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

Bob Herbert supports Al Gore's program to stop releasing CO2 during electricity generation within ten years. I'm scared green that this may be nowhere near enough.

CO2 now in the atmosphere is causing a continuing increase in global temperature. Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at a considerable rate, more for transportation and heating than for electricity. Even if all production of atmospheric CO2 is stopped within ten years, CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise for some time, causing an icreasing rate of rise of global temperature. Temperature will continue to rise until the CO2 level declines well below its peak.

I have no idea when the global temperature will peak, or at what level. I don't know how far sea level will rise (When must Long Island be evacuated?), how lethal hurricanes and tornadoes will become, what species will become extinct, but I'm scared silly. Since I'm 86, those events will probably not ruin my life, but I have a grandson and many great nieces and nephews.

The danger to humanity from imminent climate change seems to me far more severe than that from Al Qaeda, Mugabe, Putin, China, etc. Why has the Times not provided the necessary news and editorial coverage warranted by the danger?