Thoughts on Sandy Hook

This past Friday, I was away from home with several folks from my church, canning meat for the Mennonite Central Committee.  It was a good time, meeting fellow Mennonite from around Missouri, talking about life while cubing seemingly countless turkey breasts.  Others canned, cooked, and labeled the meat for distribution to wherever it might be needed around the world, whatever regions were facing food shortages.  During the breaks, we enjoyed some amazing pies and baked goods, all of which local Amish and Mennonite women had donated.  These events are always fun, even if the 5:00 a.m. start is something that I am not used to.

It was not until much later that evening, or perhaps even until the next morning that I heard the news about the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.  One deranged young man, armed with two pistols and a Bushmaster 223 assault rifle, having murdered his mother earlier that morning, murdered another 20 children and 6 adults before turning the gun on himself.  In the days that followed, the media provided a deluge of coverage for the event and its aftermath.  Grief, despair, and hopelessness were, understandably, common themes.  The Onion summed up the nation's feelings best, more than likely without having interviewed anyone, "F--- Everything, Nation Reports."

Not to be contented with simply reporting on the events, there was a fair amount of pontification as well.  Solutions came from all angles.  Some politicians proposed that we should reassess our treatment of the mentally ill.  I do not disagree with this approach, though I can only wonder how the same politicians who have spent the past few years gutting funding to programs that help the mentally ill can make such an argument, even as they continue to reduce funding levels. 

Some politicians proposed that we should get assault rifles, which are purely designed to kill other human beings in the field of battle, off of the streets.  Not that there were any specifics to these plans.  Others, apparently unable to see the clear pattern of suicidal tendencies common to almost all of the gunmen behind these mass shootings, proposed that if we would only have trained, armed teachers, such tragedies could be warded off.  I agree with a New York Times editorial's proposal that a certain amount of gun control is in order, in fact necessary, and that it would not represent a violation of our freedom, as some folks seem to allege.

Of course, given the time of year and the extent of the tragedy, theology was bound to enter the question.  Some pastors, including one in Oklahoma City, discussed the ways in which our culture's perverse embrace of violence in all forms of entertainment, combined with or complete lassez faire access to firearms have helped facilitate such tragedies.  Others have surely focused on the way such tragedies might bring us together.
 
Then there was the theological response from Mike Huckabee, who was convinced that the tragedy at Sandy Hook was nothing less than the predictable result of America turning its back on God over the past fifty years.  I will not dignify Huckabee by providing a link to the relevant clip. It is too readily available anyhow.  In similar vein, others have concluded that because God has been driven out of public schools, God no longer offers protection.  Such a take on this tragedy statements are absolutely dreadful, but does deserve some kind of response.

1)  At their center, such sentiments are designed to drive a wedge, not to bring comfort or ease suffering.  While we are mourning the deaths of all these kids, why not add the guilt that they have turned away from God, and this is obviously some kind of divine wrath that they have incurred?  Better yet, why not add a tinge of self-righteousness to the whole thing and pretend we have all the answers of what it means to be godly?

2) The idea of a cultural shift away from God is folly.  There has simply not been the massive turn away from God that Huckabee alleges.  What does that even mean?  Given that Huckabee's definition of God is so closely aligned with right wing politics, we have too narrow a definition to be meaningful.  Of course, there are quite a few who are utterly disinterested in any God--or Jesus--who could possibly inspire folks such as Huckabee--and others of similar ilk who claim to follow God--to the positions of misogyny, homophobia, and other bigotry that they embrace.

3) God has not been driven out of the public sphere.  People are welcome to pray wherever, whenever they choose.  They are fully within their rights to gather together and read the Bible wherever they choose.  Only forcing others to participate is forbidden.

4) Most importantly, in the wake of such tragedies, if one asks, "Where was God?" one asks the wrong question.  

God is not in the business of getting vengeance for people "turning their backs" by slaughtering innocents.  God is not responsible for people making the decision to murder other people.  God is not into instigating acts of violence.  What happened in Connecticut, in Colorado, in Kentucky, in so many places across America, and indeed in so many places around the world, was not an act of God, but an act of man.

When Fred Rogers was confronted with the question "Where was God?"  (Rogers does not use the word God on his website, instead asking "Why?", but given Rogers' background, the question might safely be inferred.)  He would recall his mother's answer, "Look for the Helpers."  In every disaster, there are folks cleaning up, helping to rebuild whatever normalcy possible.  They become the face of God, of Jesus.  

Put another way, instead of asking "Where was God?"  We should ever be asking, "Where am I, and how would God use me to help?"  Perhaps we should look at this a little more like Fred than like Mike.

On Political Polarization and my Support for the Re-Election of Barack Obama

Our democracy of late has been plagued with polarization.  I am well aware of this difficulty, and despise how it seems to have pitted Americans against each other in ways seldom seen in our history. But how does one respond to outright lies and misrepresentations? How does one respond to corporate interests attempting to hijack our democracy? There is ample evidence that citizens' united has caused election year spending to skyrocket, which inherently favors those who have money to campaign.  If campaign spending is to be viewed as an investment, then those who donate millions must expect that sort of compensation and more in political favors.  In looking at political platforms, how does one respond to a platform that one finds objectionable on many levels? Are we not supposed to voice those opinions and concerns? 
 
I am deeply troubled by many things about Romney's platform. His stances seem to change by the hour--we could witness his "Etch-a-Sketch" in action even during different parts of the debate last night--and he seems disturbingly comfortable in telling even the most obvious lies. (He was fact checked numerous times in debate, once by the moderator). He has yet to produce anything remotely resembling a comprehensive tax reform plan, despite that being the major plank of his platform. There is just not much to support in the Romney platform, only the disappointment with Obama's four years. Something is seriously wrong when the vote for one candidate is primarily out of disdain for the other.

Meanwhile, we have right wing media demagogues such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Fox News, et. al., who have been constantly attacking from the right. Obama's a socialist; he's not a citizen; he's after our guns; he's after our money; he wants to kill grandma; he wants to murder your special needs child; bla bla bla. (Not going to dignify these claims with hyperlinks.)  These attacks are not limited to the fringe airwaves, but have made it into the mainstream Republican Party platform also. Was the Kansas AG not just weighing whether to have Obama on the ballot the other week based on his citizenship? Did Mitch McConnell not say that the Republicans' number one priority would be to see to it that Obama only has one term? Have the Republicans made any real efforts at true bipartisanship--beyond demanding that Obama and democrats give way to their agenda? Did they not drive the nation to the brink of debt default and break our credit rating, only because securing 90% of their agenda in the "compromise" package was not enough?  Do these same Republicans not now have the brass to blame Obama for the impending fiscal cliff that they created through absolute refusal of compromise?  Have the Republicans in Senate not used the filibuster in unprecedented ways these last four years? Something has gone seriously wrong.

And the attacks from the Right Wing do not stop there. They have constantly attacked issues of women's equality and issues of women's health, often demonizing and marginalizing the vulnerable in the process.  Todd Akin's claims about "legitimate rape", for example, may have met the GOP's official scorn, but his remarks are far from isolated, and were in fact echoed in the platform the Republican Party put out that week.  Republicans have made homophobia a selling point in their platform. Railing against the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, portraying equal rights as "special rights".  I am not gay myself, but having friends who are, such attacks seem deeply personal.  I am most certainly a Christian, and I take deep offense in the implication that one narrow interpretation of these two issues, relatively peripheral by any Biblical standard, should serve as a litmus test.

Something has gone seriously wrong when Ryan's budget plan--which would slash taxes in a manner to overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, while gutting budgets for social programs, for health programs, and for education, even as it calls for defense spending increases to more than swallow those cuts--seems to meet such wild embrace among conservatives.

The plan, which is about all we have seen in Romney's budget--though if Romney has abandoned it, continues to embrace it, or what is not clear--is immoral. It demands that the poor and middle class pay for the luxuries of the already wealthy through lost benefits. This is brazen wealth redistribution.  Combine this with Romney's now famous comments about 47% of the population that he made behind closed doors to wealthy donors, or Ryan's comments about 40%, and we see a pattern that should be absolutely troubling.

This is not what Obama is saying about Romney or the Republicans. This is not what Democrats are saying about Romney or the Republicans. This is what Romney/Ryan and the Republicans are touting as their platform, what they are saying about themselves.  I am genuinely troubled by the divisive direction of the Republican party has chosen, and for the life of me cannot comprehend why so many people do not seem to see it, or worse, actively encourage it.

So, how am I supposed to respond to all of this? As much as I wish I could let it slide. I wish I could maintain optimism that maybe Romney/Ryan will not be as bad as their rhetoric. Yet eight years of Bush makes me think that such optimism would only be foolishness: Two wars on credit.  Economic disaster.  Attempted editorial interference with NPR, PBS, and other public media agencies that were simply doing their jobs of reporting.  My way or the highway "bipartisanship" from Bush, which made one's embrace of the GOP platform the litmus test of one's patriotism.  Does this make me part of the problem of polarization, or has one side simply made itself so objectionable that it is not fit for consideration?

To be sure, I am not 100% satisfied with Obama. I am uncomfortable with his frequent usage of predator drones, and though I would hesitate to make Anwar al-Awlaki a poster child, I do not like the notion that the administration can order the death of an American without due process.

I wish Obama would have made a stronger effort to get Cap and Trade passed. Our environment is at the brink and beyond, and it seems that this should have been a greater priority.  At the same time, I am very much in support of the strides Obama made toward greater energy efficiency and toward renewable energy in the stimulus packages and through grant priorities.  Like any new field of technology, some initiatives and investments have met with greater success than others, and only steady investment, even through failures, will achieve eventual progress. 

I wish Obama would have made comprehensive immigration reform a higher priority in his agenda. The kind so many had hoped for. The kind that would treat immigrants with dignity and respect, without splitting families.  The kind that would extend opportunity to children of immigrants, who in many cases were brought here and raised from when they were young, and who know no other homeland.  To be sure, Obama has made several attempts to get the DREAM act passed, and has since issued an executive order form of the legislation, but this is only a start.

I wish Obamacare--a term of attack and demonization from the Right, by the way, but which Obama has managed to successfully reclaim and re-frame--would have included a public option.  Obama cannot be faulted for lack of bipartisan concessions here; the healthcare legislation was weaker for it.  I wish it would have gone even further.  Though I believe Obama brought this as far as politically possible, and its importance as a start toward something greater is not to be underestimated.

In the end, I am satisfied that Obama has made efforts to work in all of these directions, including immigration and the environment and that he has, for the most part, kept the needs of the middle class in his sights during his Presidency.  Even as Obama has fallen short, his goals have been worth striving for. 

Myths we should avoid this election season.

One thing I’ve been thinking about recently is how much outright wrong things float around in our society. It is sort of the cost of doing business, of course, being animals having a human experience. Our brains are designed for the ancestral environment more so than precise evaluation of truth and falsehood in the real world around us. We believe people we like more than we should, we find patterns when they don’t exist, we pay much more attention to emotional issues than statistical analysis. In his book Predictably Irrational Dan Ariely explores why human beings believe the crazy things that we do (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/ariely-tt0409.html).
One of the classic places we see this is suspicion of science-there is no better way known to humans to determine what is really real than the scientific method and large scale statistical analysis. Scientists make lots of mistakes-many untrue things get published, but anything that endures the long term rigor of statistical evaluation is almost certainly true. Yet suspicion of real things like global warming, evolution, and other scientific results are widespread.

Our politics are filled with completely bogus arguments, with significant national figures saying things that are fundamentally untrue, and this week, we got a Doozy, when Missouri representative Todd Aikin explained pregnancy from rape “is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
To be clear, no part of this is true at all. It’s just a lie, made up by pro-life activists, because it makes us feel bad to insist that a woman who has been raped must bring that child to full term.

So, in honor of representative Todd Aikin,
A top 10 list of things no one should believe:
10) space aliens (not that intelligent life on another planet is impossible, just that no one has ever seen it here).
9) Most people with same sex attraction can be ‘cured’ of their desires.
8) Immunizations cause autism (not to suggest you can't be allergic to immunizations created with chicken eggs. Just that autism is not one of the side effects).
7) it is OK for someone who has abused children in the past to be left alone with a child again (please, don’t do this. Even if someone is ‘fully recovered’ there is no good reason to let this happen).
6) President Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii.
5) someone other than Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11.
4) slavery wasn't the primary cause of the civil war.
3) global warming doesn't exist (I'm willing to moderate this to something softer, like "the chances that man made global warming is happening right now and will continue in the future are less than 95%").
2) the moon landing was a fake.
1) women have magical ovaries that protect them from getting pregnant when raped (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/how-often-does-rape-lead-to-pregnancy/261307/).

I’ve got lots more-
Jewish bankers secretly control the world.
women 'ask for' sexual assault.
There are significant innate intellectual differences between African Americans and white Americans.
there are significant holes in the theory of evolution.
JFK murder theories, other than the Lee Harvey Oswald.
tax cuts raise revenue.
cutting government spending in a recession helps the economy.
I don't need anybody.
Mayans could predict the end of the world.
putting people in jail helps rehabilitate them.
President Obama is a socialist in some significant way that Mitt Romney is not a socialist.
Any I’ve forgotten?
If you believe these things, mark your beliefs to market, and quit it.

The Hand of God.

God responds to pontifications of Falwell and Robertson

In every disaster, whether we are talking about a tornado, a hurricane, a flood, or a mass shooting, as was the case this last weekend in Aurora, Colorado, there are always a number of people who fare better than others.  Amidst the pain and sorrow, some of which is so powerful that hope for the future is obscured, there is also a great amount of gratitude that things were not as bad as they might have been. All of these are healthy, natural responses to disaster.

The discussion becomes particularly interesting when one reaches into the realm of theology.  In every disaster, it is almost inevitable that some Atheists will question how a "merciful God" could allow such things to happen.  One can only describe such a remark as being in horrible taste.  These folks choose the moment of disaster to attempt to win an argument, the result of which could ultimately destroy what little the disaster victim has left, the very thing that might be keeping him or her going.

On the other side, it is equally inevitable that folks will emerge who credit the grace of God for sparing their house or life even as those of others were destroyed.  In many ways, I find this line of reasoning to be equally tactless.  This sort of theology has implications that are puzzling at best.  If God saves or protects one person from harm, does God not also fail or refuse to protect others in the situation?  And if God is in the business of saving people from disaster, then how does God decide who ought to be saved?  It seems like Jesus himself says that the sun rises and the rain falls on the righteous along with the wicked (Matthew 5:45).

Of course, examples of this sort of this theology get even more extreme.  During the week of MDS service in Alabama, we had opportunity to listen to one of the clients.  His home had sustained significant damage in the tornadoes of 2011, and MDS had just completed the repairs.  The gentleman explained that his son had been a preacher, but had died of cancer the night of the storms.  The man and his wife returned home from the hospital to find that a tree in their front yard had been uprooted and sent through their roof, but damage was restricted mostly to the garage, although the rest of the house was in disarray.  In a typical display of tornado force, the chain from the man's bathtub drain plug had been driven through the tile of his wall without so much as cracking the tile. The man explained that their home had gotten off relatively lightly, compared to the rest of the neighborhood, which was all but leveled.  "God protected our house," said he.  "But it made the devil so mad that he destroyed the rest of the neighborhood."

Really?  Especially if I were the man's neighbor, I would have some major problems with that theological explanation.  Is this guy really suggesting that he was saved from disaster because of his own worthiness vis-á-vis his neighbors?  Although I suppose his belief is genuine, and its implications not fully thought through, I just have difficulty believing that God had anything to do with the natural disaster at hand in Alabama.

This gentleman's account, however pales in comparison to the assessments that the likes of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell have made of such events as 9/11, the earthquake in Haiti, the hurricane in New Orleans, the tsunami in Japan, and many others.  The details of their pontifications do not bear repeating, but you can follow the links if you cannot remember.  These people besmirch the good name of Christianity just as much as those who would use these events to prove absence of a merciful God do atheism.  There is no compelling evidence to suggest that God has anything to do with disasters that are the natural byproduct of our tectonic plates and weather systems; even less evidence to suggest God is behind tragedies such as 9/11, Aurora, Columbine, or other such human caused disasters.

Moreover, my understanding of God's involvement in any of these things is functionally quite atheistic. I do not see the hand of God at work in disasters, natural or human.  I do not see the devil at work, either, for that matter.  What happened in Denver was an individual actor.  Many of these happen every day, though on a lesser scale.  Nevertheless, they do not represent the devil at work. 

On a broader scale, the concept of powers and principalities of evil is a good description of my understanding for those common motives that seem to develop lives of their own to cause harm to real people; for example, excessive profit motives that cause disregard for the environment, for human life, for common decency.  In one of his sermons, my friend Alan Stucky provided an excellent description of this understanding of powers and principalities, particularly related to the development of oil fields in Harper County, Kansas, where he lives and pastors the Pleasant Valley Mennonite Church.  Because of the money involved with oil, oil company employees, drifters, and profiteers have flocked to the county, occupying all available hotel and rental space.  Because they can earn more rent money in this market, land lords increase their tenant's rent, often doubling it overnight and driving it beyond rates their tenants can afford.  Those who have land prosper, but the sudden wealth can have negative consequences also, and so on.  Listen to his sermon; it is worth the time.

Similarly, the work of God is not so much tied up in the miraculous, but in what we do for our neighbors.  The ability to recognize a need and seek to meet that need without recompense.  The ability to forgive and hope for better in the face of tragedy.  The ability to shirk the powers and principalities to other people's benefit.  In many ways, the hand of God is our own.

Obamacare: Why We Should Be Glad it Passed Constitutional Muster, and why the Media Constantly Gets it Wrong

Before reading further, take this quiz here.  Do not worry, I am not interested in keeping score, but it is clear and apparent that not many folks know exactly what is in Obamacare.  I blame the media, which in its lazy fashion, has taken to the tact of polling people about what they think is in the law, rather than what is actually in the law itself. 

This past Thursday marked a milestone in the Supreme Court.  Nobody expected that Justice John Roberts would join the liberal four justices in finding The Affordable Care  Act to be constitutional.  Without going too much into the details of the decision, it is clear that the alternative would have been disaster.  The dissenting opinion called for the complete destruction of the measure and effectively limit the powers of the federal government to the point that future attempts at health care reform would be rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible.  Because the healthcare situation, with its rising costs and diminishing coverage is untenable, the Supreme Court's decision is certainly cause for celebration.

Admittedly, there are significant flaws to Obamacare.  Regardless of subsidies, extensions of medicaid and other provisions, some people will fall through the cracks.  Because Obamacare is completely based on private insurance with no public option, this could be a boon for insurance companies, increasing both their profits and their control of the market.  While some progress was made on the prescription drug front, the price controls remain minimal.  Obamacare can as such be best viewed as a step toward a final solution, rather than a solution in and of itself.

Even so, Obamacare marks the single greatest achievement of the Obama administration so far, and represents the greatest extension of health care benefits in more than a generation.  Yet Obamacare remains unpopular, with a slight majority of Americans disapproving of it.   Most of Obamacare's provisions, with the exception of the much maligned individual mandate are popular, if one asks about those measures independently.  The provisions of this mammoth act are manifold, which might be one reason for its much maligned length.  Among other things, Obamacare:

• Bans discrimination against patients for pre-existing conditions or illness.  No longer will a child with diabetes be charged outlandish rates for health insurance, and no longer will someone with cancer in their past be denied coverage because there is a risk of recurrence.  

• Guarantees that anyone under 25 may remain on their parents' health insurance.  No longer is coverage cut the minute a person leaves college, but extends to allow him or her to establish themselves in a job with such benefits.

• Aims to make health care affordable to just about anyone through exchanges.  Those who are not insured through their employers (or those who opt out of their employers' coverage) may receive group coverage anyway at similar rates.

• Mandates that everyone in the country who can afford it purchase health insurance, and issues fines for those who refuse to purchase insurance.  Though much maligned, this provision is absolutely necessary, since insurance companies would no longer remain solvent otherwise.  
  
  Think about it.  The insurance companies are required to ignore pre-existing conditions in offering insurance and figuring rates.  This is a boon for those patients who need treatment, of course, but everyone else could simply ride the system, buying insurance only when they become ill and need care.  The insurance companies would thus be servicing only the sick, who inherently generate more costs than revenue.  A deep pool of healthy patients has always been necessary to keep insurance companies afloat, all the more so since insurance companies will no longer be able to choose their market.

• Provides tax incentives to businesses that offer health insurance, while penalizing those businesses with 50 or more employees who refuse to provide coverage.  

• Provides income-based subsidies to help make insurance affordable to as many people as possible.

• Increases the minimum qualification for medicare, offering a safety net to catch many of those who are not otherwise able to get healthcare even after subsidies.

• Puts a "tax" on those people who are financially able, yet refuse to buy insurance because they are healthy now, and can buy in when they are sick anyway.  Some people seem to dislike this tax.   Ironically, these are the same clowns that go around griping about welfare queens.  If you can afford health insurance and refuse to get coverage, you are making the rest of us pay your way.   You are the very leach you are complaining about. 

I have not listed everything in the bill of course, but the bill is readily available online, and healthcare.gov is a good resource to find out how one is affected by specific aspects of the bill. In short though, the act promises to make healthcare available to more Americans than ever before and to ensure affordable rates. With this Supreme Court ruling, not only is this modest improvement to our healthcare system preserved, but so too are the tools to fix it even better in the future.

Happy birthday, USA....kind of.

It is interesting that many folks regard July 4, 1776 as "the birthday of the United States." When the Declaration of Independence was signed, little changed for the 13 colonies. They had been fighting the British for about a year and the war was to last until 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed by the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, which ended hostilities and recognized the sovereignty of the US. Therefore one could say that September 3, 1783 is the “birthday of the US,” however it was not until the following year that the Treaty was ratified by the US and Great Britain. The Congress of the Confederation ratified it in January of 1784 and Great Britain did the same in April, with the ratified documents being exchanged on May 12, 1784. Then, one may ask, the “birthday of the US” is sometime in 1784? I would answer no.

It would be another three years, on September 17, 1787, until the Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Convention and George Washington elected the first President of the United States. In the years between 1781 (when the Articles of Confederation were adopted) and 1787 the United States was a confederation of largely independent states who handled their own foreign and military policies, produced their own currencies, etc. The Articles of Confederation made state’s rights the priority and established a weak central government which turned out to be unsustainable, a lesson that was to be relearned in the Civil War when the Confederate States of America were severely hampered by the priority of state’s rights.[1]

Though the Constitution was adopted in 1787, it was not ratified by all 13 states until May 29, 1790 and in March of the following year the Bill of Rights was ratified. So in all honesty, the United States of America, as we know of it today, did not reach infancy until 1790, a full 14 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. If we are going to celebrate the “birthday of the US” we should really be celebrating it on May 29, not July 4 which celebrates the signing of the Declaration of Independence which was the first explicate statement of the intentions of the rebellion of the colonies.

[1] A good example of this was the different gauges of rail roads in the southern states. Because each state had its own gauge goods had to be moved from one trail to another when being transported across state lines. In times of war this is a huge hindrance when troops and supplies need to be moved quickly and efficiently.

Mennonite Disaster Service, Birmingham, AL

This past week, I went with some other folks from the Saint Louis Mennonite Fellowship to Birmingham, Alabama, where we participated in the work of Mennonite Disaster Service, cleaning up and repairing damage from tornadoes that ripped through the area in April 2011.  A year later, much new construction and repair is evident, but damaged homes and mangled trees continue to mangle the landscape, with some areas looking much more like wilderness than the suburban developments they once were.
A team of ten volunteers from Virginia joined our team of seven in Birmingham, and together with the permanent staff of six, we worked to put four of the properties back into good repair and order.  We replaced a roof, that a falling tree had destroyed.  We cleaned up mold and mildew in the house from one year of exposure to the elements, replacing contaminated drywall, insulation, and  broken windows. At other sites, teams reframed rooms, built decks, painted walls, and tiled floors.

Only relatively few in our group had significant construction experience, but working together, we were able to achieve dramatic results by week's end.  Many in our group, including me, came home with a new skills.  Most importantly, four families were closer to moving back into their homes.

With the number of people and properties still in need of repair work, there are certainly more projects in Birmingham than the MDS unit can handle, but every contribution helps, and MDS is working in a much larger network of aid agencies, providing manual labor for Habitat for Humanity, United Way, and other such organizations' construction projects.  Wherever disaster strikes, whether it be tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, or wildfires, MDS units are not far behind to work to put lives and hope back in order. 

Just a plug for MDS.  The week brought other experiences that I will discuss also.