I recently asked my friend Chris how the world would change in the year 2020. The numerical year, 20-20, represents clear vision itself. I am sure most of Chris’ visionary guesses will come to pass.

In 2020, Hillary Clinton is serving her last days in office as President of the United States as a Republican, a result of the GOP’s inability to muster internal party leadership and Hillary’s overwhelming ambition. In 2012, she won by a landslide carrying 48 of 50 states.

In 2020 Fidel Castro is still alive, and through the Cuban Foreign Aid Program, all of the excess condominiums in the Miami market have been purchased by the Cuban government. This program has saved innumerable developers and local banks in southern Florida.

In 2020 the high school dropout rate in urban areas remains at a stubborn 50%. In keeping with the politically correct times, the teacher’s union has changed the term ‘compulsory education’ to ’suggested education’.

In 2020 Bernie Madoff, recently released from prison, has been named Secretary of the Treasury. Because the treasury could not print dollars fast enough, in a controversial move, Madoff orders new dollars to be minted in North Korea and sent to the United States in containers. This further enriches the Wet Mountain Valley’s wealthy shipping magnates. As the North Koreans have been counterfeiting dollars for decades, switching to legitimate printing was heralded as a final factor in normalizing relations between North Korea and the Western world.

In 2020, Congress passed its 12th yearly amendment continuing the subsidy for General Motors while renewing the Cash for Clunkers Program.

In 2020, Barack Obama, now Secretary General of the United Nations, opens his presidential library, which proudly displays his Nobel Prize along with other memorabilia, including the Heisman trophy, a Master’s green jacket, two Academy Awards and three Olympic gold medals.

In 2020 Exxon-Mobil discovers an inexpensive way to convert human waste to ethanol. The technology is being challenged by the farm lobby, which fears a collapse in corn prices will be more detrimental to the nation than virtually free fuel.

In 2020, Iran remains at a complete standstill after having 10 years earlier accidentally detonated a hidden nuclear device on its own territory. Vehemently blaming the Great Satan, President Ahmadinejad clings to power.

In 2020, after Russia has claimed the continental shelf in the Arctic as their territory, they also annexed parts of northern Canada and eastern Alaska compelling Sarah Palin to return as Governor of Alaska.

In 2020, the Chinese, after acquiring IBM, Alcoa, Disney, Google and General Electric, are being stymied over their bid to buy the state of Rhode Island by Indian competitors.

For those willing to make predictions 10 years hence, please respond on our web site.

Tough talk rarely gets results because sanctions, trade restrictions and embargoes have little meaning in practice. In the last 50 years we have imposed major sanctions on Cuba, North Korea, Iran and to a lesser degree on Libya, Syria, Zimbabwe and a host of other countries, including Iraq after the Gulf War. Ironically, almost all of these regimes have stayed in power with the resulting hardships impacting the general populations, but not the ruling elite.

One reason sanctions do not work is that they lack the full participation of other countries. There is nothing the United States produces that cannot be obtained either from non-participating countries or through black-market suppliers. The imposition of sanctions creates incredible financial opportunities for those willing to take some risk.

Marc Rich is a case in point. Often referred to as the fugitive commodity trader, he allegedly used his contacts during the 1973-1974 Arab Oil Embargo to circumvent the embargo and buy crude oil from Iran and Iraq. There were also allegations during the era of price controlled Texas crude that Rich doubled the fixed price and sold it to supply-starved U.S. oil companies as unregulated crude. Once the Ayatollah Khomeini displaced the Shah, importing or purchasing crude oil from Iran was banned by the United States, but Marc Rich, through a network of intermediaries and forged documents, simply used the opportunity to augment his fortune.

Eventually, Rich fled to Spain and ultimately to Switzerland. He is currently wanted by United States authorities (IRS) for alleged tax evasion amounting to millions of dollars. Rich still operates in many commodities through anonymous companies and mostly in places that suffer some trade restrictions. He was the beneficiary of Bill Clinton’s Presidential pardon on Clinton’s last day in office, but ultimately public furor and his potential tax liability prevented Rich from returning to the United States.

Marc Rich may be notorious but there are thousands of Marc Rich clones. The idea that everyone might ethically abide by sanctions for the greater good of mankind is simply naïve.

The sanctions conundrum can be compared to U.S. Prohibition. Although alcoholic beverages were banned, they were readily accessible to those wanting to imbibe. Alcoholic beverages were smuggled in from other countries, and they were distilled illegally both by large-scale bootleggers and by mom-and-pop operations at home. Prohibition created an underground network of criminals and illegal activity that remains with us today. Quite an unexpected consequence from sanctioning alcohol.

The United States creates a lot of bluster by threatening to impose sanctions. But enforcement is difficult and the failure to achieve results shows impotency not strength. Although Iranian crude and oil products are prohibited in the United States, it is almost a certainty that gasoline refined from Iranian crude routinely finds its way into our gas tanks. International traders are far more astute at orchestrating ruses of this nature than our government enforcement agencies are at preventing it.

Is it realistic to expect other countries to join us in sanctions against Iran? China has invested more than $20 billion in oil-related projects and infrastructure in Iran. Russia has an ongoing nuclear reactor project along with hundreds of other commercial deals including arms supply. Switzerland is in negotiations for a huge natural gas project in Iran and other countries are not likely to risk their energy or commercial interests for a political farce.

Can sanctions even work against smaller and more vulnerable countries like Cuba? It is well documented that President Kennedy had a fondness for Cuban cigars. Although embargoed, they were found in abundance at the White House during his presidency.

The reality of international trade is that if a country is sanctioned there will always be individuals who thrive on trafficking in contraband as they have for centuries. This opens avenues for huge profits: Cheaper goods coming out of the sanctioned country and more expensive goods slipping in. Goods will flow; money always out trumps politics.

Most of us are unaware of a small government department buried in the bowels of the Capitol. It is called the Acronym Selection Service (ASS) and they are responsible for creating clever sounding acronyms for all federal programs. It is not necessary that the acronym accurately describe the thrust of the intended program, the main concern is to make the American taxpayers feel good with cleverly arranged letters.

For instance, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) implies the presence of a waterproof canvas that offers protection from the rain and lessens the effect of inclement weather. In reality, a tarp can cover-up myriad things and make one wonder about the contents lurking beneath or how much is being kept from the view of the public.

Fortunately, I have a mole, known only to me as Anal-eyes, within the ASS complex. She disclosed that there is bi-partisan support to close the existing gap on the health care bill. Both Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Snowe (R-ME) have been working tirelessly on a new idea, Diagnosed Elderly At The Hospital (DEATH). It is a simple program but the long term benefits are numerous.

President Obama plans on appointing Dr. Kevorkian as the DEATH Czar. He’ll guarantee only a gentle prick will be felt by those patients whose physicians have deemed DEATH as the best option.

According to Schumer, once this program gets rolling and elderly people are made redundant, both Medicare and Social Security will become solvent within years as fewer benefits will need to be paid. A hidden advantage will be the reduction of the median age in the American workforce thus creating younger and healthier workers as the older less productive people are culled out.

Under Senator Snowe’s controversial plan, once the patient is hospitalized, the attending physician will give a general check-up and based on the life expectancy in his or her native country, the doctor will determine if life saving or any medical procedure will be worth the investment. If the physician is from Pakistan (life expectancy 65) and the patient exceeds that age threshold, the physician may deem you ready for the DEATH program. If the physician is from Somalia (life expectancy 50), the patient would be wise to request a second opinion from an American doctor.

Although this may create a Right to Life movement at the opposite end of the age spectrum, Snowe expressed confidence of passage and both she and Senator Schumer were working diligently to bury this deep within the 1,200 page health care bill.

Fearing some doctors may balk at the program; arrangements are being made to have veterinarians administer the lethal prescription. Potential problems may arise resulting from people who find their eligibility for this program objectionable. Snowe has conceded to an arbitration procedure that allows patients to state their case before the infamous DEATH panel. Some terminated employees from ACORN are currently slated for positions on the panel.

It was incredibly reassuring knowing the political parties could join together to find a solution that works for everyone, unless one happens to be on the lights out list at a hospital.

A few months ago I was dining with a friend. I remarked about the shoddy products coming out of China and the low caliber of Chinese workers. My friend called me a racist. Why is one of the vilest words in the English language being used so casually in our everyday lives?

I’ve always considered myself colorblind in my business and personal life. But my friend believes that any remark about an individual’s or group’s alleged failings are part of a hidden agenda against a race, or a religion or a culture.

With President Obama in office, it is difficult to claim that America is a racist country but there are racists in America. Well before the President’s Congressional address about healthcare, the battling networks FOX and MSNBC did their best to provoke the most sensitive issues in this nation through alternating pleas of passion, anger and hostility.  

Then along came Joe Wilson and his outburst. I don’t think there is anyone who hasn’t made a spontaneous remark in his or her personal life at precisely the wrong moment and then regretted it. Wilson’s comment certainly was ill-timed and he can’t rewind his moment. In spite of his multiple apologies, the media had a story. The New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, in one of her more delusionary tirades implied she heard him yell, “You lie, boy”.

There is a stoking of racial and social tensions by both sides, but in an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, (D-GA), says that people will put on “white hoods and ride through the countryside” if racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Rep. Joe Wilson, are not rebuked. Congressman Johnson is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which last year declined the application for membership by white Congressman Stephen Cohen (D-TN). Never mind that Mr. Cohen represents a primarily African-American district.

Mr. Johnson may not be aware that the highly esteemed and longest-serving Democrat in Congress, namely Senator Byrd (D-WV), was a member and strong proponent of the Ku Klux Klan and initially won entry into Congress on a racially biased platform.

In America we do not suffer the humiliations of South African-type Apartheid. We do not live under the discriminatory economic hardship of India’s caste system. We do not ban religious practices as some Arabic countries do. We do not have a one party system like China and Russia, though the system of two parties is at its worst if either one has nearly total control and plays a game of ideological winner takes all.

In this country, dissent was thought to be the highest form of political debate, but now challengers are derided as Nazis, rednecks, mobs, socialists, communists, sexists, anarchists, brown shirts and reactionaries. We are in the midst of Liberal and Conservative McCarthyism and none of the prominent leadership in Washington has chosen the higher road of instructing their parties to denounce not only racism but also other insulting forms of branding. In fact, some leaders seem intent on promoting this contemptible behavior.

Labeling the current disagreements over the political and social agendas as racist is meritless. It is tantamount to calling the SEC anti-Semitic for uncovering Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent schemes. Of course racism exists, but it is not the throttle driving disagreements. It is the dodge used to disengage from the real issues.

America is still the best place on earth to live and, if it is to remain that way, it needs to engage in healthy debate and compromise, and not indulge in the lowest forms of verbal denunciation. Joe Wilson’s behavior may have been inappropriate, but was it racist?  To label him a racist – or anyone who doesn’t support the agenda of our first African American president a racist – derails any opportunity for productive policy debates and sensible legislation. Name calling and uncivil behavior don’t belong in schoolyards, much less in the halls of Congress or from the mouths of babbling former presidents.

As the health care debate becomes more vicious one needs to take an in depth look beyond the superficialities of politically motivated speeches and raucous town hall meetings. Part of the anger comes from people who have lost faith in Government’s ability to run any program or provide reliable estimates for the true cost of entitlements. Once government programs begin they seem to gather their own inertia.

Medicare is often used as a shinning example of Government’s success in delivering health care coverage. The program, which serves over 40 million beneficiaries, has been a huge success in delivering necessary health services to an aging population. Since the program’s inception in 1965, cost estimates have been left at the starting gate and they represent, along with social security, enormous unfunded liabilities for the future.

It is advertised the new health care program will be deficit neutral and mostly funded by removing the waste and fraud that occurs through administering Medicare. It is estimated over half a trillion dollars can be saved this way during the next decade. Waste and fraud, along with redundant inefficiencies, began the moment Medicare became law. One has to ask a question or two, beginning with the obvious one. After almost 45 years of Medicare, why are we only addressing the waste and fraud issue now, and secondly, does Government have the ability and will to wring these excesses out of the system? It doesn’t make sense to count on the bureaucrats and legislators who have perpetuated waste and fraud to be the same tandem to fix it.

Only about 25% of Medicare revenues come from payroll deductions, the balance is subsidized through general revenue or borrowing. At the current pace, Medicare alone will create $37 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities in two more generations.

Since Medicare’s inception, we have gone through many different administrations and varying party control in Congress. In spite of these changes at the top, the Washington bureaucracy remains fully intact. Those same administrators of FEMA, the Post Office, Amtrak, Social Security, Food Stamps, farm subsidies and a host of other well intentioned programs will be the same ones controlling the purse strings for an even larger public health care system.

Fortuitously, if our career legislators lack the intelligence or the experience to draft health care reform, they can rely on the ready services of a wide array of lobbyists. After donating money for future Congressional campaigns, lobbyists should be required to give the recipient of their largess a patch identifying the lobbying benefactor. Senators and Representatives would be compelled to proudly wear these badges at Congressional sessions. I imagine it will look like a NASCAR event with an abundance of patches fashionably sewn on to everyone’s attire. With the debate heating up, we’ll easily be able to identify who in Washington is buying off whom.

Finding a sensible solution that provides some health care coverage in America for everyone is a worthy humanitarian cause. Believing we can cover an additional 30 or 40 million people at no additional cost while not reducing the current quality of care for existing government programs sounds illogical. Tort reform, excluding medical expenses as a cause for personal bankruptcy, allowing insurance companies to compete nationally with one federal set of rules instead of individual state statutes and mandates will reduce premium costs and be an obvious starting point. Elimination of fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid is a lofty goal but that should be accomplished as a prerequisite before we embark on another rampant spending spree.

I am rarely in agreement with the liberal establishment east of the Mississippi, but this time Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D-OH) and Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) have managed a brilliant scheme to lift us out of recession. Together they have initiated the Fudge-Frank Bill soon to be made law.

Odder still, our local newspaper and its pugnacious editor have scooped the story leaving ordinary newspapers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal scrambling. If you missed the story on The Wet Mountain Tribune’s local web page, here it is in full:

Now that Cash for Clunkers has expired, Congress is examining a new stimulus program–Dollars for Dalliances.

This new program will allow both men and women to dump their spouses provided they have been married for at least 20 years. The government will provide a $5,000 rebate for legal expenses, thereby helping many financially strapped law firms struggling with the dearth of married couples able to afford a divorce. Additionally, through the official government web site www.citizenshipnow.gov the newly estranged men and women can connect with those seeking legal status in America.

Barney Frank, the co-sponsor of this measure, envisions the demand of housing to double as every dissolved family will create two new families, all seeking new accommodations.

Being modest and trying not to fudge the ramifications of this bill, the humble Congresswoman said, “The consequences will be humongous.”

“Encouraging long marriages to disintegrate will help the restaurant industry as newly formed relationships usually find their stride over a good dinner,” she said. Other dating-related businesses will flourish as well, including chocolatiers, florists, clothing and drug stores. Cosmetic surgeons are expecting a banner year.

Frank couldn’t be reached for comment but aides advised he was busy solving health care, reducing the national deficit and working hard to keep those pesky wind turbines out of Nantucket.

Disclaimer: Although Mr. Frank and Ms Fudge are Congressional Representatives, the above is satire and should be taken with a grain of salt. Or something.

Apart from certain lobbyists, everyone in America was excited about the prospect of health care reform. To me, this meant lowering my insurance premiums, alleviating the fight with my insurance company for reimbursement and reducing the price of prescription drugs.

For the 250 million people who are currently insured, these priorities suddenly morphed into a social and economic engineering program. Those of us with health insurance are in a de facto manner subsidizing the uninsured through higher premiums.

Reform was to create a more efficient plan for insuring people without coverage or those denied coverage, reducing the burden on the insured. Americans are the most generous people in the world and coaxing Americans to help those less fortunate has always proved successful. But, mandating—and legislating–this type of program has always been met with vehement opposition.

Transforming the health care system is too important to rush through with an imposed deadline. Before pushing a half-baked plan on the American taxpayer, proponents from the President through Congress should carefully review the myriad of options borne out of numerous committees. A lot of us doubt the administration and Congress have done this due diligence.

We are a country founded in a frenzy of anti-government sentiment and asking this country of individualists to relinquish control over something as personal as their health and to do so this quickly may be asking too much.

This administration might be better advised to start more slowly, to tackle problematic pieces of the health care system instead of the massive whole.

Making legislation is a dirtier job than mucking out a barn—and under this administration seems no cleaner. In the second quarter of 2009, lobbyists received more than $814 million from their clients to buy political influence. In turn, our legislature will draft favorable language so health care reform will not limit the profits of drug and insurance companies, the largest distributors of money to Congress.

In addition, most of us have lost faith in government’s ability to administer program costs effectively, produce promised results or adhere to budgets. In 1965 when Medicare Part A was launched, projections showed that by 1990 the total cost would be $9 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion.

Not all government programs have been failures, but history is rife with examples of failed government projects; government’s recent meddling in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, the banks, commodity markets and financial institutions have given us no reason to believe that this time government will rise to the challenge efficiently.

The GAO and CBO have repeatedly stated that more than 20% of Medicare funds are lost through waste and fraud. Does it seem wise to put government in total control of the nation’s health care system? . The government is already littered with an abundance of supposed deficit-neutral programs. I don’t think this is the type of reform or change most voters and taxpayers had in mind.

Over the next 20 years, the number of people in America over 65 years of age will double. The anticipated stress on Social Security and Medicare has become a can that every administration has kicked down the road.

These are the kinds of issues plaguing independent-minded Americans as the President and members of Congress host town-hall forums about health care around the country.

Change is desperately needed, but reform should empower individuals, not the government or the insurance and drug industries.

I recently stopped at 7-11 and observed a customer buying a Big Gulp, which is the equivalent of a 32- or a 44-ounce soft drink depending on where your local convenience store is located. Now there is a 64-ounce version called the Super Big Gulp–two quarts of carbonated water, artificial flavor and about 30 teaspoons of sugar or another sweetener.

I began to wonder if the Super Big Gulp is emblematic of what’s wrong with the economy in this country. Bigger has become better and more has become marvelous. Size seems to matter regardless of any intrinsic value.

Americans have become unhinged from common sense and government has provided the tools helping to loosen those hinges.

After World War II our factories that had been vital for producing military hardware switched to making consumer goods. The only way to absorb such massive production was to encourage consumers with easy credit. Until the 1950’s the percentage of consumer credit in America remained fairly constant. Then in the 1960’s credit began a slow then rapid upward spiral. By 2000, we Americans had debt equaling 100% of our disposable income. By 2005 debt equaled 125% of disposable income. In 2008, credit card debt alone averaged more than $10,000/family.

Once consumerism was born it took over our economy and now is responsible for 70% of our GDP. To return to a balanced economy, we either need to produce more or consume less – neither option seems to be on our government’s agenda

Needless, reckless and often unnecessary spending has become an American hallmark and it is cradling us back to familiar territory. On an individual and government level, our overall resources may not be able to keep up with our desires. The financial collapse caused by excesses on Wall Street’s level can be played as the villain, but  loose and unabated consumer spending and federal largess is not the solution to the problem. Without a new normal, we are destined for higher interest rates and a debased dollar. This will have global along with domestic consequences, including a diminished standard of living for many Americans.

The financial system that nearly bankrupted our country in the Autumn of 2008 is not being changed but is simply getting a facelift.  With government prodding, we are trying to spend our way back to prosperity. Joe Biden recently said “that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law, the nation will go bankrupt, and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.”

For us Baby Boomers there is a measure of good news. Those over 55 years old control 60% of the wealth in this country and recent surveys show that we are not spending it. The savings rate in America has risen dramatically since the financial crisis due in large part to Boomers’ fear of impoverished retirements.

Smaller cars, smaller houses and less luxury, however, run contrary to the belief that the existing American dream of larger homes, multiple cars and gadgetry can continue forever. Will the country’s economic meltdown prompt Depression-era frugality? Not likely given our collective sense of entitlement. But if we continue drinking the Super Big Gulp, I hope eventually there is someone in line behind us who can pay for it.

A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle. 

I can envision one of our service people in Iraq or Afghanistan escaping an IED in the morning, narrowly avoiding a car bomb explosion in the afternoon then dodging sniper fire in the evening. After finally returning to the barracks, he or she would like to light up, but smoking has been banned because it’s life threatening.

The idea behind prohibiting smoking is to reduce medical expenses for veterans. As a general rule, smokers do incur more medical problems and are prone to respiratory and other diseases. Smokers also die sooner, which translates to less time veterans would be insured. Statistically, it would be more cost effective for the government to promote rather than prohibit smoking.  

Because soldiers are de facto federal employees, will the government apply smoking standards to all federal workers? Current actuarial retirement tables would be valueless. Healthier government employees would live longer, drain retirement coffers and strain the medical system. On the other hand, an excess of older people would require additional geriatric facilities, foster a need for nurses and other professional health care personnel and provide a bonanza market for pharmaceutical companies.

If the smoking ban finds its way into the military code and to federal workers, there could be other prohibitions down the road. Obesity is an obvious target. Every federal employee could be subjected to a weekly muscle/fat ratio test, a cholesterol screening could replace drug testing and only healthy foods selected by the Surgeon General will be served at federal cafeterias. Let’s place a scale at every fast food service counter and based on one’s weight, the computer program will select the right course of food to create the correct diet for your betterment.

We shouldn’t leave alcohol out of the mix of prohibited items. Non-alcoholic beer, and alcohol free wine and spirits can be served at the USO, enlisted personnel and officer’s clubs unless medicinal relief is prescribed. (This could be catastrophic for Congress, as alcohol is usually their elixir for fashioning those wonderful pieces of legislation written during the early morning hours.)

Legally, any employer has the right to set the standards for their employees, and to date those criteria can include drug polices, dress codes and levels of education. The government seems bent on embarking on social engineering projects that are hypocritical considering the vices harbored in our legislative, judicial and executive branches. America has always stood for individual freedoms – let’s be careful we don’t lose them.

At the time of this writing and due to enormous public comment, the Pentagon appears to be reversing course.

As a youngster I often heard the term “white-shoed Republicans” and eventually learned this image referred to a wealthy group of powerful businessmen or lawyers from prestigious firms or members of exclusive country clubs. This was a pristine allusion to a party often identified as libido-challenged but also representing a high degree of integrity.

The recent spate of high-placed GOP philanderers are not the only party members who have fallen down the slippery slope of infidelity and financial misconduct. The Democrats have had their turn in the limelight with some dazzling misdeeds. By examining my own life story, I shouldn’t be too critical of the misadventures of our leaders in Washington, but I am not responsible for making laws that govern more than 300 million people in America or creating policies that affect the entire world.

One would gather our lawmakers would take this responsibility seriously, but the first step is for our lawmakers to behave seriously. A recent poll of high school students revealed that being a politician didn’t make the top 10 vocations to which a kid might aspire. Ironically, the same poll revealed that ‘fame’ was the most important goal currently in a teenager’s life.

I don’t believe anything has seriously changed in Washington since the birth of our nation. Presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy were famous adulterers. President Clinton’s term in office was obviously stained and the Secret Service has learned to keep a secret.

My personal favorite is the story of Wilbur Mills. A 38-year veteran of Congress and one-time chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mills was an alcoholic and eventually became involved in a torrid affair with Fanne Fox, a stripper at a local club in Washington. Mills made an aborted run for president in 1972.

The media and transparency have played an even larger role in degrading our elected representatives, who, left to their own devices, seem perfectly capable of disgracing themselves. Today little is left in the closet of sexual and financial improprieties after the media gets their foot in the door.

My friend, Chris, believes less is expected of Democrats; that their dalliances or financial transgressions are part and parcel of their political agenda. It is probably a good idea for both parties to remove family values and fiscal responsibility from their platforms.

This brings us to the midlife crisis of Governor Sanford and his fatal attraction to a Latina from Argentina. I can certainly sympathize with the intoxication of a beauty from Buenos Aires. Is he emblematic of a system we have created that replicates French and English royalty with concubines, corruption and a brazen sense of inalienable power?

We may have entered a phase in government, both national and local, where individual honesty and competency are no longer compatible. Perhaps our expectations of our leaders are inflated and we should lower the ethical bar? On the other hand, should anyone’s political and other accomplishments be dwarfed with 24/7 news coverage demeaning innocent family members as if they were guilty by association?