On March 24th, Germanwings Flight 9525 crashed in the French Alps killing 144 passengers and six crew members.

When the flight recorder was recovered, it became clear that the co-pilot, 27 year-old Andreas Lubitz, had prevented the pilot from returning to the cabin and, while in the cockpit alone, had activated the flight computer to initiate a eight minute descent from an altitude of 38,000 feet to the level that crashed the plane.

Since the controlled descent of the plane could only have resulted from a pilot intervention, we know that the crash of 9525 was a deliberate act of mass murder and suicide.

It appears that Lubitz had no religious or political motivations.  He left behind no written indications of a plan to crash an airplane or what his actions were intended to be a statement of.  His recent behavior until the time he locked the pilot out of the cabin was not unusual and did not indicate that he was a mentally deranged individual.

Weeks before the crash, he had purchased two new automobiles and had talked about future plans.

Although we can’t know for sure, it’s quite plausible that his decision to kill himself and everyone else on board the airplane was a relatively spontaneous act of opportunity and not something that had been planned well in advance.   Investigators have found no evidence of a plan.

The Germanwings crash boggles the mind.  What does this tell us about airline safety?  What kind of a world do we live in where random acts of violence take innocent life on a mass scale perpetrated by individuals who appear normal until the last moment?

Do we live in a universe where things just happen randomly without any higher reason or purpose? Can we still affirm meaning in the face of these tragic and monstrous events?

It would be reassuring if we had good evidence that Lubitz was suffering from severe mental illness.  There are always going to be cases where crazy people do insane things, and the crash of Germanwings was certainly a morally insane thing to do.

What has come forward to date, however, only indicates the Lubitz was having a personal life crisis and that he had some history of depression.  We know he was estranged from his long-time girlfriend who is pregnant with his child.

We know he was having vision problems that threatened his life dream of being a full-fledged pilot on the best airlines.  We know that he had been under medical care and had been given doctor notes that said that he was not medically fit to fly on some occasions including the day of the fatal flight.

Because of German privacy laws, it was easy for Lubitz to conceal his medical issues in the short run from his company.  But he was surely in fear that his medical problems would eventually catch up with him and clip his wings.

None of these background details though are adequate explanation for why Lubitz did what he did.  We’ve all had personal life crises and, although we may have acted out at times, a spontaneous act of mass murder is way beyond anything we can envision doing when we put ourselves in his shoes.

The crash of Germanwings does not help us to feel more secure in our airplane flights.  After 911 we have succeeded in making the pilots safer from the passengers by making the cockpit doors unbreachable from the outside.  But it’s very difficult to protect the passengers from a pilot or copilot who goes nuts.

Sadly, there have been other pilot or copilot intentional plane crashes since 1982.  In that year, a Japan Airlines pilot deliberately crashed his plane into Tokyo Bay killing 24 people. In Morocco, in 1994, 44 people were killed in a crash of Royal Air Maroc Flight 630.

In 1997, 104 people died in a crash of a SilkAir Flight 185 in Indonesia.  In 1999, 217 people were killed on EgyptAir Flight 990.  33 people died in 2013 on Mozambique Airlines Flight 470.

And, of course, the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in March, 2014 with 239 people on board over the Indian Ocean must have been the result of deliberate pilot or copilot actions.

Overall, however, plane crashes from any source are very rare events and so airlines feel justified in sacrificing some measure of safety for profit.  Putting cameras in the cockpit, for example, would be a relatively inexpensive way of monitoring pilot behavior.

If we can engineer self-driving cars that stop themselves when they see a crashing coming, we wonder why airplanes don’t have more crash avoidant features to counteract pilot error or malice.

In the United States, the rule is that there must always be two people in the cockpit at all times. If the pilot or copilot leaves the cockpit for any reason, they must be replaced by another crew member, although that person could be a stewardess.  Now the two person rule is being adopted by airlines in other countries.

We can also expect some tightening of the procedures for reporting medical conditions of pilots in the future and better measures of their psychological fitness.

It’s an unfortunate characteristic of our technologically advanced modern world that the wrong person at the wrong time in the wrong place can do enormous damage.  Airplanes are always going to be potential weapons of mass destruction.

Our technology with all of its wonders engenders a certain measure of physical insecurity because nothing mechanical is any safer than the mental soundness of its human operators.

This speaks to the first lesson that we can draw from this tragedy.   The technologically driven transformation of our civilization has got to put more focus on spiritual and mental well-being if we’re going to survive our adolescence as a species.

Vulnerabilities of human nature are the most problematic aspect in any positive scenario of our long term future.

From the airline safety perspective, this could mean giving pilots more time off and better pay.   We need to acknowledge the stresses they are under and make allowances for these.

It’s unclear what interventions could have made a difference for Andreas Lubitz.  When I look into his mental state through a clairvoyant lens, I see someone who is suffering from a spiritual blindness.

Spiritual awareness enables us to see our profound connection with other people, other life, and all that is.  We understand that what we do matters because every action and every thought affects the whole.  We can see beyond our immediate personal concerns to meanings that transcend ourselves.  We can embrace the joy and wonder of the world and all that’s in it.

Lacking this perspective, we’re vulnerable to falling into the illusion that we don’t matter and that our actions make no difference whatever they are.   The world can then seem to be a hostile, indifferent place where things happen randomly and are fundamentally without meaning or purpose.

The movie No Country for Old Men portrayed this worldview.

My reading is that Lubitz crashed the airplane as a reaction to a belief that his life was going to fail.   It was an act of defiance against the perceived absurdity of the universe.

Lubitz highlights the choice that we all have to make between affirming meaning or denying it. It can be a literal life and death decision. The denial of meaning takes us into an unhealthy place that sabotages our spiritual and mental well-being.   It’s also not the way the world is.

The wisdom traditions of every culture, drawing on the peak experiences of human beings for tens of thousands of years, all point to a meaning filled world.

My view is that this is not just a result of some artifact of human experience.  The universe is also a sentient being in its own right. It is not a cold, dead thing.  Everything that is evolves towards its higher potential and human beings are part of this grand evolutionary unfolding.  Meaning is resident in the universe outside of ourselves and we must engage with it as best we can.

We can always uncover meaning if we look deeply enough and it invariably points to our greater potential.   Our lives are a series of growth conspiracies.  We’re always in the perfect lesson.  Whomever we encounter is always the perfect teacher.

So we must also embrace Andreas Lubitz as our teacher.  As unspeakably horrific as his actions may be, they can serve us as a negative role model.   Note what he did and go 180 degrees in the other direction.

We must not allow ourselves to wallow in spiritual blindness in moments of discouragement and setback. Trust that meaning is available if we make an effort to search it out.  Know that we are not alone.  Reach out for help in the human world.  Make a stand to choose love rather than violence.  Ask for Guidance and be patient as perspective unfolds over time.

We have a moral imperative to live fully empowered lives.  We’re the tip of the spear of the evolution of all that is.  Our spiritual and mental well-being affects everyone around us. As we thrive so does our family, our community, our nation, our planet, and the larger whole of which we are an integral and interactive part.

Like 2010, the 2014 midterms were another election disaster for the Democrats. When all the election results are complete, the Republicans will have gained a total of 9 Senate seats. This will give them 54 seats to 44 for the Democrats plus the two independents that caucus with them.

On the House side, Republicans will have won a net of 13 seats giving them 247 to 188 for the Democrats. This will give the Republicans their biggest majority in the House since 1928.

The Republicans won a net of only two new governorships, but very conservative and Tea Party backed governors won reelection in several states. Rick Scott was reelected in Florida, Paul LePage in Maine, Rich Snyder in Michigan, and Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Republicans also prevailed in the governor’s race in three blue states: Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois. The only Republican loss for governor was in Alaska where an independent candidate won.

Republicans also gained more than 300 new seats in state legislatures in 2014.

The Republicans won the Senate races in every single red state that voted for Romney in 2012 but also in Iowa and Colorado that voted for Obama in 2012 and in North Carolina that voted for him in 2008.

Incumbent Democratic Senators will have lost in Alaska, North Carolina, Colorado, Arkansas, and Louisiana. In four other states, retiring Democrats will be replaced by Republicans: Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Iowa.

Every single member for the House Tea Party Caucus who ran in 2014 was reelected. Seven did not run. Three retired and four left their seats to run for the Senate. However, ten new Tea Party types won election in the House. Therefore, the total number of Tea Party people in the House increased by three giving them the same percentage of the Republican caucus that they had in the last Congress of about 21%.

If, like myself, you happen to be someone who favors a progressive government focused on dealing with the complex issues that we face in the 21st century such as climate change, immigration, affordable health care, campaign finance reform, and regulation of financial institutions, the midterms might seem to be the beginning of a political dark age where the plutocrats and their allies in the Republican Party are going to dominate for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, in addition to having the members to make a move to roll back the significant legislation that the Democrats were able to pass in the last six years, they would seem to have momentum going into the 2016 presidential campaign. Having won control of both houses of Congress, they will now go all out to win the presidency as well.

The new Congress will have Jim Inhoff, the arch climate change denier, as head of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Ted Cruz as head of the Senate subcommittee that oversees scientific funding.

To some extent this dark outlook for the Democrats is justified. It’s very unlikely that even a big Democratic wave in 2016 will win back the House. The Republicans control of state legislatures in the 2010 elections coincided with the ten year census, and so they were able to gerrymander many House districts creating safe Republican seats.

Redistricting won’t happen again until 2020 and the Democrats have a lot of ground to make up in state legislatures between now and then to be able to reverse the Republican gerrymandering advantage.

The nine new Republican Senators who were elected in 2014 to replace Democrats are not likely to be voted out of office any time soon. Six are from red states and all will have the advantage of incumbency in the next election.

When we look at the big picture, however, the Democrats are actually now positioned to have a big comeback in 2016 in both the Senate and the presidential race.

Had the Democrats hung onto Senate control in 2014, this would have created more of an opening for Republicans to win the presidency in 2016. Just as the American voter does not like to see one party dominate too much and hence tends to vote for the party out of power in midterm elections, the same psychology applies to the presidential race after one party has had two terms.

Only in two elections in the last 66 years has a party been able win two terms and then elect their person in the next election. Harry Truman won in 1948 after Roosevelt had had four terms and George H.W. Bush won after Reagan’s two terms in 1988.

But the Republicans are now the governing party and so voter discontent can focus on them as the group who are not alleviating the sense that things are going in the wrong direction and that nothing is getting done in Congress.

The 2014 election was not a validation for a substantive Republican agenda for the future, nor was it a reflection of a basic change of opinion in the Republican brand in general. Just prior to the election a national poll showed the Democrats had a 42% favorable and 52% percent unfavorable rating. The Republicans on the other hand were at 38% favorable and 54% unfavorable. The current numbers are at about 40/48 for the Democrats and 37/52 for the Republicans in favorable and unfavorable ratings.

Moreover, on several ballot issues, voters favored the Democratic agenda. A ballot measure for universal background checks on firearm purchases was approved in Washington State. Personhood amendments were voted down in Colorado and North Dakota. Voters raised the minimum wage in Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Recreational use of marijuana was approved in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia.

Two governors who advocated gun control measures were reelected: John Hickenlooper in Colorado and Dan Malloy in Connecticut.

Two progun state senators in Colorado who were voted into office in 2013 in a recall election to protest gun control legislation lost their seats to Democrats.

In 2016, 24 Republican seats are up for reelection versus only 10 Democratic seats. Moreover, Republicans will have to run in seven states which Obama carried in 2014: Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The Democrats who had to run for reelection in 2014 had the advantage of a presidential election turnout in 2008 that was about 60%. Just over 36% voted in 2014. We can expect a similar Democratic Party favorable uptick in turnout in 2016 of at least 20%.

After their own election fiasco in 2012, Republicans vowed to become a more inclusive party and reach out to Hispanics and other minorities, younger people, and women voters. However, in the intervening years before the midterms, there was never any substantial change in their message or focus.

Consistent with their actions in the Congress, the Republicans didn’t campaign on any positive agenda. Their via negativa was about stopping Obama and his policies. They also played on security fears and claimed that Obama was not doing enough to protect us from Ebola and ISIS.

You would think that with control of both houses of Congress, the Republicans would now be in a position to put forwards bills that would define their solutions to our nation’s challenges and thus to have specific and substantive policies to put forward in the 2016 presidential campaign.

My reading is that this is not what we’re going to see over the next two years for the most part. I don’t see the Republicans morphing on the whole from obstructionists into problem solvers.

Part of the reason for this is the continuing influence of the Tea Party. Although the party establishment was able to rein in the excesses of the Tea Party and prevent them from nominating candidates who were too extreme to win the general election in the 2014 midterms, the Tea Party is still a strong force in the House with about 50 to 60 members.

When they vote at a bloc, they can prevent Speaker of the House Boehner from passing anything with just Republican votes.

In the Senate there will be more Tea Party types that before: Ben Sasse, Tom Cotton, Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner, and Bill Cassidy. They toned down their rhetoric for the general election and avoided saying as little as possible about the social conservative views they hold. Yet, they are fellow travelers with the Waco Bird Caucus of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee.

The Republican establishment was able to fend off Tea Party challenges for every one of the Senate races in the primaries where a Republican incumbent was running. The Tea Party was only able to defeat two Republican incumbents in the House races. John Ratcliff replaced 91 year-old Ralph Hall in Texas and Dave Brat defeated Eric Cantor in Virginia.

It might seem then that the Tea Party influence is on the wane in the Republican Party. Republican congressmen will not have the same concern about a primary challenge in their party going forward as they have had in previous elections.

You would think this would embolden them to moderate some of their positions and move away from no compromise strategies like shutting down the government or refusing to raise the national debt limit. The Republican leaders in the House and Senate have in fact promised to avoid these two moves in the 114th Congress.

But the Republican Party in Congress is currently a coalition of people of different ideological inclinations. The spectrum runs from responsible legislators like Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain to right wing extremists like Louie Gohmert, Steven King, and Ted Cruz.

Some of the most extreme Republicans from the last Congress are not going to be there in 2015. These include Paul Broun, Michele Bachmann, and Steve Stockman. However, the new crop of House Republicans includes more ideological purist types: Dave Brat, Tom Emmer, Mia Love, Glenn Grothman, and Ken Buck.

I fully expect Joni Ernst to replace Michele Bachmann as the most outrageous female Republican congressperson.

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to have to make some moves to appease the most extreme elements of their party in the coming Congress in order to maintain the fiction of a unified Republican caucus.

We’re already seen this happen in the last Congress with the shutdown of the government over attempts to destroy Obamacare and taking the country to the brink of default on the national debt. Boehner pursued a lawsuit against Obama that was destined to go nowhere as a way of trying to preempt the calls for impeachment of the president.

The most extreme right wing of the Republican Party has effective veto power over whatever the more reasonable people in their caucus try to do.

So I don’t see the Republican led Congress in 2015 being an opening for getting things done in Congress on any substantive basis beyond a couple of trade bills and an infrastructure bill. It’s going to be Congress versus the President in a test of wills. The dysfunction of Congress is going to get worse.

When we look at the deep story of what happened in the 2014 midterms, we can begin to see the dynamics that are at work leading us to a 114th Congress that will go down in infamy as the worst and least productive of all time.

The Republicans managed to add 13 House seats and sweep every contested Senate election except for New Hampshire in spite of being less favorably perceived than Democrats as a whole. However, this is what the majority of people in the United State think and the majority did not vote. Only about 36% did. This was the lowest turnout in a national election since 1942.

When we look at who actually voted, the voters that usually trend Democrat were down in numbers from 2012. Black, Hispanics, people under 30, and single women did not turn out in the numbers they did in 2012.

65% of the midterm electorate were 45 and older and only 13% were 18 to 29 years of age. It was an older, whiter electorate.

Although there are slightly more people who identify as Democrats than there are Republicans in the country as a whole, there are more highly partisan and ideological conservative voters than liberal ones. The most partisan people are the ones who turn out in disproportionate numbers in low turnout elections.

Nonpartisan independent voters make up the biggest voting bloc in every election and they trended Republican especially in the last few days leading up to the election.

The Democrats did not succeed is energizing their base for the midterms. They were handicapped in this respect to some extent because President Obama was considered a liability in several of the contested Senate races so he was not invited in to spark the Democratic base.

My reading is that the independents went for the Republicans in significant numbers in part because of some underlying belief that Republicans in control of both chambers of the Congress could break the deadlock and get some things done. Caught up as it was in deplorable dysfunction, something different needed to happen rather than a continuation of the status quo.

The Ebola crisis and the emergence of the ISIS threat also helped the Republicans in the last months before the election. People foolishly believe that Republicans are better at keeping them safe in insecure times than Democratic leaders.

Two-thirds of the public felt that the country is moving in the wrong direction and three-fourths said that they didn’t believe their children would have a better life than what they presently enjoyed. So there was a mood of overall discontent and economic pessimism.

Going into the election, only one-third of voters felt that the economy is getting better. On any gross national measure, this belief is absurd. Considered where the economy was in 2009 when Obama became president, we’ve seen an unprecedented economic turnaround. In the last months of 2014, there is no inflation, interest rates are very low, unemployment is under 6%, gas prices have crashed, the deficit is shrinking at a rapid rate, the stock market is at record highs, corporate profits are booming, 200,000 jobs are being added per month, and the GNP was at 4 percent for the last quarter.

These economic facts, however, do not translate into voter motivation to support Democrats. To some extent, the issue is misinformation. People don’t know that the deficit has declined at a rapid rate in Obama’s six years, for example.

Moreover, Republicans have an advantage in people’s perceptions of which party is going to help the economy based in the brand identification of Republicans with business issues.

Although the majority of people feel that the economy is rigged in favor of the wealthy, they still persist in believing that the Republicans are more likely to benefit them as individuals in the middle class and below.

The perception that the economy is not improving is sourced in the economic frustration of the middle class. Middle and lower income people have not seen much improvement in their economic bottom line even when the economy as a whole is making great strides and the wealthiest are making out like bandits.

People are losing hope in the American dream of being able to dramatically improve their economic circumstances through hard work and wise investment.

Since the Democrats had the White House and the Senate, they are seen as the governing party and hence as responsible for the economic stagnation of the middle class.

My reading is that the Republicans are going to drive their new election band wagon off the cliff with legislative efforts which favor the wealthy and multinational corporations but that do little for the average working individual.

This is the big opening for Democrats to seize the moment and advocate for populist policies that support the middle class.

There is a lot more to the deeper story of why the midterms turned out as they did and what we can expect going forward as the political and economic institutions of our nation go through unprecedented and sometimes chaotic transformation. This will be Part II of this thread.

This is an off year election for a president in his second term. Historically, this scenario has proved to be a banner year for the party out of power gaining seats in both houses of Congress.

My reading is that this will also be true in 2014. Republicans will make significant gains in the Senate and also win seats in the House. I see them winning a handful of seats in the House, 7 in all, and flipping five seats currently help by Democrats. I see Republican takeovers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

However, my reading is that Kansas will go to an independent candidate who will eventually caucus with Democrats. I also see a Democratic pickup in Georgia.

The Republicans will gain a net of only three seats and fall short of their goal of taking over the Senate.

Here are all of my predictions for the Senate:
Alabama – Jeff Sessions, Republican running unopposed. Winner: Sessions
Alaska – Mark Begich Democrat, Dan Sullivan Republican. Winner: Begich
Arkansas – Mark Pryor Democrat, Tom Cotton Republican. Winner: Cotton
Colorado – Mark Udall Democrat, Cory Gardner Republican. Winner: Udall
Delaware – Chris Coons Democrat, Kevin Wade Republican. Winner: Coons
Georgia – Michelle Nunn Democrat, David Perdue Republican. Winner: Nunn
Hawaii – Brian Schatz Democrat, Campbell Cavasso Republican. Winner: Schatz
Idaho – Nels Mitchell Democrat, Jim Risch Republican. Winner: Risch
Illinois – Dick Durbin Democrat, Jim Oberweis Republican. Winner: Durbin
Iowa – Bruce Braley Democrat, Joni Ernst Republican. Winner: Braley
Kansas – Greg Orman Independent, Pat Roberts Republican. Winner: Orman
Kentucky – Alison Lundergan Grimes Democrat, Mitch McConnell Republican. Winner: McConnell
Louisiana – Mary Landrieu Democrat, Bill Cassidy Republican. Winner: Cassidy.
Maine – Shenna Bellows Democrat, Susan Collins Republican. Winner: Collins
Massachusetts – Ed Markey Democrat, Brian Herr Republican. Winner: Markey
Michigan – Gary Peters Democrat, Terri Lynn Land Republican. Winner: Peters
Minnesota – Al Franken Democrat, Mike McFadden Republican. Winner: Franken
Mississippi – Travis Childers Democrat, Thad Cochran Republican. Winner: Cochran
Montana – Amanda Curtis Democrat, Steve Daines Republican. Winner: Daines
Nebraska – David Domina Democrat, Ben Sasse Republican. Winner: Sasse
New Hampshire – Jeanne Shaheen Democrat, Scott Brown Republican. Winner: Shaheen
New Jersey – Cory Booker Democrat, Jeff Bell Republican. Winner: Booker
New Mexico – Tom Udall Democrat, Allen Weh Republican. Winner. Udall
North Carolina – Kay Hagan Democrat, Thom Tillis Republican. Winner: Hagan
Oklahoma – Matt Silverstein Democrat, Jim Inhofe Republican. Winner: Inhofe
Oklahoma – Connie Johnson Democrat, James Lankford Republican. Winner: Lankford
Oregon – Jeff Merkley Democrat, Monica Wehby Republican. Winner: Merkley
Rhode Island – Jack Reed Democrat, Mark Zaccaria Republican. Winner: Reed
South Carolina – Brad Hutto Democrat, Lindsey Graham Republican. Winner: Graham
South Carolina – Joyce Dickerson Democrat, Tim Scott Republican. Winner: Scott
South Dakota – Rick Weiland Democrat, Mike Rounds Republican, Larry Pressler Independent. Winner: Rounds
Tennessee – Gordon Ball, Democrat, Lamar Alexander Republican. Winner: Alexander
Texas – David Alameel Democrat, John Cornyn Republican. Winner: Cornyn
Virginia – Mark Warner Democrat, Ed Gillespie Republican. Winner: Warner
West Virginia – Natalie Tennant Democrat, Shelly Moore Capito Republican. Winner: Capito.
Wyoming – Charlie Hardy Democrat, Mike Enzi Republican. Winner: Enzi.

The outbreak of Ebola in the West African countries of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia is a tremendous health crisis for the world. First identified in 1976, there have been at least seven previous outbreaks. These were all contained in relatively small geographical areas and about 2,000 people were infected. All of the other outbreaks occurred in villages away from main population centers.

However, the epidemic we’re now facing started in Guinea in a village that was right on the border of Sierra Leone and Liberia. Patient zero was a 2-year-old boy who died on 6 December, 2013. By the end of March, it had reached Liberia, by the end of May, it spread to Sierra Leone. It was in Nigeria in July and in Senegal in August. It has reached the main population centers of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

The official WHO count of the infected is currently just over 9,000 with about half of those having died. However, the morality rate was raised to just over 70% and this reflects the lack of reliable numbers in countries whose health care systems have been devastated by the disease. My reading is that the actual number of current infections is about 20,000.

On the 30th of September, Thomas Eric Duncan, a man who returned from Liberia to visit his family in Dallas, was diagnosed with Ebola. He became America’s patient zero. He infected two of the people who nursed him in the hospital. On October 12, it was Nina Pham who came down with Ebola, and, on October 15, Amber Vinson.

My intuitive reading is that we’re not going to have a world-wide Ebola pandemic. Moreover, we’re not going to see any significant spread of the disease in the United States. Unless you are someone who works with currently infected Ebola patients, either in Africa the United States or elsewhere, you can rest assured you are going to die eventually of something else. But Ebola is not going to kill you or make you sick.

Ebola fits the archetypal expectation of a doomsday disease. It fits the picture of a science fiction scenario of humankind’s downfall resulting from the invasion and destruction of the natural habitats of plants and animals and the consequent migration of viruses living in animals to humans. We’re familiar with these themes from movies like Outbreak and the book Hot Zone.

In order to gain some perspective on the panic and irrational fear that this archetype of health doom can activate in us, it’s important to know some basic information about Ebola virus disease.

The best scientific information we have is that Ebola resides in fruit bats. The fruit bats drop fruit which the animals eat or defecate or drool on animals which then develop the disease. The humans find a dead animal in the forest or hunt the bats for food and the virus jumps from animals to people. The cause of the current epidemic is a single animal to human transmission.

Once infected, there is an incubation period of 2 to 21 days before any symptoms occur. The average time for symptoms to appear is 8 to 10 days. The first symptoms are fever, sore throat, headache, muscle pain and fatigue. It looks initially a lot like a flu bug. These symptoms are followed by diarrhea, vomiting and massive fluid loss. A person can lose 10 to 20 liters a fluid a day at this stage.

The final stage is low blood pressure, organ failure, coma and death. External and internal bleeding can occur at this stage and has been reported in 18% of the cases.

The virus particles attach themselves to the inside of blood vessels compromising them and the patient loses water, electrolytes, and other nutrients. If the person doesn’t recover, death occurs within about a week or two weeks from the onset of the first symptoms.

Ebola is transmitted from person to person when a previously uninfected individual has contact with the body fluids of the patient or touches the skin of the patient. It still needs entry to the body through a cut in the skin or body opening like mouth, nose, or eyes. However, once you get the virus on your hands, it can get into the body relatively easily since people are often touching their faces.

At the later stages of the disease, viruses are present on the skin and the skin may also be contaminated with the body fluids of the patient. The body of a person who has recently died of Ebola is a significant infection risk.

The Center for Disease Control has put out information that says that Ebola is not an airborne disease and that it’s not spread by coughing or sneezing. Therefore, you can’t get it from causal contact like sitting next to someone in an airplane. Scientists who study these types of diseases say that the chances that Ebola will mutate into an airborne disease are basically nil and that we shouldn’t be worried about that prospect.

However, there has been significant cognitive dissonance between the information that has come from official sources like the CDC and the images we see in news reports featuring people in hazmat suits disinfecting everything in sight including the sidewalk.

Ebola is a Level 4 biosafety disease. The biosafety level is determined by how dangerous a disease is with regard to its fatality rate, how infectious it is, and the lack of current cures, treatments, and vaccines. By comparison, plague and rabies only rate Level 3. There is no Level 5.

Because of the biosafety level, anyone doing research on Ebola has to be covered from head to toe in protective equipment. People dealing with Ebola patients are also supposed to be similarly covered in personal protective garb.

When Thomas Eric Duncan was diagnosed with Ebola, Thomas Frieden, the head of the CDC, said “we’re stopping it in its tracks in this country.” He further said any hospital with isolation capabilities could care for an Ebola patient. Then two nurses that worked with Duncan came down with the disease.

It’s helpful to track what happened with Thomas Duncan at Texas Health Presbyterian. Duncan apparently got infected when he carried a sick person back to their apartment in Liberia when they were refused admission to a hospital because there was no room. He gave false information about having had contact with an Ebola patient and flew to Brussels and then eventually to Dallas. He had no symptoms at the time.

He went to the emergency room at THP on the 25th of September. Although he disclosed that he had recently been to Liberia, he did not say that he had had contact with an Ebola patient. He was sent home even though he had a temperature of 103 degrees. He returned on the 28th and sat in the emergency room for three hours. Then he was put in isolation. For two days he was treated by nurses who did not have full protective gear.

Even after his diagnosis on the 30th, the protective gear was not initially adequate. Moreover, the nurses were not given sufficient instructions on safety protocols such as how to put on the gear and remove it. There was no plan in place for how to deal with the toxic waste that accumulated.

The United States has four facilities that are specialized and practiced in dealing with Biosafety Level 4 diseases. Altogether they can accommodate a total of 9 patients. Pham and Vinson have since been moved to these facilities.

Before she was diagnosed, Vinson flew from Dallas to Cleveland and then back to Dallas. She called the CDC and asked if she should fly back to Dallas since she had a fever of 99.5. But they gave her the go ahead since 101.5 was considered the threshold for a possible Ebola symptom. They have subsequently lowered the threshold to 100.4.

Vinson was diagnosed the day after she returned and fear spread. Two schools were closed in Ohio because an employee had flown on the same airplane as Vinson, although not even on the same flight. Three schools were closed in Texas when it was learned that students were on the same flight with Vinson.

The Louisiana State Attorney General obtained a restraining order to prevent incinerated waste from the apartment where Duncan stayed from being buried in a Louisiana landfill.

Senator Rand Paul did his part to increase the fear by first speculating about whether or not we’re going to have a pandemic.

Then he stated that the government was lying about the risk factors with respect to Ebola not being spread through casual contact because the CDC said you should avoid being within three feet of a person with Ebola for a prolonged period of time without protective equipment.

He speculated it could be transmitted through coughing. In his mind, if this is the close contact you should avoid, then we’re potentially at risk from sitting next to someone in an airplane, for example.

We can see now that we’re dealing with both incomplete information and disinformation about Ebola. Incomplete information with respect to communicating the basis for the risk assessment we’re facing with Ebola and disinformation from people like Rand Paul who have something to gain by distorting the true story and blowing it out of proportion.

The confusing messages we’re getting about Ebola are partly a result of our current governmental dysfunction. It would be great if we had someone of trusted authority, say, for example, a Surgeon General, that could be instrumental in clearing the air of misconceptions about Ebola.

However, we don’t have one because the Senate has never brought President Obama’s nominee for that post up for a vote due to concerns that his choice would offend the NRA. Putting Thomas Frieden, the head of the CDC, in that role is unfair to him because he’s not trained to be a public spokesman.

Although there is a lot we still don’t know about Ebola, there have been studies that established some basic scientific consensus about the disease. President Bush initiated some of the research on Ebola fearing it could be used as a bioterror weapon. Research was cut back due to political wrangling over the budget but a substantial amount was still done.

What we do know is that during the incubation period between the time the person is infected and develops the first symptoms, they are not contagious. This is because the virus hasn’t had a chance to as yet fully ramp up its exponential replications in the human body. It’s barely present in the blood at this point and not present in other bodily fluids. It doesn’t even reach the threshold of detection until the first symptoms appear.

People become more and more infectious as the disease progresses. Thus the CDC guidelines of avoiding prolonged close contact with someone that has Ebola by staying three feet away makes sense because you don’t want to touch the person or even touch what they have touched nearby.

Rand Paul’s hysteria about the “incredibly contagious” Ebola fails to take in account the level of illness of the person with the disease.

With respect to spreading Ebola through coughing, CDC studies show no evidence that this is a factor. In previous Ebola outbreaks, the people who got the disease were uniformly the ones who touched and cared for the patients, but not others who lived in relatively tight quarters. Some of these patients had coughs. This supports the statement that Ebola is not transmitted by airborne means.

None of the Duncan’s relatives become sick even though they were in small apartment with him. Their 21 day period of isolation ended on October 19.

With respect to the Ebola virus mutating into something that is airborne, this is a theoretical possibility that would support a science fiction scenario. But it is not very feasible from the standpoint of biological science. In a pathogen that already affects human beings, a basic change in the method of transmission has never been observed.

The virus would have to rebuild itself from the ground up to accomplish such a change, and it is under no evolutionary pressure to undergo that much modification, if this is even possible.

We don’t have to be worried about who you’re sitting next to on the bus or in the airplane. If they are infectious enough to be a real risk to you, they aren’t going to be on mass transportation.

With respect to the future of Ebola, my reading is that the current outbreak is going to be contained some time in the spring of 2015. The total number of infected people will be less than 50,000.

There have been only 4 countries outside of the three West African countries where Ebola has spread. Nigeria and Senegal have already contained their infections and have reported no new infections. Spain had one person who got ill treating an Ebola patient similar to the nurses in Dallas. She has since recovered.

My reading is that we’re not going to see any more than one or two more cases in the United States during this epidemic outside of people who come from Africa for treatment. The temperature screenings of people at airports is an effective deterrent although it can’t stop people without symptoms who develop them later.

Resources are starting to pour into the affected countries and more care units are being built.

Treatments and vaccines are on the way as the current crisis gives research into Ebola a huge kick in the butt. There is already the blood transfusion treatment from people who have recovered and hence have antibodies to the virus. In addition, more Zmapp is on the way.

Zmapp is a process whereby antibodies are grown in mice and then bioengineered into tobacco plants.

There is TKM-Ebola, a RNA interference drug, that is being tested. Four other anti-viral drugs that have also shown some promise.

Two vaccines are in human trials and a third is being developed. There are three separate research firms developing rapid diagnostic kits which can tell if a person has Ebola in ten to fifteen minutes.

It’s a good thing that we have an opportunity to test out these new vaccines and therapies, but it’s not going to do that much to alleviate the toll in Africa. I see that doubling what we have now at 20,000 cases.

When the crisis has passed and we reflect on the meaning of this event, an important element will be crisis information management. It was handled badly in the United States and unnecessary panic and fear resulted.

Part of the problem is that our understanding of Ebola virus disease is far from complete. The Biosafety Level 4 issues make research and data collection hazardous.

The scientific consensus narrative of what Ebola is and how it is transmitted is not going to be sufficient to allay the fears of people who get fragmentary information at best or who are influenced by self-serving agents of disinformation at worst.

For example, scientists speak in terms of probabilities. So they would say that there is very low risk of someone who has Ebola but has no symptoms or is in the very first stages of symptoms posing a risk to others through casual contact without body fluid transmission.

They would say that the prospect that Ebola could mutate into an airborne disease is extremely improbable, but not that it’s impossible.

But very low risk is not the same as no risk. When panic and fear are aroused, what is possible morphs into reality.

The next big shock about the Ebola virus disease will be the revelation that, in 5% of the cases, the incubation period between infection and first symptoms is longer than 21 days. People who have been in isolation for 21 days without symptoms pose very low risk to others of having Ebola. But, again, very low risk is not equal to no risk.

It makes sense to me that Obama would appoint a political figure as Ebola czar who can coordinate responses and be responsible for information management. Perception management is a political skill not something that scientists and doctors have particular expertise in.

My reading is that the 21 days is a sufficient isolation time period to keep us out of any realistic threat from sleeper Ebola patients. You have to weigh the benefits of excess caution with the consequences of drawing too big a circle around the problem.

If the isolation period is increased to 42 days, for example, this will make it more difficult to get the cooperation of the people who need to be isolated. Similarly, banning travel from the afflicted African countries will only encourage people to evade the restrictions and lie about their histories in West Africa making contact tracing more difficult.

Moreover, this still won’t eliminate every possible threat of infection because there are some people who have the virus but show no symptoms at all.

We’re all subject to irrational fears when emotional activations shortcircuit the higher centers of the brain. I’ve found it’s helpful to have some way of dealing with unreasonable fear and bringing things back into realistic perspective.

I call my application SORTA which stands for Spiritual Opening to Realistic Threat Assessment. This is how it works. When I’m possessed by a fear that is probably excessive and unwarranted, I want to know if it’s a real threat or not.

For example, I’m headed for the bank at the last minute. Should I be worried about getting there on time? I take a deep breath and, as I exhale, I envision a grounding rod going through my body into the mineral kingdom of the earth.

Then I ask my Higher Self, Is this threat real? Is this so? I assume that there is an aspect of myself that has more grounded information that is presently available to my emotionally addled brain and mind and I call on that aspect with a direct question. Then, if the fear proves unfounded, I can relax and proceed to my destination efficiently without putting myself at risk for a panic induced blunder.

In summary, my reading is that the world is going to contain this disease not later than the middle of next year. There will be new outbreaks from time to time from new animals to human transmissions, but we’ll be much better prepared to contain these new sources of Ebola.

We’re going to be safer and wiser in the long run because we’ll have the science and the technology to cope with future epidemics, even new Biosafety Level 4 threats that are still out there. The chance that these diseases could be made into bioweapons is greatly diminished for the future.

I’m less confident that, as a world community, we’ll take in the lessons of Ebola and become a more just and ecologically intelligent society as a result. This epidemic went out of control because the World Health Organization and others who might have been able to intervene effectively at the beginning did not respond in time with the resources needed.

Sadly, I feel this is due in no small part because the affected people were impoverished Africans.

If the Ebola epidemic teaches us anything, it’s that, as a community of nations, we’re all living on one small globe where the numbers of interactions we have with each other increase year by year so that whatever crisis affects one nation eventually affects us all.

The death of Robin Williams on August 11 has affected me deeply as well as millions of others who loved and admired him world-wide. Although I never met Robin, I feel like I have lost a personal friend. This living archetype of lightness, exuberance, joy, and play has been taken from us.

When someone we care about leaves our lives through suicide, it’s natural to feel a sense of powerlessness and even betrayal. I imagine these feelings are the source of some of the unkind things that people have written about the way in which Robin choose to bring his life to a close.

But don’t include me in that group. I do feel sadness and grief, but I also feel empowered by Robin’s life and example. His life’s work is this wonderful affirmation of life as he reflects back the joy, grace, beauty, complexity, absurdity, and challenge of the human condition.

Robin’s death by suicide is not a happy story. At the end of his life, he had a mental health falldown with severe depression. I imagine he saw the Parkinson’s diagnosis as something that would eventually take away what he loved to do.

We watch in amazement at the energy level that he brought to every stand-up performance and at the depth of emotion he evokes with every dramatic role. It is astounding that he was able to maintain his emotional and physical health for as long as he did and as well as he did.

At least some of his work was an impressive demonstration of channeling as he let energies flow through him all the while keeping the tone of gentleness and kindness that was his nature.

We lose sight of the shadow side of genius. We see great people through the lens of their achievements and we fail to acknowledge the price a great gift exacts in terms of imbalances it creates in other areas of life.

With Robin no longer with us, there is an opportunity to look at his life’s work at a whole and appreciate it as never before. I see this as a celebration of the beauty and wonder of being alive.

In Robin’s case the teaching is greater than the teacher. In addition to being inspired by his positive example of lightness and love, I am also empowered by the manner of his death.

In choosing to end his life through suicide, this is for me a negative role model that can help me gain perspective on my personal challenges.

How this works is seeing someone else choices lead to outcomes that are not what I want. Then I have a strong motivation to find a different path. For example, both of my parents were alcoholics.

From their behavior I saw that I want to have some other outcome in my life. So, I choose a drug free life and by mid life gave up drinking alcohol in all forms.

I’ve never had drug and alcohol issues in my life and, although I have times of unhappiness and sadness, I’m not subject to deep depression. Suicide is somewhat difficult for me to envision as a life choice since I see it as murdering oneself and I’m committed to nonviolence.

Robin got to a point where he was apparently unable to embrace life. And, although I’m probably going to stick around no matter what, I have same issue in a slightly different form.

There have been many times when rather than affirming life in the fullness of whatever thoughts, feelings, and emotions are present, I have numbed myself out. In addition to substance addiction, there is also process addiction. I have struggled with this all my life. In process addiction you kill the fullness of the moment.

My preferred forms of process addiction have been through sleep and self-hypnosis. By sleeping longer than you need or lying in bed after awakening without getting up, you can go into a lethargic state where feelings and emotions are muted.

Similarly, self-hypnosis can be a wonderful way to regenerate energy by total relaxation for up to an hour. But, if you feel asleep in it, or go well past the hour, there is again lethargy and numbness.

I’ve made great strides in overcoming this behavior in the last year or so and I want to go to the point where it is no longer a factor in my life. Then I can manifest my full potential of being alive in every moment and fully experience whatever thoughts, feelings, and emotions are happening in my energetic field.

My pathway of healing is through the application of the compassionate witness. Through witnessing my process, I can gain perspective and live from choice rather than reflex.

Robin is that icon that calls me back to the witness. His compassion is legendary as reflected in his kindness and generosity to so many. He is also the amused witness of the human condition and we need that as well. We need some faculty that can see our challenges in sufficient perspective to appreciate the humor in it.

No matter how many people love and respect you, if you get to place where you can’t love yourself, you’re in deep trouble. There is a propaganda war happening with the mind. Negative and sometimes toxic thoughts compete for our attention with loving and positive elements.

If you don’t have an active program of countering this negativity with affirmations and appreciation, you can lose the war and then maybe even your life.

May I bring my affirmations to bear in every moment of confusion and uncertainty.

I love myself as I am in this moment. I love my process as it is in this moment. I rejoice in being one with all of who I am. I rejoice in the challenge of this moment. I am one with my personal power as it is in this moment. I love myself in the limitations that I experience in this moment. I stand in the ungroundedness and strive from Grace in this moment.

Thanks Robin, you compassionate amused witness, for inspiring me to write this and to let go of a little bit of my fear of being seen.

On this 14th day of December, the holiday season is now in full swing. This year the energetic weather changed abruptly around the 1st of December and we’re thrown into the season of existential intensity.

By existential intensity I mean a mood which includes some or all of the following elements: Excitement, anticipation, a sense of it’s being a meaningful time, uncertainty, anxiety, and apprehension. I imagine everyone would concur with the first three aspects in this description of the holidays. But this time also has its shadow side.

For anyone with relatives who have drinking problems, the holidays can be a time of remembrance of trauma and upset. For anyone whose family life or personal relationship life is not what they would like it to be, this time of year can be one of intensified unhappiness.

To avoid sounding like Scrooge incarnate, let me preface my further reflections with some personal appreciations of the holiday season. I like some of the Christmas stories with Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol my favorite. I find Christmas lights awesome and beautiful.

I enjoy the many opportunities for community and social connection that come with holiday parties. I love going to movies at this time of year. I appreciate the tangible sense of charity and good will that people often have. I relish the opportunity to start on the 1st of January by being congruent with my goals for the coming year.

For almost everyone, whatever kind of work you do, the holidays have periods where everything comes to a dead stop and work responsibilities are greatly diminished.

However, this does not mean that the holidays are a vacation. A vacation is a self-structured time when you get to go where you want and engage in whatever recreational activities you fancy.

On the contrary, the holidays are a time of frenzy. The days are often stressful and overscheduled. I imagine there are some who thrive on the frantic pace, the crowds, and the confusion. That would not be me.

So why do we do what we do? More importantly, does our habitual holiday routine really serve us? With due respect to other holiday traditions such as Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, let me reflect a moment on Christmas.

Christmas is supposedly a celebration of the birth of Jesus although no one knows when Jesus was born. The December 25th date was picked by the Church because there was already a Roman holiday on that date and they wanted to upstage the pagan rituals that had been celebrated for a long time around the time of the winter solstice.

We traditionally exchange gifts on that day but why? What does this mean? There is also a culling of millions of trees which are bought into homes, decorated and then discarded. We would be hard put to articulate what that tradition signifies.

Of course, we’re doing more or less what our parents did before us and so on for hundreds of years into the past.

I do not mean to denigrate ritual, ceremony or tradition. These things are very important for us as individuals and as a culture. When archetypes are activated, we need these frameworks to help us channel the emotional energies that are aroused into life affirming activities.

The archetypes are ingrained patterns of response to times of special significance such as the longest night of the year and the return of the light, the end of the calendar year and the beginning of the New Year. The archetypes are expressed as symbols and metaphors.

Christmas has come to symbolize home, family and relationship.

With respect to the cultural transformation that we’re going though in the early years of the 21st century, we’re suffering from a loss of symbols and metaphors that have a living meaning for us and that speak to our souls.

When we unconsciously follow tradition for the sake of tradition alone, we’re vulnerable to acting simply to meet the expectations of others. Then what is most meaningful to us can get lost in the shuffle.

But we have another option. That is to create our own rituals and ceremonies and to pioneer traditions that have deep personal significance. Then we can have authentic Christmas, authentic New Year’s irrespective of what others are doing or have done in the past, irrespective of how eccentric or conventional that might be.

We can move forward with a reinvention and re-envisioning of the holidays in alignment with what feels most important for us.

Should it be case that we have past holiday trauma or present social unhappiness at this time of year, we have options there too. We can begin by giving ourselves the gift of forgiveness for any persons who have caused us pain or upset in past holiday times or in personal relationship. With forgiveness everyone wins.

We don’t have to build monuments to our past trauma or our past unhappiness. Instead compassionately witness whatever feelings are present and shift attention to your deepest heart’s desire.

The pain that you experienced then or may be experiencing now is not your fate or your destiny. It’s just a fact of your life. Your future is still what you make it to be.

Find empowerment in taking on the challenge of transforming unhappiness into what you want there to be. Whatever challenges you have now are just what there is to be transformed.

Don’t waste your energy comparing yourself to other people and their circumstances at the holidays. Some people have a happy social life and the holidays are an opportunity to rejoice in that. But no one has a perfect social life. Social discontent is an inescapable feature of the human condition.

Put your focus on being the person you want to be and be grateful for the challenges that you are given that motivate you to expand and grow. In a life of total contentment, there would be limited opportunity for positive change.

Should you find the holidays a stressful time, it is helpful to remind yourself of some basic strategies of stress resilience. A more important point in this respect is to allow generous margins of time for every endeavor. A cramped time is almost always stressful. Whatever cannot fit comfortably in the time frame can be put over or let go completely.

Practice slowing down the pace of your activities. Whatever is done with full attention is more enjoyable and generally more effective as well.

When, in spite of your best efforts, stressful events occur, fall back on the disturbance protocol. Distressing thoughts may come into our mind or perhaps something relatively unimportant causes us to go into upset. There may be conflict with someone else.

Begin by compassionately witnessing the disturbance. Acknowledge the feelings, whatever they happen to be, and then go to place of loving yourself in your limitations because you’ve just stumbled over one.

Ask yourself how are you with how this is? Then go to even though I feel … I still love and accept myself. Even though this has happened, I still love and accept myself.

In the second step go for an intention to strive from Grace in this moment and in this circumstance. Striving from Grace means opening to an inner source of wisdom and inspiration beyond your immediate conscious inventory. I envision this source as the Higher Self.

The third step is asking for Guidance from the source. Two direct questions can take you there. What’s best? and What do I need in this moment? The expectation of Grace will be an experience of Grace. The fourth step is to follow the Guidance given.

Taking a minute before you react to a disturbance is often the difference between sanity and insanity. In my acronym speak, I called this taking a MONOT, a moment of noticing.

See what you can notice about what’s happening within you and in the outside situation. Noticing calms the brain and allows some space so you can respond from choice rather than reflex.

If, for some reason, you have to act before you have time to do all the steps, fall back on step 3 and just ask your inner source What’s best?

Today is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 23, 1963. For those of us old enough to remember that day, the pain and disbelief still remains. The national trauma is for us an unforgettable lived experience. May we never have to suffer through such a day again.

In my science fiction fantasizing, I have often envisioned having a time machine where I could go back in time and change history. At first I went to the grassy knoll thinking a second gunman, the person who fired the fatal shot, was certainly there. But, there was no one.

So, in future fantasy trips, I imagined confronting Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository and scaring him off from his intended actions.

On reflection, I see this would have been a mistake. Changing the time line would have unintended consequences. We might wake up to find Mitt Romney as our president or John McCain with Sarah Palin as vice-president.

I imagine we’re fortunate that time travel is either not possible, or alternatively that some benevolent interdimensional overseers are protecting the time line so such a reversal of history does not happen.

Had Kennedy not been killed, it seems likely that the Vietnam War would not have happened, or at least not turned out to be the full scaled military intervention that ensued.

From another perspective, however, some of the things that Lyndon Johnson was able to get through Congress might not have happened as soon as they did. The Civil Right Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps were all programs Johnson was able to pass using his influence and political skills with Congress.

Civil Rights was an issue Kennedy had championed in the latter part of his presidency. With his untimely death, there was momentum to complete part of the martyred president’s agenda.

From that date 50 years ago until the present time, we still wonder how this incomprehensible event come to be. The results of the official investigation, that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot the president from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository, have always been suspect in one way or another.

A recent poll showed 61% of the American public still believes that Kennedy’s death was part of some larger plot. That Kennedy’s death was almost a random act, a crime of opportunity by a single emotionally unbalanced individual acting on his own initiative is hard to take in versus the view that it was part of some larger political or geopolitical scheme.

How could someone as insignificant and unbalanced as Oswald kill one of the most powerful men in the world with no help from the outside? He would have had less than nine seconds to fire three shots at the president using a mail order bolt action rifle from a distance of 265 feet.

If the official story of the assassination were a novel, it wouldn’t sell. Too much suspension of disbelief would be required for the unlikely chain of events to unfold as they were said to have done.

The ten month long Warren Commission investigation which was supposed to uncover the truth ended up contributing to the uncertainty of what happened that day. This was due in no small part to the fact that the commission’s work was skewed from the beginning by a mandate to deliver a singular verdict of Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone unassisted gunman.

If there had been a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, Johnson didn’t want to know about it and he made this clear to the commission. He didn’t want to risk a war by invading Cuba, if the Cubans were behind it, or with the Russians, if they were responsible. So the evidence gathered was filtered to suit the preordained conclusion. The official investigation was anything but complete and thorough.

Thus was born the conspiracy universe, a vast industry of investigation, speculation, disinformation, and alternative reality construction. Trust in government as an institution that can be counted on to operate with integrity and truthfulness was dealt a blow from which it has never recovered.

After fifty years of taking in information about the Kennedy assassination, my reading is that, ironically, the conclusions of the Warren Commission, arrived at as they were, are basically correct. Oswald killed Kennedy from the book depository, and he didn’t have any help.

Although the conspiracy industry has generated unnecessary fear and suspicion in many areas, one service it has performed is actively pursuing whatever investigation leads were available in the Kennedy killing. And after fifty years, not a single credible alternative explanation to the Oswald as long gunman thesis has stood up to scrutiny.

Every single thread that purported to show that Oswald could not have been the shooter has been run to ground.

Here is one example from my own experience. I remembering watching the assassination drama unfold on television after I returned from school. I always thought it extremely odd that Oswald had been named a suspect so quickly.

He was taken into custody just 70 minutes after the shooting. Moreover, his shooting of police officer J.D. Tippit just before then came about when Tippit had received a radio message with a description of the suspect in the assassination that matched Oswald. When Tippit asked Oswald for identification, he was shot at point blank range.

I thought if they were on to Oswald so quickly, they must have had some advanced information about him that would warrant making him a suspect. And if so, why didn’t they do something to prevent his being a threat to the president?

The real story is different though. Shortly after the shooting, the police closed off the book depository and only Oswald was missing from the staff. Moreover, they found his rifle and the empty cartridges on the sixth floor where Oswald had been seen earlier. The manager gave Oswald’s description to the police.

When Ruby killed Oswald two days after the assassination, the opportunity to find out more about what was motivating Oswald was lost forever. Moreover, Ruby’s actions fed the conspiracy mill.

I doubt a surviving Oswald would ever have told us much. This was certainly true of the men convicted in the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

My reading is that the key to Oswald actions are revealed in an earlier assassination effort. According to his widow, Marina, he told her he tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker, an extreme right wing figure, on April 10, 1963 using the same rifle that was used in the Kennedy killing.

So, we see here someone with violent tendencies motivated by political considerations. Oswald didn’t need someone to persuade him to become a political assassin. He didn’t need someone to whisper in his ear. That was his ambition.

In my reading, there has been a cover-up in the Kennedy assassination that goes beyond the already well documented limitations of the Warren Commission.

Oswald, having defected to Russia and returned, was certainly someone with big CIA file. What did the CIA know about Oswald and when did they know it? Thousands of pages of CIA documents that deal with the assassination have never been disclosed. The disclosure has been put over until 2017 and even then some pages may be redacted.

The Secret Service, the FBI and the CIA were negligent in the assassination of President Kennedy. Someone with Oswald’s history should have never have been allowed to slip into relative anonymity especially when he has a job that is directly on the route of the president’s motorcade.

It’s sad and disconcerting that this part of the assassination story has never come fully to light. Maybe we could have learned some lessons that would have enabled security agencies to share information more effectively and avoided having to repeat the same scenario on 09.11.2001 when the dots were all there and no one connected them.

On balance, it’s probably a good thing to learn that we can’t trust the government to tell us the truth since protecting their own interests can trump all good faith attempts to reveal the full story. Even though the Warren Commission got it right, they did it in a way which undermined our trust.

In our own day, we’ve got to find the middle way between distrusting the government and believing everything we read on the internet. Yes, the truth is out there, but you have to keep your critical perspective to discern it.

Oswald’s killing of Kennedy was a wildly improbable event. Any one of a hundred different outcomes had to be just the way they were for this to happen.

Had the Secret Service not taken the bubble off of Kennedy’s limousine, for example, Oswald would not have had such a clear view of his target. The odds that he would be able to fire a fatal shot under the constraints of time and distance with the weapon he had are daunting. Yet he did.

Our universe is made up of improbable events. If you take a look in the mirror, you’ll see one. What are the odds that the one individual sperm out of millions would fertilize the egg to become you? I think this shows that the way the world works is still some steps beyond the power of our mental capacity to reduce it to simple explanations.

My belief is that we’re always in the perfect lesson. I think this is true for us as individuals and for the nation as a whole. Even an event as heart rendering as the assassination of our president has much to teach us.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.