Letter to NY Times Editor: 9/14/2010

Re: "A Recovery's Long Odds" by Bob Herbert

Mr Herbert refers to concentration of American income - 23% of income to 1% of the population, 11% of income to 0.1% of population - but does not mention concentration of wealth, surely much higher numbers. Wealth has a natural tendency to accumulate - the poor can't save; the rich can and do. The resulting concentration, unrestrained, leads to explosions - eg the French revolution.

A most important function of government is to promote stability. I believe that restraining concentration of a society's income and wealth is a necessary component of that function.

Why I'm a Democrat

Wealth has a natural tendency to accumulate - the poor can't save; the rich can and do. The resulting concentration, unrestrained, leads to explosions - eg the French revolution. Republicans' behavior has consistently opposed any retraint on accumulation, any effort to moderate extremes of wealth and poverty, while Democrats support such restraints.

Further, Republicans tend to be more hawkish in foreign policy, and less empathetic with people who succumb to whatever forces depress them.

I'm willing to listen, but so far I'll stick to being a dependable Democrat.

Don't cut the inheritance tax

Robin Hood serves an essential stabilizing function in any society.

Bin Laden

Having found myself utterly unable to understand bin Laden's and his supporters' rationale for their suicide bombings, I looked for and found his recent presentation. Having read it, I think much can be gained by initiating a dialog, in the Times editorial pages, between him and responders to his many statements. He, or at least some of his followers, might even be persuaded to change their tunes. And maybe the US might recognize the validity of some of his grievances.

Some years ago Mr John Stoessinger taught that differences where one party was right and the other wrong were relatively easy to settle. Problems persist when both are right, to at least some degree. I think this is a case in point, and that if both sides understood the validity of their opposition, progress could be made toward resolution.

Sunni Rationale

Reading the Times (at least parts of it) has failed to leave me with any comprehension of the rationale of Sunni leaders when they persuade followers to commit mayhem. How do they think they benefit by killing unarmed people and inciting retaliation? There must be some such rationale, and I feel that Times reporters need to interview those leaders and explain the reasoning, whatever it may be, to your readers.

Israel

As long as there are Muslim and Christian nations, there is need for a Jewish nation. If world-wide separation evolves between politics and rerligion, Israel can shed its Jewish identity, but not until that day.

Note to David Brooks

Your article "The Morality Line" makes me think you're one of the few people to whom I should offer my thoughts about free will. I hope you'll read this.

Each of us is at any point in time the sum of his heredity and life history. An all-knowing entity could therefore, knowing this background and the details of any situation, predict our behavior. Accordingly, neither praise nor blame, pride nor shame, reward nor punishment has inherent legitimacy. I agree with the scientists you reference that we do not have free will