Reflection

I am in my eightieth year. This is actually true - I am not imagining this. And there is notable evidence of my longevity. Sore and weak knees, aching back and hips, falling asleep like a baby and so and so on.
But there are some positive effects of having achieved this level of existence. For example, I really know a lot. Of course, much of this knowledge is trivial and only suitable for game shows. But a surprising amount is useful and satisfying.
Another result of having lived a long time is my ability to savor life: my life, the lives of others, and the life in all living things.
This may be of interest only to me. What is the reaction of those who read this?

Should We Care?

In these past weeks, during which there has been a hateful and scandalous "debate" about raising the debt limit, I have tried to understand why I see so much hate among some of my fellow citizens. These persons do not want to make any attempt to alleviate the suffering of those who either do not have health care or have inadequate health care. They do not care about those who barely eke out a living and do not want to support any program that will help them. These selfish citizens say, "why should I pay any of MY money to help others in need...they are probably lazy anyway".
Who are these citizens who do not see suffering around them? Who are these citizens who are obviously affluent enough to enjoy a comfortable life? Who are these citizens who do not feel any obligation to follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
Consider what we know about human beings. They are all different. They have a variety of gifts and these gifts vary greatly. We know from psychology, for example, that intelligence varies greatly from person to person. We even know how intelligence is distributed. In the twentieth century, psychologists have developed valid and reliable tests to discern and measure intelligence. We generally accept, using the results of such tests, that the distribution of intelligence scores produces a "bell curve". A score of one hundred is considered average intelligence. Half of the population scores higher than one hundred; the other half scores lower than one hundred. This defines half the population as "below average" and the other half as "above average".
Now should we have the same expectations for both groups? Or should we believe that the "above average", having been endowed with greater intelligence, have an obligation to help those who are "below average"?

I think it is reasonable to assume that many of those who are "above average" are fortunate to have a job, an income that can support a comfortable life style, and who have reasonably decent health and/or good health insurance.
But what of those citizens (or non-citizens) who do not have these blessings?Where did they come from? Why do they lack good jobs, good health, good health care? Can we possibly attribute these to being "below average"? Yes, for some, it is a question of their abilities. But not for all. There are those who have been born with intelligence but have physical limitations through no fault of their own. There are those who have been born in places where there is little opportunity for education. There are those who have been born in circumstances which seriously impact whether or not there will be opportunity to grow and develop.
So, what should we think of those who do not want to share the bounty of this country with those citizens who have very little, who have had no chance to succeed, who live lives of pain, poverty, and neglect?
I know what I think.
What do you think?

Meeting a Republican

I had an interesting conversation with a friend today. Her politics have been unknown to me; I just assumed that they are similar to mine. Was I in for a surprise! She announced that she is Republican "all the way". I asked why? Her response was that she did not like Obama and did not like what he said. At that point, I suggested that we change the topic of conversation. Thinking I was saying something positive, I remarked that the last combat troops left Iraq last night. My friend said, "That's another thing...I think if we fight a war we should finish it". Apparently, I had put my foot in it again! Then I really changed the subject and asked her to tell me about some events that were taking place in her community. During the course of this part of the conversation, my friend gave some opinions about her own community that made me realize that she is, indeed, a Republican. Some members of her community are in difficult straits and she is inclined to help them but not insure their survival. That sounds a lot like today's Republicans.

Afghanistan

General Petraeus says the Afghan war is winnable. I am not clear about what he means by "winnable". If he means that we will leave the Afghans with an uncorrupt government, a suitable infrastructure, a well trained army, a reliable police force, an intact health system and universal education, then I think he is wrong. We can never do this. Only the Afghans can. If this is not what is meant by "winnable" then what is?
We should leave before one more soldier or Afghan dies. We should leave now.

Health Care for Children or War in Iraq

On Wednesday August 1, 205 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against providing funds for Children's Health Care. Most of these same Republicans voted to spend more billions to fight a war in Iraq which most Americans believe not to be in our best interests. Does this seem incongruous to anyone except me?The President has promised to veto the bill because it breaks the budget he wants. As for the war in Iraq, the funding is not included in the budget and is provided by supplemental bills for which there seems to be no limit. How can we allow these grotesque actions to continue without our protestations? Is there anyone out there who sees what I see?

Welcome!

Test Post.