Christmas 2013

Christmas for most people is correlated with childhood experiences. For most, memories are filled with love and happiness. As adults, they re-live some of the past as well as extend their experience to others, especially their own children.

My experience was one of pain associated with my father’s behavior (driven by alcohol). I was never a happy day and, in spite of his positive bias towards me, he never responded favorably to my pleas to not drink on that day.

Possibly, drinking only exacerbated an existing marital situation. I really cannot recall any time when my parents spent time together. In a sense, my father’s presence on Christmas (he did not drink at home) would not have made the day particularly a happy one.

So Christmas for me is a day made possible by Joan. It is through her that I have done as well with life as I have and surely, the great family celebrations we have at times, as on Christmas, are attributed to her.

Her attention to all the specific interests and needs of our grandchildren is incredible. I am virtually in awe of her drive to ensure that our celebration captures all the possible happiness that the day could bring.

Our adult children thus far have never missed celebrating Christmas at home. This year, six adults and their six children (with one dog) will come on Christmas day and remain most of the remainder of the week. Accommodating these many people requires some creativity and patience with the shortcomings.  One way or another, they will all find a place to sleep and there will never be a problem with food or drink. It will be happy time.

For me, I marvel that I can experience Christmas through the eyes of my family. Witnessing our adult children’s love of their children confirms my hope that we have made the world a little better for our presence.

And surely, I realize that the key to entire celebration is Joan who only wants her children and grandchildren to experience the joy of being alive and grateful that they are part of this family.

A View on Pope Francis

Pope Francis has received well-deserved praise of promoting the basic values of Christianity. As is often said, “Timing is everything.” If this message was voiced consistently at the time when the Vatican Council has issuing many documents that were addressing many long-standing beliefs, customs, and practices, there would have been a much more productive transition to the future. As it was, the forces of intransigence prevailed. The hopes of the Vatican Council were compromised. Not only was change not advanced, the Church became more conservative. One result was greater loss of participants.

The past cannot be undone. Pope Francis is on the right track. However, I do not think that he will be able to counteract the inherent problems of organized religion.

The hopes of many progressive Catholics is that the future will focus on the positive agenda of the Gospel, as voiced by Pope Francis and less on issues that divide and punish, e.g., not permitting divorced people receiving Communion. There will be progress in addressing long-standing problematic moral tenants, e.g., birth control, divorce. If the pope lives long enough, women will have a more visible role. Whether there will be a married clergy that will include females will have to wait for other less controversial items to be addressed.

However, regardless of the progress on such matters, it will not make that much of a difference in allegiance to the Catholic Church. Surely, the Catholic Church has a long way to go before adopting the many liberal practices and beliefs of the Anglican Church. And, in spite of their ability to address current needs and practices, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said recently, “We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are one generation away from extinction, and if we do not invest in young people there is going to be no one in the future.” Liberal Christianity does not equate to more church-goers.

For those in western Europe and the United States, it is not so much a problem any longer in what is believed and practiced as it is belonging to an organization that is viewed as unnecessary. The majority of people still believe in a God, however unknown, but question the need to be organized to share a spiritual vision. Clearly, organized churches are not going to literally go out of existence, but their services will be provided to less and less people who feel the need for such support.

For Pope Francis, he has an additional problem. The more liberal views are not aligned with either the more conservative and established hierarchy or, more importantly, the views of the conservative populations where the majority of Catholics live, viz., the southern hemisphere. Were he ever to promote a liberal theological agenda, he would alienate far more than he would gain from gains in the liberal population.

Letter to the President

Mr. President,

I usually write to you rather regularly, but there has been a slight hiatus recently. I admittedly was confused and wanted to wait before expressing my thoughts to you.

I summarize my past comments as follows: you have been dealt a bad hand with a broken economy, two wars, and a totally dysfunctional congress. Given that, you did achieve much: a health care law, a recovering economy, the end of one war and the planned termination of the other. You have promise of a negotiated solution to problems in Iran and Israel and a solution to the chemical armament of Syria. Looking back can bring a smile in that you achieved much.

During the last few weeks, I have become concerned about your truthfulness. As I mentioned repeatedly, it is best to be honest. Even if the virtue is not the motive, self-interest should be. The public will eventually find out the truth and expose any deception or lie.

 I am not referring to your often-quoted remark that those who like their health care plan will be able to keep it. I believe that that was an error attributed to essentially sloppiness or stupidity. You essentially misspoke.

As I think back to my prior messages and consider the number of instances when you said one thing, only to have something else occur.

Again, I am not referencing the likes of Guantanamo. I do believe that you intended to close the detention center, but you were prevented by Congress.

I am referencing something more ominous. It is your vision that is belied by your action.

You promised that you would heal the political divide. It is not that you failed, it is that you did not show your effort to achieve the goal. You could have met with the leaders of Congress virtually every day for a review of your agenda and listen to their arguments. You may not have got any further, but no one would question your resolve.

You talked about ending the wars and, of course, technically you did. But, in my view, you have continued to implement drone warfare that is essentially generating another generation of angry young people who will hate the United States. I am an advocate of police action against those who have broken laws, whether ours or those sanctioned by the United Nations. I do agree with your general advocacy of laboring from behind, i.e., assisting other nations to use police action against those breaking their laws. But, I question your use of drones to kill targets that often is associated with the deaths of innocent people.

I am grateful that you spoke this past week about our problem with economic inequity. It is not a new problem, but one that has become increasingly more pronounced. You stated that you will use the remainder of your term in office to remedy this problem. I surely hope so, but again, I do not feel secure in your resolve.

The budget negotiations promise little. I have not read anything indicating your involvement, possibly because it is a congressional issue at this time. But, I am afraid  that your political instincts to get something rather than nothing will result in a further deterioration of a progressive nation, interested in the well-being of all.

I would think that you could strongly indicate that you want to increase, if not eliminate, the ceiling for deducting Social Security taxes. This will address any question of its fiscal integrity. In addition, I would consider limiting the benefits of those considered in the range of the 1%. To protect those who are in their senior years, Social Security must be aligned more with the needs of those in need.

I know that you often said that if you could start from scratch, you would advocate for a single-payor health system. I appreciate the complexity of changing our system that has been historically aligned with the principles of capitalism. Surely, the complexity of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a drag on efforts to make it successful. Health care is essentially thwarted by fee-for-service costs. Steven Brill well documented the inherent problems of the prices determined by providers. He clearly reported that extending Medicare would address the problems with the costs of our health care. It is not too late to advocate for changes would gradually extend Medicare to more and more, e.g., extended the coverage every five years to another ten years, i.e., 55 in the next five years, 45 in the next five years.

The problems with the big banks continue. It is remarkable that final regulations have yet to be implemented and serious economists, e.g., Simon Johnson, question those now proposed. The Department of Justice has addressed multiple serious problems by levying serious fiscal penalties which are relatively small in their operations. No one has suffered criminal penalties. It does seem that the current administration shares the views of the prior administration regarding the role of Wall Street.

I recognize that your role requires accommodation with reality, the reality of so little support. As it is, your legacy at the moment is diminishing. In itself, that is less an issue than the reasons. I share the view that is often expressed that you are no longer being trusted.

I disagreed quite clearly with the agendas of Presidents Regan and George W. Bush, especially the latter. But I had no doubts that they were carrying out their agenda. They had more support than you have, but I am starting to think that you are aligning yourself more with the agenda of President Bush than with your stated vision as a candidate in 2008 and 2012.

I write today with the hope that your recent statement of addressing economic inequality will be maintained and, in fact, extended to other aspects of the progressive vision that excited so many of us in your initial campaign. You may not succeed, but surely you will have achieved integrity.