Arizona killings

I have a logic question for you...
If I say "kill Sarah Palin" and then someone who never heard me say that does kill her, can I accurately state that I had nothing to do with it?

Using logic I would say that you would have to say it where it could not be heard by anyone who could pass the thought on to another who could pass it on to another who could pass it on to Kevin Bacon. Philosophically I would answer that you need to be careful when you shoot an arrow into the air. Mystically, ah, that is where it gets really interesting.
Did I ever tell you that in November 1996 I made an effort to locate my half sisters, three women I had not seen or had any word of for 25 years when they were ages 16, 14 and 10? I was unsuccessful. Within a week I received a letter from the middle sister who was living in New Zealand, as far away as you can get from Maine on this planet asking, “Hi! My name is Christie Mather and I am wondering if you are my lost brother?” If this is more significant than mere coincidence, then one might consider the possibility that any thought could have consequences especially if it is thought by many.
I hope you have been amusing yourself with the conjecturing about whether or not any good will come of the Arizona murders regarding rhetoric. First you have the “liberal left” suggesting that Palin’s targeting the Representative may have influenced the murder (ignoring the fact that targeting political races is common practice for both parties though the cross-hairs was unwisely suggestive). Then you have the “wing-nut right” and their pundits attacking the liberal left for capitalizing on the tragedy while doing the same thing themselves. How would the rhetoric go if Sarah Palin was shot? There can be no doubt that the wing-nuts would rant about how the left had killed her with their rhetoric while the left would attack with similar rants to those being used by the right today.
Those of us awash in the mire being sloshed back and forth between those who seem to be operating under some sort of hypocritical oath wonder, “Will it ever stop?” Sure, eventually. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime though I will continue to hope. I will continue to hope for civility, for acceptance of each other and our right to disagree without being disagreeable, for respect.
As I watched Bill O’Riley and six of his pundits tear into the liberal left and at one point putting up a picture of the New York Times building as a symbol of what’s wrong with our country I couldn’t help but wonder what his reaction would be if the building was blown up. My mystical side ought to be more careful. What if that thought went viral?

Congress convenes

Just for the record I'm hopeful that John Boehner and the Republican majority in the House will do some positive things. In Maine we have a Republican governor and both houses went Republican for the first time in quite awhile. There, too, I am hopeful. It is my attitude at the beginning of every administration no matter the party. I believe that people who run for office have the best intentions of the people of their state/country at heart and I bless them for their commitment and wish them well.
I confess that I don't see any good for the country in the House trying to overturn what Republicans are fond of calling Obama Care since it will get nowhere in the Senate and even if it did the President would veto it. It seems totally political which is what we hate most, isn't it? If they went after it piecemeal starting out by saying "we like these parts and will keep them" and then had an honest debate about the rest, I'd be impressed. I hope that is the approach they take. I'd also like to see them do a little horse trading like saying, "we'll accept a government program as an alternative as long as you Dems accept reining in lawsuits."

Healthcare in the Dark Ages

The following is quoted from The Age of Faith, Volume IV of The Story of Civilization by Will Durant (1949). I hope you find it as amusing as I did.
“Several important treatises, covering nearly all branches of medicine, have reached us from the School of Salerno [12th century]. One, by Archimatheus, prescribes the proper bedside manner: the physician must always regard the patient’s condition as grave, so that a fatal end may not disgrace him, and a cure may add another marvel to his fame; he should not flirt with the patient’s wife, daughter, or maidservant; and even if no medicine is necessary he should prescribe some harmless concoction, lest the patient think the treatment not worth the fee, and lest nature should seem to have healed the patient without the physician’s aid.” (p 998)
And for those who think history doesn’t repeat itself:
“Every city of any importance paid physicians to treat the poor without charge….In Christian Spain of the thirteenth century a physician was hired by the municipality to care for a specified part to the population; he made periodically a medical examination of each person in his territory, and gave each one advice according to his findings; he treated the poor in a public hospital, and was obliged to visit every sick person three times a month; all without charge…for these services the physician was exempted from taxes, and received an annual salary of twenty pounds, equivalent to some $4,000 today (1949).”