Meals From The Marketplace

            Ten years ago, the presidential election of 2000 was finally decided by a 5 to 4 decision from the United States Supreme Court.  At the time I thought the result was an outrage.  I still do. 

            I wrote a series of three columns about the election on three successive weeks starting ten years ago this week.  Here, knowing now what the Court’s decision meant for the country and the world, are excerpts from all three:

Both sides soon resorted to the courts.  Gore filed his claim with the state courts, arguing that the Secretary of State had abused her discretion in refusing to accept late-filed manual recount results.  Bush sought an injunction from the federal courts, alleging that the manual recounts were unconstitutional.  Secretary Harris was ultimately rebuked by the Florida Supreme Court (on a 7-0 vote), but that victory for Gore was short-lived.  That same day, Bush filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court had illegally rewritten the Florida election statutes.

On November 26, Secretary Harris, pursuant to the deadline imposed by the Florida Supreme Court, certified her state’s final results, which showed a margin of 537 votes in favor of Bush.  The very next morning, Gore, consistent with Florida law, filed a “contest” against that certified vote.  With the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court both now fully engaged, it was clear that the election would be decided by one or both of those bodies.

Florida’s election laws gave scant instructions to county officials in conducting recounts.  “The intent of the voter” was the only standard specified, which left it to local canvassing boards to decide whether to count hanging chads, dimpled chads, three-cornered chads or just completely punched-out ballots.  Arguing that such a “standardless” standard invited mischief and was therefore unconstitutional (on Due Process and Equal Protection grounds), Bush filed suit in federal court.  The suit was rejected without so much as a hearing by the federal District Court and was treated with similar disdain by the Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Atlanta. 

Ah, but the U.S. Supreme Court, eschewing its normal deference to the states, took on the case, setting oral arguments for December 1.  Unfortunately, by that date, the case had been rendered moot (a judicial term meaning, in essence, a decision would no longer matter since events had resolved the issue).  The Court, in its apparent zeal to uphold its position, had ignored the timetable established by the Florida Supreme Court’s initial order.  Once the vote total was certified, the protest period (under which the recounts had taken place) had ended, and the earlier recount issue had been swallowed up in the final tally (certified by Secretary Harris) and by the subsequent vote “contest,” filed immediately thereafter by the Gore campaign.

Still, the U.S. Supremes chose to wear their activist robes.  Instead of declaring, as many jurists had predicted, that review of the case had been “improvidently granted,” they sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with directions for that court to clarify how it had come to decide that Secretary Harris had abused her discretion by refusing (initially) to allow any manual recounts after November 14.

Almost no one had the temerity to suggest publicly that the United States Supreme Court had shown poor judgment in accepting the first appeal, let alone in issuing a bizarre order that was effectively moot on the day it was issued, but to more astute observers, the Court had revealed its intention.  It, not the Florida Legislature, not the Florida Supreme Court, not the United States Congress and certainly not the local canvassing boards in Florida (whether under the supervision of the state courts or not), would be the final arbiter of the 2000 presidential election.

On December 9, with court-ordered manual recounts underway in all 67 of Florida’s counties, the Court acted again, this time on a 5-4 vote.  Stop the recounts, it declared.  Immediately, Justice Antonin Scalia, he of the ultra-conservative wing of the Court, announced rather arrogantly that a recount would produce irreparable harm for the country by bringing into doubt the legitimacy of the succeeding presidency.  Huh?

Three days later, on the same 5-4 vote, the longest election in U.S. history was over.  George W. Bush had won the presidency by a single vote.

In legal parlance, a “result-oriented opinion” is understood to be a harsh judgment of a court’s work on a particular case.  The term indicates that a court first decided how it would rule and then wrote an opinion to justify that result.  Since lawyers respect the rule of law above all other concerns, and since the rule of law is dependent upon the recognition of established precedent and on analyses of issues based on pre-existing authority, a result-oriented opinion is almost as offensive to attorneys as an “unjust” verdict is to lay people. 

Some have said that the United States Supreme Court, in the recent case of Bush v. Gore, acted in “statesmanlike” fashion.  I am not one of them.  The Court effectively usurped the constitutional prerogatives of the Florida state courts and its legislature and took upon itself the task of determining the outcome of the election.  The five justices who constituted the majority in the vote to secure the presidency for George W. Bush did so in derogation of their constitutional role and the rule of law.

 And so, as we begin the new year, we can close the books on the presidential election.  The final results are now in, certified by every state and including every lawfully cast ballot that was allowed to be counted.  In the nationwide popular vote, Gore beat Bush decisively, by well over 500,000 votes.  In Florida, which determined the Electoral College outcome, the vote could have gone either way, but for five justices of the Supreme Court, who, to their everlasting shame, allowed political leanings to dictate their decision and then crafted an opinion to justify that result.

            And ten years later the impact is still being felt.

In response to my “Grumpy Ed” post (earlier this month), I received a response from a reader who gently took me to task for my half-empty view of life generally and of the United States in particular.  I replied to him that I would love to have a pair of his rose-colored glasses.

The reader then provided something even better: a beautifully-composed and impressively-detailed review of the greatness of America.  He refers to America’s story as “spectacular.”  He begins his essay by acknowledging that we aren’t talking about Utopia, but then goes on to defend, most eloquently, a glass-half full (maybe even more than half-full) account of the country’s history.

The writer is Tom James.   I’m pleased to provide his essay, unedited except for a few typos I took the liberty to correct.  It follows a short bio which he provided at my request.

As always, comments are most welcome, either posted to the blog or sent privately via e-mail.  I’ll be happy to forward any personal comments to Tom.  (For those unable to access the blog, I’ll be happy to provide a hyperlink.  Just send me an e-mail requesting it.)

Please enjoy this holiday gift from Tom James.  Rest assured that my next post will be decidedly less cheery.

My hometown is New Haven Connecticut, but I was mostly raised in New Rochelle New York.  My father was a public school teacher, and my mother worked all my life. We were strictly middle middle class, or even lower middle class.  I have an older sister and a younger brother.  I am a product of public education, community college, and state college with an undergraduate degree in business/economics, and a minor in political science.  I am 2nd generation descendant of immigrants.  My grandparents came here with nothing.

I’ve been married 22 years with a boy 17, and a girl 14.  I have traveled extensively in the UK, Europe, South America, the Caribbean and the South Pacific.  I have close friends in Scandinavia, and a close friend who works in the Middle East.

I worked for a very large iconic global company for 30 years rising to executive management before being laid off unceremoniously in the economic mess of 2008/2009.  I’ve enjoyed the time off and I’m now consulting successfully.  I’ve been prudent financially all my life and I am relatively well off.  Politically I am a conservative, but socially liberal.  I challenge the extremists and the fundamentalists on both sides because I think they destroy our chance at informed debate and policy decisions based on fact.

I have always been a voracious reader and a curious student of culture, economics, politics, and many other subjects.

Measured against utopia, we have failed; measured against reality, we have succeeded spectacularly.  Far from rose colored glasses, the truth is self-evident.

You and I were born into an incredible society, at the most incredible moment of its life.  In what other civilization, at what other time would you have wanted to live?  The height of Rome?  The height of Greece?  How about the last half of the 20th century in the United States?  I argue that we are comparable to Greece and Rome, and we are living it.

In the last 100 years, this country has become the leader of the world in almost every way you can think of. 

We led the industrial revolution, We invented, and still lead, the information technology revolution.  Virtually ALL of the software that runs the world has been conceived, written, distributed and supported by America, and still is.  America leads the world in hardware technology for computers, networking, and storage.  The entire world is now completely dependent on these technologies.  Guttenberg’s press changed the world.  We have now produced the Kindle and the iPad.  What will that do?

Since WW2, this country has led the world in space exploration, hence better understanding of the universe, and physics.  We still lead the world in industrial production.  Our economy, despite ups, downs, scandals, crashes, inflation, deflation, stagflation, etc., has been an explosion of wealth creation that has spread globally, and the U.S. economic success has lifted billions of people out of poverty all around the world.  Remember, when America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold.  It works the other way around too.

America built the Panama Canal.  America saved Europe from the Nazi’s, thereby saving the lives of millions of Jews and other undesirables targeted for extermination.   America kept millions from falling under the misery of communism.  We have led the world in aircraft production for 70 years and still do.  We still lead the world in auto production, not Japan, not Germany.

Since WW2, our military has provided defense for dozens of countries around the world.  The U.S. has always been the overwhelming presence in NATO, and we’ve been many other countries’ military forces for many decades.  Those countries deployed their treasure and their resources to other things because we have taken on the burden of their defense.

We’ve developed the most prolific and efficient food production per acre the world has ever known, and spread that knowledge all over the world.  Our grocery stores amaze visitors from other countries and offer more variety, more products, and safe high quality food that is the envy of the world. 

The U.S. develops and manufactures more new drugs and medical equipment than every country in the world put together.  Those drugs and that medical equipment are used all over the world to the benefit of billions of people.

Our Gross Domestic Product per capita is the highest, by far, of any country in the world larger than 10 million people.  There’s no one even close.  Today, the U.S. accounts for 25% of the world’s GDP. 

Our form of government and economy, despite its faults and failings, has been a very effective structure for standard of living and quality of life.  For the last 65 years, despite a population explosion, the U.S. unemployment rate has averaged around 5%.  Europe has averaged 8% – 10% with less population growth.  At the same time, communism was dismal, debilitating, and destructive for those living under it, with food shortages, and scarcity of nearly everything we take for granted in abundance.  Europe struggled under strangling inefficiency and a smothering bureaucracy that the European Union was designed to fix, with results still in doubt.  Africa is a failed continent.  South American countries have had feast or famine economies and an endless variety of corrupt dictatorships.  Only now are some starting to succeed in a sustainable way.

The U.S. gives more money, more aid, and more people power to help underdeveloped countries than anyone else in the world.  What other country gave over a Billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa?  When the tsunami devastated Indonesia, it was only America that had the equipment, skills, logistics, and money to help, and we did.  America has poured people, supplies, food, water, shelter, medicine, and elbow grease on the ground to help people from Bangladesh to Bosnia, to Somalia, to Haiti, and countless others over the last 100 years.

Every city in America has a Synagogue, a Catholic church, a Mosque, and every denomination of Christian church ever invented, sometimes on the same street.  At the same time, we watched Protestants and Catholics killing each other for 20 years in Ireland.  More recently, France has just banned Burqa’s and head scarves, and forcibly deported Gypsies.  Switzerland just banned minarets from being built anywhere in the country.  In Islamic countries, there are few if any Christian churches, and in some countries Christians are killed for being Christian.

Our legal system presumes innocence.  It is far from perfect, but it bends over backwards to protect the accused.  We read Miranda rights to those arrested and defense attorney’s use any and all tactics to get their clients off whether guilty or not.  It produces the correct results in the overwhelming majority of cases.  When it doesn’t, guilty people go free far more often than innocent people go to jail.  In contrast, the last 100 years has shown us reliably, consistently, and without pause, country after country with little or no individual rights, unfettered search, seizure, and imprisonment, and often with accompanying abuse and torture.

We have free education from Kindergarten through 12th grade, then very cheap community colleges, then affordable State Universities for the final 2 years of an undergraduate degree.  Underprivileged people have a wide variety of programs to help them financially or in admissions.  Can education be better?  Of course, but it’s free K-12, cheap beyond that, with financial aid for anyone who can’t even afford that, and it’s good. Maybe not great, maybe not as good as it should be, but it’s good.  I’ve made a very successful life on public education, and I suspect you have too.

The U.S. has been THE leader in consumer rights and product safety.  If you don’t believe me, travel in Europe, or consider China.  Consider what the world was like for product safety and consumer rights before Ralph Nader nearly 50 years ago. 

This country has been the leader on emission standards for cars and the whole world has benefited from that even though many countries have lower standards than we do.

Let’s talk about freedom.  Despite bias and incompetence, our press pours out news around the clock, uncensored by the government.  That cannot be said for dozens of countries around the world.  In the U.S., two reporters from the Washington Post brought down a President for spying on his political opponent and trying to cover it up.  The Russians were laughing in disbelief.  Every reporter is salivating to get the big story, expose a bombshell, find wrongdoing.  It’s an incredible system that has worked for more than 200 years.

Any American is free to speak his or her mind no matter how offensive.  Burning an American flag is protected as free speech.  In most countries, it is a crime.  Radical Muslims stand on a street corner in Manhattan and denounce America calling for our destruction and their right to do so is protected.  You write blogs about anything you want.  Muslims kill people in retaliation for a Danish newspaper running a cartoon of Mohamed.

We travel freely anywhere in the country.  We practice any religion we choose.  We make any art we choose.  We make and perform any music we choose.  We have thousands of radio stations, thousands of magazines, millions of books, thousands of websites to learn about anything we choose, written by people who can say anything they want.

Our problem is a problem of baseline.  We do not worry about food and shelter, we worry about self actualization. 

While our stomachs are full, we complain that we don’t have more choices of eggs at the supermarket.

We call our health care a ‘crisis’ when pharmacies, supermarkets, and 7-11′s are stocked with endless varieties of over the counter pain medications, antiseptics, sterile bandages, cold remedies, cough syrups, athlete’s foot remedies, vitamins, and everything else you can think of to make us feel better and ease all manner of suffering.  In most states, emergency rooms are required by law to admit and treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay.  Does it need improvement? Of course.

We fly round trip coast to coast for $300.  From New York we are in San Francisco in 5 hours, but we are angry that we wait too long on the tarmac when a plane is delayed, and we ask the government to fix it.

We beat ourselves up over air pollution when our air quality is far, far better than it’s ever been, and while the pollution cloud produced by China is so big, so dense, and so tenacious that it blacks out Japan at some period each year.  Our air quality and water quality is superb because we fought to make it that way, no doubt.  Another example of how great this system works, how spectacularly we’ve succeeded.

We are slaves to foreign oil by choice.  We restrict domestic oil production, we restrict domestic natural gas production, we restrict coal mining and coal power production, and we don’t build nuclear power plants, while the rest of the world allows ALL of those things.  Why?  Because caribou might be impacted in Alaska.  Because every 20 years some fish and some birds die in an oil spill.  Because 30 years ago we contributed to acid rain (not anymore).  Because a Russian nuclear power plant designed 50 years ago and built 40 years ago, with lower standards than ours, failed.  Because 30 years ago there was an accident at 3 mile island which was built 40 years ago.  Meanwhile the French are building hundreds of nuclear plants with 40 years of design, science, and technology progress built in.

We lament the “decline” of the middle class while the middle class watches plasma screens with TiVo, drives the safest, most fuel efficient, least polluting cars ever produced, and shops for competitive prices from around the world on their multiple computers, laptops, smart phones, and iPads.  We rage that others have done better in comparison while the standard of living for those not wealthy is better than it’s ever been.  The average U.S. household has more TV’s than people.

While we are speeding along in our air conditioned cars talking on our cell phones we curse AT&T for dropping our call making us dial again. 

We mail packages to anywhere in the world, OVERNIGHT, and at the same time we are debilitated with dismay over our ‘crumbling’ infrastructure. 

With overflowing shelves at Costco, Best Buy, and Fry’s, we come to blows over the latest hot Christmas gift, while at the same time we complain about our buying power.

Can it all be better?  Of course.  Do we fail?  Of course.  Should we continually demand better on all things?  Yes, we should.  Should we be satisfied with the current state of things?  No, never, no matter who is in power, no matter what the economic conditions, no matter what the standard of living is, not 50 years ago, not 50 years hence.  Of course improvements must be made in ALL areas.  We must continue to fix inequalities and injustices everywhere we find them.

But to argue that we have not succeeded spectacularly vis a vis the true reality and challenges of the world, is wrong.

It’s quite obvious that America has indeed succeeded spectacularly.  We enjoy an incredible standard of living.  We have amazing freedoms.  We help others.  Despite failures and mistakes, we have had a bigger net positive impact on the world than any other country in the last 100 years.  Do we have a monopoly on invention, progress, and innovation?  Of course not.  Sure we can find other countries or societies that do better than we do on one measure or another, but taken as a totality, America, with all its faults and failings, is clearly a spectacular success. 

I’ll sum up with an overused Churchill quote, “it’s the worst system in the world, except for all the others.”

            With another weak showing by the administration leading to the compromise reached earlier this week, the debate on the Bush tax cuts has been resolved for the present, but only for another two years.

            And so, with an eye to the renewal of the battle in 2012 (right in the middle of the next presidential campaign!) let’s review what all the fuss was about.

            First of all, let’s remind ourselves of why taxes are necessary.  They are necessary to allow the government to provide various services when those services either cannot or should not be provided through private enterprise.   

            Note, however, that whether services should be provided and whether government should provide them are separate issues that are determined by the populace through the democratic processes in our republican form of government.  (Stated briefly, the people elect representatives who make the ultimate determinations.)

            So, taxes are the principal means by which governments (federal, state and local) secure the revenue necessary to carry out the functions that they have been directed to carry out.  Put another way, taxes are merely the method by which governments secure the capital they need to do what the people (again, recall the democratic-republic model that the United States has maintained for over 200 years) have mandated.

            Understood in this light, the “starve the beast” strategy regarding taxes, as espoused by many staunch conservatives today, is anti-democratic.  That strategy consists of three stages.  Stage one is to significantly reduce government revenue by cutting taxes; stage two is to cut the programs that can no longer be afforded; stage three is to repeal them entirely.  In political terms, starving the beast is the equivalent of a coup d’etat, a way to undo what the people voted for themselves.

            But okay, let’s get down to it.  What was/is the issue about the Bush tax cuts? 

            Everyone, save for a few economists on the fringes, agreed that the cuts should be maintained for the lower 98 percent of all income earners in the country, which amounts to everyone making less than a quarter of a million bucks (for a couple) or $200,000 for those filing their returns as individuals.

            But those figures need to be understood, because we’re talking about the adjusted gross income that is the actual amount on which a tax assessment is based.  That figure is the amount we report after we deduct all of those wonderful deductions that we (through our elected representatives) have decided to allow ourselves.  They include things like charitable contributions, home mortgage interest payments, and for those engaged in any kind of business, the expenses required to run that business.

            Thus, depending on the amount of creative accounting one uses (and it stands to reason that the wealthier a person is, the more creative his or her CPA’s accounting is likely to be), the lower the taxable income will be.  So it isn’t far-fetched to assume that for many reporting taxable income of $250,000 a year, the actual income might be closer to a half million or more.

            At this point, it should be clear that we are talking about very wealthy people.  Indeed, we’re talking about two out of every one hundred Americans.  That’s who the debate is all about.

            But now let’s talk about what those poor souls are being asked to sacrifice in the repeal of their Bush tax cuts.  The repeal would increase their marginal tax rate from 35 to 39 percent, an increase of 4 percent. 

            Ah, you say, but four percent of $250,000 is a healthy paycheck.  (Actually, it’s $10,000, according to my trusty old-fashioned calculator.)  But that’s not what we’re talking about in terms of the tax increase, because the added rate only applies to that taxable income over $250,000.  Thus, if a couple reported taxable income of $300,000 (based on real earnings of maybe $500,000 or more), their taxes would increase by a whopping $2,000 (the added four percent only applying to the $50,000 over $250,000 in our example).

            Are you with me?  Starting to get the picture?

            Now let’s review a little history.  Is a 39 percent top marginal rate all that high?  Not by historical standards.  In the 1950s it was 91%.  That’s right, folks who made millions in those days (there were far fewer of them) paid nine out of every ten dollars earned in federal income taxes if their earnings came in over the highest taxed income level.

            So the 39 percent that Bush felt was outrageously high in 2001 (when he pushed through the first of his two tax cuts) wasn’t really all that high.

            But that rate was a bump from the lower rate that had existed before Bill Clinton (with the support of Congress) hiked it in 1993, when the top rate jumped from 31% to 39.6%.  That bump qualified as a big one (so big that many members of Congress lost their jobs over it in the 1994 election).  But what happened to the economy as a result? 

            In case you can’t recall, the Clinton years were astonishingly successful from an economic standpoint, with unemployment under four percent (full employment by most measurements) and sizeable budget surpluses by the end of the decade.

            But George W. Bush wanted lower tax rates (allegedly to revitalize a stagnant economy).  The result?  We’re living it right now: high unemployment and very high deficits.

            So, all other things being equal (and admittedly, they never are), what we learn from this historical review is that 1) taxes wouldn’t be all that high even for top earners if the Bush cuts were repealed and 2) economic vitality is certainly not guaranteed by lower rates nor is economic collapse certain when rates are raised.

            But what about freedom, as in the right to be free to make lots of money?  Isn’t it un-American to tax those who live the American dream?

            That shibboleth shouldn’t require a response, but in this age of tea party activism, it does.

            And the answer is that the wealthy gain their wealth because of the opportunities provided in this great country of ours.  Hence, it’s their patriotic duty to pay taxes.  And aren’t the wealthiest Americans true patriots?

            “Some men see things as they are and ask why; I see things as they could be and ask why not”

-George Bernard Shaw (later paraphrased by Robert F. Kennedy)

            At work, I’m called Grumpy Ed.  It’s somewhat of an affectionate moniker, or at least I assume it is, since most people who use it seem to be smiling at me when they do. 

            In truth, I gave the handle to myself a number of years ago when I penned a sarcastic response to a spate of congratulatory messages that members of my profession were extending to themselves for various indicia of success that had come their way. 

            “I don’t have anything exciting to say about myself,” I wrote, “but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.”  (You may recall those hilarious commercials that had that punch line.)  I signed the note, “Grumpy Ed,” and before I knew it, I had obtained a self-created nickname.

            The truth, as those who know me will attest, is that I am a “glass-half-empty” kind of guy.  But let me explain. 

            I’m a a crushed idealist, a broken-hearted romantic, a would-be perfectionist in an imperfect world.

            Simply put, I’ve never been able to overcome the sense that things should be better.  Or, perhaps more accurately stated, I’ve never been able to reconcile the reality of our existence with the vision of what that existence could be. 

            I have dreams that are drawn from the most loving passages of the Bible, from the most beautiful sentiments of the great poets, from the most profound depths of philosophical musing, but I awake to a world that is torn by wars and injustice, to relationships that are riven by selfishness and cruelty, to political decisions that have been dictated by self-interest and demagoguery.  With that kind of dichotomous existence, I submit that grumpiness is completely understandable.

            As I get older, and lest there be any doubts, I’m most definitely on the older side of things in terms of years and experiences, I find my moments of pure happiness (other than those that come from my dreams) are fewer and farther between, and, to make matters worse, shorter when they do occur.  Those moments are to be savored, for sure, but the savoring itself is more of a struggle with the knowledge that the moment will soon pass.

            The holidays accentuate all of these feelings, and they are, for the most part, a less than joyous time for me.  For openers, there is the religious component, which for a non-believer like me, is akin to being reminded constantly of a joy you don’t get to experience.  True believers get the sense of re-birth or re-discovery with the various holidays that celebrate God’s mercy and love.  I just get to look at the pictures and contemplate what makes them so attractive to others.

            Religion is definitely part of what makes me grumpy.  The idea of God is wonderful, but why is He so satisfied with such an imperfect creation?  I get all the “free will” stuff, but, really, how can anyone feel the love (or the mercy) of a God who is content to let the world grow ever darker as His beloved creation (humans) make a mess of things?

            And then there is the illegitimacy of the holiday celebrations, with Christmas ranking at the top of the list.  Notwithstanding my lack of belief, I’d love to see a real sense of Christmas in the world.  How could anyone not wish for peace and love throughout the world?  But every year, the story and meaning of Christ’s birth, believable or not, is diminished, while the story of Santa Claus, certainly no more believable, is accentuated.  And even Santa is less Christ-like in this new millennium of human existence.  Today’s Santa is little more than an advertising tool, a none-too-gentle reminder to buy and consume, rather than the one who was a reminder of the joys of giving and sharing.

            Commercialism is rampant in our land of plenty, even as many in that land are struggling to stay afloat.  A tiny percentage of the country’s populace has accumulated tremendous wealth, while the vast majority of it has found it necessary to work harder just to avoid losing the little they have.  Gated communities provide security for the few.  Tract houses, many of them facing foreclosure, are the reality for the many.

            And, at the same time, we seem to be angrier now than ever before.  Tea party activists demand less government, while at the same time they dare anyone to mess with their Medicare.  Liberals decry Obama’s ineffectiveness, while railing mightily against any from the right who attack his achievements.  Our politics are a study in enraged impotence. 

            And we revel in our ignorance.  Books are becoming the dinosaurs of our culture, replaced by TV sitcoms.  Newspaper reporting will soon be completely non-existent, with serious blogs not far behind.  Nothing that requires more than 150 words will be worthy of anyone’s attention.

            The holidays should be a time to rediscover the potential for greatness in the human race.  That potential most definitely exists.   We have the mental capacity to solve all manner of problems, both scientific and interpersonal.  We are able to learn from our mistakes and to grow into better functioning individuals and communities as a result. 

            We also have the ability to love, in the sense of putting others ahead of ourselves.  We can sympathize and empathize.  We can nurture and protect.  We can give and share.

            These are all manifestations, in a religious sense, of the idea of God.  They are also emblematic of the best meaning of the holiday season that is now upon us.

            Sadly, they will be lost to the other side of the human condition: the selfish pursuit of more of everything, the need to aggrandize our individual existence above all else, the propensity for laziness and inefficiency.

            I will have moments this holiday season when I will be truly happy.  They will be when I hear Handel’s “Amen” chorus, when I tell my wife I love her, when my sons come home again, when I ring in another new year with good friends.

            I will have such moments, and for the rest, I will try, fervently, to be less grumpy.