going to become of Jack's bleeding? Will his collapse from his bleeding wound result in his being part of the Oceanic 6?

Overall I really liked this episode, but I can't give it the full stamp of approval until I see all of the intended parts of the season finale. That said, Season 4 might go down as my favorite season of Lost so far, but that will all depend on how they close it up two weeks from now with the last 2 parts to "There's No Place Like Home."

What did you think? What are you thoughts, questions, comments, and/or theories? Let's open up the discussion in the comment section below.

Be sure to also check out my podcast "The Lost Podcast with Jay and Jack" or on iTunes by searching "Jay and Jack" or "Lost Podcast."

In an interview to air later tonight on Bloomberg TV, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) said President Bush is "absolutely radioactive" and Republicans "will suffer widespread election losses in November unless they distance themselves from him."

Said Davis: "They've got to get some separation from the president."

Davis also said his party "would lose 20 to 25 House seats if the election were held today." And if Sen. John McCain is seen by voters as "Bush III" he will lose by 20 percentage points.

McCain won't don dress on SNL

"Does age bring awakening?" I ask myself as I stand in the drugstore checkout line, clutching a box of Depends. My sister, Terry, and I are about to move our 93-year-old mom out of the condo where she's lived for decades to a home for people with memory impairment.

Mom has always been a dynamo: strong-willed, opinionated and exacting. She told us that she wanted to stay in her home until the end, and we respected that. The problem was: her home is in L.A. I live in Colorado and Terry lives in Hawaii, so we've had to manage her care from afar. We hired two loving women from El Salvador to stay with her, but they'd call us in alarm. "Your mother isn't eating. She says she's too tired to go to the park. What should we do?"

We flew to L.A. to assess the situation, and I was shocked that mom, who's always been tireless, was nodding out all day. While eating lunch, getting her nails done or in the middle of a conversation, she'd drop her head to her knees and go to sleep. She was becoming incontinent. When we took her out to eat and brought her home, she asked, "Whose house is this?" So... maybe she wouldn't notice if we moved her?

The startling thing was, mom wasn't troubled by her inability to remember anything outside the moment. If you sat with her, she could go over her tax return, line by line, but a minute later she wouldn't remember seeing it. Terry heard about a new drug being tested with Alzheimer's patients that was reputed to restore their memories. We asked mom if she wanted to participate in the study, but she declined. Why? I asked. "If you could take a pill that would let you remember everything, would you want to do that?"

She shook her head no. "I'm fine the way I am. What do you want me to remember?"

Well, your grand-daughter just got married, you were in the wedding, you walked down the aisle and danced. Wouldn't you like to remember those happy occasions? She thought a moment. "There are a lot of unpleasant things too." She knocked on wood - the table. "I'm fine the way I am."

Terry started looking for a place in Hawaii where mom could have more intensive care, with activities to stimulate her and a doctor on call. She found a newly built center, Hi'olani, and the pictures she emailed me were so lush and lovely, I wanted to move there myself. She was told there was a 2-year waiting list, but a few days later, they called and said a room had opened up if we would take it right away. We did.

Then Terry was wracked with buyer's remorse. Had she made the right decision? I felt remorse of a different sort: I'd held a lifelong grudge against mom for always judging me and finding me wanting. Now I focused on what she'd given me: a love of story telling, curiosity, and courage. At a moment when she was alert, I thanked her and apologized for not appreciating those gifts. There was another feeling that both Terry and I had. Dread. This could be us, couldn't it, in the blink of an eye? It seemed an awful finale.

A week before moving mom, Terry and I went to a 5-day silent meditation retreat with Adyashanti. Adya, born Steven Gray, says on his website that he "dares all seekers of peace and freedom" to take seriously the possibility of awakening in this life. His theme at the retreat was letting go of control. Like Eckhart Tolle and other spiritual teachers, Adya urges people to be fully present in the moment, to accept what is, and wake up to one's true nature -- the aliveness inside. This aliveness or presence, consciousness, spirit - it goes by many names - never changes, which is why we don't feel old inside.

At the end of the retreat, steeped in awareness, we felt ready for what mom's transition might bring. On the morning of the flight, I helped her put on Depends for the first time, and she did not resist. Mercifully, the new and improved version looks like white ruffled panties with elastic legs. OK, the thing is paper, but it does not look like a diaper.

When the plane landed, Terry's husband and daughter drove them straight to Hi'olani, and walked mom into her room. It was yellow, her favorite color, and had been decorated in advance with familiar items and pictures from her condo. When I called two days later and asked mom, How do you like Hawaii? She said, "I'm not in Hawaii."

Wow. We'd been bracing for her to protest and shame us for moving her, but she's happy where she is. She never asked, When am I going home? She's cheerful and more alert now, although the staff members dress her abominably. Today, my sister reports, mom's wearing all pink clothes except for her socks, which are turquoise.

She's attained what we just spent 5 days in silence cultivating: acceptance, letting go, just being here now. Maybe losing your memory is not as bad as it looks? Maybe there IS a way to go gentle?

I welcome your comments. Please reply to website-feedback@saradavidson.com

Taking care of our parents is a transition I address in Leap! -- now out in paperback. I would so appreciate your HELP in spreading the word. Tell friends it's ten bucks now and if you buy it, you get the free Leap! workbook. For more information, please visit www.SaraDavidson.com

Women sue Tennessee temple over abuse by pastor: Soon...

New GOP slogan also drug trademark

VA official: Less PTSD cases, lower costs