What is the American Dream?

Now that America is experiencing an economic slowdown brought on by a banking crisis, many Americans feel that they are missing out on the American Dream.  But what is the American Dream?

I think that it used to be that a poor, uneducated person can come to America, work hard at his greatest talent and become very, very rich.  His children will be brought up with everything money can buy and go on to father generations of rich, well educated, attractive Americans. This dream is still alive for the billions of poor, uneducated people all over the world - that if they can get to America, the Promised Land, they will also be rich and successful.  It seems almost guaranteed.

For Americans after World War II, the Dream became having a good job, owning one’s own home with two cars in the garage, having at least two kids and retiring with a generous pension after a long career of good work.

But sometime around the 1970s or 80s the definition changed again.  In recognition of the fact that while all of us are created equal some have much more than others and some have very much less, we decided to level the playing field by stressing variety over performance, diversity over excellence and entitlement over hard work.  We now live in a country where half the population pays no taxes while one percent of our people own and control most of our country’s wealth.  A recent study found that the average white American has assets (like homes, bank accounts, IRAs, pensions, gold etc.) worth 20 times more than the average black or Hispanic Americans do - $120,000 versus $6,000.  And more alarming that 90% of Americans have total assets worth less than $600,000.  We are hearing that now one in five children lives in poverty defined as $22,000 a year for a family of four.  (This same amount is what many of our congressional representatives go through each month for their lifestyle.)  We have 14 million people out of work instead of the normal 4.5 million.  There are now almost 50 million Americans on Food Stamps up 40% in a decade.

What is our American Dream now - more generous Food Stamp benefits, another extension of unemployment benefits, a lowering not only of our mortgage interest rate but also the principal owed or more soup kitchens serving better quality food?

And what is the Dream for our children?  Can they look forward to excellent, affordable education, at least K-12?  Can they look forward to getting objective and comprehensive news coverage from the media or to having political candidates who have the country’s interest at heart and the intellect and integrity to realize their highest hopes for the people?  Must they continue to work to fund the biggest military force the world has ever known covering every continent with almost 1000 military bases filled with our 2.5 million military personnel or foreign aid to cruel dictators to prevent worse dictators from taking over?  Will they have good jobs that are neither outsourced nor insourced and will those jobs provide them with a substantial pension when they can retire at age 75?  Will Social Security and Medicare still exist and will living and affording it still be possible?

What could the American Dream be now and in the future?

Could it truly be the greatest country with the greatest people who are united as a people not distracted with their identification with their foreign ancestors?  Could we be a country rich enough to eliminate poverty among our people, wise enough to dramatically reduce waste and pollution, practical enough to realize the primary importance of providing the very best education from kindergarden through college, secure enough to pull our troops out of foreign lands and wars knowing that the best defense is a strong economy and an educated united populace?  Could we once again be known as a country that makes great things that the world wants while able to be self sufficient in raw materials, finished products and needed services?

Is it just a dream and not an entitlement or guarantee?  Yes, but it is a dream that we can make come true if we work hard enough for it rather than sitting around waiting for it to happen.

Saving Medicare and Medicaid

During the recent discussions about reducing our national debt some have mentioned Medicare and Medicaid as sources of future fiscal concerns.  Baby boomers, people born between January 1, 1946 and December 31, 1964, are beginning to turn 65 at a rapid rate.  The government estimates that 10,000 people are joining the Medicare rolls every day.  Medicaid, a medical program for low income Americans, will be gaining 30,000 recipients in the next few years when the medical reform signed into law goes into full effect.

Medicare is funded by payroll deductions made by employers and their employees.  When eligible because of age or disability, recipients pay about $115 a month for medical coverage.  Companies paying for their employees’ private health care coverage costs spend about $1200 a month or ten times the Medicare contribution.  This disparity is unsustainable.  The accumulated funding for this program is down to a few hundred billion dollars and the current ratio is down to three workers for every retiree, not enough to make up for the cost shortfall.

What can be done?

First we must find where the major costs are.  Almost half of Medicare and Medicaid costs are in end-of-life care.  This includes nursing homes which can easily cost $100,000 a year; expensive surgery to extend life a little; and prosthetic costs for everything from knee or hip replacement to new dentures and dialysis for those not eligible for transplants as the biggest source of cost. The fact is that we are living much longer and using science to stay alive as long as possible as though in some kind of longevity competition.

We will have to make some moral decisions about our final days.  Do we want to exhaust all remedies to prolong our lives no matter how painful or costly?  Is quantity more important than quality?  I suggest that we must consider quality over quantity and think in terms of costs and benefits. 

If we are offered an optional surgery that will cost more than $100,000 while costing us only $20, should we consider its cost?  It’s not our money.  I say, yes, we should consider the cost as though we were paying for it ourselves. But do we?

In the new economy, we are being asked to make sacrifices for the greater good.  Here is a good kind of sacrifice.  Let us be willing to call it a day when our time comes and not accept expensive means to artificially extend our lives.

Since much of health care costs are hospitals and nursing homes, we must ensure that they are run as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

Then there is the cost of medical doctors and specialists.

Medical doctors must first go through years of education.  Undergraduate pre-med student spend at least three years taking chemistry, physics, biology and calculus, exclusively.  They take no philosophy, psychology, humanities or literature courses.  They are not encouraged to read novels. They are less well rounded than the average liberal arts major.  This could contribute to an alienation from the full human experience.

If they study hard and focus primarily on their studies and on getting great grades, they can get into a medical school.  They spend four years studying more about the science and math of the human body.  They then spend two years interning at a hospital followed by two to four years as a resident learning their specialty - internal medicine, heart surgery, oncology, etc.

By the time a doctor is ready to set up a private practice or join one, s/he is about 32 years old.  If the new doctor is not from a wealthy family, and many are, then there is a loan worth in the six figures to begin paying off.  The doctor must get insurance in the event that some ungrateful patient and crafty lawyer conspire to make money of this doctor’s hard work.  The doctor must earn money, real money and now.

Today there is a concern that doctors who are trained as primary care physicians cannot make enough money to pay off their loans, pay their insurance and live in a lifestyle appropriate to their rank and status. What will we do if doctors decide on more lucrative specialties?  Who will do the job?

Doctors going into specialties seem to quickly forget everything they learned that does not bear directly to their specific area.  A cardiologist doesn’t have to know anything about diabetes, or cancer or back problems or broken bones. An oncologist does not have to know much about heart function.  Most specialists show very little interest in any other area. 

Why is medical education so long, expensive, difficult and seemingly unnecessary while being so limited? Is this education meant to provide all the needed tools or is it a system to weed all but most elite within very narrow definitions?  Could medical training be made both much shorter and more relevant?  Instead of all that chemistry, physics and calculus, what about more courses in the social sciences and humanities?  What about courses in management so doctors can manage their staffs as well as their personal business affairs?

And if primary care physicians don’t get paid enough, why not use nurse practitioners for almost all primary care?  Can they be used as specialists too? Nurses are more hands-on than most doctors and rely more on the person’s body than on test results.  It takes about three years to train a nurse practitioner and they cost much less than doctors.

Then there is individual responsibility and, perhaps, sacrifice.  What would happen to healthcare costs if we all kept our weight under control, didn’t smoke cigarettes, exercised regularly, drank a minimum of alcohol and a lot of fresh water - became aware of and thereby controlled many of our unhealthy beliefs and practices?  What would happen to health care costs if we could prevent and/or cure cancer, heart disease, and diabetes?

This is, the kind of thinking needed to bring down the cost of all American health care including Medicare and Medicaid.

Reducing the Budget Deficit

The president has just agreed to a deficit reduction deal that would reduce federal expenditures by $900 billion over the next ten years beginning October 1, 2011.  The annual shortfall is currently at about $1.1 trillion.  This agreement would cut that to $1 trillion. 

There is a provision to come up with future cuts of more than $1.5 trillion over the ten year period.  That would reduce the $1 trillion annual deficit to about $850 billion.  Our current $14.4 trillion accumulated deficit would be $23 trillion in ten years if these cuts take place.

Some of us may remember that we tackled the deficit in the mid 1990s.  By fiscal 1999-2000, under Democratic President Clinton, we were running an annual budget surplus and headed to eliminate our then accumulated deficit by 2003.  But after 2001, our Republican President cut taxes mainly helping the highest earners and got the country into two wars.  The two wars costs were not considered as part of our budget which was running $500 billion in the red without these costs.  Then to make matters worse, the tax cuts added no new jobs and when the housing bubble burst, so did our economy.  We lost millions of jobs.  With as many as 15 million Americans out of work and losing 750,000 a month, the country’s tax revenues shrank while government costs for unemployment insurance and health coverage rose dramatically.

The incoming President inherited a $12 trillion accumulated deficit and was forced to spend more than $1 trillion a year more than we were taking in to save our very economy.

Now the deficit is at $14.4 trillion and we have to stop increasing it and then must work to eliminate it.  But how?  We are recovering from a devastating recession and still have very high unemployment.  The wrong kind of cuts could further weaken the economy.

Here’s what I would do.

First I would cut all costs which leave our country.  These dollars do not circulate here and stimulate our economy.  The first expenditure that comes to mind is foreign aid.  The U.S. which is now borrowing $.40 for every dollar we spend, gives 51 countries a total of $50 billion a year in foreign aid.  The biggest single recipient is Israel at about $5 billion.  But Egypt and Pakistan are also getting billions a year.  Most of the aid is misused and goes to corrupt leaders rather than their intended needy.  Some of our money actually goes to fund our enemies.

I say end all foreign aid, even to Israel the country that probably deserves it the most.  That would save $50 billion a year or $500 billion over ten years.  It would not cost any American jobs.

Next I would look at our 700-1,000 military bases overseas. 

I would bring our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan closing all our bases there. I would close all of our non essential bases everywhere else including Asia (Japan and South Korea as well as the Philippines), Western Europe defending against a Soviet Union that no longer exists, and the Middle East.  Host countries that want us to stay, if any, can pay all our related costs.

The troops that are in the reserves stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan would return home to their civilian positions.  The enlisted service personnel coming home to U.S. soil would be free to leave the service or stay on meaning that we would recruit fewer replacements.  Over a 10 year period, this closing of foreign bases as well as ending our wars in the Middle East would save us at least $4 trillion.  Remember most of the  money we are now spending overseas, stays overseas.

Next, I would look to cut waste and fraud in federal programs.  That is said to be $150 billion a year according to a recent congressional study.  That is $1.5 trillion over the 10 year period.

That would be $6 trillion in savings over a ten year period.

But what about increasing revenue?  I would eliminate the subsidies for farmers and oil companies.  Then I would simplify the federal income tax code for individuals.  I would eliminate all itemized deductions and replace them with a standard deduction of $15,000/$30,000 for individual/couple. I would have all sources of income treated the same and combined.  So the net wages (not taxing the payroll deductions) would be added to the interest amount, the Social Security benefit payments, unemployment benefits, dividends, lawsuit settlements, bonuses, stock options etc.  There would be just five tax brackets ranging from 10%, for net incomes up to $50,000 up to a maximum of 30% for income over one million dollars a year. There would be no credits like for education or “earned income.”  Taxes would take minutes to compute.  The top earners would see their marginal tax rates decline from about 36% down to 30%, but the 30% will be with no deductions other than the standard.

This change in the tax code would generate approximately $300 billion a year or $3 trillion over ten years

Self employed and corporate tax codes would also be streamlined and simplified producing more revenue with fewer deductions.

All told there would be $9 trillion in savings over the ten year period.  It would leave us with only a $16 trillion deficit (not a $25 trillion one) which would be eliminated in another 10 years with more people back to work by then and therefore paying instead of costing taxes.

And who would be hurt by all these changes?

The rich would be paying more than they are now.  Every dollar over one million would be taxed exactly 30% and every kind of income would be treated equally - no more 15% for capital gains. They would have less money to invest and less to spend lavishly, which while decadent,  pays the workers well which then passes through the economy.  They might be less generous in their donations to charities since they will not be deductible.
Institutions that relied on tax deductible donations might suffer, at least at first.  Soon people will find that they give because they want to help, they want to give back.  That is their motivation and not getting 15 or 25% of it off their taxes.

Will people stop buying homes because they can’t write them off?  Most home owners do not itemize more than $30,000 on their joint returns.  They would get a standard deduction of $30,000 under this new plan.  Again, soon people will realize that saving a little on taxes is not a big or good reason to buy a home.

The people at the bottom of the economic scale will also suffer some.  Half of all wage earners not only pay no federal income taxes, they actually receive money in the form of Earned Income Credit and Making Work Pay Credit - about $115 billion a year.  This would end.  And everyone earning more than the standard deduction ($15,000/$30,00) would pay some tax whereas now they would be getting money.

Tax preparers, who usually are seasonal, would lose because anyone who can add and subtract could do their own taxes in minutes. In fact in a few years the system could do it for the taxpayer.  It would know every income source tied to the social security number and since there are no itemized deductions, IRS would know exactly what your tax was. Tax preparers would still be needed for self employment and other business tax returns which would also be streamlined but would have to have deductions like payroll costs and rent.

Our reduction in foreign aid will mainly hurt the corrupt government officials who build palaces, secret weapon systems or large Swiss bank accounts with our aid money.  It would hurt Israel, the one country that uses the aid wisely.

Withdrawing our forces from around the globe might actually make the world a safer place and create a better image especially in the Arab world.  Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan might mean that they will eventually fail.  It will be their failure as it will their success if all goes well.  We must let countries succeed and fail on their own.  It builds their national pride and self esteem so that they can appreciate us as friends and not as overlords.

Many of our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are in the reserves and would love to come home to their regular lives.  Others, stationed overseas would like to come home and return to civilian life.  They would be happy about these proposed changes.  The question will be how many are left and where can they be assigned here in the States or in select strategic positions and what kind of forces do we need. The support personnel at the foreign bases would lose their jobs.  The base teachers, nurses, custodians etc., many from the host country would suffer in this change.

After all these changes, America would be stronger economically and even militarily.  America and the world would be safer. We will no longer be the 911 of the world.

All these recommended changes do not address the creation of more jobs, keeping Medicare and Medicaid solvent and protecting the future of the Social Security system.  These issues will be addressed in a separate column.

 

Are We All Created Equal?

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote what has become one of the most quoted American principles, that in this country we believe that “all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights that among these are of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

What did it really mean?

When it was written it surely referred only to white men since women were not free to vote and people brought to our shores as slaves were certainly given only a very limited freedom with which to pursue happiness. Until the middle of the 19th century, slaves were still considered to be property. And surely American Indians were not considered equal nor were Chinese Coolies who were brought in to work on the rail system.

Well, now even though there is still discrimination based on race, gender or national origin, most Americans would say that they believe that all Americans and perhaps even all people are equally human and should receive equal opportunity to excel (as long as it does not interfere with our own ambitions and those of our loved ones). 

But are we all created equal?

Do we all have equal parents, equal genes, equal intelligence, equal attractiveness, equal health, equal education, equal experiences, equal financial security, equal integrity, equal talent, equal perseverance or equal faith?  Are all doctors, or athletes, or lawyers, or teachers, or parents equal?  Are all of our sub-cultures equal at least relatively?  Do we all have equal opportunity to succeed in whatever we attempt? Do we all enjoy life to the same degree or even close to the same degree?

Is the illegitimate child of a junkie living in the projects really equal in any of these respects to the child of a loving, well educated and well-to-do family that can send their child to the best schools and share the most enriching environments? Do children raised around the worst possible role models really have an equal chance at the future?

And when the children born of advantage manage to succeed, is that success and all that goes with it really theirs alone?  Should they feel free to look down at those who were much less fortunate for not turning their lives around?  Should the financially well-compensated resent having to give significant percentages of their generous incomes to help those who have not fared as well?  Should they cite survival of the fittest as their battle cry against sharing the wealth?

I think that these questions are relevant because we are now forced to consider raising taxes very significantly on the rich in order to help those who have inadequate education, health insurance, housing, nutrition and/or opportunity.  We must do it not only because it is the decent thing to do but because even if we do not really believe that each American citizen has an equal right to succeed, we each believe deep down that we are just as human as the next person.

We all have thoughts and feelings, we all have bodies that are mortal and vulnerable. We all need food, water and air to live, we all must sleep and eliminate our waste products and we all bleed when cut. We all feel pleasure and pain. We all want to survive and to live in relative comfort and security. We all want to love and be loved in return. We are all trying to maintain or improve our self-esteem - our reputation with ourselves.  

I think that this is the cause of most crime. The inherent feeling in the criminal that he is somehow equal to those he preys upon even though their lives seem otherwise. The car thief may be thinking that he deserves that nice car just as much as its rightful owner does. The businessman who cheats his clients may believe deep down that they don’t really deserve to have their money as much as he does. The suicide bomber, so common now in the Middle East, may figure that if he can’t be equal in this lifetime, maybe he can get a leg up on the hereafter.

Not that this is any excuse for improper behavior, but it is an explanation.

Is it then our society’s responsibility to level the playing field so that people in our country can have some real hope for success in this land of presumed equality?

To this end, should those fortunate enough to be able to earn and control tremendous amounts of money be obliged to share more of their wealth with the less fortunate to make up for disadvantages in health care coverage, education, housing and nutrition access? Would this discourage hard work, creativity and risk-taking among the advantaged while only making the unfortunates more dependent and less likely to succeed on their own in the future? Should we let nature work its evolutionary magic on the future of our people? Or should we institute a caste system allowing a certain segment of our society to remain above the rest and another that will forever be at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid?

We could then say that we are all equal but that some are more so than others as they did in Animal Farm.

I think that I have an answer for these questions.

Today, in America, its 300 million citizens, be they male or female, young or old, black, white, yellow, brown or red, rich or poor should be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness to their maximum potential and no American should be homeless, hungry, ignorant or without medical attention when needed.  Every American is at least equally deserving of these basic rights.

While each individual is responsible for his or her actions, it falls on society to seek concurrence about what the society should be like and what each member is expected to do toward that end.  While parents must teach their children, the parents must have a guide, a lesson plan.  That plan should come from the consensus and it should be taught in our schools and reinforced in the workplace and offices of government.

Without taking a nationwide poll, it is possible to come up with certain values that members of our society can agree on. We can agree that while business has the right to make a profit, it does not have a right to become greedy or gluttonous.  The profit a business makes must be a result of completely honest business practices.  Companies and individuals should be held accountable for maintaining high standards of integrity.

While we all can agree that some people deserve greater compensation for their work than others, the degree of difference must be within reason.  One person’s work product may be worth ten or twenty times that of another, it should not be thousands of times greater as it is now for movie stars, super athletes, financiers, CEO’s and opinionators (like Glenn, Sean, Rush, Bill O. and Savage).

Could we realize that while we each are different, excelling in some areas but not in others, we each are here for a reason and we are necessary parts of an infinite whole?  Just as the nose is better at smelling, the foot is better for walking and our eyes are better for seeing. Each part of the human body is different but necessary for the functioning of the entire body.  Every part deserves to get blood and oxygen even though some parts seem to be bigger consumers than others.

In our human drama, it seems that even the people with the least to offer have an important role to play.  If we were equal physically, there would be no cause for compassion. If we were all equally gifted, there would be no cause for kindness.  If we all acted equally there would be no cause for tolerance.

Let us strive to ensure that all Americans receive at least the basic ingredients for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Surely we are all equal to that much human dignity.

Ridding The World of Bad Words

Lately, certain words usually only referred to by using their first letter, have been identified for elimination.  What these words represent and the effect they have on people have made these forbidden words unworthy of human utterance.

There is the “N” word that is used extensively in America’s most famous novel, “Huckleberry Finn.”  Since this word appears more than 200 times in Mark Twain’s book, many schools refused to let their students read it.  Recently, a new edition was published substituting the “n” word with the word “slave,” considered a much more tolerable label for human beings.

During a recent governor’s race, someone in the background used the “w” word about a candidate during a telephone call made by his opponent.  The word was meant to highlight this female candidate’s willingness to do anything for money.  The woman feigned great offense to her new title in such a way that the name seemed too good to describe her. She claimed that the word was an affront to every woman in the state. But was it a sexist slur? Should it no longer be used?

Now there is a movement to get people to stop using the “r” word out of consideration for people with learning challenges.  Using this word with any reference should be stopped, immediately, advocates urge.

And then there is the word so bad that I don’t even use its letter.  It is the one between “e” and “g.” While it describes what most people seem to greatly enjoy, it is considered unspeakable.  There is now a record using the full word in its title and throughout the song.  Is this pushing artistic freedom too far? Can this word followed by the second person singular be used at least when listening to a terribly dishonest politician lie on T.V.? (I must admit that at times I get so upset at disingenuous congressmen that I sometimes yell out “letter between “e” and “g” to your second person singular” while watching them on T.V.  I can only hope that nobody has heard me.)

What other words should be limited to just their first initial if mentioned at all?

Surely all words that can be deemed racial or ethnic slurs could be banned or limited to their first initial.  We could have the “J” word, the “k” word (the worse, though lower case, version of the prior letter’s word), the “C” word (or the Ch if allowed two letters), the “P” word (all the jokes would be “P” jokes) and so on.

Then there are the words that denigrate character, like the “w” word that was so politicized recently.  There could be the initialization of the “l” word for people who don’t speak the truth, the “p” word for those who appear too gluttonous, and the “g” word for those of us who like airing the laundry of our friends and acquaintances. 

But then we come to words like the “r” word.  These words add insult to injury.  They help us point out and ridicule the physical or mental shortcomings of others.  Words like “stupid,” “ugly,” “moron,” “dumb,” “homely,” “short,” “stubby,” “coward,” “dimwit,” and “slug,” could be forever banned because of the hurt they cause those given these labels which are frontal assaults on their self-esteem and feelings of adequacy.

There is another solution, one that would save countless adjectives that could be reconditioned and used for peaceful purposes.  Rather than limiting the kind of words available for use, why not work on creating and nurturing a culture that has such understanding and compassion that such words lose their negative meaning?  Not only would we be beyond even considering expressing vulgarity or insensitivity, the victims of even the then very occasional use of these terms would see them only as sad reflections of the speakers, and have compassion for their ignorance and apparent feelings of inadequacy.

But can a culture change? This question has risen in the minds of many watching the events in the Middle East and Northern Africa.  Can these cultures change what seems to be their collective DNA?  Can tribal nations come together as one people?  Can education and exposure to the civilized world help them radically change their brutal attitudes, beliefs and behaviors?

The same could be asked about ours.  Can we wean ourselves away from the violence and greed that drives some of our worst behavior?  Can the elite learn to take less and give more? Can we spread intelligence and consideration to all corners and all aspects of our culture?  Can we come together to end poverty and its resultant crime in our land?  Can we come to learn that bigger is not always better and that more is sometimes less?  Can our politicians stop their petty squabbling and partisan rhetoric and try their best to solve our country’s pressing problems?

I think that the answer is “yes” for us and an almost “maybe” for some of the other cultures mentioned. Germany and Japan changed dramatically after World War II.  I think that we are seeing that happening in China and India.  Even in the Middle East there is the beginning of a recognition that their way doesn’t work anymore and probably never did.  It will take them a while to realize that first they must stop subjugating women even if that makes the men feel even more inadequate. Men there will not be free of their tyrants until they stop being tyrants to their women.

We will never to ban enough bad words to make all our people feel that their self esteem is not under assault.  But we can work harder to ban ignorance and perhaps, to give all our people reason to have high self esteem making using negative terms against others unimaginable.

Cherchez Les Femmes

Lately, we have heard much about men behaving badly, especially with women.  After we were starting to process the notion of celibate Catholic priests having sex with young boys, we became bombarded with tales of prominent people disgracing themselves with women.

Yes, many years ago there was the contender for the Presidential nomination of his party when he was caught on a yacht with a very attractive young woman on his lap. We got over that thinking that the woman could have done a lot better.  But while that was tame, it ended the man’s political career.

But then we were forced to hear all about our former and, for many, favorite President having sex with a young intern in the Oval Office.  And we had to watch and hear him lie about it again and again.  Why did he do it?  He said that he did it because he could.

During the prosecution of this President for impeachment, we learned that his accusers and his consolers were also involved in extra marital liaisons at that very time.  There was the Speaker who had an affair while his wife was dying of cancer, divorced his wife, married his mistress, then had an affair, divorced his second wife and married his second mistress.  Another major opposition leader was forced to resign because of his activities in someone else’s bedroom.  And the President’s spiritual consoler was at the time advocating repentance, while fathering an illegitimate child, much to his wife’s surprise.

But most recently we have had several governors caught having affairs while married and in office.  The Carolinian who claimed to be out hiking the trails while he was in fact in South America with the new love of his life. There was the New York governor who got caught paying a fortune for a high class prostitute but, the press was slow to note, he had been doing this for many years, not just once, and was doing this while at the same time prosecuting every other house of prostitution in his state.  There was the New Jersey governor who was forced out of office because of his infidelity to his wife with another man.  And now we have the former governor of the largest state admitting to an affair with his maid for an extended period of time and resulting in the birth of an illegitimate child. And, of course, there is the popular, populist candidate for President and Vice President denying reports that he too had cheated on his faithful wife who was dying of cancer.  He then admitted the affair but denied paternity of the resulting offspring.  He has since acknowledged his parental role in the child’s life and has been indicted on several felonies. The wife he betrayed is no longer alive to witness his complete fall from grace.

Recently we were informed of a sexual assault by a man of great importance in the world of finance, a possible candidate for the Presidency of France.  He is accused of attacking a hotel maid.  Not to be outdone, a high ranking Egyptian executive, ten years the Frenchman’s senior, raped another maid at another fancy hotel in the same town.

And then this:  A dynamic New York congressman has admitted sending strange but sexual pictures to six women who had contacted him because of his political appeal.  He was trying to turn it into another kind of appeal.  And all this from a newly and happily married man, soon to be a father and, perhaps, a bachelor. 

What does it all mean?

I think that it means that somehow the mechanism hard-wired into most males of the species to want sex to produce offspring, has gone out of control.  The male members must be  attracted to the female members for the the species to survive, but it’s going too far.

It seems that the more the stress of modern life has threatened this natural urge to merge, the more we have done to stimulate it. But as we have seen in other parts of the world, it doesn’t need stimulation and seems even greatest when repressed.  Besides the thousands of examples of this in the behavior of Catholic priests, we see this throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa.  There, the respective cultures tried to rein in this strong urge in their men by covering up the women.  The reason women there must sometimes be covered from head to toe even in hot weather is to keep the men from being so tempted by their feminine charms that they will try to have sex with them or at least try for some unwelcome physical contact.  As we have learned from women in Northern Africa that even when fully covered, women are repeatedly subjected to unwanted touching and feeling.

A group of radical religious followers is fighting our troops in Afghanistan.  People might ask themselves, what they are fighting for.  It is not land or power nor for money, glory or freedom - it is for the right to continue to treat their women like possessions - objects with no personal consciousness or rights.  The Taliban fighters fear that their women will become educated and learn about life in other places and no longer put up with the way they are treated.  The women will learn that they have alternatives.

And now while Arab men are rising up and demanding freedom from tyranny, they are unwilling to grant the same right to their women - their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.

We see the Western cultures also mistreating their women, albeit in much gentler, more subtle ways. While Western  men would never sanction the vicious forms of abuse reported in the Middle East and Africa, they think nothing much about looking at women as sex objects rather than as the subjects of admiration they actually are. Now the French are rethinking their attitudes toward and treatment of their own women.

Lately, we have heard about American men sending revealing photographs of themselves or, at least, of specific parts of themselves, in the vain hopes of capturing a woman’s heart or at least her body. These men don’t realize that women are not like men.  They are not into porn pictures of men.  If being one of the greatest quarterbacks in history is not enough to get you a cheerleader, a picture of part of your anatomy won’t make a difference.  And pictures of men naked above the waist are not even appealing to men who are into men. 

So what are we men to do? How can many of us help ourselves from thinking of doing things that we know we shouldn’t for the love of or, rather,  lust for women?

Perhaps, it would help to realize that what we are responding to is a vestigial impulse that is no longer necessary.  We do not have to impregnate many women in order to preserve the species. There are six billion of us humans now, we can slow down and each have, at most, one offspring.  Our desire to have our way with every woman who appeals to us no longer has a proper function.  We can remember what this column repeats frequently - that we can treat each person and activity as ends in themselves and not only as means to other ends.  We are all subjects as well as objects and should be treated accordingly.

And, we must always remember that women are the very flower of creation, G-d saved the best for last.

Punctuation Marks in the Grammar of Life

A long running cosmological theory is that the Creator spoke the physical world using the Hebrew alphabet.  The old Testament does begin with the Lord saying “Let there be light” in Hebrew. The proponents of this idea also believe that each moment still depends on His speech to exist. This cosmology introduces the idea of life being linked to language. The basic structure of language is grammar.  The primary component of grammar is the sentence consisting of a subject, object and verb as in “I love you” or “I eat food” or “I lost my gloves.” 

If you look at grammar and religion, the similarity comes more into focus.  The essence of Christianity is the Holy Trinity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Eastern religions believe that life’s duality is an illusion (maya) and that all is one. Judaism is also based on this premise: “Adenoi echad” - G-d is one.

So Christianity believes in the subject, object and verb. The Father, the Creator, is the subject and his creation - his son - is the object and the Holy Ghost is the verb, the act or process of creating.

Some of the Eastern religions believe that while there appears to be a subject and object, an I and Thou, there is just the one. Zen, however,  suggests that while  there is only one there are also two, hence the Koan “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” or “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” There is the subject who has consciousness and the object that cannot be said to exist without an awareness of its presence. A clap cannot occur without both hands - a subject and an object.

So when asked “Which came first the chicken or the egg?” the answer is “consciousness.”

We insert our own punctuation marks in the grammar of our lives.

 If we work Monday through Friday, then the weekend provides our period (.) after the end of our Friday work-day sentence.  If we work days, evenings supply us with commas and occasional semi-colons to get us through the week.
If we are students, our semester breaks are like new paragraphs, our year-end final exams mark the end of one chapter and the predictable beginning of the next.

Then there are vacations, holidays, illness, and daily lunch hours to break up our living sentences.  We also have our other meal times, rest periods and favorite T.V. shows to further divide up our daily labors (the way parentheses and “quotation marks” do in sentences).

If nights and weekends are commas, semi colons and periods, holidays might be highlighting, italics or underlining.  So when we celebrate a birthday, we are highlighting the importance that person is to us. We appreciate the person every day, but on this one day a year we want to emphasize that inclination.  Legal holidays are the macro version of birthdays. 

While we are, or should be, grateful for our lives every day, this feeling is put in italics on the fourth Thursday in November.  While we love one another as the reflections of ourselves at almost every moment of our waking hours, we feel it especially underlined on the 25th of December. The same goes for our daily  patriotism on July 4, May 31st, June 14th and best of all on the 11th day of the 11th month; our daily renewal on the first day of the first month of the year ( Jewish Chinese Americans can celebrate the new year three times a year); our unquestionable respect and adoration for our parents on the days set aside to honor them and our perpetual respect for our founding fathers on President’s Day and Columbus Day (now known as something else to some) and on Martin Luther King Day, commemorating the founding father of civil rights..

For those of us born on a holiday, that day is highlighted, italicized and underlined.

When we retire we find that we have and need fewer punctuation marks in our daily lives. What are evenings, week-ends and holidays off when you have nothing to be off from?  (Though we still have mealtimes, our T.V shows [for those of us who admittedly watch it], daily walks, bathing and eliminating waste products to break up our daily sentences.)

Our retirement should give us much more time to insert commas, semi colons, exclamation points, question marks and periods whenever we want to and to highlight, italicize and underline all of our celebrated feelings every day and then, at every moment of every day, so that each single sentence that we experience will be pregnant with our constant awareness and appreciation.