Christmas - 2012

As Christmas approaches, I cannot escape bad memories of my childhood’s experience of the holidays. However, I can be happy to know that they are only memories. My adult life has been blessed beyond anyone’s rightful expectations.

Recently, I listened to Bill Moyers interview James Autry, a poet that I had never knew.  In his past, he was a fighter pilot in Vietnam and then a business executive who discovered another dimension of life. First, he started to feel the personal anguish resulting from his being forced to let people go because economic forces strained the company. And then, the birth of a son who was subsequently diagnosed as autistic made him see life from a totally different perspective. Life was simply more than a matter that is measured by economic or social status.  His other son dealt with addiction issues. Yet, he came to see that there was deeper meaning in human experiences that belie common measurements.

Moyers asked him to read his poem of sentimentality, which was essentially a thank you to his wife of twenty years (at the time). The poem touched me in a strange way. First, his poem.

A Sentimentality PoemI know that contemporary poets,
If they are to escape the wrath of critics,
Must avoid the curse of sentimentality,
But here I am, 20 years married today,
With nothing to write about love that is not sentimental;
A tumor, a surgery, a scribbled prayer and the one hundred and thirty-ninth psalm;
The diagnosis of something wrong, something wrong with our child;
Hours and days and years of working to help him find himself in this world; deaths of a father, a brother, a beloved sister, more surgeries and recoveries, a son in a struggle with addiction.
And I haven’t even gotten to the joys,
Not talked about the celebrations of life,
The friendships, the gatherings of family, and the great and enduring spiritual quest.
If I am doomed to write of sentiment,
Then let it be said that I also write of blessing,
All of it, the pain, fear, anguish, laughter, whimsy, joy, blessings all, because you arrived in my life with an expectation of blessing,
A sure belief that there is nothing but abundance and our job is to face it all with gratitude.

As I approach the Christmas holidays, I become sentimental too. Compared with my childhood, I have been at peace. For our nearly 44 years, we seldom become upset, far less angry. We talk and come to some sort of resolution that we can live with. We really had no major aspiration of success, except to make the most out of what was possible. And so, as I approach Christmas season, my poem of sentimentality is different since I have been spared personal or family problems.  We have enjoyed good health, good children who in turn are healthy and made the most of their opportunities, who in turn gave six grandchildren, all of whom are healthy and well.

And so,

A Sentimental Poem at Christmas

With a world that cries so often with pain,

The anguish of Newtown parents,

The sorrow families torn by war and conflict,

Children who are left alone,

No parents, no support,

I wonder how my life was spared.

There is no logic to life’s journey,

So many good people suffer,

For no good reason,

Their efforts to be all they can be,

Thwarted by random chance.

Of course, seers vie over explanations,

But none explain “why me”, “why us”,

It is so unfair to witness the vagaries of life.

In the midst of sadness enveloping so many,

I look to Christmas somewhat like I see my life,

A pure unexpected joy that no one deserves.

Watching Joan magically grace the days,

With family members sharing their children,

Excited with no known threat of pain or sorrow,

Rejoicing in the normality of the somewhat abnormal.

My Christmas will be filled with the people so close to me. I share my family.

Click here to view these pictures larger

The Newtown Tragedy

Newtown Connecticut may become the precipitating fact that enables Congress to join the civilized world with laws that control the use of guns.  The tragedy will cause many, if not most, people to consider the meaning of life and death itself.

My thoughts start from the rather unexpected experience of my mother’s death when I was 13. While nothing as meaningless as the brutal and violent killings in Connecticut, it was sudden and quick. My life changed even if I cannot detail any particular aspects to the change. Spending the last five years of public schooling without a mother was a somewhat complicated experience.

Death became a special focus of my higher education.  I was totally involved with existential philosophy. Sartre, Camus, Kierkegaard became favorite authors who zeroed in on death as most significant. It essentially gave meaning to life. While my theological education provided other sources of meaning to death, the “angst” associated with our lives remained as a source of appreciation of the fragility of our existence.

The fragility of life was epitomized in the Newtown tragedy. Sending one’ s child to school is such a routine act. The routine generally ends with questions about what was learned. When the routine is lobotomized by violent and senseless murder, there is a gaping hole of despair.

Since there is no rationale response to such tragedy, religious beliefs often are the main support system. In the past, I would be quick to provide interpretations of the tragedy what were intended to comfort the grieving.  At this time, I can imagine how relatively meaningless such words would be.

Coming back to some of the existentialists, I am now more than ever sensitive to the relative uncertainty about our lives. While the Connecticut tragedy fills us with raw feelings, we know that violence in the world is snuffing out many, many lives, of so many, including children. We read about a bombing and another type of invasion in the Middle East, Africa, parts of Asia and turn to the next article without feelings of horror that surfaces when reading about Newtown. There is such absurdity to the inhumanity of so many humans that assignment of meaning to these deaths seems cruel.

In short, I now see no way to minimize the horrendous pain that is associated with a violent tragedy as experienced in Newtown. What I am now focusing on is our appreciation of life while it is present. No one can undo the tragedy, but we can work together to make the world more peaceful and loving. And we can surely begin my focusing on those living in our presence: our families, our children, friends, animals, plants and all that is alive. I can appreciate each day’s experiences in gratitude and do my best to help others in anyway possible.  It is so inspiring that many people, whose lives have been touched by tragedy, proceed to dedicate their lives with even more vigor to dreams nourished by the memories of those who were died.  Would that we could use this recent tragedy to express the values of life wherever we are.

So Sad! So Revolting!

Chris Hedges has become one of my favorite writers and thinkers. He is everything that I wanted to be. I never came close to his great life. He has written many books, clearly with a strong liberal bias. In fact, one could say that his bias is pro-human. In his latest book, "Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt", he is capturing the human destruction associated with our capitalistic system. He is not against capitalism, per se; he is against anything that is destructive of humans.

The book focuses on the effects of capitalism and our policies that undercut human worth by looking at Native America Indians in South Dakota, wasted urban America as symbolized in Camden, N.J., destruction of American environment and its people as epitomized in coal industry in West Virginia,and the enslavement of humans who cannot escape poverty as captured in immigrant (mostly illegal) population that works the fields that produce what we eat. If there is anything that ties all these scenarios, it is that WE tolerate, if not command, that some humans are expendable if we want to satisfy our needs as well as possible in the least costly way.

I recognize that nothing is simple, especially when we consider a nation's economy. Capitalism is built on the idea that competition will achieve the best results at the least cost. I know that when I shop that I consider the price as often the most relevant aspect of my decisions. I don't consider the human waste that was associated with the stated price. The Native American Indians were expendable because they had land we wanted and we could take it away because of our superior fire power. Industry that made our urban cities productive were expendable because we could produce the same quality somewhere else. Nature could be destroyed because we wanted energy at the cheapest cost. We wanted food, good food at cheapest price, without considering the cost to those harvesting the food.

I read much of the book with anger and disgust. It is not that I was totally unaware of these situations. It is that I live my daily life without attending to them. We can only feel the genuine "angst" analyzed by Kierkegaard if we are open to the realities that impinge our lives. If President Obama can be neutralized by the forces of the Tea Party and their comrades, I can feel somewhat relieved to know how impotent any of us are as individuals.

It is only in collective action that we can make a difference. For example, clothes made for many of our more "competitive" retail stores, e.g.,Walmart, were sewn in Bangladesh. One of those factories where people worked for little money and long hours was destroyed by fire and killed 112 people. Not only did none of these corporations compensate for the losses, you can be relatively certain that they will put all their efforts in finding another source for this work at a similar price. It all comes down to the fact that we can treat humans as expendable products, useful only as long as our needs are met cheaply.

The only way to ensure that humans are guaranteed to be treated as humans, with rights protected by government, generally in the form of fair labor laws and unions. There should be no exception, no option, or we won't pay for the goods. Can you imagine if the American public essentially boycotted Walmart until it abided by fair labor laws? I really cannot imagine it because I can't imagine enough of us willing to do it. It seems so "unamerican" to spend more in order to allow others to live as humans!!!!

Chris Hedges closed his book on a positive note by recognizing the Occupy Movement as a step in the direction of trying to correct some of inequities resulting from capitalism. I would hope that the impact of many unemployed or underemployed young and educated people would drive home the point that suffering caused by the greed associated with the focus on profit over people is painful for anyone caught in the web of exploitation that is so often associated with capitalism as we know it. Just consider the amount of cash on hand in most of our corporations that could be used to provide more work at better wages for more people. Even if there is a demand problem now, i.e., there are so many unemployed and so much loss of wealth resulting from the fiscal crisis of 2008 that results in less money to purchase goods, the focus of corporations remains exclusively on their profits rather than considering how we could improve the lives of others (and, in fact, increase demand for goods). The current fiasco of trying to deal with the fiscal cliff issues is so frustrating since the Republicans are focusing more on protecting the wealthy without considering how to help the many who struggle.

Social Progress Welcomed

The election was a surprising success story for many advocates of socially liberal issues. Gay marriage was supported in two states, recreational marijuana in two states, and woman issues were a driving force in the election of a number of females. It is incredible to believe that gay issues are essentially no longer debatable. The rights of gays are now strongly encoded in our national DNA code. Clearly, I am exaggerating since I am aware of parts of the nation that still strongly reject their rights. I am also aware that many religious leaders and their followers remain adamantly opposed to much of this progressive changes. When I think back on the struggles to achieve racial civil rights, I am amazed that the present progress has occurred without any major demonstrations, arrests for breaking local ordinances, or even the more severe results of the struggle, viz., many deaths. Demonstrations and organized protests, in general, seem to have gone out of vogue. I know how much many of us were involved in protesting the Vietnam War and yet, no one seems to protest the even worse morass associated with the former president’s decision to go into Iraq. Recalling my own experiences dealing with civil rights for blacks and Vietnam, I shared with others a perception that our personal morality was so threatened if we did not stand up for what we thought was right. From that perspective, the protests were personal even though the focus was on others. There was something inherently wrong with depriving a segment of population of the same rights of citizenship that we had. Similarly, there was something inherently wrong that young people were sent into what was perceived as an immoral war, i.e., we were fighting against no national enemy. It was civil war between North and South Vietnam that we deemed to be a risk to the entire southeast Asia. At any rate, it was a serious time with serious consequences. Today, we are achieving sensational human rights without any of demonstrations (without minimizing the personal struggles of those directly affected by discrimination). Clearly, no one wishes to return to the 60’s, but I wonder why we have seemed to accept without protests much that we strongly disagree with.

Reflecting on Our Mortality

There are so many opportunities to pause and reflect on our mortality. As we begin Veterans Day, we recall all those who have served our nation in the military, especially those who have died. Mindful also of the ambiguity of their deaths, we cannot escape thinking about the decisions involved in sending so many into combat. However, today I am especially mindful of Joan’s dear friend whose days with us are numbered due to cancer. As I write, Joan has returned to her friend to spend a few more days with her and provide some support to her son who is caring for her during this last part of her life. Joan and her friend met through Intercultural Nursing. Many volunteer nursing visits to the Dominican Republic and then often in Haiti cemented their personal relationship. When her friend went to a physician to report her initial symptoms after her last mission for Physicians Without Borders, no one expected that she would soon be faced with the horrendous diagnosis of glioblastoma. As devastating as the diagnosis was, Joan’s friend was clearly sad but proceeded forward to surgery and treatment. Furthermore, she focused on the positive aspects of her life rather than noting problems associated with the disease. Although planning for her death, she did not waste time that was available to her. She continued to visit her adult children in the West, socialized with local friends, maintained an active involvement with her bridge group, and valued the present. I reflect on Joan’s friend as a person who sets an example for myself. Would I not want to deal with my inevitable prospect of death with such a great attitude? I know that it is always easier to talk about dying than to face its reality. At the same time, the experience of knowing someone who is confronting death so well becomes a challenge to me to treasure each moment as a prelude to the time when I share the most existential moment of life, my death.

Changing the Filibuster Rule

I have written to Senator Kerry about the need to change the filibuster rule that has clearly frustrated the will of the majority in the Senate.

Since our nation is confronted by multiple problems that require negotiations and compromise, I write to advocate that you support a change in rules governing the senate filibuster. Based on historical data, the filibuster was conceived as a mechanism to prevent a bill from being voted upon through a process of debate (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm). In 1917 Rule 22 was adopted that required two-thirds of the senate to agree to stop a filibuster. In the 1975, the rule was changed that required three-fifths or 60 votes to gain closure. Rather than a process to limit debate in order to proceed to a vote, the filibuster rule now is used to prevent any debate from occurring. The Senate Filibuster Rule has now become an enemy of the legislative process. The polarization of Congress is well documented. The misuse of the filibuster has enabled a minority in the Senate to prevent a majority from voting on important issues of confirmation of judges and other public officials and meaningful legislation. It is a tragedy. I understand that all Democratic senators returning to Congress have petitioned the Majority Leader to advocate for a reform of Rule 22. I urge you to do all in your power to pursue this reform as the first order of business in the new session of Congress.

I had to change the verbiage for the letter to Senator-Elect Warren, but the intent is the same. While I think that money-interests remains the root of so much that is distorting the democratic process, the abuse of the filibuster has been ongoing source of frustration. One may not like the outcome of a vote, but to not enable a vote to occur is ridiculous.

My Letter to the President

Dear Mr. President, Congratulations for winning another four years as President of these United States. I have written twice to you in order to share my concerns about your administration. Now, I wish to share my hope that you will adopt one major strategy during this next term. You will indeed be challenged about the need to compromise to address our national deficits that will presumably include some changes to entitlements and tax laws. What I suggest as a more aggressive approach is to take time to express openly to the American public your vision of what you would want to achieve. Then, most importantly, keep the public informed about your decision-making process that required you to accommodate your vision to the constraints of the legislative process. If we know what you want and then you explain why you accepted something different, I think that people would find it easier to support your decisions. You can talk directly to the public to explain what is happening. With appreciation for the challenges you face, Edward J. Toomey

Can You Imagine?

Would it not be unbelievable, literally, to imagine that the public went to vote today after a series of constant education on public policy by the candidates. Week in and week out, would it not be unbelievable to recall their statements about the issues and what they would want to do to make matters better. Would it not be fantastic to think that each day, the politics dealt with specific areas of interest? On Monday, each candidate would spell out what needs to be done to address Social Security; on Tuesday, Medicare; on Wednesday, Medicaid; on Thursday, health care costs in general; on Friday, education; on Saturday, infrastructure; Sundays would be days of rest. Then the following week, the agenda would continue to expand. On Monday, the military; on Tuesday, energy; on Wednesday, public finance, e.g., pensions; on Thursday, the loss of our middle class; on Friday, income inequality; on Saturday, foreign affairs; on Sunday, another day of rest. The following week would start on Monday with the role of unions; on Tuesday, how to improve our economy in the the face of globalization and improved technology; on Wednesday, costs of higher education; on Thursday, subsidization of segments of the economy, e.g., farming and energy; on Friday, role of the United States in the Middle East turmoil; on Saturday, our relations with Israel; on Sunday, another day of rest. As the fourth week starts, we still have to deal with our relationship with China, Asia in general; role of the federal government; support of veterans; tax reform; role of government regulations, specifically addressing the financial industry. Given the complexity of these topics, it is reasonable that these issues would be addressed again in the following months, so that by the time we voted, the public could vote intelligently on the issues. It would be unbelievable, wouldn't it?

Pre-election comments

I do feel guilty about my lack of active participation in the election. Our election system is designed to involve citizens. However, the system is now so burdened with all sorts of money (I have refused to participate except for two donations annually to the National Democratic Party), that I hate what is happening to our democracy. It bugs me to no end! I have written previously about my disappointments with President Obama. I know that I represent a portion of the electorate that is discounted. The Far Left (for all I know I may be considered left of the Far Left!) does not represent anywhere close to a platform that would be adopted by the majority. And, since the majority rules,I will always be a loser! Having said that, I would be far more upset to see Romney elected that President Obama being re-elected. Romney is so rudderless that it is disturbing that he could have got this far. I conclude that the majority of support he will receive will represent a negative vote for Obama. At this point, it does seem that Obama will be re-elected. He is lucky! I do not think that he ran a very principled campaign. His messages were not clear and surely, offered no specifics about addressing our major problems.He surely is happy that Romney's Campaign was a bad as it was. Since I am a fan of Michele Obama, I am glad that she will be living in the White House for four more years!

Weaponry: Too Smart for Its Own Good

In the past, I have written about my perception that drones are problematic for all sorts of reasons. i question whether are use of drones is ethical, i.e., is our killing subjects legal and, even so, are the unintended casualties justified. Secondly, I have been concerned about our short sightedness. If drones are so good in the business of killing others with minimal loss of US lives, it seemed reasonable to expect other nations to develop such technology and use it against us and our interests. Why not?

Francis Fukuyma has written a blog that is even more telling than any words I could use. They speak for themselves.

Future of Social Security and Medicare

I start off with the assumption that there is virtually universal agreement that the US government has a major fiscal problem. While assigning blame for the problem may be cathartic, it does not change the problem confronting the nation. We are heavily in debt, we collect too little revenue and we spend relatively too much (compared to our revenue). Ultimately, there is a need to increase the revenue stream and/or reduce the expenditures.

The problem is that there is no consensus on what should be done practically. Whether it is the Bowles-Simpson Commission's recommendations, Democratic plans, or Republican options, there is no sign that a consensus is emerging. The election may be the force that will change the stalemate, but even this is uncertain until the status of the congressional races are determined.

Given all of this confusion, each of us has to think of what would be recommended if we were in a position to make a difference.

I clearly am in favor of eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts. I think that we should go back to the same tax levels used in the Clinton era. I am including all income taxes, even for the middle class. To avoid an unnecessary risk to our current economic situation, I would delay the changes to tax rates of those with less $250,000 per year until either the unemployment reaches X, e.g., 7% or a plan to incrementally increase their rates over a period of years, e.g., five.

I would reduce the defense budget significantly. I am unclear how much, but I would listen to those who advocate a reduction of rather exotic aircraft and weaponry and the need to reduce our nuclear stockpile.


The tax system would require major reform. I am quite flexible to what is done, except I would focus on reducing the number of tax expenditures which I think distorts the effects of taxation.


But, regardless of how much we can increase our taxes (without resulting in a major recession) and reduce expenditures, I think that it is inevitable that changes to our Medicare/Medicaid system is required.

If I were in a position to do something, I would explain ad nauseam the benefits of a National Health System for everyone (I would cite Germany as my model).  In short, I would expand the Medicare system to all, but in a different model. In order to address the need to control costs, I would explain that as long as health care is a profit-driven industry, it is impossible to create incentives to control costs. I would not minimize the fact that such a system would alter the options currently available to most beneficiaries of Medicare and the need to restructure the costs of health care personnel that would not be based on fees for services. Salaries, as well as costs for procedures and other medical costs, would be determined by commissions determined by geography so that salaries would reflect the cost of living in their area of the country. Again, this is similar to Germany model where there is a national system, structured by various localities, and managed by private insurers and private health care providers so that people will have a choice.

Vagueness about My Ethnicity

A conversation with my niece yesterday prompted a review of my personal history relative to my ethnicity.

As a youngster, I was aware of my Irish roots. My mother was clearly Irish. You could hear it in her spoken voice. She had a brogue, even if it was not marked. She never talked about her history, her earlier years, what life was like in Ireland, about her relationships with her parents and siblings. How did they celebrate holidays? Were our ancestors or even her immediate family of uncles involved in the Irish Revolution? How did she feel about leaving Ireland? How did she transition from being a citizen of Ireland to one in the United States? Strangely, we never celebrated St. Patrick's Day.

All these questions and more were never referenced. And I, in my relative ignorance as a child, never asked a question. Even though there were times with my mother met with siblings and relatives at our house for tea and Irish bread, I was never included (somewhat understandable at my age). However, whenever I passed through the kitchen, I never hear any reference to "how Peg was doing" or "how's Helen's baby". 

And then, my mother died very suddenly when I was 13 years old. And even then, it never occurred to me to ask where my mother was born. I had no idea.

What was interesting is that I carried along a bias against the Irish. There was nothing particularly overt about my feelings, but I never felt comfortable referencing my Irish roots and went our of my way not to identify with Irish events, e.g., I never wore green on St. Patrick's Day.

After my mother died and her two nearby sisters and her brother died (all relatively close in time, even though not all for the same medical condition), I had no source to address my questions, if I had thought to ask them. 

Even when we moved to California and was able to talk with my mother's only living sister in the United States, I found out little information. My aunt answered my questions that now were surfacing with the minimum of words. However, I did find out the name of my mother's town in County Cork (now forgotten).

When we were planning our 25th wedding anniversary, we decided to visit Ireland. Amazingly enough, the visit ignited positive feelings of being connected to this nation and its peoples. Everyone was so friendly and the scenery was spectacular. 

The highlight, however, was the visit to my mother's roots. My aunt by marriage (only person living from the large family of 13 (??) children) took us to my mother's house, now long time sold to the Irish government for a place to grow trees. Even though the farm was located in a rather remote village on top of a "mountain" (more like a very high hill), we were told that the property was sold to the Catholics because it was unable to sustain farm animals that required "two hays" per year. It was bad soil. We then visited nearby cousins whose life-style was more consistent with ancient history than modern times. By the time we left Ireland, I was once again "Irish" with a sense of pride and gratitude. 

Returning home, I was becoming intrigued with knowing more about my lineage. I read with amazement "Great Shame", a very detailed history of the Irish Famine. One could not feel unaffected by the horrendous treatment of the Irish by the British.  However revealing were the details of the terror inflicted on the Irish, one section was personally quite relevant.

My father's father was not referenced much by my father.  Compared to his love for his mother, his few words about his father were extremely negative. He essentially feared his father and had feelings of hatred for him. I had no personal knowledge of him since he died when I was two years old. My father quoted how often his father was proud of his being born in England (of Irish parents). He apparently dissociated himself from being Irish. 

However crazily related to my father's relationship to his father was the fact that my father pointedly and repeatedly disdained anyone who was left-handed. I could never understand this bias (or his other ethnic biases). It was so bewildering to see this bias emerge when my daughter was born and was clearly left handed. I recall his saying, "Edward, why are you letting her use her left hand?" as though I could do something about it. With time, I found out that my grandfather was left-handed. 

How the "Great Shame" was relevant to my father's bias against his father, who was considered "mean" and "tough", was the section about the places the Irish emigrated to survive the effects of the famine. The author described the horrendous conditions in England that the Irish were forced to live in. 

It then occurred to me that my grandfather could well have lived under the conditions of abominable   conditions and, as a consequence, grew up with very strong behavior patterns formed in an environment where only the strong survived.

The other relevant source of information was the documentary film, "Out of Ireland", which discussed the fact that the Irish language had no word for emigration. The word that was used to reference the leaving of their motherland was "exile", denoting the fact that emigration was a forced decision to survive. At the time, unless you were the first-born son or married a first-born son, you would never be able to own property and without property, there was no way to survive economically. All those not the first-born son were forced to leave against their will.

And I speculated that the reason why my mother (and siblings) said so little about Ireland is that any discussion would only make them sad and angry that they were forced to leave their family. It surely gave a perspective that made sense to me.

At this point in my life, this history no longer carries many feelings. However, for family members, it may serve a function if anyone became interested in their "roots".

A Special Day

A MEMORABLE BIRTHDAY

Not every day does one celebrate 75 years of life,

Nor can anyone expect such years.

Some live longer, even much longer,

Others never live long enough.

With age, family means more than ever,

In a world more complex by the day,

We rely on strength from family,

Rooted in the soil of love.

Celebrating with my sister[1] and her family,

My wife and her sister with husband,

Our children with theirs,

Wishing me well, with hugs and laughter.

Never knowing the future,

However aware of the fragile hold on life,

Taking nothing for granted,

We step ahead, knowing we have family.

Grateful for gifts of drink and a camera,

Symbols of unspoken feelings of love,

Looking to the future, now strong,

Supported by the gift of family.

---

[1] Born the day before, but five years later

Politics, Politics!

It is amazing to me that I am so disturbed by my apparent indifference to the political chatter. I seem to be caught in a web that ensnarls me in a nightmare scenario, viz., I can't win. Specifics about the agenda that the presidential candidates would propose for the next four years are lacking. The generalities, often voiced in disturbing distortions, do not help citizens understand the issues in any detail. One could observe that “this is just politics”, and I could understand, even if I lament it.

Since I am a biased towards a progressive agenda, I am a Democrat. Since I was a huge supporter of Barack Obama during the last election, I became disappointed by his performance. Over the last four years, I wrote a few times to the White House to express my concerns. Clearly, they made no difference (as a point, few people ever really make any changes because of my "concerns"!).

I am aware that Romney is never going to be a solid "anything". He is always shifting to accommodate the winds of public support. He will never meet my definition of a leader, i.e., one who takes people where they never expected. (One great example is a past head of the Veterans Administration Health Care System, Kenneth Kaizer. He came into office and blew everyone away with a vision of changing the huge health care system from primarily an inpatient system to one of outpatient clinics, many of which would be located throughout various communities. It worked and people loved it! And he delivered his promise that it would achieve the goal without additional costs.  Reduction of hospital costs would offset expenses of expanded clinics. That is the best example of leadership I know.)

I am one who identifies with the need of significant change in various segments of our national agenda.

1. Health care costs are unsustainable. It has been clear to me (as well as others) that there is a need for a national health insurance, modeled after Germany with private insurers, or theoretically, by expanding our Medicare system).

While Romney/Ryan agree that there is a problem, the "plan" expressed by Ryan is not honest, i.e., it does not spell out the consequences of their plan to provide an option for privatizing the system nor explain how the costs of health care would be controlled. It focuses only on the control of federal health care costs, not the costs of the delivered health care. Limiting the federal costs will be at the expense of the elderly.

Obama has accomplished a great deal by successfully signing a major change in health care insurance. Expansion of the system to include many more people is a major positive change. There is a sense of security since people are. There are elements in the act that may reduce costs, but I honestly do not believe that it will happen to any significant degree.

As long as health care is a profit-driven industry, there will be no way to control costs. This is the basic reason why I think that we should have national health where costs would be controlled, i.e., physicians would be salaried (paid by health care systems providing care), pharmaceuticals would be under contract, medical devices would also be under contract.

Unless Obama is honest with the public regarding the method of controlling health care costs, he is less than upfront with the public and, from the point of view, is deceiving the public, as is Romney/Ryan.  ACA has to be adjusted to accommodate structural changes that result in a reduction of costs.

2. Defense issues are somewhat clearer. We know that Romney plans on increasing the defense budget so that it will represent 4% of GDP. He is not honest about how he is going to get the revenue for this increase.

Obama is on the road to controlling defense costs, but he has been involved in actions dealing with the "enemy" that are of concern. Using drone planes to kill people without clear authority (the administration claims that they have legal authority, but I am not convinced) to do so is a major problem for me. In fact, I hate to think of the ramifications of the use of drone planes, i.e., one only imagine what will happen with other nations have access to this technology.  President Obama has been doing things that would have driven many like me crazy if they were done by President Bush. Guantanamo is not closed, albeit through no fault of Obama. And, so, I have some concerns with his defense policies.

3. Romney/Ryan's focus on jobs is a joke. I am aware that there will be an increase in jobs during the next four years regardless of who is elected, assuming that Euro and/or EuroZone do not collapse. However, the claims of Romney/Ryan about their tax cutting and reduction in regulations will trigger a huge number of jobs make no sense to me. Unless people have money to spend, there is a problem. Jobs are now hard to come by and, most often, jobs are paying less money.

There is an inherent problem with the nature of jobs. Globalization is a factor, but I see the computerization of so many tasks as an inherent problem to the economy. More and more jobs are being done by the computer/robots resulting in increased productivity with a decreasing workforce.

No one has focused on the point that we may never get "full employment" in order to meet the consumer needs of world. What then? How will our nation support an increased number of unemployed? I think that there has to be a discussion on how our nation would deal with a permanent unemployment rate of 6+%.

This brings me to ...

4. As portrayed by Romney and Ryan, I cringe at the thought of the results of reducing taxes, as they want. It is incredible to me that their vision of a rebounding economy resulting from the lower taxes will work. The math seems out of line.

At the same time, I wish that Obama would be honest and say that he was wrong to limit tax increases to those above $250,000. I think that more people have to contribute higher taxes. I am not competent to suggest where the line should be drawn, but we have to come up with more revenue.

With all the problems with the commission and its results, Obama should have accepted the Bowles/Simpson document as the starting point for legislative action. If he had submitted the proposal to Congress and it was defeated, he could then have had the authority to voice his moral weight that he was willing to compromise for the sake of the nation and he was defeated. He could have clearly made the case that the problem was the Republican dominated congress.

I started to write this blog before the NDC started. I admit becoming enthused by various speakers. Michelle Obama was a tremendous speaker as was President Clinton. In terms of pure political theater, I loved Jennifer Granholm.  I was hoping that she would have been nominated to the Supreme Court when the last vacancy occurred. President Obama was good, but he was a chicken! He could have been far more specific to be sure that the public could weigh the implications of his agenda with the vague plans of the Republican Party.

At any rate, we are getting closer to Election Day. The people will decide and I surely hope that President Obama is re-elected, especially in light of the alternative!

When it is all said and done, I do not see any major changes in how our government operates until the influence of money is reduced. We are losing our democracy. If people could feel that decisions were being made in their behalf, rather than those of special interests, I think that the government could be more successful in promoting the types of policies that will bring us forward into a better future.

9 September 2012 
Steven Pearlstein wrote a column today that is most relevant to my attempt to discuss the current state of our candidates for president. While he surely zeroed in on Romney's many weaknesses, he made it clear that Obama has been too observant of political implications of his decisions rather than the merits of the issue at hand that requires hard leadership. I had the same problem with President Clinton with whom I shared a message (actually shared with DNC) regarding his extraordinary reliance on polls rather than the perceived needs of the nation that should be the focus of a president.

Ethnic & Religious Hatred

I recall my father's bigotry toward certain ethnic groups. At the time, even when very young, I could not understand it. I do remember questioning him how he could have such an attitude toward an entire ethnic group. I do not recall his response, but to this day, ethnic hatred makes no sense. Yet, it is clearly a reality that does not seem to quit!

Ethnic hatred often shares a parallel similarity to religious bigotry. The Protestant Irish hated the Catholic Irish and vice versa. Muslims have all sorts of bigotry within their religion. Splinter groups of Shiites nurse animosity to other kinds of Shiites. Sunnis and Shiites clearly hate each other. In India, Hindus and Muslims fight each other.

It is an universal phenomenon. Independent of its economic status, ethnic division leading to horrendous consequences is ever-present. We saw it recently in Wisconsin. It is the underlying source of all sorts of problems in the Middle East. It is difficult to see a benign conclusion to the uprising in Syria where there is such tension among majority Sunnis, the minority ruling Alawi, Kurds, Christians, and other groups. Iraq remains one step away from breaking up because of ethnic divisions. Shiites in Saudi Arabia enjoy virtually no rights. Sunnis in Iran have the same isolation. The Slavic nations have been fighting for ages and resolution to these conflicts appear no nearer to a conclusion with time.

In Africa, all sorts of disasters have occurred due to hatred of another ethnic, exemplified by the slaughter in Rwanda.

All of this primitive violence towards others for ethnic or religion reasons leaves me so depressed. As it makes no rational sense, there seems to be no rational approach to ameliorate the situation. Two options seem to available: (1) conquer and control, most often through a dictator, or (2) separate and form another nation, e.g., Yugoslavia ultimately was broken into separate nations, based on religion and/or ethnicity (often, ethnic groups are bound by the same religion). Neither of these approaches are appropriate in a global economy. We have to deal with differences in a rational way in order to survive economically.

When I was much younger, I did imagine a world as envision by John Lennon's song, "Imagine". I can recall the days when I was a priest that I would imagine the Eucharist as a means of sharing my common existence with everyone throughout the world. The Church and I did not last; I left without starting a war (positive step). I eventually ended up working in the Veterans Administration where I was involved in the consequences of war. It was a strange situation for me. In contrast to prior wars where the US was a force defending aggression, the people I served were involved in a war that I protested as a priest! Yet, I had no problem serving the people harmed by the war. It was not their fault, they knew no better. And now, our nation seems to look out on the world with all sorts of ethnic and religious conflicts with the principal tool of military options.

I cannot agree that military power is a rational option to dealing with ethnic/religious conflict. I think that our primary option should be diplomacy (soft power) and, then, we should empower the United Nations to serve as a defense of those negatively impacted by ethnic/religious conflict. I admit that my approach has a basic flaw, i.e., there is no way that the United Nations could agree on a standing military designed to protect the innocent. Due to the rules of the Security Council, nothing meaningful seems to get done. (Our Congress may have caught the bug!) For that reason, I would opt for the United States to advocate to establish a "coalition of the willing" to serve this purpose, e.g., NATO could be changed and expanded.

Here we are in the 21 Century with all sorts of power and technology, impotent to deal with primitive responses of people based on their ethnic or religious differences with others. If I imagined a world of brotherhood when I was younger, I see no reason to see when this ongoing primitive behavior will end.

Hooray for Women

Over time I have often commented on my view that women have more going for them than men. I think that the world would be a better place to live in with women in control. It is not the men are useless; they, in general, are simply deficient. Obviously, I am not coming from any personal research, other than my experience in life. 

I am not claiming that all women are beyond fault. It is just that I find women have a greater chance to be people who can employ both sides of their brain that looks at the bigger picture. The left hemisphere is great, but without commensurate involvement of the right, judgments are often screwed up. 

I surely think that nations are served better, in general, by female leadership. Violence is not a preferred method for resolving conflict. They can more easily see more sides of the equation before reverting to the simple solution of violence. I am a huge fan of Hilary Clinton, not only because she may well have been one of our best Secretaries of State, but because she was able to lose a very attainable goal without being bitter. 

While not all female leaders of corporations are successful, they are more likely to consider the human aspects of business as well as the profit motive. 

All of the above is simple a refection of my thinking.

However, I am struck by the success of women in the Olympics. Even Time this week noted the remarkable accomplishments of women of many nations, including the United States. Our country had more female contestants than males for the first time and their success, measured by medals, was outstanding. 

Kellen Rose

KELLEN ROSE

So many waited for you,

Mom and Dad for sure,

But also Nora Anne, your big sister.

And then, there were your

Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles and Cousins.

All wanted to be there when the day came,

New York City for Christmas was perfect,

What a place to celebrate your birth!

And you made it come true,

Waiting  until Christmas Dinner was completed,

Before announcing you were ready,

Ready to come into a loving family,

All of whom greeted you so soon.

Cramped though we were in the hospital room,
No one care because you were there.

Nestled with your Mom and sister, 

Celebrating Christmas in a special way.

For now nearly eight months,

You have grown, nourished so well by Mom,

Loved so well by your parents and sister,

Your smile is ever present.

All the other grandchildren so close in age,

You alone a sister more than four years senior.

You're the first to know a sister as an object of love,

At times even more than your Mom and Dad.

And your sister clearly loves you, 

As only Nora Anne loves.

May each day bring more smiles,

Bringing warmth to our world,

We are gifted by your presence,

May we all do well by you.

Selection of Paul Ryan: Good or Bad?

While I think that Romney has made his bid for election harder to achieve with Paul Ryan, I am a happy camper that he was selected. We will have a chance to debate in a very practical way to determine how the nation's future will unfold.

For Obama, we know that change will be incremental, but the ingredients will remain the same. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, etc. will modified on the edges, e.g., age, financial thresholds, etc., but the programs will be mostly similar than dissimilar.

For Romney/Ryan, we can expect a restructuring of all these programs. All of these programs will ultimately become privatized with government subsidies, tailored to increase at a rate less than inflation. In short, people will no longer be guaranteed benefits. Choices will be determined by available money compared to the offerings of the private market.

From a point of controlling health care costs, I do think that this system will work quite well. My problem is that many people will be left out of the loop. We clearly have a problem with health care costs since our nation is holding on to the notion that health care should fit into a for-profit market system. As long as that is true, we will never control costs. We need to take the profit motive out of health care.

In terms of Social Security,  I have often thought that the wealthy (dollar value to be determined) do not need the benefits of this program. When a person has millions, Social Security benefits are virtually meaningless to them. They can do without. People less wealthy, but more than $X, should have benefits reduced somewhat appropriately.

There are ways to make changes without adopting Ryan's approach that is based on a market system.
The nation will have a choice. If they go down of the road of Romney and Ryan, it will mark of significant change in our nation governance. For many, and I would think that our children and grandchildren, would probably benefit from the change. The losers will be those unable to cope with the rigors of economic competition. The poor and disenfranchised will become even more so.

The seeds of a revolution and social unrest will be planted even more securely in soil of the United States.

Personally, whatever takes place will not make me a happy camper! Obama will never extend himself to promote a real liberal/progressive program for national health care. If Romney and Ryan were able to succeed in implementing Ryan's vision, it will not impact me. I am too old, but it will surely impact our grandchildren.

The Future of Higher Education

During this past year, I have been reading and thinking about the problems facing those in higher education. From the perspective of the students (and family), there is now a question of whether the cost is (1) sustainable, and (2) worth it, i.e., will my economic future compensate for the debt incurred in acquiring the knowledge. From the perspective of the university and faculty, the issue is whether the future is viable given the ongoing increase in costs and, if not, whether the product for most students requires major alterations, viz., remote learning, on-line courses.

I have become a champion of those promoting on-line courses. Since finding Kahn Academy, I have diligently watched at least one of his videos each day. I am personally committed to this task until death! I have been involved in all sorts of his educational videos, e.g., algebra, microeconomics, banking, etc. There is virtually no end to what he has made available. His vision can be reviewed through any search engine, but he is driven by the goal of ensuring that ALL students in the WORLD have access to his free education. He is supported now by many wealthy benefactors, including Bill Gates, who share his vision that his academy can be the basis on which primary and secondary school education can be based. Where it has been employed in school systems, students work on the on-line course work at home, and then, on computers in class practice problems where progress is monitored on the computer so that teachers can not only grade students, but also mentor those having problems.

More recently, college courses are now being made available, at times with certificates of success. Two of the ones recently made available are (1) coursera.org, supported by Stanford professors who initiated a project of a free computer engineering course, provided by them (top professors in the field, with the work done and corrected by computers. The initial offering somewhat surprisingly found 70,000 people taking the course. They have since started this new project. The on-line courses are from the best universities, e.g. I am taking Rahm Emanuel's brother (Ezekial) health policy course at the University of Pennsylvania and will be taking (when available in September) a world history course (1300 - present) taught at Princeton. The other sensational project is sponsored by MIT and Harvard: edX.org. MIT has had all of its courses online for a long time, but now,there will be a mechanism for reporting that a person satisfied the requirements for the course work, even if it does not lead to a degree (one could imagine that a person who is working with computers could advance their opportunities by reporting that a special course was completed at edX).

These innovations are spawned by many factors. Colleges are increasing costs at an unsustainable rate. In spite of the increased tuitions, it is reported this week that Cornell and MIT will reduce student aid due to a drop in their endowments. The problem of costs is complicated by a job market that is generally unable to compensate graduates commensurate with their debt levels. There is also an increased awareness that much of the work of college professors is relatively worthless, i.e., the output is clearly not original but mostly derivative of the work of others. This is not a statement that all professors are doing work that is not original and worthy of support, but rather a statement that the current system requiring all tenured professors satisfy research requirements associated with a number of publications etc., regardless of whether anyone would read the work!

One can imagine a future where more people would satisfy requirements for many jobs without college, especially when you consider that a large percentage of college graduates do work formerly done by high graduates. You could imagine that people interested in public safety, e.g., police, would have their educational needs met at a specific training site or community college. For those considering the need for a four year college education, you could imagine that lectures by the best professors in the world would be made available to the students who would then be mentored and graded by the college educators who no longer had to satisfy research and publication standards for tenure (with the result that they would be paid less, reducing costs of the school).

Many people are interested in how higher education will morph itself as it transitions to a less costly enterprise. Now that I have grandchildren, the issue has taken on more than academic interest. I wonder what their future education will look like. The American Interest has had many articles focusing on this issue, one of which triggered off this posting.

Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved? - NYTimes.com

Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved? - NYTimes.com

Ross Douthat focuses relatively often on religion, mostly Christianity. He comes to more or less the same conclusion about the future of Christianity, albeit from his conservative viewpoint and my different liberal perspective.

I think that his criticism of liberal Christianity has a point. There is no basis to think that liberal Christianity will be a strong and vibrant force in the future. It has not happened in the past. To the extent that Christianity becomes liberalized, attendance goes down. The only churches that grow are conservative groups with rather rigid moralistic views. Theology is often absent in these settings, at least academic theology.

And yet, without accommodating modern learning, insights, and change, liberals will not attend church.

So, whether the churches accommodate modern and more liberal thinking or not, there is not much of a future for Christianity for liberals. Douthat is right.

However, where we would disagree is about the nature of Christianity itself. He sees that it would be good that Christianity held on to its traditional ways and, in the process, he believes that in the long run, more people will come. I disagree. The support Christianity received historically by the public was driven more by guilt and fear than anything positive. There was cultural support for Christianity when the world was less critical. The world, as lived by more liberalized people, no longer needs Christianity, as a formal religion. The majority of people who do not attend church consider themselves spiritual. There is just no relationship between their spiritual orientation and the conservative forces within Christianity. Unfortunately, they see no need to participate in a formal religion to have their spiritual views nourished.

While there may be a legitimate concern about the future of society without the influence of a strong Christian Church, it is doubtful that Christianity will regain the influence it enjoyed historically.

Chicago and Its Great Architecture

A sidelight, albeit a great one, was our first visit to Chicago.  We took advantage of the River and Lake Sightseeing Tour and it is to be recommended for visitors. In addition to sharing so much information, most of which is forgotten, we were able to see so much in a hour and half. It was great. Pictures do not do justice to the beauty of the building, far less the great intellectual and creative geniuses of the architects who designed these buildings. But our pictures will serve to recall for us what a wonderful experience it was.  

https://plus.google.com/photos/114199696978250064435/albums/5765832680359923089?authkey=CLHgk-3RucnOBg

Weddings can be more than just a wedding

We went to Indiana on Thursday so that we could be a part of Julia's wedding on Friday. Since we (especially Joan) have known the family for so long, it would be hard to miss the first marriage of the next generation. And what a wonderful event it was!

There were two cookouts in addition to the actual wedding and the following celebration with food, music and dancing. Everyone had a great time. It was evident in the faces and voices of people.

One may say that the facts do not do justice to its significance for us. Even though we have known the Johnson family for virtually a life-time, we have come to know the Roldans during the last 25 years. In spite of the geographical changes that have separated us over time, the bonds were nourished by occasional visits, e-mails, and even the now virtually unused phone system. Need I also mention that Facebook has enabled bonds not only to be strengthened, but, in my case, bonds with the younger generation went from being unacquainted to feeling that I am accompanying another generation in their pursuit of life and all of its mysteries. What these few days accomplished was cementing an ongoing maturation of sharing that will go on through many venues, not the least with the social network.

In addition, I deepened by knowledge and affection of all of the Roldan family. Glimpses of insight into the family provided by what Carlos shared about his family has been fleshed out to a broader perspective by the weekend. Michael has become a more vivid personality and Cynthia has come from the distance of stories of her successes to a person that we could touch and hug.

Julia and Chris epitomized the happiness of the gathering. They clearly were happily married!! The rest of us shared in that happiness and then some.

Oh, How it Hurts!

Nora Ephron was a genius. Her talents were so well recognized. Her successes have been breathtaking. Some of her essays have been posted for our pleasure. I share this one that focused on President Clinton because it expresses exactly how hurt I was, and still am, with President Obama. He had such a chance to make a real difference and he blew it! I know that people say that he was limited by the realities of the situation, including Congress. I say, "Hell, no, he could have fought for what he promised! and if he failed, history could examine his tenure".

I know that my perspective on life is skewed. Few would want to go down the road that I wish we could travel. For all I know, I may become scared out of my life if my vision were ever attempted. But, as it is, I am getting older all the time, knowing that very few of what I hope for, ever became true.

There has been one fantastic success story. There was a time when I thought that I could become a "normal person" if Joan would marry me. She did, and whoa! he worked out better than even I envisioned. Over and above that, I got the surprise that our children became more than I could have hoped for, and surely, more than I deserved.

So, I may be all bent out of shape because President Obama was not willing to give it his all, but when it is all said and done, I can only focus on what I have personally. Age does make it easier to let the pain of disappointment with others. It is easier to say, "C'est la vie," when you will not live long enough to experience a different world, mapped along the insights of a skewed mind sitting in Scituate.

P.S. As it so happened, I also wrote to President Clinton regarding how upset I was that he squandered his talents and brains in order to remain aligned with polling data. I indicated that leaders bring people to places that they dreamed of going. Presidents relying on polling data are not leaders!

Anniversary of Patrick's Coming

What a wonderful year! From the day last June 26 when this beautiful animal became a member of our family, he has brought so much happiness. Without ever forgetting Franklin who gave us so much in so many ways, Patrick has allowed us to cherish these moments in our lives. He remains so different from Franklin who never saw another person without wanting to give him/her a lick or two. Patrick remains comfortable with no one outside our house, except for children who he finds delightful whether he knows them or not. Franklin always wanted to be a lap dog and my attempts to facilitate this failed. He was just too big! Patrick loves laps and I surely love him on my lap. We always joked that Franklin would literally go with anyone. He seemed to have no loyalty to us. As long as he was with another person, he seemed most satisfied. There is no question that Patrick's loyalties are limited to us, making us feel special! Franklin never minded having his teeth brushed, but Patrick is better because on his own he comes to the bathroom each evening to have his dental hygiene addressed. Both Franklin and Patrick are thrilled each time we come home, even if only to buy some food locally.

We are thankful to have Patrick. We surely look forward to his having a long life. For each moment we have him, he will surely be loved as much as we feel he loves us.

America Magazine A Prayer for Frustrated Catholics

Fr. Austin Fleming, a priest friend from the past, was kind enough to post a thoughtful "prayer" of a frustrated Catholic (Jesuit priest) on Facebook. It was very thoughtful and sincere. I recall that I could have shared the insights in days gone by. However, at the moment, the article resulted in a need for me to consider again my current view.

In the past, the Catholic Church (hereafter referred to as Church) as an institution was considered the counter side of the Church as a mystery, the fruit one might say of the Holy Spirit. Through the Vatican Council, it became clear to many of us that the Church was a mystery as distinct from the institution and included many others, including the unbeliever whose sincerity is genuine and known to God. The institution of the Church was always being called to reform in the process of allowing the Church as mystery to flower. There was a dichotomy that was easy for me to understand since it was clear that the Church as institution failed in so many ways to exemplify the message of Christianity. In fact, there are many moments in history when the Church as institution was an obstacle to believe. If the Church as institution did thus and so, how could I believe in Church as mystery, as the gift of the Spirit who binds believers together?

In those days, I seemingly had no problem dealing with the discrepancies. I tried to explain to others the beauty of Church as mystery and the need to focus on that, rather than the Church as institution.

Now, I no longer can live with the discrepancy. The "prayer" of Fr. Martin is beautifully written and articulates the "both/and" of the Church as institution and mystery, sinners and saints. Yet, I now perceive the Church as institution as a real obstacle to the message of Jesus, forever incapable of serving people in their search for truth and goodness. Even moments like the Vatican Council have been undone by the very body (hierarchy) that decreed such wonderful documents on Church, laity, ecumenism, and much else. It is impossible for me to see the Church has ever dealing in a helpful way with the problems of the day. Witness the inability of the Church as institution to cope with gender equality, sexual orientation, and the loss of its power, noted in the numbers who have left the organization and the lack of acceptance of institutional guidance on much of anything. Even when a document articulating a well-accepted view on peace, it is usually noted that its acceptance is unusual.

The Church as institution can give us beautiful people, including priests, who do live in the Spirit of Jesus' message. However, they only emphasize for me the loss of credibility in the Church as institution. When the exception to the rule prevails enough, it becomes noteworthy.

In fact, no religion that becomes institutionalized seems to work. When I think positively about the progressive approach of the Episcopal Church as it deals with current issues, I am aware that it is not thriving. The only ones generally supporting the Episcopal Church are people who think the same.  I suppose that an institution needs to reflect its constituency, but if that is so, then we adopt the view that a religious institution cannot reflect a universal population. In a sense, then, a great Church as the one headed by Austin Fleming in Concord, MA, can exist authentically as virtually unique.

It all comes down to the conclusion that the Church was not intended to be an institution that would exist as purported by the Catholic Church. For all the Austin Flemings in this world that are able to minister to a specific group of people, it is depressing thinking of all those relying on others who are not only without his gifts, but are actually distorting the spirit of the message. The plight of the situation is somewhat depressingly conveyed by another Catholic, writing in the National Catholic Reporter.