Vatican Verity:It is infuriating, to say the least, that Pope Benedict has reinstated previously excommunicated bishop Williamson in light of this bishop's loathsome Holocaust denial comment. A price, in my opinion, needs to be paid. I read today that the rabbinate in Israel has severed its relationship with the Vatican and has canceled a meeting for next month with it. I laud those actions and would go even further.
I believe the State of Israel itself should send a profound message of opposition to Pope Benedict's actions and should concur with the rabbis in its dismay. I believe the State of Israel, too, should threaten to sever, in view of this egregious act by the Vatican, its relationship with it. The Jewish people and the State of Israel can never again allow such a preposterous slight to go unpunished especially by a Catholic Church whose behavior historically towards the Jews was more than reprehensible -- it was criminal.
Other popes, most especially John Paul, made inroads to greatly repair the damage which reflected a two thousand year church legacy of deplorable actions against the Jews. Benedict, a former Hitler youth, apparently has not forgotten and, indeed, I suspect is still influenced by those roots as he throws cold water on the Jewish people through the advocacy of a number of incendiary policies which knowingly inflame. He utters those thoughts and perpetrates those actions just the same. Pope Benedict slowly but surely is undoing much of what John Paul tried to accomplish by his uncaring comments and spiteful actions which serve not to unite but to divide, not to build up but to destroy, and not to encourage but to discourage decades of hard work by people of good faith. The reinstatement of Bishop Williamson is one insulting policy among others he has advocated. The Pope can make all the audibly pulchritudinous comments he wants but his actions tell a different story.
The State of Israel itself, in no uncertain terms, should STRONGLY condemn and threaten to sever its relationship with the Vatican as well IF it does not demand an immediate apology from and reversal of Bishop Williamson's beliefs. In lieu of that the Vatican should impose Bishop Williamson's excommunication once again.
This is a running commentary on contemporary social, political and religious issues. From the Introduction of James Comey's book "A Higher Loyalty -- Truth, Lies and Leadership" "Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary" Reinhold Niebuhr
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Truth and Nothing but--a response to the Palestinian segment of CBS Sixty Minutes: I thought your segment on the Palestinian conflict was incomplete. While there is no doubt the Palestinians who were in your piece were not a fabrication, there is much more to the story then what you presented. If Arabs had not invaded in 1967 that land would not have been appropriated. In some ways it has been Israel's curse. It has been the experience of Israelis when they give back land they get rockets to kill them for a thank you. Gaza is a prime example. No doubt Israeli policy toward Palestinians in many instances should be reviewed and humanely changed. A man should somehow be allowed to return to the city of his birth and soldiers should in no way be allowed to be quartered in a man's house, his children detained all without his permission. This is basic Constitutional Bill of Rights law. BUT there is no doubt, too, that many if not most Palestinians are from a very young age imbued with fanatical beliefs to eradicate the Jewish state and all Jews with it. Jews have historically had bad experiences everywhere they went and Arab lands were no exception to the rule. Jews were kicked out, killed and life made unbearable. Some still remain Jewish in Arab lands at their peril. Let's be fair. The Jewish state is an advanced western style country which treats even homosexuals with dignity. Where in any Arab land can you find THAT? Both sides have their axe to grind but Sixty Minutes showed only one. Maybe next week you will show the other!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
The Long Goodbye II to a local paper: I have heard some decry the derisive goodbye chant sung with its accompanying booing as Ex-President Bush left Washington. Some have said it not only disrespects Bush but defiles the office of president itself. I could not disagree more. The entire presidency and honor of our nation has been desecrated by the policies of George W. Bush. Ex-president Bush is responsible for being asleep at the switch before the 9/11 attacks occurred failing to heed and, indeed, cavalierly ignoring warnings of it. He is guilty of invading and lying about the justification for the invasion of a country which did nothing to us thereby implementing the so called Bush Doctrine of preemptive war never before implemented by a democratic state. This has resulted in the killing of over 4200 Americans. The death count will go up, of course, as long as American forces remain on Iraqi soil and, moreover, as long as they are on that soil the threats from Al Qaeda, heretofore no threat from Iraq at all, will exponentially grow. The extrication from that quagmire will take the Wisdom of Solomon to perfect. The Decider, George W. Bush, slaughtered, ashamedly, in our name, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and displaced over a million more. Worse still, he has fractured a Middle East tinderbox. The list of his murderous policies besmirching, soiling and, indeed, blaspheming the sacred Constitution itself goes on and on and on.
George Bush deserves a lot more than simply a few boos and a derisive chant. All those in his entire administration who were complicit in these horrific war crimes deserve investigation and accountability for the crimes they have committed. George W. Bush is lucky if all he receives is boos and a derisive chant. What he really deserves is a cold bed in a cell. If The Hague does its job that may be, if he decides to travel anywhere outside of the US, what he so deservedly could get!
George Bush deserves a lot more than simply a few boos and a derisive chant. All those in his entire administration who were complicit in these horrific war crimes deserve investigation and accountability for the crimes they have committed. George W. Bush is lucky if all he receives is boos and a derisive chant. What he really deserves is a cold bed in a cell. If The Hague does its job that may be, if he decides to travel anywhere outside of the US, what he so deservedly could get!
The Long Goodbye: To John F. Malloy in his Letter to the Editor in the January 24, 2099 Globe which says that the uttering of a derisive rock song goodbye chant as Ex-President Bush left Washington and its accompanying booing "marks a new low that not only disrespects Bush but defiles the office of president itself" is in error. I say the entire presidency and nation itself has been desecrated by the policies of George W. Bush. Ex-president Bush is responsible for being asleep at the switch before the 9/11 attacks occurred failing to heed and, indeed, cavalierly ignoring warnings of it. He is guilty of invading and lying about the justification for the invasion of a country which did nothing to us resulting in the killing of over 4200 Americans. The extrication from that quagmire will take the Wisdom of Solomon to perfect. He slaughtered, ashamedly, in our name, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and displaced over a million more. Worse still, he has fractured a Middle East tinderbox. The list of his murderous policies goes on and on and on.
George Bush deserves a lot more than simply a few boos and a derisive chant. All those in his entire administration who were complicit in these horrific war crimes deserve investigation and accountability for the crimes they have committed. George W. Bush is lucky if all he receives is boos and a derisive chant. What he really deserves is a cold bed in a cell. If The Hague does its job that may be, if he decides to travel anywhere outside of the US, what he so deservedly could get!
George Bush deserves a lot more than simply a few boos and a derisive chant. All those in his entire administration who were complicit in these horrific war crimes deserve investigation and accountability for the crimes they have committed. George W. Bush is lucky if all he receives is boos and a derisive chant. What he really deserves is a cold bed in a cell. If The Hague does its job that may be, if he decides to travel anywhere outside of the US, what he so deservedly could get!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Yes, we did it and we are witness to it: I am not a praying person but I prayed last night and today that our president stays safe, and that he undoes the damage that was most especially the past eight years. We cannot underestimate the difficulty of what needs to be done. I pray for our new president’s greatness and I pray for all of us to be safe to enjoy this history. We will never, I suspect, see this type of historical moment again.
I have been watching people congregate on the Washington Mall since 6:30 a.m. The media is saying the crowd has been building up since 5:00 a.m. I will be watching through late evening when my eyes will simply not stay open any more. Celebrate my lovely, beloved family and friends (even if some of you do not support our choice.) Celebrate that we are free. It is the greatest gift of all.
I have been watching people congregate on the Washington Mall since 6:30 a.m. The media is saying the crowd has been building up since 5:00 a.m. I will be watching through late evening when my eyes will simply not stay open any more. Celebrate my lovely, beloved family and friends (even if some of you do not support our choice.) Celebrate that we are free. It is the greatest gift of all.
Friday, January 16, 2009
More religious debate:
To answer Dennis's questions with I HOPE brevity. I believe science has answered some of the questions (ONLY SOME) of physical truths that early man did not know and the bible therefore got completely wrong. Therefore the bible in most instances cannot be treated as fact because it gets all manner of scientific truth phenomenally wrong. Early man did not know the sun was the center of our galaxy. The church fought that fact tooth and nail because is made man and his earth not the center and maybe not so important and went against biblical thought. Early man did not know that bacteria/virues caused infection and disease. I believe early man had NO idea regarding human sexuality. Early man did not know evolution is FACT and that our earth is BILLIONS of years old. Early man did not know dinosaurs roamed the earth before they. The list of the mistakes of early man and biblical mistakes is infinite. There are too many errors to enumerate here.
As for moral law, I beleive every culture even if polytheistic ones has to have moral rules. Even Communist cultures while we know they are worthy of critique had a moral law. Our own culture which is Judeo/Christian bastardized and still does morality by the slaughter in history of innocents but it does have a code of moral law. Every culture transgresses their moral law. George Bush the touter of biblical morality supreme crushed moral law.
I think people can obey certain strictures without god. A society functions much better if it does not cheat, steal, kill, bear false witness i.e. lie or do the nasty with everyone a human being meets. They can remain faithful to their spouse without god as many many if not most atheists or agnostics do. We see the most religious in our culture fool around infinitely. I believe the respressive nature of the Judeo Christian tradition makes for a crazy culture that does not know what to do with its sexual appetites. Just look at the Catholic church. My goodness just look at it over the centuries. There were many cultures before ours which had a moral law. Whether they obeyed it or not is up for discussion. To err has ALWAYS been human.
I do not say god is anything because I do not believe a sky god exists. Am I awed by the universe YES completely. Do I know what created it all -- as BIll Maher says in his EXCELLENT film Religulous -- I do NOT know. Religionists THINK they know. They don't.
I believe man is an evolved being. I believe life evolved from one celled organisms over BILLIONS actually TRILLIONS of years. Evolution needs one important ingredient: TIME and the right set of circumstances. To say anything else is sheer nonsense and science proves it so over and over and over again. Evolution is at work constantly. If religion had as much proof as science does they would be screaming it from the rafters. They don't and I think most except the supremely dumb realize it but try like hell to prove otherwise. They cannot.
To answer Dennis's questions with I HOPE brevity. I believe science has answered some of the questions (ONLY SOME) of physical truths that early man did not know and the bible therefore got completely wrong. Therefore the bible in most instances cannot be treated as fact because it gets all manner of scientific truth phenomenally wrong. Early man did not know the sun was the center of our galaxy. The church fought that fact tooth and nail because is made man and his earth not the center and maybe not so important and went against biblical thought. Early man did not know that bacteria/virues caused infection and disease. I believe early man had NO idea regarding human sexuality. Early man did not know evolution is FACT and that our earth is BILLIONS of years old. Early man did not know dinosaurs roamed the earth before they. The list of the mistakes of early man and biblical mistakes is infinite. There are too many errors to enumerate here.
As for moral law, I beleive every culture even if polytheistic ones has to have moral rules. Even Communist cultures while we know they are worthy of critique had a moral law. Our own culture which is Judeo/Christian bastardized and still does morality by the slaughter in history of innocents but it does have a code of moral law. Every culture transgresses their moral law. George Bush the touter of biblical morality supreme crushed moral law.
I think people can obey certain strictures without god. A society functions much better if it does not cheat, steal, kill, bear false witness i.e. lie or do the nasty with everyone a human being meets. They can remain faithful to their spouse without god as many many if not most atheists or agnostics do. We see the most religious in our culture fool around infinitely. I believe the respressive nature of the Judeo Christian tradition makes for a crazy culture that does not know what to do with its sexual appetites. Just look at the Catholic church. My goodness just look at it over the centuries. There were many cultures before ours which had a moral law. Whether they obeyed it or not is up for discussion. To err has ALWAYS been human.
I do not say god is anything because I do not believe a sky god exists. Am I awed by the universe YES completely. Do I know what created it all -- as BIll Maher says in his EXCELLENT film Religulous -- I do NOT know. Religionists THINK they know. They don't.
I believe man is an evolved being. I believe life evolved from one celled organisms over BILLIONS actually TRILLIONS of years. Evolution needs one important ingredient: TIME and the right set of circumstances. To say anything else is sheer nonsense and science proves it so over and over and over again. Evolution is at work constantly. If religion had as much proof as science does they would be screaming it from the rafters. They don't and I think most except the supremely dumb realize it but try like hell to prove otherwise. They cannot.
Another in a series of dialogues I had with an individuals on a local newspaper site:
Religion and Truth -- I sympathize with your comments although I am not Catholic I sprang from a people whose influence on the New Testament was profound. The beliefs about Jesus are that which the human mind says they are. The New Testament Gospels are a compilation of different writers. It was written in Greek long after the so called death of Jesus. Even Jesus himself may be a compilation of many stories and ideas of the area at that time and significantly before that time. There is NO evidence that meets historical scrutiny that he even existed. There is nothing on Roman coins or artifacts depicting him or in writings which site him, with the exception of the Gospels, which have an agenda (and Josephus doesn't count either because it too had an agenda), whose historicity is accurate and believable indicating that someone so profound to the populous and such a threat to the Roman state ever existed. No consequential EVIDENCE exists. One would think a man of that impact would be mentioned historically, as other historical events surely are, in ancient Roman writings, artifacts or even on Jewish artifacts or coins. There isn't any. The ONLY things of historical identification which jet propelled this religion are human beings' cerebral synaptic connections which included the dream of an emperor Constantine before a battle and his wife's influence of him in 300 or so AD.
Likewise, the Hebrew Bible, too, was written by a number of different people. An excellent and scholarly book with NO agenda was written and entitled 'Who Wrote the Bible' by Richard Friedman. Some of the proofs, among several, that the Old Testament -- the Christian appellation. It is called the Hebrew Bible by Jews -- is written by multiple men are that (a) the writing styles of the Old Testament are significantly different (b) contain different accounts of the same event and (c) in the Five Books of Moses -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy -- Moses, the attributable author of those books, is writing after his own death; highly unlikely. The Bible emerges out of an assortment of pagan and oral mythological lore from a variety of cultures at that time and by those who preceded them. Some biblical stories are nearly identical to other pagan stories which preceded biblical text.
If someone tells me and then writes that my leg is paralyzed because of bad humors or because of a witch's spell or because a man named Mephistopheles came down and infused it with green slime, or because a supreme being hated me, I can believe that sure ... if I want ... but is it TRUE? When science became sophisticated enough it could unequivocally determine that a viral entity called poliomyelitis unequivocally caused that paralysis and it was not caused because someone hated me, or because I planted my crops in error, made a god mad by doing some trivial thing like eating a shrimp or by a witch's spell. I believe that simile is a good one.
Religion takes natural, physiological and psychological phenomenon and attributes it to some mystical, mysterious and inexplicable super power which defies the laws of science. That's ALL religion is ... ALL monotheistic religion everywhere -- is a compilation of men's (I emphasize men) BELIEFS, superstitions and mythological creeds which morphed into some cohesive (sort of) entity to explain the complexities and inexplicabilities of life. That does NOT mean that any of it is factually true. It is a shock to my system in the age of technological and scientific advancement that human beings capable of intelligent and rational thought still persist and rely on documents written between 5000 and 2000 years ago to justify just about ANYTHING they want to believe. It simply means human beings are capable of diverse and illogical thought because men fear illness, hard times, ultimately death and need to explain catastrophes which they do not understand to get through this life with significantly less anxiety. That does not, as my atheist friend says, make it true as much as most of us (including me) would LOVE to make it so. If one wants to take religion as allegory or metaphor that is acceptable but to pass it off as unequivocal truth is simply unequivocally wrong.
Religion and Truth -- I sympathize with your comments although I am not Catholic I sprang from a people whose influence on the New Testament was profound. The beliefs about Jesus are that which the human mind says they are. The New Testament Gospels are a compilation of different writers. It was written in Greek long after the so called death of Jesus. Even Jesus himself may be a compilation of many stories and ideas of the area at that time and significantly before that time. There is NO evidence that meets historical scrutiny that he even existed. There is nothing on Roman coins or artifacts depicting him or in writings which site him, with the exception of the Gospels, which have an agenda (and Josephus doesn't count either because it too had an agenda), whose historicity is accurate and believable indicating that someone so profound to the populous and such a threat to the Roman state ever existed. No consequential EVIDENCE exists. One would think a man of that impact would be mentioned historically, as other historical events surely are, in ancient Roman writings, artifacts or even on Jewish artifacts or coins. There isn't any. The ONLY things of historical identification which jet propelled this religion are human beings' cerebral synaptic connections which included the dream of an emperor Constantine before a battle and his wife's influence of him in 300 or so AD.
Likewise, the Hebrew Bible, too, was written by a number of different people. An excellent and scholarly book with NO agenda was written and entitled 'Who Wrote the Bible' by Richard Friedman. Some of the proofs, among several, that the Old Testament -- the Christian appellation. It is called the Hebrew Bible by Jews -- is written by multiple men are that (a) the writing styles of the Old Testament are significantly different (b) contain different accounts of the same event and (c) in the Five Books of Moses -- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy -- Moses, the attributable author of those books, is writing after his own death; highly unlikely. The Bible emerges out of an assortment of pagan and oral mythological lore from a variety of cultures at that time and by those who preceded them. Some biblical stories are nearly identical to other pagan stories which preceded biblical text.
If someone tells me and then writes that my leg is paralyzed because of bad humors or because of a witch's spell or because a man named Mephistopheles came down and infused it with green slime, or because a supreme being hated me, I can believe that sure ... if I want ... but is it TRUE? When science became sophisticated enough it could unequivocally determine that a viral entity called poliomyelitis unequivocally caused that paralysis and it was not caused because someone hated me, or because I planted my crops in error, made a god mad by doing some trivial thing like eating a shrimp or by a witch's spell. I believe that simile is a good one.
Religion takes natural, physiological and psychological phenomenon and attributes it to some mystical, mysterious and inexplicable super power which defies the laws of science. That's ALL religion is ... ALL monotheistic religion everywhere -- is a compilation of men's (I emphasize men) BELIEFS, superstitions and mythological creeds which morphed into some cohesive (sort of) entity to explain the complexities and inexplicabilities of life. That does NOT mean that any of it is factually true. It is a shock to my system in the age of technological and scientific advancement that human beings capable of intelligent and rational thought still persist and rely on documents written between 5000 and 2000 years ago to justify just about ANYTHING they want to believe. It simply means human beings are capable of diverse and illogical thought because men fear illness, hard times, ultimately death and need to explain catastrophes which they do not understand to get through this life with significantly less anxiety. That does not, as my atheist friend says, make it true as much as most of us (including me) would LOVE to make it so. If one wants to take religion as allegory or metaphor that is acceptable but to pass it off as unequivocal truth is simply unequivocally wrong.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
More responses to blogs others wrote to try to convice me of the veracity of belief.
You cannot prove a negative. I have read the New Testament and find it utterly ridiculous as a factual document. As metaphor ... maybe it's a nice story which can have meaning. Worse, however, the New Testament provides the rationale for Antisemitism and is saturated with it especially in the later gospels as decide is its accusation NOT against Rome but against the Jews for Christ's alleged death. It was the necessary precondition for all antisemitism which followed it up to and including most especially the Holocaust even until contemporary times in Europe today and without question in the Middle East. It has wielded MUCH negative for the Jews.
Each entity of the Gospels was written by different people in Greek and well after Jesus' alleged death. I do not believe in defying the laws of nature and physics and therefore I do NOT most especially believe in most anything which exists biblically. If you do then fine. By all means do. A person cannot walk on water unless there is a flotation device or a walkway, cannot rise after being dead for three days as the body decays and rots. Since Jesus is alleged to have been at least part human he would succumb to the laws of nature as he supposedly did when he was allegedly crucified. Certainly all those surrounding him would be subject to those laws as well. Moreover, even the fact that a man named Jesus existed is subject to distinct question. There is no evidence, absolutely nothing, nil, nada, no way nothing in Roman coin or artifact or literature which talks about a man whose death was mandatory because he posed a significant threat to Rome. There is NOTHING. Do NOT say Josephus because his historicity is not a credible.
New Testament and Hebrew Bible stories too are not new and grew out of much that was believed in that place at that time and well before in time. Much can be shown in Egyptian, Greek, Roman mythological lore, pagan beliefs which comes close or mirrors the stories of the New Testament virgin births, walks on water, healing the sick and rising from the dead is STREWN throughout ancient history among mythologies of various peoples.
CS Lews proves NOTHING and Chuck Colson, Nixon aficionado and ex-con, proves even less. These people have had life experiences, as most of us have had, which are difficult. I would say a jail sentence gives one much time to think there must be a reason for my suffering. Yes, there is. He broke the law. Try NOT breaking it and stay out of jail. All these books prove nothing. The only rationale for what you believe is that you believe it. It is NOT provable or scientifically verifiable and bears no resemblance to fact.
I am NOT capable of belief which has no capacity for scientific veracity period end.
You cannot prove a negative. I have read the New Testament and find it utterly ridiculous as a factual document. As metaphor ... maybe it's a nice story which can have meaning. Worse, however, the New Testament provides the rationale for Antisemitism and is saturated with it especially in the later gospels as decide is its accusation NOT against Rome but against the Jews for Christ's alleged death. It was the necessary precondition for all antisemitism which followed it up to and including most especially the Holocaust even until contemporary times in Europe today and without question in the Middle East. It has wielded MUCH negative for the Jews.
Each entity of the Gospels was written by different people in Greek and well after Jesus' alleged death. I do not believe in defying the laws of nature and physics and therefore I do NOT most especially believe in most anything which exists biblically. If you do then fine. By all means do. A person cannot walk on water unless there is a flotation device or a walkway, cannot rise after being dead for three days as the body decays and rots. Since Jesus is alleged to have been at least part human he would succumb to the laws of nature as he supposedly did when he was allegedly crucified. Certainly all those surrounding him would be subject to those laws as well. Moreover, even the fact that a man named Jesus existed is subject to distinct question. There is no evidence, absolutely nothing, nil, nada, no way nothing in Roman coin or artifact or literature which talks about a man whose death was mandatory because he posed a significant threat to Rome. There is NOTHING. Do NOT say Josephus because his historicity is not a credible.
New Testament and Hebrew Bible stories too are not new and grew out of much that was believed in that place at that time and well before in time. Much can be shown in Egyptian, Greek, Roman mythological lore, pagan beliefs which comes close or mirrors the stories of the New Testament virgin births, walks on water, healing the sick and rising from the dead is STREWN throughout ancient history among mythologies of various peoples.
CS Lews proves NOTHING and Chuck Colson, Nixon aficionado and ex-con, proves even less. These people have had life experiences, as most of us have had, which are difficult. I would say a jail sentence gives one much time to think there must be a reason for my suffering. Yes, there is. He broke the law. Try NOT breaking it and stay out of jail. All these books prove nothing. The only rationale for what you believe is that you believe it. It is NOT provable or scientifically verifiable and bears no resemblance to fact.
I am NOT capable of belief which has no capacity for scientific veracity period end.
WBUR broadcast a discussion of belief. I added my two cents.
Doubt: I have waged war with religion and on religion my entire life. Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" was excellent as was Christopher Hitchens's book "God is Not Great." They sold me. I did not, however, need much convincing. At 60 years of age I suppose I define myself as agnostic but throughout the years I have religiously been all over the map. I was born Jewish, had a flirtation with Christianity in my early 20's, wavered like a ping pong ball for decades even returning to some semblance of Jewish ritual trying to maintain some tradition. The ball is at rest now. I am an agnostic. I do not believe there is a sky god but truly do not know if there is some other initiator of world being. I simply do not know. I envy, somewhat, those whose faith in God is solid as, I think, perhaps their fear of death is not as profound as mine.
I cannot believe there will be a time when I do not have cognizance of how history plays out. While I know I have not always been here it seems as if I have. So, death is not only frightening it is unacceptable to me.
Just because, though, I want something more to be true does not, my atheist friend always tells me, make it so. As Richard Dawkins once said it's too bad we cannot appreciate the grandeur of life as it is and not wish for something more than what is. Well, being placed in the ground, six feet under, my body decaying and my bones remaining is NOT my idea of a good time. So what else can I do? I live with those facts and merely hope I can experience many more presidential elections to come!!
Doubt: I have waged war with religion and on religion my entire life. Richard Dawkins's book "The God Delusion" was excellent as was Christopher Hitchens's book "God is Not Great." They sold me. I did not, however, need much convincing. At 60 years of age I suppose I define myself as agnostic but throughout the years I have religiously been all over the map. I was born Jewish, had a flirtation with Christianity in my early 20's, wavered like a ping pong ball for decades even returning to some semblance of Jewish ritual trying to maintain some tradition. The ball is at rest now. I am an agnostic. I do not believe there is a sky god but truly do not know if there is some other initiator of world being. I simply do not know. I envy, somewhat, those whose faith in God is solid as, I think, perhaps their fear of death is not as profound as mine.
I cannot believe there will be a time when I do not have cognizance of how history plays out. While I know I have not always been here it seems as if I have. So, death is not only frightening it is unacceptable to me.
Just because, though, I want something more to be true does not, my atheist friend always tells me, make it so. As Richard Dawkins once said it's too bad we cannot appreciate the grandeur of life as it is and not wish for something more than what is. Well, being placed in the ground, six feet under, my body decaying and my bones remaining is NOT my idea of a good time. So what else can I do? I live with those facts and merely hope I can experience many more presidential elections to come!!
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Another editorialist Jeff Jacoby reply
Food Fables: I follow Jeff Jacby's pearls of wisdom. I BELIEVE I heard him on NPR. He was talking against the latest Massachusetts Governor's initiative which would have calories posted at restaurants. So called conservatives are so loath to have government control anything except maybe bombs or sexuality and oh yes, they LOVE to overhear our salacious conversations. Somehow in the conservative mind the government is so bad EXCEPT when they think it isn't. The truth is when conservatives so please they are MORE than happy to have government intervene and when they don't all of a sudden government is the pariah and their laissez faire credo screams for attention. If it has to do with sex or snooping sure conservatives are chaffing at the bit to use government to control it but guns, tobacco or food no way.
If conservatives have to put "compassionate" as an adjective to conservative then conservatives REALLY are NOT compassionate. IF it were up to conservatives I have no doubt there would be NO warning labels on cigarette packages, no tax on cigarettes, the government would have halted efforts to show how poisonous tobacco is and they would simply aver the tobacco companies are just selling a product and the individual has his right to make that choice for himself. Tobacco is so perfect an example. Putting heavy restrictions, labels and taxes in addition to HUGE civil actions against it has kept that poisonous leaf from killing even more than it kills today. Recent statistics suggest simply limiting smoking even outdoors is making the death from lung cancer drop. Outlawing a parent smoking in a car with their children will save lives .. kids lives...maybe even YOUR kid's lives. Many in my family of prior generations at a young age have a grave somewhere due to the effects of smoking. Thank God the government took the action it did. The Surgeon General's report on the effects of smoking in the 1960's began this hard fought campaign to educate about a product which the glorious tobacco corporation and ALL the political hacks associated with it were perfectly happy to sell and LOATHE to regulate. Government worked. Smoking rates have gone down throughout the years and deaths have gone down with it. I would still be smoking today and maybe even dead if I were not bombarded by the 1980's with medical government sponsored studies which made the realities of that disgusting product hit home.
Likewise, labeling of food products has been the best thing for me since (if you'll pardon the pun) sliced bread. The swill that the lovely corporations try to sell us in the guise of food is legion. From high fructose corn syrup to artery clogging hydrogenated oils, they take the BEST like whole grain out of food and give us the worst. Why? It is easy, tasty, has a longer shelf life and is cheaper to make. The public be damned. When my cholesterol in 1988 hit a high of 285 the understanding of nutrition was in its infancy and my eating habits started to change because of it. I read EVERY single label now and want to know the contents and calories of everything I put into my hallowed body. Think of how much money I'm saving the insurance companies and the state the longer I stay out of the emergency ward. They don't have to pay for my hospitalizations due to stroke, heart attack, a host of cancers and God knows what else. At least at 60 I am trying to avoid that. So far so good and I have the labeling and the government to thank for its monitoring of food (with the exception of course of that thing who was in the White House for the past eight years). Government CAN work for the good of the individual and yes, often to the cost of corporations. Tough. So the CEO in some corporation makes 50 million a year instead of 100 million. Makes my heart break.
In addition, I like places in which I decide to spend my scarce money to give me an option to look at ingredients and calories. Not everyone is computer savvy or has one to look up restaurant menus and calorie counts. It can't hurt and it just may help AND if they don't want to look DON'T cover the menu up or turn your head away.
I think you are dead (pardon the pun again) wrong the individual OFTEN is not savvy enough, does not have enough time and is too besieged by other things in their life to know what is quality to eat and what isn't. We are getting fatter by the second. My family has a significant history of obesity and diabetes. My mother, most of my aunts uncles and many other of my close relatives were and are obese. Numbers had heart attacks, strokes and othercardio issues. One cousin died several years ago of obesity related diabetes and I KNOW others will follow. So far I am 110 lbs because I am the healthiest eater in my family. I have the numbers to prove it. If an enumeration is not on the menu when I eat out I ask. Since I had polio it is a damn good thing I keep my weight off as I have had three fractures of my polio affected leg so the older more disabled a person is the more he/she MUST keep weight in control and how nice it is that we will be able to monitor the calories of that which we eat. So many who have Chinese food, for example, have NO idea the sauce is LOADED with sugar and often coconut saturated fat oils. They don't ask and the restaurant surely does not tell. Now they won't have to ask they will be able to see. I say GREAT!
Too bad it's costing companies money. Let them absorb it. There IS a place for government. In the long run I predict it will be well worth it for everyone. Health care will save money AND the individual might just be helped, a life saved and a quality of life maintained in the process. So what's so wrong with a little government intervention and TRUE compassion. I'll forgo THAT freedom if government gives up tapping phones and denying habeus corpus. Now that is TRUE government intervention. Truth is some humane government intervention WORKS often for all of us and may will even work for you and your family too!
Food Fables: I follow Jeff Jacby's pearls of wisdom. I BELIEVE I heard him on NPR. He was talking against the latest Massachusetts Governor's initiative which would have calories posted at restaurants. So called conservatives are so loath to have government control anything except maybe bombs or sexuality and oh yes, they LOVE to overhear our salacious conversations. Somehow in the conservative mind the government is so bad EXCEPT when they think it isn't. The truth is when conservatives so please they are MORE than happy to have government intervene and when they don't all of a sudden government is the pariah and their laissez faire credo screams for attention. If it has to do with sex or snooping sure conservatives are chaffing at the bit to use government to control it but guns, tobacco or food no way.
If conservatives have to put "compassionate" as an adjective to conservative then conservatives REALLY are NOT compassionate. IF it were up to conservatives I have no doubt there would be NO warning labels on cigarette packages, no tax on cigarettes, the government would have halted efforts to show how poisonous tobacco is and they would simply aver the tobacco companies are just selling a product and the individual has his right to make that choice for himself. Tobacco is so perfect an example. Putting heavy restrictions, labels and taxes in addition to HUGE civil actions against it has kept that poisonous leaf from killing even more than it kills today. Recent statistics suggest simply limiting smoking even outdoors is making the death from lung cancer drop. Outlawing a parent smoking in a car with their children will save lives .. kids lives...maybe even YOUR kid's lives. Many in my family of prior generations at a young age have a grave somewhere due to the effects of smoking. Thank God the government took the action it did. The Surgeon General's report on the effects of smoking in the 1960's began this hard fought campaign to educate about a product which the glorious tobacco corporation and ALL the political hacks associated with it were perfectly happy to sell and LOATHE to regulate. Government worked. Smoking rates have gone down throughout the years and deaths have gone down with it. I would still be smoking today and maybe even dead if I were not bombarded by the 1980's with medical government sponsored studies which made the realities of that disgusting product hit home.
Likewise, labeling of food products has been the best thing for me since (if you'll pardon the pun) sliced bread. The swill that the lovely corporations try to sell us in the guise of food is legion. From high fructose corn syrup to artery clogging hydrogenated oils, they take the BEST like whole grain out of food and give us the worst. Why? It is easy, tasty, has a longer shelf life and is cheaper to make. The public be damned. When my cholesterol in 1988 hit a high of 285 the understanding of nutrition was in its infancy and my eating habits started to change because of it. I read EVERY single label now and want to know the contents and calories of everything I put into my hallowed body. Think of how much money I'm saving the insurance companies and the state the longer I stay out of the emergency ward. They don't have to pay for my hospitalizations due to stroke, heart attack, a host of cancers and God knows what else. At least at 60 I am trying to avoid that. So far so good and I have the labeling and the government to thank for its monitoring of food (with the exception of course of that thing who was in the White House for the past eight years). Government CAN work for the good of the individual and yes, often to the cost of corporations. Tough. So the CEO in some corporation makes 50 million a year instead of 100 million. Makes my heart break.
In addition, I like places in which I decide to spend my scarce money to give me an option to look at ingredients and calories. Not everyone is computer savvy or has one to look up restaurant menus and calorie counts. It can't hurt and it just may help AND if they don't want to look DON'T cover the menu up or turn your head away.
I think you are dead (pardon the pun again) wrong the individual OFTEN is not savvy enough, does not have enough time and is too besieged by other things in their life to know what is quality to eat and what isn't. We are getting fatter by the second. My family has a significant history of obesity and diabetes. My mother, most of my aunts uncles and many other of my close relatives were and are obese. Numbers had heart attacks, strokes and othercardio issues. One cousin died several years ago of obesity related diabetes and I KNOW others will follow. So far I am 110 lbs because I am the healthiest eater in my family. I have the numbers to prove it. If an enumeration is not on the menu when I eat out I ask. Since I had polio it is a damn good thing I keep my weight off as I have had three fractures of my polio affected leg so the older more disabled a person is the more he/she MUST keep weight in control and how nice it is that we will be able to monitor the calories of that which we eat. So many who have Chinese food, for example, have NO idea the sauce is LOADED with sugar and often coconut saturated fat oils. They don't ask and the restaurant surely does not tell. Now they won't have to ask they will be able to see. I say GREAT!
Too bad it's costing companies money. Let them absorb it. There IS a place for government. In the long run I predict it will be well worth it for everyone. Health care will save money AND the individual might just be helped, a life saved and a quality of life maintained in the process. So what's so wrong with a little government intervention and TRUE compassion. I'll forgo THAT freedom if government gives up tapping phones and denying habeus corpus. Now that is TRUE government intervention. Truth is some humane government intervention WORKS often for all of us and may will even work for you and your family too!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
In the Dark: Mr. Bennett's article "Dark Green" about the Medea Hypothesis of Peter Ward in the January 11, 2009 Sunday Globe was phenomenally interesting . I love it when new theories arise which tug on the reins of credulity and say wait a minute not so fast. Things may not be as one thinks they are. I had heard of the Gaia Hypothesis which seems to be the prevailing thought that the earth's contents (minus man) work in some earthly harmony to produce life until evil man ruins everything. It seems so rational. Yet, when one thinks about it the earth has experienced upheavals threatening its existence long before man appeared on earth. Moreover, one sees the destructive nature of our planet's power in times when man's influence was not so dramatic.
My own totally unscientific thought is that our planet is influenced by both things humans do and things humans do not do. I suspect it is neither all one nor all the other but both. How interesting it would be to live to see what happens. One wonders if man will control his own harmful influence on the planet, which I believe does exist, and, perhaps, even right the wrongs the planet perpetrates on itself. It is simply fascinating science theory. No matter what one believes it proves one thing; life is, indeed, precarious.
My own totally unscientific thought is that our planet is influenced by both things humans do and things humans do not do. I suspect it is neither all one nor all the other but both. How interesting it would be to live to see what happens. One wonders if man will control his own harmful influence on the planet, which I believe does exist, and, perhaps, even right the wrongs the planet perpetrates on itself. It is simply fascinating science theory. No matter what one believes it proves one thing; life is, indeed, precarious.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
My Eternal Dilemma:This opinion below – with some edits – was one I left on the Metrowest News blog. I often have exchanges (sometimes heated but not always) on controversial issues with regular bloggers on that site. One blogger said and I quote what he said in pertinent part:
“ … except that I said in a previous post, Palestinians
should assassinate Zionist leaders, and I still think
that is a good tactic …”
Throughout the exchange I tried to entertain a balanced view. As I have said on my blog and in discussion, Gaza is an anathema to the human heart. It hurts me to watch the news of it. I understand the Palestinian side and I understand the quagmire that has been Israeli fate.
In the final analysis, though, I tried to think about my most basic view which was that I could never oppose the existence of the State of Israel, acquiesce to the assassination of so called “Zionists” (in my opinion an anti–Semitic cover word), and I cannot separate most Islamic states from their fundamentalist religious fasteners. I will be free, as all are in Israel to criticize Israel’s POLICIES but I will not countenance its demise. So I said the following to the blogger whom I believed, decidedly, did not take into account the position of the Jewish state. Clearly, my own blogging posts are mixed on this issue. When I gave it even more thought and irritated by the other blogger’s call to assassinate all "Zionist" leaders I iterated my basic view by posting the following:
I said:
The Zionists, as you insultingly call them, either show strength or the State of Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist. It is that simple. When explosives are placed among families and children, when children are armed with guns and explosives, when an army is fired upon by its enemy, when a culture instructing young children to take up arms and wear exploding belts then the Jewish people, as I call them, have the right to defend themselves and the right to fire back. If one is shot at by a 10 year old he will be just as dead as if he were shot at by a 28 year old. We KNOW Hamas does unspeakable things to their own people and to their own children by placing incendiary devices among them. I too as you consistently say and as I said before, had an Iranian friend whom I thought was absolutely lovely. I have a Pakistani friend with whom I have shared meals. They are wonderful people. When we keep our conversation light things are fun but if we chat about Israel things get tense. So I stay away from that subject when I am with them. I know other Palestinian people who are kind, wonderful and would not hurt anyone. I love them. However, that does not mean I am not aware that as a political entity the states from which those people originate would eliminate my people in an instant. This cannot happen. This WILL NOT happen.
The world must know, and Israel's enemies respect nothing else, that the Jew will no longer cower in fear, act like a sitting duck and roll over because either a 2000 year old document moronically indicts it for deicide OR a Muslim picks up that baton and says Israel will be destroyed and the Jews thrown into the sea. It is, I know, sometimes a shock, to those who for centuries have not been used to Jews fighting back but since 1948 a hard lesson was learned. The lesson is IF Jews do not protect themselves then they will cease to exist and the world will care nothing. The lesson is simple. The Holocaust is the lesson for the Jew. It is immutable, ever present and all consuming to the Jewish mind. It is the rationale behind everything. No, Arabs did not create the Holocaust but most Arab states especially radical Islamic ones would be perfectly willing to pick up where it left off. Jews cannot and WILL not allow that!
Does it pain me to see anyone suffer? OF COURSE it does. Gaza is heart wrenching. But, truth be told again, I love my people, I love the state of Israel because it is the freest state in the entire Middle East, it is a secular state and it is a state which governs by respecting the religious separation concept. The Jewish people MUST have their homeland and they MUST have it with no threat of annihilation. That is an uncompromising existential fact. If it were not for, as you call them Zionists, then the Jewish state would not be. Fighting back is all Hamas, Hezbollah and the like understand. If this is all they understand this is what they get. When push comes to shove I am in love with the Jewish people and I will NEVER be unmindful of that. The Jewish people cannot falter again and they must not fail.
“ … except that I said in a previous post, Palestinians
should assassinate Zionist leaders, and I still think
that is a good tactic …”
Throughout the exchange I tried to entertain a balanced view. As I have said on my blog and in discussion, Gaza is an anathema to the human heart. It hurts me to watch the news of it. I understand the Palestinian side and I understand the quagmire that has been Israeli fate.
In the final analysis, though, I tried to think about my most basic view which was that I could never oppose the existence of the State of Israel, acquiesce to the assassination of so called “Zionists” (in my opinion an anti–Semitic cover word), and I cannot separate most Islamic states from their fundamentalist religious fasteners. I will be free, as all are in Israel to criticize Israel’s POLICIES but I will not countenance its demise. So I said the following to the blogger whom I believed, decidedly, did not take into account the position of the Jewish state. Clearly, my own blogging posts are mixed on this issue. When I gave it even more thought and irritated by the other blogger’s call to assassinate all "Zionist" leaders I iterated my basic view by posting the following:
I said:
The Zionists, as you insultingly call them, either show strength or the State of Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist. It is that simple. When explosives are placed among families and children, when children are armed with guns and explosives, when an army is fired upon by its enemy, when a culture instructing young children to take up arms and wear exploding belts then the Jewish people, as I call them, have the right to defend themselves and the right to fire back. If one is shot at by a 10 year old he will be just as dead as if he were shot at by a 28 year old. We KNOW Hamas does unspeakable things to their own people and to their own children by placing incendiary devices among them. I too as you consistently say and as I said before, had an Iranian friend whom I thought was absolutely lovely. I have a Pakistani friend with whom I have shared meals. They are wonderful people. When we keep our conversation light things are fun but if we chat about Israel things get tense. So I stay away from that subject when I am with them. I know other Palestinian people who are kind, wonderful and would not hurt anyone. I love them. However, that does not mean I am not aware that as a political entity the states from which those people originate would eliminate my people in an instant. This cannot happen. This WILL NOT happen.
The world must know, and Israel's enemies respect nothing else, that the Jew will no longer cower in fear, act like a sitting duck and roll over because either a 2000 year old document moronically indicts it for deicide OR a Muslim picks up that baton and says Israel will be destroyed and the Jews thrown into the sea. It is, I know, sometimes a shock, to those who for centuries have not been used to Jews fighting back but since 1948 a hard lesson was learned. The lesson is IF Jews do not protect themselves then they will cease to exist and the world will care nothing. The lesson is simple. The Holocaust is the lesson for the Jew. It is immutable, ever present and all consuming to the Jewish mind. It is the rationale behind everything. No, Arabs did not create the Holocaust but most Arab states especially radical Islamic ones would be perfectly willing to pick up where it left off. Jews cannot and WILL not allow that!
Does it pain me to see anyone suffer? OF COURSE it does. Gaza is heart wrenching. But, truth be told again, I love my people, I love the state of Israel because it is the freest state in the entire Middle East, it is a secular state and it is a state which governs by respecting the religious separation concept. The Jewish people MUST have their homeland and they MUST have it with no threat of annihilation. That is an uncompromising existential fact. If it were not for, as you call them Zionists, then the Jewish state would not be. Fighting back is all Hamas, Hezbollah and the like understand. If this is all they understand this is what they get. When push comes to shove I am in love with the Jewish people and I will NEVER be unmindful of that. The Jewish people cannot falter again and they must not fail.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
No Exit -- The Existential Nightmare to Nowhere I agree with Jeff Jacoby's January 7, 2009 op editorial. I am always astounded at the pervasiveness of the two thousand year old viral infection that is antisemitism . The Jewish people cannot seem to shake its onslaught or find the antibody to it. I also cannot believe how those who would take the Holocaust's name in vain and perpetrate the same Nazi-like venom still overwhelm me with ire. They get to me. That is exactly, I think, what they want to do.
When I finished watching the news last evening, though, I thought it was a particularly difficult broadcast to watch. I worry that Israel, as much as I support it, is losing the public relations war. Gaza is so horrific that I simply do not know how it can continue like this despite what each side says the rationales for it are. It reminded me, staggeringly and ironically, of the Warsaw Ghetto where a huge number of Jews were jammed into a small area with no food, no medical supplies no electricity, and no sanitation existentially trying to live in an unlivable situation. As a Jew the Holocaust is burned into my psyche. It is with me every day I live because I think about it every day I live.
I fear, though, at this moment the Jewish people morally are losing the Holocaust high ground. The slaughter of innocents in Gaza, although surely brought about, in part, by the intractability of Hamas, is a moral disaster and cannot, I think, continue. The invasion of Gaza has become so disgusting that I cannot even watch it on the news. It is a moral conundrum to me because my entire left leaning political philosophical bent was molded in opposition to the Nazi era and the Holocaust. I truly now do not know what the answer is.
My cousin living in Jerusalem emailed that Hamas is hiding in UN houses with children and puts explosives underneath as they know Israelis will bomb them and fuel a public relations nightmare. I know that. Your editorial was excellent as antisemitism and its direct relationship to criticism of the Jewish state has veracity understood even by Martin Luther King. I know that too. I know people want to kill Jews and eliminate the Jewish state. Where does that leave us? What does never again mean? Is it only in relation to Jews or is it the broader implication that there are some human behaviors even in war that are so abominable they cannot be tolerated and must be rejected by the civilized world entire?
The three hour cease fire just ended and the dreadful killing continues. More bodies, many of women and children, will be stacked up. So now what? Where are we in this struggle? Will Jews be better off for this? I do not think so. Grimly, I think we are nowhere and there is, existentially, at least for now, no way out.
When I finished watching the news last evening, though, I thought it was a particularly difficult broadcast to watch. I worry that Israel, as much as I support it, is losing the public relations war. Gaza is so horrific that I simply do not know how it can continue like this despite what each side says the rationales for it are. It reminded me, staggeringly and ironically, of the Warsaw Ghetto where a huge number of Jews were jammed into a small area with no food, no medical supplies no electricity, and no sanitation existentially trying to live in an unlivable situation. As a Jew the Holocaust is burned into my psyche. It is with me every day I live because I think about it every day I live.
I fear, though, at this moment the Jewish people morally are losing the Holocaust high ground. The slaughter of innocents in Gaza, although surely brought about, in part, by the intractability of Hamas, is a moral disaster and cannot, I think, continue. The invasion of Gaza has become so disgusting that I cannot even watch it on the news. It is a moral conundrum to me because my entire left leaning political philosophical bent was molded in opposition to the Nazi era and the Holocaust. I truly now do not know what the answer is.
My cousin living in Jerusalem emailed that Hamas is hiding in UN houses with children and puts explosives underneath as they know Israelis will bomb them and fuel a public relations nightmare. I know that. Your editorial was excellent as antisemitism and its direct relationship to criticism of the Jewish state has veracity understood even by Martin Luther King. I know that too. I know people want to kill Jews and eliminate the Jewish state. Where does that leave us? What does never again mean? Is it only in relation to Jews or is it the broader implication that there are some human behaviors even in war that are so abominable they cannot be tolerated and must be rejected by the civilized world entire?
The three hour cease fire just ended and the dreadful killing continues. More bodies, many of women and children, will be stacked up. So now what? Where are we in this struggle? Will Jews be better off for this? I do not think so. Grimly, I think we are nowhere and there is, existentially, at least for now, no way out.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Gagging on Gaza: I just finished watching the news. It was a PARTICULARLY difficult broadcast to watch. I am thinking that Israel, as much as I support it, is losing the PR war. Gaza is SO bad and SO horrific that I simply do not know how it can continue like this. I'll tell you what it reminded me of -- it reminded me of the Warsaw Ghetto where a HUGE number of people were jammed into a small area with no food, no medical supplies, no electricity NOTHING. the Holocaust is burned into my psyche. It is with me every day I live because I think about it every day I live.
I am thinking at this second in time that the Jewish people are losing the moral high ground. This disaster cannot continue irrespective of what I know Hamas would do to Israel if it could. It has become so bad and so disgusting that I cannot even watch the news. I simply cannot. I do not know what the answer is but this can not go on. That's what I am feeling at this moment even though I KNOW this is bigger than Gaza. These people cannot be used this way it's simply horrific. I can't stand to watch it. I just can't. Now if I can't stand to watch it and I almost NEVER criticize Israel then you can imagine what the rest of the world is thinking.
There were assaults on Jews in various countries in Europe today...antisemitism rears its head again. I am beginning to think Gaza is a cancer around the Jewish neck.
I am thinking at this second in time that the Jewish people are losing the moral high ground. This disaster cannot continue irrespective of what I know Hamas would do to Israel if it could. It has become so bad and so disgusting that I cannot even watch the news. I simply cannot. I do not know what the answer is but this can not go on. That's what I am feeling at this moment even though I KNOW this is bigger than Gaza. These people cannot be used this way it's simply horrific. I can't stand to watch it. I just can't. Now if I can't stand to watch it and I almost NEVER criticize Israel then you can imagine what the rest of the world is thinking.
There were assaults on Jews in various countries in Europe today...antisemitism rears its head again. I am beginning to think Gaza is a cancer around the Jewish neck.
To Cut or NOT: Okay, what do I know about economics but this is how I feel and sent the below on to Obama who has a web page for ideas. I cannot help but feel these tax cuts are RIDICULOUS and he is pandering to Republicans. I KNOW some will disagree. Fine no problem. This is not eloquent but just stream of conscious and obviously just my opinion. It springs from a feeling I have which I find funny because I hate economics but sometimes I get it right odly enough. AND on I think it was PBS someone else who knew what she was talking about said the same thing about tax cuts after I had thought about it awhile ago.
So I said.
Personally, I have a feeling that tax cuts will do NOTHING. The Bush tax cuts did NOTHING. In this type of systemic downturn people will NOT spend the few extra bucks they have from a tax cut except to pay a bill or two. When things are THIS precarious tax cuts are NOT the remedy. I am against tax cuts really for anyone but MOST especially am against tax cuts for the very wealthy. How many times do we have to get burned to realize this so called "trickle down" effect did NOT work. It trickled down alright and not to the average person or to the middle guy. Truth is trickle down means trickle down into the already wealthy's pockets to buy the wealthy's toys like a new boat or a new or two BMW'S or three or 17 houses. It does NOT necessarily go for more jobs.
The tax cuts are not enough to do anything. We need rather (1) STRICT regulation of financial markets (2) stop unnecessary wars (3) curb spending for new weapons and war which is hugely costly (4) pay down the deficit and not create more and (5) use government money to yes create infrastructure, repair roads, bridges etc and work on global warming, alternative energy and stem cell research, and MOST importantly health care.. THAT will create jobs. Tax cuts do nothing.
If anything we need a tax increases. THAT would do the trick in paying down the deficit, get more money for infrastructure, alternative energy. reduce need to borrow from foreign countries and reduce our need to print more money increasing scary inflation of the 1929 German Weimar Republic type.
How to sell it is the problem. People need to know we are in deep trouble and that we cannot just keep raising our debt. We must pay for our government's immoral decisions over the last eight years and even more. We simply have to if people want to enjoy the things that government can give us like infrastructure, medical advances, health care and alternative energy, stemming of global warming.
I believe the American people IF YOU TALK TO THEM can understand the WHY of things. Try a fireside chat. It helped Roosevelt it just may help us!
So I said.
Personally, I have a feeling that tax cuts will do NOTHING. The Bush tax cuts did NOTHING. In this type of systemic downturn people will NOT spend the few extra bucks they have from a tax cut except to pay a bill or two. When things are THIS precarious tax cuts are NOT the remedy. I am against tax cuts really for anyone but MOST especially am against tax cuts for the very wealthy. How many times do we have to get burned to realize this so called "trickle down" effect did NOT work. It trickled down alright and not to the average person or to the middle guy. Truth is trickle down means trickle down into the already wealthy's pockets to buy the wealthy's toys like a new boat or a new or two BMW'S or three or 17 houses. It does NOT necessarily go for more jobs.
The tax cuts are not enough to do anything. We need rather (1) STRICT regulation of financial markets (2) stop unnecessary wars (3) curb spending for new weapons and war which is hugely costly (4) pay down the deficit and not create more and (5) use government money to yes create infrastructure, repair roads, bridges etc and work on global warming, alternative energy and stem cell research, and MOST importantly health care.. THAT will create jobs. Tax cuts do nothing.
If anything we need a tax increases. THAT would do the trick in paying down the deficit, get more money for infrastructure, alternative energy. reduce need to borrow from foreign countries and reduce our need to print more money increasing scary inflation of the 1929 German Weimar Republic type.
How to sell it is the problem. People need to know we are in deep trouble and that we cannot just keep raising our debt. We must pay for our government's immoral decisions over the last eight years and even more. We simply have to if people want to enjoy the things that government can give us like infrastructure, medical advances, health care and alternative energy, stemming of global warming.
I believe the American people IF YOU TALK TO THEM can understand the WHY of things. Try a fireside chat. It helped Roosevelt it just may help us!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Right to Survive: My comment appears on the Newsweek blog (with a couple of typos). I dashed it off the top of my head so it is not perfect. Some may not like what I have to say. I do not care. It is what I believe.
My mother had a saying. You lie with dogs and you get up with well you know. It astounds me that the violence plagued Arab world sits mainly silent when time after time after time after time atrocities and the most bestial of acts are committed by Islamic fanatics. Think about it for a second. IF the Arab world had let Israel be, just let it be in 1948 and more than that just think if it took the opportunity to work together and to use Israeli brilliance and western advancement just think they just might be living and working together in a good place for humans to be; in a place that everyone would want to visit. Their families might just be thriving.
Instead, no way, they just could NOT let the Jews be. And to this day the world especially the left wing (of which I consider myself a part) stays silent about the brutality the Arab world visits not ONLY on Israel but on their own people! If there were NO Jewish Israel do you think Israel would be at peace? NO WAY. Hamas would be splitting Fatah's head, or some other fanatical group's head who think they have the truth.
Where were the crowds in the street with fury about Mumbai, or Spain or suicide bombings EVERYWHERE? The silence is deafening. But holy cow when Israel tries to say no more and defend itself wanting simply to be left alone the world suddenly is screaming what they think is their righteous indignation.
The Jewish people will NEVER NEVER again submit to the world's onslaught. NEVER! You will reap what you sew. Believe it. The game has changed and the Jewish people changed it for themselves.
My mother had a saying. You lie with dogs and you get up with well you know. It astounds me that the violence plagued Arab world sits mainly silent when time after time after time after time atrocities and the most bestial of acts are committed by Islamic fanatics. Think about it for a second. IF the Arab world had let Israel be, just let it be in 1948 and more than that just think if it took the opportunity to work together and to use Israeli brilliance and western advancement just think they just might be living and working together in a good place for humans to be; in a place that everyone would want to visit. Their families might just be thriving.
Instead, no way, they just could NOT let the Jews be. And to this day the world especially the left wing (of which I consider myself a part) stays silent about the brutality the Arab world visits not ONLY on Israel but on their own people! If there were NO Jewish Israel do you think Israel would be at peace? NO WAY. Hamas would be splitting Fatah's head, or some other fanatical group's head who think they have the truth.
Where were the crowds in the street with fury about Mumbai, or Spain or suicide bombings EVERYWHERE? The silence is deafening. But holy cow when Israel tries to say no more and defend itself wanting simply to be left alone the world suddenly is screaming what they think is their righteous indignation.
The Jewish people will NEVER NEVER again submit to the world's onslaught. NEVER! You will reap what you sew. Believe it. The game has changed and the Jewish people changed it for themselves.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Beyond Our Differences: I was absorbed yet again by Bill Moyers Journal. Beyond Our Differences presented a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak religious scene. Just when I thought there was some hope I checked the news in the morning, as I always do, only to see that Gaza was in flames again. This time Israel struck in significant fashion. So far nearly 200 Palestinians are dead and 400 wounded. There are Israeli dead too. Hamas has been striking Israel consistently breaking the cease fire time after time after time. They must know the Israelis will not sit back and take an onslaught. So the beat goes on. Tit for tat again and again and again people’s bodies are dismembered and death reigns supreme. Nothing gets resolved except the willingness of each side to inflict more death and more destruction on each other ad infinitum until, I suppose, the end of time if necessary.
The hopeful aura of Bill Moyers Journal of “Beyond our Differences” showing the commonality of the religions of man to me this morning was rescinded as reality spoke otherwise. I know the voices of peace are out there. I know it because I am one and am no less a Jew than many who are more militant. Our voices though soften with the reality of the tears we shed, and by the incredulity and powerlessness we feel. How many more, for what and for whom? Is a life worth land, dirt, stone, pebbles, a 5000 year old text or a less than 2000 year old text? What is a life worth and who says so? Who wrote these edicts? Did a sky god come down from on high? Each group claims that He did and claims He did for that particular group and no other.
The criticism I have of this episode of The Journal is that for every sentence of peace in the Torah, the New Testament or the Koran one can find an equal and opposite sentence of violence. Those sentences of violence serve as justification for the never-ending mayhem inflicted by religionists. The Journal in its effort to seek common ground fails to state the very elements of those texts which are NOT non-violent and from which fundamentalism gets its fuel.
One of the statements on this part of the Journal said that 95% of humans on this planet believe in a Creator of our universe. 95% is very high. I must be among the five lonely percent who does not believe in a Creator who personifies himself and takes one side of man over the other. I am sure in the Middle Ages one could say 95% of all men thought the earth was the center of the galaxy and the sun revolved around it. They were consummately wrong. So what does 95% mean? As an agnostic I labor about the question of the first cause and as Bill Maher says in his wonderful film “Religulous” I don’t know. I just don’t know what the first cause for the creation of the universe was.
What I do know is one can pray until infinity and no god is going to answer your particular prayer. Why would He answer your prayer and not the other fellow’s? Why would he save one five year old from Israel and not another from Gaza? Could there have been some all powerful something that began our universe? I suppose there could have been but is that all powerful something going to reserve particular plots of land for certain people and not for others? Most emphatically NO He, She or It will not. That, man will have to do either by taking the land or blowing someone’s head apart for it and he does that very well, indeed, on his very own.
The hopeful aura of Bill Moyers Journal of “Beyond our Differences” showing the commonality of the religions of man to me this morning was rescinded as reality spoke otherwise. I know the voices of peace are out there. I know it because I am one and am no less a Jew than many who are more militant. Our voices though soften with the reality of the tears we shed, and by the incredulity and powerlessness we feel. How many more, for what and for whom? Is a life worth land, dirt, stone, pebbles, a 5000 year old text or a less than 2000 year old text? What is a life worth and who says so? Who wrote these edicts? Did a sky god come down from on high? Each group claims that He did and claims He did for that particular group and no other.
The criticism I have of this episode of The Journal is that for every sentence of peace in the Torah, the New Testament or the Koran one can find an equal and opposite sentence of violence. Those sentences of violence serve as justification for the never-ending mayhem inflicted by religionists. The Journal in its effort to seek common ground fails to state the very elements of those texts which are NOT non-violent and from which fundamentalism gets its fuel.
One of the statements on this part of the Journal said that 95% of humans on this planet believe in a Creator of our universe. 95% is very high. I must be among the five lonely percent who does not believe in a Creator who personifies himself and takes one side of man over the other. I am sure in the Middle Ages one could say 95% of all men thought the earth was the center of the galaxy and the sun revolved around it. They were consummately wrong. So what does 95% mean? As an agnostic I labor about the question of the first cause and as Bill Maher says in his wonderful film “Religulous” I don’t know. I just don’t know what the first cause for the creation of the universe was.
What I do know is one can pray until infinity and no god is going to answer your particular prayer. Why would He answer your prayer and not the other fellow’s? Why would he save one five year old from Israel and not another from Gaza? Could there have been some all powerful something that began our universe? I suppose there could have been but is that all powerful something going to reserve particular plots of land for certain people and not for others? Most emphatically NO He, She or It will not. That, man will have to do either by taking the land or blowing someone’s head apart for it and he does that very well, indeed, on his very own.
No Doubt about “Doubt” I saw the newly released film “Doubt” yesterday and loved it. This serious multi-faceted enigmatic film starring Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams was, in my opinion, extraordinarily thought provocative and perfectly cast. The film was excellent.
The movie takes place in a private Catholic school – perhaps in Boston -- shortly after the death of President Kennedy. It involves Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), the strict, sour, humorless nun and principal of the elementary school, who makes accusation against a humane and likable parish priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman). She accuses him of committing an immoral act and mortal sin with the lonely and lone African American student and, perhaps, somewhat effeminate, church altar boy whom Father Flynn has befriended.
It is thought that by the younger, sweeter, more innocent Sister James (Amy Adams) on Sister Aloysius’s order to “keep an eye on Father Flynn” because of his sermon on the subject of doubt. Sister James believes, on circumstantial evidence, that Father Flynn may have committed an immoral act with the boy. She has, though, no concrete proof of its occurrence. Sister Aloysius is happy to do the obligatory assault on Father Flynn’s character when Sister James provides her with this salacious ammunition however flimsy it may be.
As I watched this, other excellent films came to mind. I thought about Lillian Hellman’s “The Children’s Hour,” a film about a child’s lie and the suicidal consequences of that lie as well as that lie’s element of truth. I thought about Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” and its false accusation of immorality when people see things even when they don’t see them and what they will confess to seeing even when it is not there. I thought about how easy it is to bear false witness, to think we see what we do not and to believe false witness testimony, holding the fate of others (perhaps innocent others) in our hands. I finally thought of the Christian element of this film. It is about the possible accusation against a humane and potentially innocent man. It is about the surety of his accuser (Rome) and the torment of the accessory to the punishment (Pilot) because he knows he is condemning an innocent man.
This film, though, is not about certainty it is about doubt. Sister Aloysius is, perhaps, the most interesting character. What made her the Dickensian menacing character she was? It is hard to tell but we are told she had a married past -- a nun with a married past? That’s all we are told. Sister Aloysius is hard pressed to show an ounce of humanity and in true Dickensian fashion derives glee from whatever gossip she can acquire.
She, however, shows us another side. She shows us doubt. What does she, though, have doubts about? I do not know. That is one of the enigmas of the film and that is what the viewer must weigh. Does she doubt her own possibly false consequential accusations against Father Flynn or does she have her OWN personal doubts about her faith, the church and the existence of God. When she puts up "any old pope" on the blackboard despite the fact that it is not the right one she says oh who cares you just want to use it as a reflective mirror to watch the kids and "make them think you have eyes on the back of your head." This is not exactly what one would expect from one who is supposed to love the church and its hierarchy. She is really quite cynical about church hierarchy and knows how the power game is played. She is shrewd and smart as she lies to Father Flynn about her knowledge of his allegedly sordid past in other parishes. She has none but she told him she did. He never questions it. Why would an innocent man not question that? More room for doubt this time of Father Flynn’s innocence. We never really do know if he is truly innocent even though I rooted for him to be so.
The once innocent Sister James says she now never sleeps. I have no doubt that she does not. Sister Aloysius cries with doubt at the end. Why? I do not know. I have my own doubts. This film is about good and about evil, truth and lies and shades of gray. It is above all, I think, about doubt of all that we are and all that we know. There is no doubt in MY mind that “Doubt” is a film not to be missed.
The movie takes place in a private Catholic school – perhaps in Boston -- shortly after the death of President Kennedy. It involves Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), the strict, sour, humorless nun and principal of the elementary school, who makes accusation against a humane and likable parish priest, Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman). She accuses him of committing an immoral act and mortal sin with the lonely and lone African American student and, perhaps, somewhat effeminate, church altar boy whom Father Flynn has befriended.
It is thought that by the younger, sweeter, more innocent Sister James (Amy Adams) on Sister Aloysius’s order to “keep an eye on Father Flynn” because of his sermon on the subject of doubt. Sister James believes, on circumstantial evidence, that Father Flynn may have committed an immoral act with the boy. She has, though, no concrete proof of its occurrence. Sister Aloysius is happy to do the obligatory assault on Father Flynn’s character when Sister James provides her with this salacious ammunition however flimsy it may be.
As I watched this, other excellent films came to mind. I thought about Lillian Hellman’s “The Children’s Hour,” a film about a child’s lie and the suicidal consequences of that lie as well as that lie’s element of truth. I thought about Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible” and its false accusation of immorality when people see things even when they don’t see them and what they will confess to seeing even when it is not there. I thought about how easy it is to bear false witness, to think we see what we do not and to believe false witness testimony, holding the fate of others (perhaps innocent others) in our hands. I finally thought of the Christian element of this film. It is about the possible accusation against a humane and potentially innocent man. It is about the surety of his accuser (Rome) and the torment of the accessory to the punishment (Pilot) because he knows he is condemning an innocent man.
This film, though, is not about certainty it is about doubt. Sister Aloysius is, perhaps, the most interesting character. What made her the Dickensian menacing character she was? It is hard to tell but we are told she had a married past -- a nun with a married past? That’s all we are told. Sister Aloysius is hard pressed to show an ounce of humanity and in true Dickensian fashion derives glee from whatever gossip she can acquire.
She, however, shows us another side. She shows us doubt. What does she, though, have doubts about? I do not know. That is one of the enigmas of the film and that is what the viewer must weigh. Does she doubt her own possibly false consequential accusations against Father Flynn or does she have her OWN personal doubts about her faith, the church and the existence of God. When she puts up "any old pope" on the blackboard despite the fact that it is not the right one she says oh who cares you just want to use it as a reflective mirror to watch the kids and "make them think you have eyes on the back of your head." This is not exactly what one would expect from one who is supposed to love the church and its hierarchy. She is really quite cynical about church hierarchy and knows how the power game is played. She is shrewd and smart as she lies to Father Flynn about her knowledge of his allegedly sordid past in other parishes. She has none but she told him she did. He never questions it. Why would an innocent man not question that? More room for doubt this time of Father Flynn’s innocence. We never really do know if he is truly innocent even though I rooted for him to be so.
The once innocent Sister James says she now never sleeps. I have no doubt that she does not. Sister Aloysius cries with doubt at the end. Why? I do not know. I have my own doubts. This film is about good and about evil, truth and lies and shades of gray. It is above all, I think, about doubt of all that we are and all that we know. There is no doubt in MY mind that “Doubt” is a film not to be missed.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
This is an exchange between people in the Metro West Blog. It refers to an editorial in which the person chastised those who voted for Obama. We exchanged heated opinions....well theirs was heated .... and I responded again.
Yes, Iona you are right...the problem is there are so many who believe as I do such as you but they do not usually write responses so I get the ones whose ire I provoke and I DO provoke it. It's futile of course. No matter it's fun to see the fervor. That's why I write it. I KNOW what it's going to provoke and I find it enjoyable. Of course, I know we were ALL fetuses. Guess what I don't seem to recall that in utero experience do they?
They are right all those horrendous tyrants were atheists but for all those I can relate hundreds of thousands who were believers who were the most barbaric tyrants and did and DO the most despicable things. In fact, Hitlerian Germany while it was a perverted paganism, grew out of two thousand years of Christian Anti-Semitic brutality. Christian behavior brutal and extreme was a NECESSARY precondition for the Holocaust. It cannot be denied in any way as the Gospels especially the latter ones place decide at the feet of the Jews. There is no getting around it I do not care how much it is twisted. Six million full term human beings, men, women and ONE MILLION children went to their deaths because early Christianity fostered a poisonous creed. Without the illustrious history of Christian inhuman behavior toward the Jew the Holocaust would never have happened.
In addition, preeminent scientists who were and are atheists have brought the most advanced discoveries so religionists see what they want to see. MOST I say MOST scientists are agnostics and do not subscribe to a sky god or Biblical myth. We all need to feel good and we all fear illness, old age and death. As my atheist social worker humanitarian supreme friend said just because you want it to be so does not make it so. It's hard to be an agnostic or an atheist absolutely but I am a TRUTH person and I am a science person. I will ONLY believe what can be shown to work and be true. Other than that it's faith and I'm not good at nor do I buy that.
They ask ME why I am afraid of god believers I am NOT afraid of the god believers except if they try to destroy my rights which they have for decades. The question, I think, is why THEY are afraid of people who doubt or who have no belief or question belief through logic. It obviously threatens their entire system. If somehow god flew down from on high, showed his existence and eliminated immense human and other suffering THEN I would be happy -- MORE than happy -- to reverse course. Until then I am a confirmed doubter.
To my good buddy Jennie: Our country, while those who set foot on its shores in 1620 were of a self flagellating grim Calvinist Christian witchcraft believing variety, thank fate by the time our Founders arrived most were emphatic in church state separation for the very reason that exists in our exchanges. Religion spells anger and historically often war. They knew it as evident in Europe's religiously violent past. Sure religionists do some good, no doubt about it. So do Hindus, Buddists and oh yes so do atheists. It is in the human DNA to do good. It is better for the advancement of one's DNA to ensure the species survives. I will agree with you on one thing Christopher Hitchens would do well to eschew his profanity. It does, however, NOT make him wrong it simply makes him profane. Well, violence among religionists IS profane but of a different variety.
And by the way, Sheila, please do NOT waste your time praying for my sister or me for that matter. The answer your question is a RESOUNDING NO if the situation were reversed, I believe, I would have NO idea NONE, NIL, NADA, NOTHING about what occurred less than 10 days after birth. My very first memory of self is at age 3. Praying, I believe, does nothing. As Dawkins said in his email to me one day, it is too bad one cannot find joy and ecstasy in the universe as it is. Gloomy is NOT a word he uses to describe the awesome nature of its existence. However enjoyable, this, happily I am sure for some, is the final installment of the debate. I rest my case.
Yes, Iona you are right...the problem is there are so many who believe as I do such as you but they do not usually write responses so I get the ones whose ire I provoke and I DO provoke it. It's futile of course. No matter it's fun to see the fervor. That's why I write it. I KNOW what it's going to provoke and I find it enjoyable. Of course, I know we were ALL fetuses. Guess what I don't seem to recall that in utero experience do they?
They are right all those horrendous tyrants were atheists but for all those I can relate hundreds of thousands who were believers who were the most barbaric tyrants and did and DO the most despicable things. In fact, Hitlerian Germany while it was a perverted paganism, grew out of two thousand years of Christian Anti-Semitic brutality. Christian behavior brutal and extreme was a NECESSARY precondition for the Holocaust. It cannot be denied in any way as the Gospels especially the latter ones place decide at the feet of the Jews. There is no getting around it I do not care how much it is twisted. Six million full term human beings, men, women and ONE MILLION children went to their deaths because early Christianity fostered a poisonous creed. Without the illustrious history of Christian inhuman behavior toward the Jew the Holocaust would never have happened.
In addition, preeminent scientists who were and are atheists have brought the most advanced discoveries so religionists see what they want to see. MOST I say MOST scientists are agnostics and do not subscribe to a sky god or Biblical myth. We all need to feel good and we all fear illness, old age and death. As my atheist social worker humanitarian supreme friend said just because you want it to be so does not make it so. It's hard to be an agnostic or an atheist absolutely but I am a TRUTH person and I am a science person. I will ONLY believe what can be shown to work and be true. Other than that it's faith and I'm not good at nor do I buy that.
They ask ME why I am afraid of god believers I am NOT afraid of the god believers except if they try to destroy my rights which they have for decades. The question, I think, is why THEY are afraid of people who doubt or who have no belief or question belief through logic. It obviously threatens their entire system. If somehow god flew down from on high, showed his existence and eliminated immense human and other suffering THEN I would be happy -- MORE than happy -- to reverse course. Until then I am a confirmed doubter.
To my good buddy Jennie: Our country, while those who set foot on its shores in 1620 were of a self flagellating grim Calvinist Christian witchcraft believing variety, thank fate by the time our Founders arrived most were emphatic in church state separation for the very reason that exists in our exchanges. Religion spells anger and historically often war. They knew it as evident in Europe's religiously violent past. Sure religionists do some good, no doubt about it. So do Hindus, Buddists and oh yes so do atheists. It is in the human DNA to do good. It is better for the advancement of one's DNA to ensure the species survives. I will agree with you on one thing Christopher Hitchens would do well to eschew his profanity. It does, however, NOT make him wrong it simply makes him profane. Well, violence among religionists IS profane but of a different variety.
And by the way, Sheila, please do NOT waste your time praying for my sister or me for that matter. The answer your question is a RESOUNDING NO if the situation were reversed, I believe, I would have NO idea NONE, NIL, NADA, NOTHING about what occurred less than 10 days after birth. My very first memory of self is at age 3. Praying, I believe, does nothing. As Dawkins said in his email to me one day, it is too bad one cannot find joy and ecstasy in the universe as it is. Gloomy is NOT a word he uses to describe the awesome nature of its existence. However enjoyable, this, happily I am sure for some, is the final installment of the debate. I rest my case.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
This was written on the Middlesex News editorial page by someone whose beloved cat, Mittens, was killed by a car recently at Christmas time just as the family was sitting down to enjoy the beauty of the decorations and tree. Her story is at this link: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x758547324/Berry-Prayers-of-thanks-for-a-good-cat-and-more.
It prompted my response which I placed on the Metro West News blog:
The Mortality of Mittens: THAT editorial is a profoundly beautiful, ever-so-sad and touching story which has my tears staining the keyboard as I type. We have two cats one (Sugar) who is 17 and the other (Sky) who is 5. Since we have no children, the cats are the two joys of our lives and foci of our attention. We see in them their intrinsic beauty and gentleness every day. They are a source of continual comfort and humor in an often humorless world which has seen fit to visit some tough times on us. It is a world which shows us its razors edge all too often and because of which I am all too often prone to gnash my teeth. The cats seem to obviate that.
We know the reality, as you do now, that death will soon pay an unwelcome visit to our 17 year old Sugar, a loyal, loving and beautiful friend with us for nearly all that time. My hands hesitate to even type those words.
How, though, can we experience the beauty of life if we do not accept its opposite? To me it is the conundrum of existence with which I always will, I know, grapple. Although I am a very secular person, I believe certain Biblical texts have profundity. The one I always love which many rabbis read at funerals is Psalm 90 verse 10: "The days of our lives are three score and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away".
This is true for all living things on earth no matter their biological life span. We all fly away. It seems to be the natural order of things. With life there is risk and uncertainty. The labor and sorrow is a fact, I think, we must endure to be able to experience the beauty and joy life has to offer as well. A lifespan is, we so often know too, not equal to all. It varies with time and circumstance. I hope, though, your grief is tempered by how much joy the animal you knew and loved brought to you. Perhaps, when you are ready, you can experience the love of yet another furry friend again who needs your love and attention in return. My thoughts and hope are with you!
It prompted my response which I placed on the Metro West News blog:
The Mortality of Mittens: THAT editorial is a profoundly beautiful, ever-so-sad and touching story which has my tears staining the keyboard as I type. We have two cats one (Sugar) who is 17 and the other (Sky) who is 5. Since we have no children, the cats are the two joys of our lives and foci of our attention. We see in them their intrinsic beauty and gentleness every day. They are a source of continual comfort and humor in an often humorless world which has seen fit to visit some tough times on us. It is a world which shows us its razors edge all too often and because of which I am all too often prone to gnash my teeth. The cats seem to obviate that.
We know the reality, as you do now, that death will soon pay an unwelcome visit to our 17 year old Sugar, a loyal, loving and beautiful friend with us for nearly all that time. My hands hesitate to even type those words.
How, though, can we experience the beauty of life if we do not accept its opposite? To me it is the conundrum of existence with which I always will, I know, grapple. Although I am a very secular person, I believe certain Biblical texts have profundity. The one I always love which many rabbis read at funerals is Psalm 90 verse 10: "The days of our lives are three score and ten; and if by reason of strength they be four score years, yet is their strength labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away".
This is true for all living things on earth no matter their biological life span. We all fly away. It seems to be the natural order of things. With life there is risk and uncertainty. The labor and sorrow is a fact, I think, we must endure to be able to experience the beauty and joy life has to offer as well. A lifespan is, we so often know too, not equal to all. It varies with time and circumstance. I hope, though, your grief is tempered by how much joy the animal you knew and loved brought to you. Perhaps, when you are ready, you can experience the love of yet another furry friend again who needs your love and attention in return. My thoughts and hope are with you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Democratic Presidential Convention--On to November
I watched the Democratic convention last evening until my body's demand for sleep overtook me around midnight. Having followed thin...
-
Academics say Justice Antonin Scalia was an “originalist.” What does it mean to be a Constitutional originalist? It means that one revert...
-
I wrote this last week and for the most part sat on it because I did not want my writing to imply anything against Israel. As stated agai...
-
Breach of Tort : This is NOT the change I bought into. Each day I grow angrier and angrier at the president for making this DISASTROUS deci...