I apologize for the lack of articles as of late. Work has taken up much of my free time over the past few weeks. Hopefully that will pass soon. In the mean time, I had a few thoughts on three similar topics that I wanted to share with you.

What does the term “hallowed ground” truly mean? Essentially, it is an area that is deemed to be sacred and set apart. Churches, for example, are said to be built on hallowed ground. The same is true for cemeteries and areas that have seen a great loss of life. So it was interesting that I’ve heard the term hallowed ground mentioned in three separate news stories over the past week.

During the debate over the proposed mosque near the World Trade Center site, President Obama stated that “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” But just how far does that hallowed ground stretch? Is it just the area around the footprints of the fallen buildings? The distance where debris fell into the surrounding blocks? Or is it arbitrary depending on what is being developed around it?

In a similar story, Mindy Crawford from the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, “It is altogether fitting and proper that gambling be kept away from Gettysburg’s hallowed ground.” But where does the hallowed ground end? Just in the area where the main fighting took place? Within the National Park boundary? How about the greater area outside of the Park?

The last story I heard was a renewed debate over the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at funerals for fallen soldiers. Chief US District Judge Fernando Gaitan struck down a Missouri law that barred inflammatory protests outside the funerals, stating that it violated the First Amendment by placing restrictions of free speech. In the law was a requirement to bar protests within 300 feet of the funeral.

So how should we define hallowed ground, and who should make the determination of where it begins and ends? These three examples about are difficult to resolve because it is emotion-based and subjective. Is it disrespectful to build a Mosque two blocks away from the World Trade Center? Or a casino a half-mile away from the Gettysburg National Park? How about protests outside the gates of a cemetery?

For me, the I think the last is the easiest to answer. I doubt a loving God would want his followers to protest the funerals of troops who died during war. There should be some limit on “where” such protests can be held. Such limitations have held up in court, since it is a common practice within Washington, DC to bar protests from certain areas around the Capitol building and White House.

The question over the casino would be the next easiest answer. The National Park engulfs a large area of the battle field as well as the neighboring cemeteries. Building a casino a half-mile away should not be an issue, especially since archaeologists will be brought in before any major ground-breaking and construction begins. Additionally, the casino could result in increased awareness of major Civil War battle site, and the revenue from the casino could increase the educational resources for visitors to the Park.

The hardest question is that for the Mosque. While it is true that it was Islamic terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11th, it wasn’t an act by Muslims as a whole (if so, then we would have to worry about 7 Million Muslims in the United States). So building a Mosque near the WTC site just for that narrow reason alone should not be an issue.

The issue comes to the politics behind building the Mosque. Reports show that there is a low population of Muslims in Lower Manhattan, so there isn’t a “demand” for the center in that area. Is the Mosque being built as a poke in the eye to Americans, or is it being built as a bridge to a better understanding of Islam? If it is for any reason other than a slight towards the United States, then I don’t see why it can’t be relocated. After all, if you are going to invest that much money, you would want it to be easily accessible for your congregation. However, if it is for the other reason, which it sounds like it is, then I’m sure the developer will find many more obstacles for development, making it financially prohibitive in the long run.

In short, I think you should take away from all of this one simple note. No matter what you do in life, stop and think about how others might view your actions and how it will impact their lives. In this faster pace life of ours, we tend to act first and think second. If we just slow that process down a little, we can take others into consideration, and make wiser decisions that not only benefit ourselves but also those around us. That, I think, would be a great way to remember all of those who went before us to give us this great nation we have today.

NOTE:  I will try to get the Political Blog Weekly published tomorrow.  If not, I will incorporate it into next weekends edition.

I was reading some of the articles through SeededBuzz this weekend and I came across one from the Northwood Clinic.  In their article, they asked:

So here’s my BIG thought for the day. If you had a month to do anything you like, how would you spend it. On the beach, with your family, reading book after book, learning a language. The list is endless and I would like to read about how you would spend the perfect month away from the normal daily routines.

My “perfect month.” That is so open ended, it is difficult to answer. I could spend a month watching movies and playing games, or visiting old friends that live out of state, or even start up a new pet project.  Our friends over at This, That, and The Other has stated that traveling to Colorado and Pennsylvania would be on their list if they had a free month.  Then the thought came to mind – how about something for our country?

One of the things I might do is donate a week on the Gulf Coast. With the 5th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina just around the corner, I could easily spend a week volunteering my time in the communities that are still recovering from the historic storm. Be it building new homes, restoring the natural environment, or helping with charity drives, donating my time to them would be very self-gratifying as well as beneficial to those in need.

For my second week, I think I would give back to our troops. During the day, I could volunteer my time visiting the troops who are recovering from their injuries after returning from the Middle East. This will be very emotionally trying, so in the evenings I would greet our troops who are flying home as a positive emotional balance.

Next, I think a week spending time with the local schools and libraries would be great to influence the next generation. Reading storybooks and helping with their math studies would be activities I could easily assist with, and it would be a positive boost for both the kids and myself.

Lastly, a week visiting our nations historical landmarks would be a nice way to wrap up the month. I could take many pictures of the sites and write up articles about them to share my experiences. How knows, maybe we would discover something new about out pasts.

This would be a very rewarding month; something I could look back on with a sense of pride. Of course, I could do a lot of this right now. Unfortunately, my “excuse” of work and other life activities gets in the way. So maybe it’s not a “free month” that I should be looking for, but rather a change of mindset and priorities. With that, I could actually spend more than a month giving back to the country that has given me so much.

So what would you do for your country if you could spend a month away of life’s responsibilities?

On Monday, The New York Times ran an Op-Ed piece entitled “We’re Not Ready” by Bob Herbert.  In the article, Herbert made the argument that the US was not ready for an expansion in nuclear energy based upon the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico.  He states:

There is no way to overstate how cautiously we need to proceed along this treacherous road. Building nuclear power plants is mind-bogglingly expensive, which is why you need taxpayer money to kick-start the process. But the overriding issues we need to be concerned about, especially in light of our horrendous experience with the oil gushing in the gulf for so long, are safety and security.

Safety is obviously a major concern with nuclear power. We have to just look back at the terrible accident at Chernobyl to see how a major nuclear accident can be devastating. Domestically, we have the Three Mile Island accident 30 years ago to use as a warning of how close we came to a major nuclear catastrophe of our own. This incident froze our development of nuclear power in the US while the nation was still suffering from the oil crisis of the 1970s.

However, I have to disagree with the general conclusion of Herbert’s article. When it comes to the nuclear energy debate, there is a fine line between being cautious and being afraid. In my opinion, Herbert sounds like he is afraid. He faults our faith in technology for the Gulf oil spill, and then ties that with the fear of a nuclear disaster on land. The problem with that argument is that it wasn’t the technology that caused the oil spill, but rather operational mismanagement.

Nuclear power plants are naturally designed to numerous emergency fail-safes because of the fear of an accident. These systems were in place even dating back to the Three Mile Island incident because people understood the risk associated with this form of energy. Plus, the fact that the “47 instances since 1979″ cited in the article were not major accidents highlight how the operators take performance and safety seriously. (He failed to note that oil refineries, drilling platforms, coal mines, and other energy producers also have a history of having to suspend production because of malfunctions or system failures.)

Some of Herbert’s fear can be eased with the introduction of Pebble Bed Reactors that are currently in development. This technology is naturally cooled by inert gas rather than water, so there is no contaminated water or concerns over corrosion caused by the water. Additionally, these reactors are designed to handle high temperatures, so if there is a failure in the cooling system, the concern over a potential meltdown is reduced compared to a conventional plant.

These upgrades in plant design are leading the nuclear energy production industry into a safer, more practical approach to power generation than 30 years ago. Combine those advances with the by-the-book operation of US nuclear power plants today, careless accidents similar to the Gulf oil spill do not occur domestically. Herbert is right that we should be cautious, but his fear should not stop of from moving into the next generation of domestic power production. And with President Obama wanting to place 1 Million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015, nuclear energy is currently the only source of power generation that could meet that demand.