Why Tevya and I Could Never Be Policymakers: I equate myself with Tevya which is why I could never be and never have been a policymaker. He is forever weighing arguments -- on the one hand, on the other hand, etc. He tries to see different facets of an argument. I do the same. If one offers me a cogent well-thought out rationale I can change my mind on a dime. At least Tevya, it seemed, could actually MAKE a decision but, alas, I often cannot. I am STUCK in the mire of ideas.

My cousin today emailed me a response to my reasons for wanting the US out of Afghanistan. He made some very good points and they are:

"What seems wrong (to me, of course) is Rachel Maddow saying we need to train and support but not have any war dead, plus she offers no alternative to what the President is already doing. I don't feel that my scenario is off the mark and that is what scares me. I can imagine something far worse that 9/11 happening if we did pull out, wherein we would have a body count in the millions instead of 3,000. If Al Qaeda were seen as successful in kicking us out, not only would Pakistan fall, but so would Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, the Emirates....I don't see any Arab states left standing. All those recruits to bin Laden with so many axes to grind against so many corrupt governments!"

Thankfully, I will never have to make those life and death decisions. I could not. I admit to my frailties. The one positive thing I, perhaps, can say about my efforts is that they are well though ABOUT. Often, though, I can lose my balance and be pushed off my podium too much like a fiddler on the roof.

"The Fiddler": Yet again Maureen Dowd proves her journalistic excellence. Who can say it better than she? No one can. Her Sunday, July 18, 2010 NYT editorial "Rome Fiddles, We Burn" is EXCELLENT. It speaks about the shameful depths to which the Catholic Church has sunk by electing the Neanderthal uber extremist Benedict as pope. He has, through his shameful inaction first as Cardinal Ratzinger and now as Benedict, with such effrontery, looked the other way when priests committed the egregious sins of child rape. He has helped perpetuate this crime within the church. Even worse, equating that sin with the ordination of women -- something which could help release this church from its dastardly milieu -- is nothing short of astoundingly sick. Her last paragraph which quotes The New Republic Garry Wills says it all:

"In The New Republic, Garry Wills wrote about his struggle to come to terms with the sins of his church: Jesus “is the one who said, ‘Whatever you did to any of my brothers, even the lowliest, you did to me.’ That means that the priests abusing the vulnerable young were doing that to Jesus, raping Jesus. Any clerical functionary who shows more sympathy for the predator priests than for their victims instantly disqualified himself as a follower of Jesus. The cardinals said they must care for their own, going to jail if necessary to protect a priest. We say the same thing, but the ‘our own’ we care for are the victimized, the poor, the violated. They are Jesus.”

It is the essence of this preposterous crime against children by priests which has run rampant, probably for centuries, in this most institutionally depraved Church. The best Rome can come up with now is putting the cardinal sin of child rape on par with the ordination of women? Who could postulate such an outrageous statement? Answer: Only an all male institution where they hold all the power could.

I paste the link to Dowd's editorial below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18dowd.html?hp