But let's start with a story which Sid Bolotin wrote about eight years ago and which he likes so much that he has submitted it for your perusal at this time. Enjoy ! ... if that is the right word. Let's start then with:
LOIS IN LOVE
Sid Bolotin
Lois played out the last bridge hand of the afternoon with her usual skill and announced, “ Small slam, bid and made. Thanks, girls. Now I have to scoot home to make Jack his favorite supper. He’s coming over tonight for a romantic evening.”
The other card players in the clubhouse of Cascade Lakes were also departing to return to their homes after the usual Tuesday afternoon bridge games, and Lois felt delicious to be part of this retirement scene in Florida. She and her new boyfriend, Jack, had recently moved from up North into this gated, retirement community. She as a single woman from New England, he as a widower from New York whose wife had suddenly died shortly after they had bought their retirement home.
“You know, Adele,” Lois said as she walked to her car arm-in-arm with her new best friend, “I’m so glad that I joined the Singles Club. That’s where I met Jack and fell in love with him. I’ve never been so happy. At 55 I’m one of the younger people here, but this is a wonderfully accepting community in which I can make a new life.”
“I’m delighted for you, Lois. Everyone comments on what a lovely couple you two are. Your pale skin, bright, green eyes, and long, reddish hair compliment his olive, tanned complexion. He’s only slightly balding and a very trim 65. You both play tennis and are physically fit. He was so, so sad before he met you. Now, you two can rebuild your lives together. I know that you told me that you’re all alone because your family died off so unexpectedly.”
After dropping Adele off at her house, Lois drove into her driveway, parked her car, and sat staring through the windshield. “God,” she mused quietly to herself, “I’m so lucky. My whole life has turned around. I feel like I belong, that I’m finally in the right place. It’s taken me so many years. The decision that I made five years ago was the right one, after all. No one knows me here, and I’ve made a brand new start. Jack loves me, and I certainly love him. He doesn’t probe with lots of questions, so my earlier life can remain a closed book. Like me, he’s just happy that we’ve found each other.”
* * * * * * *
Five years earlier in the therapist’s office the loud wailing bounced off the soundproofed walls: “I can’t live like this any more, Dr.Myers. My mental anguish gives me no peace. I’m in turmoil all the time. I can’t take it anymore. I’m ready to commit suicide rather than continue this way. Talk-therapy and spiritual counseling have done nothing. I’m stuck with who I am.”
“Well,” Dr. Meyers said, “maybe it is time for you to take the final step. That probably would be best for you. With my continued support you should be able to cope. And, hopefully you’ll flourish. We’ve talked about this for a long time. You’ve certainly exhausted all other possible avenues. It’s worth a shot in my opinion. But the final choice has to be yours.”
“ I know that, Dr. Meyers. You’ve been great this past year, and I believe that I’m physically and mentally ready. I know that my surgeon, Dr. Zarren has spoken to you, and he’s in agreement.”
“What name will you settle on for the new you, Larry?”
“Lois, I’ll be Lois. That was my mother’s name; so I’ll be Lois after my sex-change operation.”
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Bribing America With Entitlements?
JL
Conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, an editor-at-large ot the National Review Online, recently wrote the following in one of his columns: (the underlining is mine.)
“Our current fiscal woes, not to mention the riot of dysfunction that often goes by the name of “political correctness” and the *thumos-on-the-cheap that we call the self-esteem industry, are in no small part attributable to the perversion of our sense of self-worth. For millions of Americans, it seems that respect must be paid in the form of cash tribute. How else to explain the inviolable sanctity of our aptly named ‘entitlement’ system? Great civilizations die when the people believe that their personal dignity demands more than the society can possibly provide. Sadly, that conversation has barely begun.”
(*Goldberg defines “thumos” as what the ancient Greeks called “spiritedness” encompassing the instinct for justice, respect, integrity.)
I take this to mean that if people are to stand tall, feeling good because they are on the right side of justice, respect and integrity, brimming with self-esteem, they must be paid off to do this, the payoff being Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other government funded benefits. If these indeed are Goldberg's thoughts, it is apparent that he does not think much of the American people. Goldberg maintains that our society cannot continue to provide that payoff, and like a traditional conservative, obviously wants to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, our big “entitlement” programs as his "solution.".
Despite his big words, Mr. Goldberg is wrong. The United States of America is the wealthiest nation in the world. The problem, unfortunately, is the distribution of its wealth. In America, no Socialist Robin Hood is going to take the wealth from the wealthy and distribute it to the poor. It isn’t that simple. But we do have a system to make sure that we all share in the wealth of America. In its simplest form, this redistribution of wealth is known as taxation, which takes from those who have excess wealth and gives to the poor and the not-so-poor by providing services for them.. Unfortunately, the recent continuance of tax cuts for the wealthy assures that they will keep their disproportionate share of the nation's wealth, but for the others, it amounts to turning away from taxation as a solution to wealth re-distribution.
But there is another way to accomplish a more equitable distribution of America’s wealth. Rather than sit on their wealth, individuals and corporations should invest it in a manner which creates an ongoing flow of permanent well-paying jobs in this country. If this is done right, the unemployment problem will be solved and the need for benefits provided by the government will disappear because the newly created jobs will provide them, including health and retirement benefits. Jobs means everybody gets richer, but those jobs must be within the United States, not outsourced to a cheap labor country. The bottom line on business' profit and loss statements may be less that way, and the investments a wealthy individual makes may be somewhat less profitable when directed toward "job creation" rather than toward "maximizing cash accumulation," but such sacrifices must be made. Job creation can be so strong a tool for wealth re-distribution that we might even be able to do away with parts of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for all but the poorest of Americans. In this way, job creation can be used as a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth instead of taxation.
It must be done either way, through higher taxation or domestic job creation through investment.in America of the wealth that is sitting there. If we do not find a way to redistribute it, even though we are the wealthiest nation in the world, Goldberg’s pessimism is justified. But the result will be far from a benign one.
****** ****** ******
Is Multiculturalism a Danger?
JL Here’s a column by the conservative columnist, Cal Thomas, which appeared in the Palm Beach Post on Februrary 12, 2011. I have never agreed with anything Mr. Thomas has ever written, ever, and this is no exception. I responded to his column with a letter to the Post which was printed on their editorial page on February 23. I include my letter right below his column, the point of which he finally makes in the next to last paragraph. (Underlining is mine.) Whether you agree or disagree with me, please pass on your thoughts. That’s what the “Comment” procedure on this blog is for.
Thomas’ Column:
One of liberalism's many problems is that once an idea or program is proved wrong and unworkable, liberals rarely acknowledge their mistake and examine the root cause of their error so they don't repeat it. Take multiculturalism ... please!
In a speech to a security conference in Munich, British Prime Minister David Cameron declared state multiculturalism a failure. For good measure, Cameron said Britain also must get tougher on Islamic extremists. Predictably, this has angered Islamic extremists. A genuinely liberal country, he said, "believes in certain values and actively promotes them. ... Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law, equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality." Cameron said in Britain different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives: "We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong."
Here I would take issue with an otherwise excellent speech. It isn't that Britain has failed to provide such a society. Rather, many of those coming to Britain (and increasingly France, Germany and the United States) don't want to become a part of those cultures, which they regard as corrupt and anti-God.
Britain's policy should be to require -- yes, require -- immigrants to become part of a melting pot and not individual vegetables floating around in a multicultural stew. Otherwise, they should not be admitted. When critics of multiculturalism and unbridled immigration warned of the inevitability of a loss of nationhood and national identity, they were denounced as alarmists, even racists. The late British parliamentarian Enoch Powell suffered such attacks (and earned many kudos) when he repeatedly warned about the dangers of open-ended immigration without assimilation. In a controversial speech to a Conservative Party conference in 1968, Powell began his address, known as "Rivers of Blood," with what ought to be an obvious statement: "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles, which are deeply rooted in human nature." Powell argued that when it comes to multiculturalism and immigration, Britain had failed in that mandate. Looking into the future, Powell accurately predicted what has come to pass from mass and uncontrolled immigration:
"Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population."
Powell wasn't so much railing against immigrants, though his critics read it in those terms, but against Britain's refusal to integrate them into British culture.
And then Powell let the timid class have it with this line: "There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it 'against discrimination', whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong."
In 1968, Britain still had time to reverse course, but because its leaders didn't want to be called "racists" and immigrants were doing jobs British citizens were increasingly reluctant to do (sound familiar?) the floodgates were left open. It may be too late for Britain, as it may be too late for France and Germany.
It isn't too late for the United States, though it is getting close. Too many American leaders suffer from the same weak-kneed syndrome that has gripped Britain. Who will tell immigrants to America that the days of multiculturalism are over and if they want to come to America, they must do so legally and expect to become Americans with no hyphens, no allegiance to another country, and no agenda other than the improvement of the United States?
Enoch Powell was right four decades ago. David Cameron is right today. If British leaders had listened to Powell then, Cameron would not have needed to make his Munich speech.
My Letter in Response, to the Post:
It would be nice to be able to agree with Cal Thomas whose recent (Saturday, Feb 12) column talked about the need for immigrants to assimilate, and skewered the concept of multiculturalism. It would be nice if today’s immigrants followed the path of past immigrants who, after one generation or so of clannishly preserving the culture they came from, gradually stepped into the mainstream of American culture. Thomas asks who will tell today’s immigrants that the days of multiculturalism are over. It better not be the government, whose stepping on individual rights is something conservatives such as Thomas usually oppose.
This country allows immigrants to refuse to get into the American mainstream, if they so choose, as evidenced by the Amish enclaves in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, the Hasidic Jews of Brooklyn and those Chinese who still prefer to live in “Chinatowns.” Insofar as such manifestations of multiculturalism present a danger from extremists, that can occur among assimilated immigrants as well. Multiculturalism and disloyalty should not be confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment