Everything seems up for grabs. Disruption is thematic—establishments are on their heels. In 2027, looking back, how will our intervening work be measured? Status quo? No that is not possible. Progress? We’ll see.

Too many, and I mean way too many, look to politics to find hope. President Joe Biden will prove a much more healing presence, but then the bar is painfully low. Washington is, mostly, not a place to mine for hope. It is more likely to be found in our neighborhoods and communities—people helping people. Ultimately it must be found in ourselves and our relationships with others.

There is a light, although not nearly bright enough at this moment, which I find hopeful.

General Stan McChrystal, a consummate leader under the most challenging of circumstances, now chairs Service Year Alliance and has a profound hope: that “where did you do your year of service?” becomes as common as “where did you go to school?”

The CEO of Service Year Alliance is Jesse Colvin, an honored veteran who is especially known to Marylanders who vote in Maryland’s first Congressional District where he ran for Congress in 2018. Colvin is fortunate; he now leads an especially important mission rather than arguing as one of 435 in the halls of Congress.

My father, who served in the Pacific Theater in WWII, was fond of recounting the story of his bunkmate, a soldier from the Bronx, in New York City. Dad, from a small town in southern Missouri, received an education in humanity from the realities of life, well beyond his small town.

Too few of the privileged today go beyond a textbook in a school compartmentalized by realities—the realities of parent’s ambitions with checkbook in hand. Today public schools, in the minds of many, are not the first choice. So many of those who go on to lead in private and public affairs go from school to school and then with their credentials secured, into business or the professions. Not only do they not sleep in bunks, but forfeit the lessons of life fully learned.

The military is now voluntary. And for many a real boost in life. Hopefully circumstances will keep military service voluntary. But national service should be experienced broadly. Service, as I have experienced it, is always hopeful—in our civic lives service organizations build our aspirations and our empathy.

I have friends and acquaintances that served in the Peace Corps and Teach for America. Each relate that their experiences were life-changing for them and they hope for those served. Alexis de Tocqueville, in studying and then reporting on America, found Americans selfless collaborations to improve their neighborhood and beyond especially hopeful for the nation’s future.

Jesse Colvin spelled out Service Year Alliance’s hope in a recent conversation.The goal: one million members helping to renew their communities as they enrich their lives. Jesse believes that going from the current estimate of sixty-five thousand who complete a service year experience, to one million will dramatize the importance of a service year. “One million will be an important tipping point towards making a year of service a common expectation and opportunity for all young Americans” Colvin notes. “Reaching that milestone will result in “where did you do your service?”, being asked over and over.

Service Year recognizes 700 organizations that provide a service opportunity. But reaching the goal of one million in annual service will require a boost from Washington. Everybody who opts for a service year should be able to get by financially—sacrifice will be necessary, but basic support is essential. President Biden can underscore his efforts to unify Americans by recognizing the value of the long game. Politics often favors short term tactics; supporting a service year is strategic and can be an enduring legacy.

In some ways the ultimate question will be framed by those with discretion. Will those who think in terms of “gap years” begin to consider service in the gap? Will those with the discretion to choose job candidates from lists of dozens or hundreds begin to value candidates who have a service year on their resume? And what will parents think? Often parents and their offspring are pushed or pulled along by the prevailing sparkle—hopefully building communities shoulder to shoulder with the full spectrum of humanity will sparkle. It’s enduring contribution should always shine.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Exercise is essential for keeping your heart healthy.  Any type of physical activity will help, especially walking, swimming, dancing and laughter.

Walking is an aerobic exercise that reduces atherosclerosis, fatty build-ups in the arteries which cause most cases of heart disease.  While walking, the heart becomes more efficient and pumps more blood with each heartbeat.  It also increases your muscles’ ability to take oxygen from the blood.

Swimming is another aerobic activity that increases your stamina while improving your cardiovascular system.  Exercise through swimming slows the heart to work less strenuously allowing your heart to stay healthy and strong.

Enjoying yourself while taking part in cardiovascular exercise is what dancing allows you to do. Dancing is a great exercise that not only keeps your heart rate up but allows you to have fun and let loose, while keeping your heart healthy without you even noticing!

Laughter is contagious but spreading it around is a good thing.  Research shows that laughter increases blood flow, burns calories and eases pain.  Did you know that 4 yr. olds laugh about every 4 minutes and adults do it about once an hour?  Spend some time having fun each day and…

Remember dark chocolate and red wine! Tasty treats high in flavonoids (the compounds that cause blood vessels to dilate and reduce blood pressure).

Happy Valentines Day, every day!

Susan Covey is the Fitness Director at Acts Bayleigh Chase in Easton

“We wouldn’t be in this mess if we had a government like China’s,” a friend of mine told me last week.   I wasn’t sure I heard her right.  She was talking about our troubled response to COVID-19 over the last year. She suggested that had the government been able to order an immediate lock-down of every large city, and maybe everywhere else, last February, the pandemic would be largely history.  “Our freedom,” she continued, “isn’t always in our best interests.”

I wasn’t sure how to respond to my friend. While she is right that a more forceful lock down, perhaps achievable only through some sort of enforcement, would have slowed down and possibly stopped the pandemic (as claimed by China), I wasn’t quite ready to accept de facto martial law as a solution.  I told her as much, to which she replied, “I guess you’d rather live in misery.”  After hesitating, I mumbled, “I guess so.”

I am utterly tired of the pandemic, and I understand the sense of urgency many of us feel about getting things back to normal. We see important community institutions, like restaurants, annual festivals like the Waterfowl Festival, and churches jeopardized.  Education, at all levels, has suffered a setback that is only now being understood.  Alcoholism and suicide are up. Haven’t we suffered enough?

But is a return to normalcy worth the loss of our everyday freedom? The answer is that there is a happy medium between the two. I would not want “public health czars” in Washington deciding what states and local governments can or cannot permit, but I would, and have, welcomed limited Federal mandates.  A very recent example is the Biden administration’s mandate that masks be worn by passengers in all forms of public transportation. 

I also think it’s appropriate for the Federal government to issue guidelines for the distribution of the coronavirus vaccine to ensure fairness.  Although I might not agree with all details, I don’t think that individual cities or hospitals should be able to sell preferred access to the vaccine by rewarding donors. Nor should “family and friends” policies be tolerated.  

Among actions that the Federal government should not take are decisions on whether individual schools or school districts should open elementary and secondary schools. While Federal guidelines are welcome, the local states and school boards are in better positions to do what’s best for students.  Similarly, individual colleges should maintain their authority to decide when to reopen and how to meet their educational responsibilities to students.  

Then let’s turn to the issue of Federal assistance to those adversely impacted by the pandemic.  This, of course, is the issue of the day.  Democrats support large, widely distributed assistance in the $1.9 trillion Biden proposal. Many Republicans are pushing back, suggesting that the grants will be made to many families that don’t need them and citing the long-term impact on the Federal government.  Some also question whether it is the Federal government’s responsibility to attempt to minimize disruptions to individual citizens caused by the pandemic.

These are tough issues.  Many economists worry about the consequences of Congress passing a string of trillion-dollar coronavirus relief bills. This worry is contrasted with the reality that the current economy, plagued by continuing high unemployment and uncertainty, may collapse more if additional assistance is not enacted.

So, what to do.  Basic human decency suggests that the Biden proposal should be enacted. The concept of freedom doesn’t mean much to a mother who is unable to feed her children. The concept of returning to normalcy as fast as possible also suggests enactment of a large relief package. In the long run, money spent now may save more later.  And, if freedom is a cherished priority, as it should be, it is enjoyed more when the country is not in the middle of a depression. 

Thus, the answer to whether we need to rethink freedom considering the pandemic is no.  But that is not an absolute “no.” We need to surrender some of our freedom temporarily to progress on the war against the pandemic.  If we don’t do this, it puts freedom—and democracy—even more in jeopardy.

In coming weeks, the Biden administration is likely to propose several additional responses to the pandemic that will rub many of us the wrong way.  This is particularly the case if the dreaded “new-strains” prove to be more dangerous than currently believed.  Science suggests the pandemic won’t be ended without strong measures.  Now that we have a leader in the White House, we need to consider following him. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.