So they have uncovered yet another politician who has been unfaithful to his wife. Let the recriminations begin! "How could he have let us down?" "How could he have been so hypocritical—considering his statements regarding another politician in a similar situation?" "How could he have been so insensitive to his ailing wife?" "How could he have shamelessly lied to the American public?"

Interestingly, though, it seems that despite the outrage expressed by pundits and politicians, many average fellows are willing to forgive Mr. Edwards for his transgression. This past Friday I was listening to the radio as I was washing the dishes in preparation for Shabbat when the story broke—immediately the news stations dispatched reporters to the streets to gather public reaction. Most of the people expressed disappointment in Edwards' behavior, but also indicated that he is only human, like the rest of us, and humans make mistakes.

We pride ourselves in a government that is "of the people, by the people, for the people." Our elected officials are supposed to be a representative sampling of their constituents—not some sort of higher caste. Is it then fair to expect of them to be morally superior than the rest of us? And considering that, sadly, extramarital affairs are – to put it lightly – hardly a freak occurrence in American society, it's understandable why many people are willing to forgive a politician who is guilty of infidelity.

Count me in on this one. I agree with the people on the street. No, I'm not excusing him for his inexcusable behavior, but I think that Edwards – just like so many of his fellow citizens, both men and women – is a victim of a society that places him in settings and situations that are optimal breeding grounds for affairs—and at the same time expects him to be chastely faithful. Yes, Edwards is responsible for his behavior and the deserved consequences—but, please, stop painting him as the Satan incarnate! A little perspective please!

I believe all other factors combined – the loosening of moral standards and estrangement from religion included – are not as instrumental in causing the epidemic of marital infidelity as is the complete "normalization" of cross-gender relations. People are regularly placed in situations somewhat akin to placing a weight-challenged person in a home full of delicious, fattening foods, and expecting him or her to settle for the rice cakes on the bottom shelf of the pantry. I say "somewhat akin" because the craving for sweets or fatty foods is scarcely on par with the human's desire for sexual gratification. Ask Freud all about it...

If we are to stem this epidemic – and the resulting heartbreak, marital strife, high divorce rates, etc. – we must eliminate the settings that spawn such affairs.

Yes, I certainly recognize that this is the 21st century, and, for the better or for the worse, we can't eliminate inter-gender encounters. But we can greatly reduce the casual and friendly atmosphere common to these encounters. There should be a difference in the way we converse with a member of the opposite gender. Chitchatting, sarcasm, teasing, witticisms, etc.—these all create a dangerous ambiance of warmth and closeness.

Most people who have affairs didn't start out looking to be unfaithful. Rather an "innocent" warm relationship takes on a life of its own, and suddenly emotions and attraction made it extremely difficult – though never impossible – to exercise self-control. The trick is to nip these relationships in the bud, before there's a chance for warm feelings to develop.

Jewish tradition has always recognized the crucial need to prevent potentially dangerous settings. This is the reason for the rules of yichud (the rabbinic prohibition precluding a man and woman who are not married to each other from being secluded together), the reason why Jewish tradition favors separate boys and girls schools, the reason why orthodox men and women won't shake hands with a member of the opposite sex, the reason why Jewish convention frowns on inter-gender socializing, etc.

Some might think that these are draconian measures. I ask, what is the alternative? A society where John Edwards is the norm?

This past Tuesday, Delta Airlines announced that customers traveling throughout the continental United States will soon be offered the added convenience of broadband Wi-Fi access onboard the airline's fleet. This service will be available to customers for a minimal flat fee, and will enable travelers with Wi-Fi enabled devices, such as laptops and PDAs, to access the internet, e-mail accounts, as well as SMS texting and instant messaging services.

In times past, communication was relegated to areas equipped with a landline. Time spent traveling – whether by land or air – was personal time. I remember when cell-phones first became popular, my father – a community rabbi who's on the phone all day and night – absolutely refused to consider getting one. "My time in the car," he would say, "is the only time when I get to think undisturbed by everyone and everything!" But the wheels of progress cannot be stopped, and eventually my father succumbed and joined the rest of civilization. Before long, the only plan that met his needs was one that included unlimited minutes... I'm not sure when he gets to think these days...

As network coverage areas slowly expanded, and as cell-phones – and then laptops, BlackBerrys and Palms – became standard personal accessories, it became increasingly difficult to ignore household and business responsibilities, no matter where a person found him or herself. But airplanes remained a peaceful oasis, the final holdout. Hours spent on a plane constituted a complete break with home and work (unless you happened to be on a plane equipped with a phone, and were willing to pay $36 per minute plus a $29.99 connection fee).

Well, looks like this will be coming to an end too. There will be no escape. You will be cruising at 40,000 feet and IMing your spouse, texting your secretary, and shooting off emails to your stockbroker—all while keeping track of your favorite team's score. The heavens will no longer be a haven.

We are currently in the Hebrew month of Av, when we mourn the destruction of the Holy Temples – both set ablaze on the 9th of this month – and our nation's nearly 2,000 year-long exile. Thousands of books wouldn't suffice to chronicle the suffering our people have endured during this time. As Jeremiah says (Lamentations 1:12), "Behold and see, is there any pain like my pain which has been dealt to me, with which G‑d saddened me on the day of His fierce anger?" Indeed, there is no need to burrow into our distant past. I need only speak to my grandmother – may she live and be well – who spent two years in Auschwitz; the stories she alone can recount would fill a library.

Indeed, I have vivid memories of Tisha b'Av in my father's synagogue; Holocaust survivors weeping as they read the Book of Lamentations and the elegies. They were mourning the loss of their parents and siblings, their friends and teachers.

But today many of us lead relatively happy lives. What is the meaning of Tisha b'Av for those of us lucky enough to be content with our jobs, have stable marriages, and lead relatively trouble-free lives? What if we don't feel the pain of exile? What if we happen to be on a proverbial plane soaring in a cloudless sky?

Well, now we have an answer. No matter how high we may be flying, we have no excuse to cut ourselves off from what's going on miles below. We must always maintain contact with those who aren't flying, those whose wings have been clipped by illness, a bad economy, or another misfortune—those who aren't as fortunate as we are. We must commiserate with them and, most importantly, we must always be ready to lend a helping ear and hand.

We are one nation. We mourn together. And one day very soon we will all celebrate together.

Note: Aside for commiserating with those less fortunate, in a spiritual sense, we are all equally exiled—and as such we need not look to others for a reason to lament our exiled state. For more on this idea, see Why We Mourn.

We are all painfully aware that oil prices have doubled over the last two years, and despite the fact that the price has recently fallen from its high of $147 a barrel, it is still at record levels. Here in the United States, the politicians have come up with all types of solutions. Some have advocated working harder to extract oil from Rocky Mountain oil shale. Others have suggested that the market be flooded with petrol from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Yet others advocate additional offshore drilling.

While many politicians are busy giving short term platitudes designed to placate the electorate, the marketplace is working on long term solutions to our crisis of oil dependency. Happily, Jewish innovators and business people are at the forefront of this effort.

Israeli Businessman Shai Agassi has created a company entitled Project Better Place which is working on an innovative model that will allow people to drive electric cars long distances without the need to stop and spend hours recharging the batteries. Agassi claims that by 2011 the infrastructure will be in place for Israelis to buy and drive only electric vehicles. There is a similar plan being rolled out by Project Better Place in Amsterdam, Portugal is set to follow suit, and is seems that the UK may also be interested in following the same model.

Also recently in the news was another prominent member of the Jewish community, former California Assembly speaker Bob Hertzberg, who just raised fifty million dollars for his latest renewable energy project. In addition, my friend Sam Jaffe has recently started a company that has technology with the potential to revolutionize the power of renewable energy. All of this Jewish focus on renewable energy technology is not only a great investment, it is a massive mitzvah and one of the major callings of our time.

There are two main issues at stake here, the first environmental and the second geopolitical—neither of which can be ignored and both of which are of Jewish interest.

In the story of creation the Torah alludes numerous times to the need to protect the environment. In fact there is a Midrash (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:13) that may relate directly to our usage and therefore destruction of irreplaceable fossil fuel. It talks about how G‑d warned Adam, the primordial man, not to ruin or destroy the planet because it is irreplaceable. Clearly the Torah would advocate using energy that can be renewed rather than using up the earth's resources that will never grow back.

However, there is a real geo-political concern here as well. The Middle East has 54% of identified oil reserves and is therefore the biggest exporter of crude. With oil at current high prices this is bringing them trillions of dollars a year. Simply put, giving unstable regions of the world that kind of wealth is madness.

As the Middle East becomes more and more radicalized, the possibility of an oil-rich country falling into the hands of terrorists is a potential reality. With our heavy reliance on their oil for our economic stability they could easily hold Western countries hostage. As it is there is evidence that our petrol dollars end up supporting the activities of terrorists that kill innocent – primarily Israeli – men, women and children. Freeing ourselves from the grips of Middle Eastern oil is literally a matter of life and death.

The Torah says (Leviticus 19:16): "You shall not stand idly by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood." Maimonides (Laws of Murder 1:13) explains this verse to mean that one who is able to save another and does not do so is considered themselves to be murderer. Clearly we are ethically obliged to do all that is in our power to avoid a situation that will result in the further loss of life.

The only way remove the immense oil revenues unstable Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran receive is by removing oil as a source of our energy. While the politicians are "standing idly by" those such as Shai Agassi, Bob Hertzberg, Sam Jaffe and their investors who are working towards total renewable energy reliance are doing mitzvot on multiple levels.

The Talmud says (Sanhedrin 37a), "One who saves one life is considered to have saved the entire universe." Indeed the alternative energy innovators and investors are saving the universe in more ways than one.

Daily news accounts focus on enough misery to drive anyone to horde freeze-dried foods and fresh water and head off to their Y2K survival shelters. At the top of the list are nuclear threats, terrorism, genocides, and an international shortage of Gulden's Brown Spicy Mustard.

Is optimism possible in the face of all this misery? And perhaps more importantly, even if there is reason to be optimistic about the future, is it socially responsible to focus on a bright future when the present is so bleak?

Before responding to this question, allow me to dispel some of the gloom and doom with a tidbit of good news: Tisha b'Av is coming! We're so excited about this day's approach that this past week we started a three week countdown to this day. And starting this Shabbat, we will intensify our anticipation during the final stretch of nine days leading up to Tisha b'Av. Be still my heart!!

Well, truth be told, this is a little premature. As I type this, Tisha b'Av still commemorates many tragedies, chiefly the destruction of the Temples and the ensuing exiles; it's a scheduled day of fasting and sorrow. The three week buildup is void of celebration, the "nine days" consumed with mourning.

Yet Maimonides writes that ultimately these tragic days will be joyously celebrated. Moshiach, and the changes he will inspire in the world, will expose the latent goodness and G‑dliness in events currently perceivable only as barbaric. But, mirroring the question I asked earlier: dare we return the emergency generator and store away the Scott M-95 military-grade gas mask? In these final moments, while we still await the Redemption, can we incorporate the future festive character of this season?

Let us draw insight from one of the darkest moments in our history, the day the Golden Calf was created.

It was the 16th of Tamuz. The Jewish people, less than six weeks since receiving the Torah at Sinai, panic at Moses' apparent delay in returning from the mountain top. Frustrated, a mob confronts Aaron and demands that he make for them a god. Hoping to deflate their zeal, Aaron instructs them to ask their wives for their jewelry for use in crafting their new deity. The Jews hotheadedness gets the better of their judgment and they eagerly offer up their own personal earrings and bracelets. Aaron, still hoping for his brother's return and an end to the madness, stalls, declaring: "Tomorrow will be a celebration for G‑d" (see Exodus 32).

The Midrash interprets this statement prophetically; indeed "tomorrow [the 17th of Tamuz] will be [in Moshiach's time] a celebration for G‑d."

Imagine Aaron's predicament. His holy nephew, Hur, was just trampled to death for his attempts to stop this mob. They are ready, willing and able to do the same to Aaron. His only option to save this gang of thugs from irreversible sin is to build them an idol. And in the midst of this chaos Aaron has the clarity to foresee and even proclaim: "tomorrow will be a 'festival' to G‑d"!

How often do we panic and abandon reason? The stock market dips and it's sell, sell, sell (at a loss) only to have it come back stronger. A good friend misses a lunch appointment and we are sure the relationship is doomed, and then she calls to reschedule. The printer won't work and we rush to spend $700 on a new one when it just needed toner!

The antidote is to always maintain perspective; never to drown in the darkness of the moment.

The Rebbe had the chutzpah to speak about redemption and Moshiach—despite Darfur, crumbling economies, and the like. It takes chutzpah to speak of a world that is filled with the pursuit of G‑dliness when the newspapers are filled with horrors. Like Aaron, the model of love for the Jewish people, the Rebbe alerted us to the good that is right now and the better that is coming, while tending to the nightmares of the moment.

No one was more keenly aware of the hardships of life than the Rebbe. His proclamations that Moshiach's arrival is imminent were not the product of Pollyanna hopefulness; they constituted a vision driven by true love of Israel and trust in G‑d's constant kindness.

The Three Weeks offer us a unique opportunity to discover good where there seems to be only darkness. The darkness demands that we reach down deep and find a genuine remedy for a hurting world, a healing salve, and not a mere band-aid.

May these days be transformed into days of joy now!

This past Wednesday, Israel and Hezbollah completed a prisoner swap. The bodies of IDF soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were returned to their families in exchange for the release of five convicted terrorists and the bodies of 200 more Arab fighters. One of the terrorists released, Samir Kuntar, was serving four life sentences for a triple murder—which included smashing the skull of a four-year-old girl.

Jews worldwide joined their Israeli brethren in mourning these two heroes. But opinions were sharply divided as to the prudence of the exchange. A statement released by the IDF said that "while the release of terrorists is certainly sad, such a move demonstrates a compelling moral strength which stems from Judaism, Israeli social values and from the spirit of the Israel Defense Forces." Yes, there was a high price to pay, but, according to many, the IDF has a moral obligation to bring back to their families those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Others disagree. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, both of Israel's intelligence agencies, the Mossad and the Shin Bet, opposed Kantar's release—but were overruled by political considerations. Releasing terrorists poses a double threat to Israel's security. Firstly, the murderers who were released have every intention – and have clearly stated as much – to continue precisely where they left off before being apprehended. Secondly, such exchanges effectively turn every Israeli soldier into a bargaining chip, and provide Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with incentive to, G‑d forbid, kidnap more and more. Many people, myself included, think that although bringing back bodies is a priority of the highest order, the price is too high. And this argument is only amplified by the fact that  – as repeatedly noted by the international media – the exchange was so egregiously lopsided.  

My question is, what would Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev say about this development? They joined the army – following the example of millions of courageous others in Israel's history – fully cognizant of the mortal danger involved. To them it was an honor. As Jews they understood that if deemed necessary, there is no greater privilege than to protect the lives of their brothers and sisters—even if this means sacrificing everything.

These two heroes who gave their all for their brothers and sisters, how would they feel about this exchange? What would they say about a move that can potentially jeopardize those people they died in order to protect?

This past week saw an exchange between Israel and Hezbollah. In exchange for five live terrorists who had killed innocent Israelis and the bodies of nearly two hundred dead terrorists, Israeli received the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

The swap not only was lopsided numerically – two dead bodies for five live murderers and two hundred additional dead bodies – it was also qualitatively unfair.

Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were soldiers doing their national duty guarding the border when they were ambushed, kidnapped and murdered by Hezbollah terrorists. Conversely, the terrorist who were returned were criminals and murderers who intentionally killed innocent men, women and children. And while Hezbollah terrorists were kidnapping and killing innocent Israeli soldiers, the Israelis were treating the imprisoned Hezbollah terrorists in a humane fashion. The contrast here could not be starker.

But the exchange between Israel and the Hezbollah was so painful and disturbing that, in my eternal search for optimism, I tried to find some light and hope. At first I thought that at least there is some type of common ground being show here. The Israelis and the Hezbollah have both recognized the pain of having fathers, brothers and sons in prisons and captivity rather than at home with those that love them, I thought. I surmised that at least both sides in this conflict have felt each other's pain—at least for as long as it took to do the prisoner exchange. Unfortunately however, all that wishful thinking was shattered by the mean facts.

Whilst Israel was mourning, the terrorist in Lebanon and elsewhere celebrated. This is where my theory of finding common ground disintegrated. One would have thought that if Israel was mourning the death of two fallen soldiers the terrorists would have mourned 100 times more for the 200 dead bodies that were returned to them. But all we saw was celebration. There seemed to be no mourning at all on the Arab side.

Simply put, these Islamic extremists have no respect for life. The celebrations seemed to have nothing to do with the fact that their people had been returned to them and everything to do with the fact that they had humiliated Israel by forcing them into such an unfair and seemingly idiotic prisoner exchange deal. If they really cared about their own people they would have struck a prisoner exchange deal with Israel much earlier on. The fact that they had such high demands and waited for so long demonstrates further that their real aim was to score points rather than to get their prisoners back.

In reality, however, the only people they humiliated were themselves. They have yet again shown their contempt for human life, even for the life of their own people. Hezbollah and these Islamic extremists have shown the world that even the death of two hundred of their own men does not move them. Israel, on the other hand, has proven, yet again, how much even one dead body is worth to them. In addition the fact that Israel did not execute Kuntar and the rest of the terrorists shows Israel's extreme – some might say excessive – respect for human life.

Unfortunately any comparison between the pain an Israeli mother feels when her child is held captive and what the other side feels in a similar situation is nothing but wishful thinking. Where a normal person feels pain they experience joy. While Israelis mourned the return of two murdered soldiers they celebrate the return of two hundred dead bodies.

As long as we face an enemy which venerates death in this way and holds human life in such contempt there is little hope for peace. In the face of such evil, however, Israel must stand strong and proud as it continues to do what is right—no matter how difficult it may be. We must remember that the real humiliation lies with those who don't even respect the lives of their own people.

Zimbabwe's recent presidential elections are still making international news headlines. Facing international condemnation and the threat of severe sanctions, President Robert Mugabe appears now agreeable to enter into talks with representatives of the opposition party.

A little background: This past June 28th, Mr. Mugabe won reelection to a new presidential term with more than 85% of the vote. A landslide victory by any measuring stick.

So why is the international community so outraged? For some reason, they are unhappy with some of the tactics Mugabe's henchmen used to secure this victory. They killed, brutally beat and destroyed the homes of anyone who expressed support for the opposition. The leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, actually withdrew his candidacy prior to the elections due to the violence. He said that his supporters faced being killed if they voted for him and that under such circumstances he could not ask them to do so. Mr. Tsvangirai now estimates that 90 of his supporters have been killed.

So here's my question: Why do dictators habitually schedule rigged elections? Why not just abolish them? The people's voice matters not to them, so why go through the effort? Is there anyone – within that country or internationally – who believes that these election results express the will of the people?

Iraq is another example. In October 2002, Saddam Hussein won reelection with 100% of the vote. Yes, there were 11,445,638 eligible voters—and every one of them voted for Hussein. Apparently his popularity had soared since the previous election in 1995, when Hussein garnered only 99.96% of the vote.

Oops, I almost forgot to mention that Hussein was the only candidate on the ballot and that the penalty for speaking badly about that sole candidate was de-tonguing. But you don't think that had any bearing on the election results, do you?

Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch, the fourth Chabad-Lubavitch Rebbe, once told the following to one of his followers who apparently exuded less-than-honest pious airs:

"Whom are you fooling? You are not fooling me, you are not fooling your fellows; you are only fooling yourself. Is it a great feat to fool a fool?"

How many times do people take stances which deep down they know isn't justified? Usually, people take such stances due to anger, hurt feelings, or to protect their egos or comfort zones. Yet, if someone will come and ask such a person to explain his behavior, he will provide an intelligent and coherent explanation—one which, of course, does not involve any ego. To the contrary, his position is based on his selflessness; in fact it pains him greatly to have to resort to such behavior...

This is true regarding our spiritual lives, too. How often do we choose to do something we know to be detrimental to our spiritual wellbeing, or conversely, to abstain from doing a mitzvah—while providing a justification which we know doesn't hold water?

Whom are we fooling? Not G‑d. And not our family or friends either. They are a little brighter than we give them credit for.

Thankfully, the world is progressively ridding itself of tyrannical dictators. Next on the agenda? Let's all get rid of the little foolish, self-delusional, self-justifying dictator within each of us.