How many times have you heard someone who has sincerely held religious beliefs referred to as being . .. off the deep end.

Deep end of what? A pool with a safe shallow side for wading and splashing like a child? A lake with a safe shore for standing up to your ankles in luke warm water? An ocean where the depths have swallowed ships whole while the shallow end entertains and caresses our suntanned bodies?

It sounds as though people who are in the deep end of life . . . are exploring the depths of their spiritual existence, and understanding their relationship with God and His purpose in their lives.

They are having far more fun than those standing on the shore throwing stones at them. But isn’t it interesting, that even being “off the deep end,” that these people never seem to sink?

What is it that keeps people of faith bouncing back, buoyant on life’s waves?

Could it be that the deep end holds more revelation and mystery than those in the shallow end are willing to accept or believe?

But it is a very large pool . . . and it has a deep end for a purpose . . . to jump in and use.

This is Nina May, exploring the deep end of life. Join us for a dip, at ninamay.com.

While the government gives lip service to protecting the integrity of the Internet, the perverts still keep pumping their garbage into it.

But instead of complaining, or suing, or being run off-line, people are doing something about it. They are getting either software blockers or signing up for filtered Internet access.

People are also protesting mindless sitcoms, by turning off their sets. Even the sponsors are soliciting new script ideas that they can feel proud to put their names on.

And with video rentals everywhere, you can determine the type of shows your family will see instead of being blind-sided in a new release that says its ok for kids, but its not.

So even though the government, who usually is involved with every detail of our lives, has decided to be hands off in the culture war, the real government . . . which is us . . . is taking an active role. And its not censorship, its choice.

We are choosing entertainment that doesn’t defile, isn’t inane, doesn’t rob our children’s innocence, or invade our privacy at home.

Now isn’t this better than waiting for new laws to be passed?

The Clinton Administration has decided that East Timor deserves its independence after a referendum indicates that is what they want. And of course we saw the U.S. policy toward Kosovo as it struggled for independence.

It seems as though in any conflict around the world, where a portion of one country decides it wants to be liberated from the main country… that the U.S. is there to oblige them.

But why isn’t that the policy with Taiwan as it relates to China? Why does the United States continue to ignore the fact that Taiwan is a separate nation, with a political system totally different from mainland China… and that they are clearly autonomous?

Everyone plays polite lip service to the Chinese and refers to Taiwan as being part of the one, real China, when we all know better.

Why is independence from Indonesia so necessary for the Timorese, or independence of Kosovo from Serbia, but Taiwan is denied that same support? And if they are supposed to be one country… why does mainland China constantly threaten to invade Taiwan? And why are we prepared to intervene if they do?

Just curious. This is Nina May at ninamay.com asking what you think.

Several years ago a friend of mine told me what he witnessed during the liberation of one of the death camps in Germany during World War Two.

Because his job was to disarm the mines set by the Germans, he was in the first wave of soldiers to arrive at the camps.

He said he was so overwhelmed with grief and anger at what he saw, that he and his friends immediately began letting the prisoners free.

Even as emaciated and frail as the men were, they became like wild animals and began attacking the German guards.

He said the hardest thing he has ever had to do was to round the prisoners back up and put them back in the cells . . . not for their protection . . . but for the protection of their persecutors.

He knew they were justified in their anger, to attack the guards who had robbed them of their lives . . .their freedoms, their dignity.

Our soldiers knew they had a moral obligation to protect these men .. . even as guilty as they were, from being killed by their victims.

So, the question is, do Serbians citizens today deserve at least the same protection as Nazi soldiers did 50 years ago? I would hope as a civilized country the answer would be “yes.”

Many people are applauding the new move to put surveillance cameras in classrooms, halls, bathrooms and other areas in schools.

Although this seems like a wonderful solution to protect students, what we are doing is training a new generation of kids to accept surveillance as a part of life.

We are telling them that their constitutional rights are fungible and can be exchanged for the “hope” of a safer environment.

This is the same nanny state that monitors everything from the temperature of coffee to what types of conversations are acceptable at office water coolers.

As a country, we have willingly given up more and more rights in the name of a safer society, yet people still burn themselves with hot coffee.

The answer is not to punish the innocent by treating them as common criminals in a prison . . . the answer is accountability and setting standards and rules that will automatically cull out the troublemakers.

Lines at airports are insufferably long because a handful of people abused their freedom and now the rest of the world suffers.

Punishment is a far better motivator for the one bad apple, than holding the rest of the barrel hostage to their behavior.

So Warren Beatty wants to be President. I don’t know why we are surprised . . . a President’s wife wants to be Senator, a wrestler is governor . . . why not an actor for President?

This might finally silence the anti-Reagan detractors. But if Warren wants to be President, he is going to need a bigger platform than just “getting big money out of politics” and “changing economic disparities in American life.”

Of course to exemplify his concern for the plight of the less fortunate, he is surrounding himself with very wealthy people as advisors. But where does he stand on school vouchers that would benefit the poor?  Tax cuts that help the middle class, and deregulation of government that would help everyone?

He claims to be a sixties liberal which is now very status quo. Where is the revolution?

It might work in a movie having a millionaire actor playing the part of the voice of the down-trodden. But it will be a little hard to swallow worn-out, socialist rhetoric, about redistribution of wealth, while the spokesman is a millionaire.

His wealthy advisors need to tell him that no matter how good an actor he is . . . this will be a very difficult role to play.

If you ever want to see what the polls really say, listen to what a politician is saying when he is running for office… not what he says after he is elected.

Take Al Gore for example.

As Vice President Gore, he stood solidly behind Bill Clinton, never questioning, never doubting and even going to so far as to say he is one of the greatest presidents we have ever had.

On the day of his impeachment, Clinton is presented by Gore as a hero who has just saved a village or who has rescued an elderly lady from a burning car. Not an ounce of remorse, shame or contrition.

Now, candidate Gore says that what Clinton did was wrong, and we need to get back to moral basics in America. So the big question is, is it loyalty or truth that Gore can’t quite get right?

But the reality is… the pollsters have told him to distance himself from Clinton. He knew the day he put his arm around Clinton in the rose garden, congratulating him for his courage under fire… that this photo, and statement would one day be played during his campaign.

So was he lying then… or is he lying now? Was he loyal for a season and now that is irrelevant?

Are the American voters really this gullible? You’re one, you tell me. This is Nina May at ninamay.com.

A couple of months ago bombs hit the master bedroom of Milosovic’s villa. NATO denied that they were trying to kill Milosovic. Then a bomb just happens to hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and that too was called an “accident.”

All the civilian convoys, tractors, buses and homes that have been bombed have also been classified as accidents. Russia sends ground troops into Kosovo and they too claim it was a mistake. Does anyone really know what is going on in this war?

And can we all start applying that same reasoning to actions that might appear to be intentional, but are really accidental? Like, “I accidentally forgot to file my tax returns,” or “I didn’t mean to hit the policeman who was ticketing me . . . I was aiming at something else.”

Or, “I didn’t really move all that money out of that bank and into my car . . . I don’t know how it got there.”

We don’t know how those Russian troops got there either. Citizens are a reflection of leadership and cannot be held accountable for following their lead.

As citizens see standards of situational ethics played out globally . . . are they supposed to follow suit in their personal lives?

If Al Gore can be considered a viable candidate for President, then so should Dan Quayle. T

hey both have identical resumes, except for ideology. Both served as U.S. Senators, and as Vice Presidents. The distinction is . . . Quayle was never Bush’s “Yes Man”, or enabler as Gore has been for Clinton.

When Bush waffled on family values, Quayle stepped out to the end of the branch, stated the truth, and both parties cut it out from under him.

He was right, and was the only one who had the courage to speak the truth.

Gore claims he invented the Internet and no one, including the real inventors, questions the obvious lie.

Quayle spells potato the way public school teachers have written it on a card and he becomes the butt of endless jokes.

Gore claims the earth is warming to the point where we should ditch our fridges and air conditioners and he is heralded as a genius . . . except by the real experts who think he’s wacky.

Dan thinks families are important and is called an extremist.

So if Gore is a viable candidate for President, then so is Quayle. And we all owe Dan an apology because he was right.

If you doubt it, just look at the headlines of the past few months.

A few days ago I was in a meeting in Kampala, Uganda with several members of their Parliament. After telling us about the internal factions that are continuing to war in their country, the discussion eventually came around to the U.S. involvement in Yugoslavia.

The point-blank question was “Why doesn’t the U.S. help us in the same way and come in and bomb our enemies in the north and south in Uganda?”

That was a good question, based on current standards whereby the U.S. becomes involved in the internal affairs of a foreign, sovereign nation.

The human rights violations and atrocities in Uganda are greater in number and in severity than those in Yugoslavia. There were no refugees because during factional conflicts no one is left alive. And certainly the ancient tribal hatred among the various groups in the country has such an entrenched history that even bombs would never solve the problem.

If our government cannot explain, even to its own citizens, why the conflict in Yugoslavia requires the type of senseless, poorly planned… and poorly aimed attack, then how can we explain to other nations that their suffering isn’t as significant?

This is Nina May still searching for answers.