What Do You Lose?

Thus said the Lord Buddha, "If beings knew as I know the results of sharing gifts, they would not enjoy their use without sharing them with others, nor would the taint of stinginess obsess the heart and stay there. Even if it were their last and final bit of food, they would not enjoy its use without sharing it, if there were anyone to receive it."

“Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (Matt 19:16) Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

But when the young man heard this, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. (Matt 19:21, 22)

What is it you lose by clinging to your possessions?

Iraq's Shocking Human Toll

Our politicians talked about "victory" in Iraq; now they talk about departing with dignity.

There will be neither in the bloody mudhole in which the American citizens have been co-conspirators in creating.

What America has brought to Iraq is about 1 million killed, 4.5 million displaced, and 5 million Orphans. This is according to information gathered by the United Nations, Unicef and the NGO, Iraq Body Count.

Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major unresolved issues, like the status of Kirkuk.

The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as a victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and it should caution us against the optional and savage wars we are prone to.

Proud Liberal

What would America be like without the liberal advances of the past sixty or seventy years? 

Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.

Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.

The liberals gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.

Liberals gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. It's telling that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as "the advance wave of socialism," while they actively and forcefully demand the benefits of it.

Delusional and hypocritical.

Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.

Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air and cleaner water.

Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.

It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. 

It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated.

Global Generosity

Thirty eight years ago, the United Nations estimated that 0.7% of each developed nation's gross national income would be sufficient for aiding the poorest of the world's nations. For emphasis, that is less than 1 penny on a dollar.

I send my warmest blessings to the following nations, who meet or exceed this amount: Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

(In contrast, the United States is tied for last place at 0.16%, although (thankfully) individual Americans are more generous.)

What was to be the form of that aid? According to the United Nations, it is to, "make loans tied to particular sources available for use by the recipient countries for the purpose of buying goods and services from other developing countries... Financial and technical assistance should be aimed exclusively at promoting the economic and social progress of developing countries and should not in any way be used by the developed countries to the detriment of the national sovereignty of recipient countries."

In other words, the assistance was to be low cost loans, with no strings and no interference. Pretty basic ideas.

To learn more, click here.