Who Is My Brother?

Who is my brother or sister on my spiritual journey? How do I recognize such people? Is it their profession of faith, their claim of identity or outward appearance? Is it everyone who says, Lord, Lord? More and more, as my prayer relationship with God has deepened, there has emerged another understanding for me. The New Testament's first letter of John challenges us saying,

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love….God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

This teaching finds authority and inspiration in the many similar and challenging teachings on love by Jesus, especially those in the Gospel of John.

Another challenging teaching of Jesus is on the disowning final judgment of those who do not help or serve "the least of our brethren"—those who therefore do not serve Him. These two teachings would cause me to be much more humble and generous in my recognition of who may know and walk with God--in the many Christian communities, yes, but also in the communities of other faith traditions as well. At the very least, I should be ready to share God's love toward all of them, and be open to receiving God's love from any of them.

And for those who would hasten to point out that another person has not accepted Jesus as Lord, I would only suggest that we carry enough humility to inform us that we may not know all things about God, or Jesus, or the Spirit of God, or how He works with the people He loves—which includes all people, everywhere. An evident love of God and all humanity, and unselfish service or help to those most in need, brings one so close to Christ's identity and teaching, so close to the heart of God, that I would feel uncontrollably moved to call him brother—and leave the working out of our differences and their importance to God.

But beware of those who profess faith in God and identity with His people, who maintain the outward appearance and language of faith community, but reflect no love for the larger family of humanity, or do not serve the needs of the poor and unable. Avoid the angry, cultural and political warriors, and the fundamentalists of all faiths who appear unable to receive or convey God's unqualified love. They too often serve only themselves and their cultural, political or cultish interests, and are too often in the process of condemning or discriminating against one group or another that God would have them love. They also appear unable to receive God's Spirit, His forgiveness, compassion and humility. For if they could, they would more often reflect it and share it with others in the lives they live within and without their communities.

First written: November 2006 and included in my What God? essays.
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

A Poem of Hafiz, A Teaching of Paul

Would You Think It Odd? *

Would you think it odd if Hafiz said,

"I am in love with every church
And Mosque
And Temple
And any kind of shrine

Because I know it is there
That people say the different names
Of the One God."

Would you tell your friends
I was a bit strange if I admitted

I am indeed in love with every mind
And heart and body.

O I am sincerely
Plumb crazy
About your every thought and yearning
And limb

Because, my dear,
I know
That it is through these

That you search for Him.

The Apostle Paul: From Colossians 3

[Y]ou laid aside the old self, with its evil practices,
and put on the new self
who is being renewed to a true knowledge
according to the image of the One who created him--

a renewal in which there is no distinction
between Greek and Jew,
circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman,
but Christ [God] is all, and in all.

And so,
as those who have been chosen of God,
holy and beloved,
put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility,
gentleness, and patience;
bearing with one another, and forgiving each other,
whoever has a complaint against anyone;
just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you [forgive].

And beyond all these things,
put on love,
which is the perfect bond of unity.
And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,
to which indeed you were called in one body,
and be thankful.

* From I Heard God Laughing: Poems of Hope and Joy (1996,2006), poems of Hafez as freely interpreted in English by Daniel Ladinsky.

In Europe, Social Safety Net Softens Slump

Aid for unemployment, health care and further education

Eppelheim, Germany.

[W]ith the auto industry here hit especially hard — this is the home of Mercedes-Benz — things are tougher than they have been in decades. Unemployment is up 70 percent in the past year and many employees have been forced to cut down their hours....

Misery below the surface, perhaps? Not at the bustling Fuerstenberger home just outside Heidelberg, where little has changed for the family's four children despite neither parent currently working. "If we were in Detroit, we could worry every minute," said [American] Sarah Fuerstenberger, 37. "But here, we're safe because of the system."

While economic forecasts are just as dire on this continent as in the United States, Germany's citizens — and, indeed, most across western Europe — can count on a broad government safety net that includes generous unemployment checks, universal healthcare and inexpensive university education to tide them over. "The German government is really good about taking care of people; we know we won't be starving one way or another," she added....

Universal health care, education

"We don't pay anything for any of (our) medicines, for doctor's visits, nothing," Sarah said, adding that she worried about her sister in Detroit, who had had several periods without health insurance.

"People shouldn't become poor if they need health care," said Joe Kutzin, a World Health Organization adviser, adding that a 2005 study published in the journal Health Affairs found that medical causes were at the root of about half of personal bankruptcy cases in the United States in 2001. It's ironic, he said, given that Americans spend more per capita on healthcare than anyone else in the world....

As a profession, Susanne [a doctor] said that medicine was not as well paid in Germany as in the United States. She pointed out, however, that Europe's doctors do not have six-figure student loans to pay off. When the 35-year-old studied medicine here, all students paid the equivalent of just 100 euros ($131) a semester. They now pay up to 500 euros ($657).

"Education must be equal for everyone regardless of the size of their wallet," she said. "It's one of our basic civil rights in the [German] constitution."

Paying for privileges

While Europe's social safety net is softening the slump, it does of course have to be paid for.

According to the OECD, the total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is 28.3 percent in the United States, compared with 36.2 percent in Germany. The cost can be seen in workers' paystubs. "For example," said economic analyst Brenke, "a single worker with an average salary — about 16 euros ($21.31) per hour in fulltime work — pays about 52 percent for taxes and the social security system." This compares to an average of 30 percent in the United States.

With her family paying roughly that amount, Sarah said, "sometimes I think it's not worth it when I look at what ends up in my bank account, but in times like these, I appreciate it."

--"In Europe, Social Safety Net Softens the Slump," by Jennifer Carlile, msnbc.com (5.7.09)

Don't you think that many of America's unemployed or underemployed workers, professionals, and young and middle managers, might now feel the same way? How about those students and their families who can no longer afford the cost of finishing college or professional education? How about those daily being bankrupted by health care costs--or afraid to seek health care at all without insurance coverage? Might they too be more likely to think higher taxes were now worth it for that kind of social safety net?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30363790/

Deficit Not Obama's Doing, But He Must Fix It

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years. The first is that President Obama's agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested....

[A]s President Bill Clinton was leaving office, [t]he Congressional Budget Office estimated that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years....

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It's a reflection of the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists' assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.

About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama's agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.

--"America's Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making," David Leonhardt, New York Times (6.9.09)

As I observed in my last post, Republican operatives have done a good job of shifting responsibility for the Bush era policies and deficits onto Obama. They are holding to the time-honored approach of making the same misleading or untrue statements over and over again until they stick, until they are somehow accepted by many as true--regardless of more truthful rebuttals. But as the NYT article makes clear, the facts are that Obama has added but little to the overall budget deficit. That responsibility rests with the G. W. Bush administration, and all the lies that can shamelessly be told will not change that.

What is more questionable, or premature at least, is the NYT opinion that, "Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit." It is very early in this process, and Obama is clearly still examining, discussing, and formulating alternatives--he's still learning--as he addresses the best policy options, promoting them, and negotiating the political mine fields. And the solutions to some of the challenges may not be politically workable in one step; they may take two or more. Which is not to say that the NYT is wrong about what is now on the table, but it is wrong to imply that this iteration is likely the last. More from the NYT on their concerns about the adequacy of Obama's response to date--and the disingenuous lack of answers from the Republicans, as well:

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn't on course to meet his target. [But see The Economist article and comments, below, that are more generous in setting the context and more optimistic about the possibilities.]

But Congressional Republicans aren't, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. "The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending," the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won't be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

Doubtless these conclusions are true. But the solutions, the particular programs will likely have to be introduced in stages. Yesterday, President Obama called on the AMA at their annual meeting to recognize that our health care challenges "are a ticking time bomb." He offered the outline of his approach to reducing health care costs, but also made some specific, necessary first proposals. The open question is, how quickly will further, specific and politically practicable proposals be introduced by Obama's team? And more, perhaps, when will it become evident to the public, and key industry and political players, the importance of supporting now the more difficult and painful changes necessary to reforming existing health care and other failing policies? Timing and political effectiveness are critical.

This same topic of public debt was addressed more universally and at greater length in the cover piece of the most recent edition of The Economist ("Government Debt: The Big Sweat") and in the Leaders section:

THE worst global economic storm since the 1930s may be beginning to clear, but another cloud already looms on the financial horizon: massive public debt. Across the rich world governments are borrowing vast amounts as the recession reduces tax revenue and spending mounts—on bail-outs, unemployment benefits and stimulus plans....

Will they default, inflate or manage their way out?

This alarming trajectory puts policymakers in an increasingly tricky bind. In the short term government borrowing is an essential antidote to the slump. Without bank bail-outs the financial crash would have been even more of a catastrophe. Without stimulus the global recession would be deeper and longer—and it is a prolonged downturn that does the greatest damage to public finances. But in the long run today's fiscal laxity is unsustainable. Governments' thirst for funds will eventually crowd out private investment and reduce economic growth. More alarming, the scale of the coming indebtedness might ultimately induce governments to default or to cut the real cost of their debt through high inflation....

---"The biggest bill in history: The right and wrong way to deal with the rich world's fiscal mess," Leaders section, The Economist (6.11.09)

The Economist recognizes what everyone should understand: most industrialized countries are in this public debt situation because they now have to be. It was the only way to quiet the financial and economic "perfect storm," for which they themselves set the occasion. If much of America's budget deficit is driven by other factors as well, responding to the broken financial system, failing banks and a flagging economy surely played a significant role. But the response has to be prudent, measured, and well timed suggests The Economist; analysis, planning, rethinking and re-planning will likely be a necessary ongoing process. More from The Economist:

What should policymakers do? A sudden fit of fiscal austerity would be a mistake. Even when economies stop shrinking, they will stay weak. Japan's experience in 1997, when a rise in consumption taxes pushed the economy back into recession, is a reminder that a rush to fiscal tightening is counterproductive, especially after a banking bust. Instead of slashing their deficits now, the rich world's governments need to promise, credibly, that they will do so once their economies are stronger.

Good points. And that is necessarily the approach of the Obama team to the evolving economic and political realities, even if the financial press and many factions appear unsatisfied with anything less than a complete, perfect, and politically saleable plan immediately. (Yes, I know they are meeting deadlines, filling the ceaseless demands of the news cycle, selling print space or air time. But still.) And the realities of congressional party politics and various business interests also rightly give us pause; for there has been little to be optimistic about in the workings of Congress or the response of business since TARP and the stimulus bill. The Economist raises the same concerns:

But how? Politicians' promises are not worth much by themselves....

Broadly, governments should pledge to clean up their public finances by cutting future spending rather than raising taxes. Most European countries have scant room for higher taxes....Even in the United States, where tax revenues add up to less than 30% of GDP, simply raising tax rates is not the best answer. There too, spending control should take priority, though there is certainly room for efficiency-enhancing tax reforms, such as eliminating the preferential tax treatment of housing and the deductibility of employer-provided health insurance.

The next step is to boost the credibility of these principles with rules and institutions to reinforce future politicians' resolve....

Yet nothing sends a stronger signal than taking difficult decisions today. One priority is to raise the retirement age, which would boost tax revenues (as people work longer) and cut future pension costs. Many rich countries are already doing this, but they need to go further and faster. Another huge target is health care. America has the most wasteful system on the planet. Its fiscal future would be transformed if Congress passed reforms that emphasized control of costs as much as the expansion of coverage that Barack Obama rightly wants.

This advice, overall, rings true and wise. And Obama's plans and actions appear consistent with this advise. Although, as the NYT article concluded, in addition to cost control and program reforms, the U.S. will likely also have to raise taxes. We--Obama and the Congress--will have to do whatever must be done. The Economist article admonishes us, "Instead of slashing their deficits now, the rich world's governments need to promise, credibly, that they will do so once their economies are stronger." It appears to most of us that Obama and his team are addressing issues and initiating proposals at break-neck speed, but they are also going only as fast as necessity and circumstances dictate. They are exercising pragmatism and patience, as well as resolve.

On the financial front, Bernanke and Geithner are constantly assessing and planning the next best steps in restoring the strength and regulatory oversight of our financial system. The war in Iraq is winding down, even if the war in Afghanistan is expanding. (Sometimes getting out of messes responsibly is painful and expensive at best--but exiting sooner rather later, would be my hope and pray.) And Obama is now directly leading the initiative to reform and restructure the health care system to significantly reduce per capita health care costs while providing access to all. Social security and Medicare will have to follow soon after. These articles have offered some sound beginnings of their own, ideas that have been often discussed before, and I would be surprised if most all of them aren't also embraced by Obama.

My confidence in Obama is clear, no doubt. If anyone has the package of personal and political skills to lead us through this budget crisis successfully, it is him. But he cannot do it alone. He will require continuing, often selfless and sacrificial, public support. And there will soon come a time when he will need bi-partisan Congressional support, as well. Still, players in the health care industry will try to play the spoilers. So, we will succeed only if we Americans act selflessly, responsibly, and accountably as one body in the national interest. But not even Obama may be able to deliver that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=13829461

Summers: Financial Rescues a Necessity, Not Back-Door Nationalization

Obama did not run for president "to manage banks" or auto makers

"Our objective is not to supplant or replace markets," Summers told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "Rather, our objective is to save them from their own excesses and improve our market-based system going forward...."The actions we take are those of necessity, not choice," he insisted, adding that President Barack Obama had no desire to "manage banks, insurance companies or car manufacturers."

Summers said critics claim the administration was engaging in "backdoor socialism" and flatly denied it. "Where our focus has been as we have intervened when necessary is on the intervention being temporary, based on market principles and minimally intrusive," he said....

--"Summers says financial rescues were "necessity," Reuters, as reported on msnbc.com (6.12.09)

What has been happening, evolving, with the financial rescue programs should be reasonably apparent or understandable to most anyone. But we continue to hear the same refrain from the same predictable political corners. The same low-brow, populist Republican demagogues continue to traffic in fear tactics that grossly misrepresent a complex economic challenge in simplistic capitalist/socialist, good-guy/bad-guy terms. In so doing, they mask the real issues and polarize people who might otherwise be finding common ground together. I even have a few friends--bright enough, well-meaning enough--who have fallen prey to this simplistic message of fear, a dangerous message based on misleading, inadequate, and superannuated economic constructions and interpretations.

And, of course, I would be remiss if I didn't remind everyone that the TARP rescue plan was designed and carried out initially by the Bush administration, as were the first steps to support, restructure and save our automotive industry. And I supported TARP at the time, even if there was little else of the 8-year Bush agenda to approve of or be happy about. I suppose we should be grudgingly impressed at how quickly and adeptly the low-brow Republican operatives have turned it all into Obama's nationalization programs--how they could be so approving and supportive when it was Bush's team leading and acting, and so damning and fear-mongering when it was Obama shepherding those same initiatives to success. (For more on this and our expansive national debt, see my next post.)

Lawrence Summers, chief White House economic advisor, former president of Harvard University, and former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton administration, succinctly and directly set the record straight in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations yesterday. Dr. Summers is accustomed to shooting straight, telling it as it is, a trait that brought him more than a fair share of grief in the politically correct halls of Harvard University. But as a former professor of mine at the Harvard Ed School wrote, whenever Lawrence Summers met with faculty, alumni or other groups at Harvard, there was never any doubt who was the smartest person in the room. Politically, socially sensitive, no; very smart, usually right, oh yes. From the Reuter's article:

Summers said a central element of any reform will be to ensure financial firms have and maintain adequate levels of capital so that they are less vulnerable to over-reliance on debt and borrowing in the future.

The administration is expected to unveil proposals for wide-ranging overhaul of the regulatory system on Wednesday. But he warned that the nation's financial system is not going to be "fail safe" until it is able to handle a failure. That means some type of resolution authority must be in place to deal with failing firms rather than continue the current system in which some firms are deemed too-big-to-fail so that the government is forced to step in to help them.

And now, we are starting to see signs of banks growing healthy enough to assert their independence again, paying back the TARP loans and buying back the government's stock warrants--and with the Obama administration's approval and support. From the Associated Press:

10 big banks can repay bailout: President Obama hails it as ‘an initial return’ to taxpayers for TARP

Ten of the nation’s largest banks were given the green light Tuesday to repay $68 billion in government bailout money, freeing them from restrictions on executive compensation that they say are making it hard to keep their top-performing executives.

The Treasury Department said the banks had been approved to repay the money they received from the Troubled Asset Relief Program created by Congress in October at the height of the financial crisis. Experts say allowing 10 banks to return $68 billion in bailout money shows some stability has returned to the system but caution that the crisis isn’t over. And some fear the repayments could widen the gap between healthy and weak banks....

When Treasury first doled out the money, it received warrants from the banks allowing it to buy stock at a fixed price at some future date. The stock prices are expected to rise as the economy recovers. As a result, the warrants could provide substantial profits for taxpayers. The firms now have the right to purchase the warrants Treasury holds in their firm “at fair market value,” Treasury said Tuesday. Testifying before a Senate panel, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the value of the warrants for banks permitted to repay TARP funds are in the “several billion dollar range.”

--"10 big banks can repay bailout, Associate Press as reported on msnbc.com (6.9.09)

As all have said, including President Obama, these repayments are a good sign of approaching stability, even if we have a way to go yet. But they also make clear that the Obama administration, as Lawrence Summers has said, has no interest in nationalizing the banks, auto industry or anything else. They are pleased that banks that have passed the stress test, or are raising sufficient capital in the open markets, can now safely pay back government loans with interest, and buy back the stock warrants required for the loans. Certainly, the government had an obligation to American taxpayers to require an appropriate return on taxpayer TARP money used to rescue the financial and automotive companies, just as it had an obligation to the American taxpayers to rescue and reform our financial system and markets--and in the process save financial firms and markets from themselves in the future.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31315754/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31183784/

Barack Obama Speaks to Muslims in Cairo

Barack Obama delivers a convincing speech

to Muslims around the world

In a rousing speech on Thursday June 4th Barack Obama used the magnifying force of the American presidency, his own charisma and a podium at the heart of the Arab world to address the concerns of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims. Speaking at Cairo University, he sought to project an openness to Islam, a sense of shared values, support for Muslim aspirations and a determination to use American power to help fix the problems that most trouble them. It won praise as a superb oratorical performance.

"The cycle of suspicion and discord must end," Mr Obama declared, to enthusiastic applause. "I have come to seek a new beginning, based on co-operation and respect." Punctuated with quotations from the Koran, the speech ranged from pressing issues such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran's nuclear ambitions to principles such as democracy and women's rights. It culminated in a vision of a more tolerant and peaceful world.

The American president did not shy away from chiding some Muslims for their reluctance to condemn violent extremism or the tendency to measure their own faith by rejection of another. He made a strong pitch for America's own vision of religious freedom, and called for understanding of the historical suffering of Jews. Castigating the denial of the Nazi Holocaust as "baseless, ignorant and hateful", he took an indirect swipe at Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But he also evoked Palestinians' suffering, describing their situation as "intolerable". He forthrightly repeated his demand for an end to Jewish colonisation of Palestinian territory....

Mr Obama has addressed Muslims before. He granted his first interview as president to an Arab satellite channel, beamed a warm message to Iranians Broadly speaking, and despite the latest internet tirades of Osama bin Laden, most Muslims recognise the sincerity of Mr Obama's effort to extricate America from Iraq—and its complexity. More grudgingly, they also understand his quandary in Afghanistan. The one issue where Muslim opinion converges with a demand for a change in America's approach is Palestine. Here, arguably, no American action can be expected fully to assuage Muslim and Arab grievances fast, partly because of what Mr Obama described as America's "unbreakable bond" with Israel and partly because half of the Palestinians' divided polity is run by Hamas, an Islamist group still seen as anathema to America. But Muslims are immensely cheered by the fact that Israelis are plainly rattled by Mr Obama's pressure over the issue of Jewish settlement on occupied land.

Mr Obama's determination to set America's relations with Muslims on a new footing will bring hope across the Middle East and farther afield. The difficulty now lies in translating the new goodwill into action, not just by America, but by its Arab and Muslim allies.

---"Let's be friends: Barack Obama speaks in Cairo," The Economist (6.04.09)

You've probably heard this speech by President Obama. But if you haven't, you should find it on the internet and listen. In the meantime, this article in The Economist will provide context, reaction, and what should come next. It is hard not to be proud and impressed with the amazingly ambitious and idealistic agenda of this remarkable young president--and the impressive start he has made on so many fronts simultaneously. And his outreach to the Muslim world and approach to the troubling issues of the Middle East is as uplifting, inviting and practical as any of them. He continues to inspire hope and commitment to change--at home, yes, but now around the world.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13788639&fsrc=nwl

Religious School Grads Likelier to Have Abortions

Unwed pregnant teens and 20-somethings who attend or have graduated from private religious schools are more likely to obtain abortions than their peers from public schools, according to research in the June [2009] issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

"This research suggests that young, unmarried women are confronted with a number of social, financial and health-related factors that can make it difficult for them to act according to religious values when deciding whether to keep or abort a pregnancy," said the study's author, sociologist Amy Adamczyk of John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York....

Results revealed no significant link between a young woman's reported decision to have an abortion and her personal religiosity, as defined by her religious involvement, frequency of prayer and perception of religion's importance.

--from LiveScience (6.1.09) as reported by msnbc.com (6.5.09)

It is not just the sad irony that speaks to us from reports like this one. These studies and reports should also remind us of the complex social, family, religious and psychological context that weighs so heavily on young women caught in the misfortune of these difficult circumstances. And if we would learn anything from this research and our all-too-common experience, we would be much more likely to bring the love, compassion, forgiveness and support that the highest values of faith proclaim, and much less the self-righteous judgment and anger, the social and political narrow mindedness, that too many people justify through incomplete, often misapplied understandings of their faith.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31048153/

Bob Dylan Revisited

It was 1962 when I bought his newly-minted first album, titled appropriately enough, Bob Dylan. I was 15 years old. It offered mostly folk and blues classics or songs written by others. But about a year later, he released his second, The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan—all original, vintage Dylan songs. I can remember how excited I was, how engaged I felt. And then, the next year, The Times They Are A-Changin'. Those two albums, the second and third, changed it all for me; they formed an early canon of his work, something for an adolescent to believe in, to identify with. I'm still grateful for that.

They called him the poet laureate of our generation, although he didn't seem to understand why. And he was surely that to me, speaking to me so personally on so many new topics in so many new and moving ways. Over the next few years, I bought and enjoyed some of his newer albums, the electric ones—even in the Marine Corps. Those next few albums were great creatively and artistically—and among Dylan's favorites, I believe—but they did not speak to me, inform me, in the same way. I was surely among those who initially felt he had betrayed his medium and message, even his identity (although his identity was such a fluid, elusive thing), when he picked up the electric guitar. Perhaps, to some extent, I still do. It's still all about the early albums for me.

If he was the poet for our generation, he also informed our conscience—and the poetry and messages of his early songbook certainly spoke to mine. He focused and set the foundations of my early understandings of social issues—particularly concerning segregation, civil rights, and social justice—with songs like Oxford Town, Only a Pawn in Their Game, and When the Ship Comes In. Having grown up in a white, New England suburb, I needed awakening and focus. He burst the John Wayne-defined patriotic bubble that passed for my understandings about war—why and how—with A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, Masters of War, Talkin' World War III Blues, and With God on Our Side. (When, regardless, inexplicably, I joined the Marine Corps soon thereafter, I learned my own lessons of why and how during the Vietnam era experience.) And ever since hearing Blowin' in the Wind and The Times They are A-Changin', I have kept turning new corners, setting my gaze on new views and vistas, turning my face into the changing winds, trying to sort it all out—for the times have just kept on changing.

Of course, you know the enigmatic Dylan was Jewish, formerly Robert Zimmerman, that he converted to Christianity in his middle years, then drifted away from his adopted faith as time passed by. He also kept moving from one artistic phase to the next. But I read that in later years he said his earlier work—the songs and messages they carried—had become his prayer book. But if they have not been elevated to the status of prayer book for me, his poetry and songs continue to occupy a lofty status in my pantheon of artistic, moral expression, insight, and naïve courage. And they continue to inform my sense of conscience and moral courage as much as any other product of human inspiration.

But this assessment, as you might guess, is rather more a retrospective, arguably a revisionist or reincarnated view of Dylan's impact on me in my early years, updated for the way I feel about his influence now. The sometimes enigmatic, sometimes ironic changes in my own life over the intervening years certainly provided some contrasting, seemingly conflicting directions and identities. Like his only in that it was unpredictably changing, my life differed markedly from the directions of Dylan's life and art. And it was at times lived inconsistent with his messages, casting doubt on his influence. But it was never really possible to let go of Dylan's influence, even if it had become compartmentalized, archived, and called out only from time to time. Don't we all have our own travels and sojourns, our own crooked highways?

In September 2005, PBS broadcast Martin Scorcese's documentary on Bob Dylan, No Direction Home. I saw it, and saw it again. Both a reminder of an earlier identity and an affirmation that, in part, it still endures, it also provided a sense of closure for me. It reminded me of the depth and good reasons for my adolescent interest and knowledge of Dylan, my love for his poetry, my empathy and belief in his medium and his messages. They set a keystone in a foundation that endures today, even if I failed to recognize it for a long time, even if I thought I had outgrown it. But the documentary also impressed me with how much I didn't know about Dylan and how much I had forgotten—and that I had unavoidably, and rightly, moved on.

For me, he was first and last an artist: a poet, song writer, and performer. He was uninterested in political organizations or their crusades. He was only interested in artistically expressing himself about issues and topics. I didn't appreciate that about him at the time, but I do understand and relate better to it now. If I confessed a lack of interest in party politics as a teen, you couldn't be surprised. But if I have more interest now—and I do, much more—it is only out of critical necessity, for I have less regard and respect for party politics than ever. More accurately, I have developed more an antipathy toward it. Issues and problems, ideas and solutions, yes; party politics, no. In the intervening years, I had supported political parties for the same reasons that John Adams ultimately had to, I suppose: public association, identity and advocacy concerning public issues. But no more. Now, I just read, talk and write about it all. How about you?

Dylan also appeared uninterested in achieving success and identity and staying there, satisfying his constituency, protecting his franchise. In fact, he couldn't seem to help himself; he had to continually move on artistically, in his song writing and performance. He apparently felt no sense of real control or managed authorship; the poetry, the songs, the performance style and direction, just came out and pushed him on. Or so he suggests. He can't or won't explain that process, what it meant, or where it was going. He says he refuses to try. Perhaps he's been quite honest and humble about it all. Either that or, as some have always suggested, he just continues to turn the random corners of his life, teasing us, implying more order and meaning than there is, even mocking us, continually yanking our collective chain.

The first description rings more true to the ways of life and gifts and artists for me. Certainly I prefer it. And how many of us can be that independent, that courageous about following and giving expression to our abilities and gifts—especially if our accompanying abilities as an instrumentalist are that mediocre, and our voice that singularly unmelodious and rendered that affectedly.

The way he handled his need to move on artistically and personally sometimes appeared to others thoughtless, selfish, even callous in the choices and changes he made and the interpersonal exchanges that attended them. He sometimes left others feeling abandoned or betrayed without explanation, whether family, old friends or new, or his bereaved constituencies and publics. He was disinclined, often apparently unable, to explain these things. He was private and self protective. He would have us think that it was just part of his single-minded devotion to following his muse. But it is hard to understand or see the necessity for this churlish behavior. Perhaps he would have us think it was an unfortunate, involuntary character trait, but in the end he was too often just insensitive and boorish. Or some might conclude in resignation that he couldn't be the poet and performer he was without, well, being the person he was. To one degree or another, that may be true for all of us.

And if it is his earlier work that he now reflects on most, considers his prayer book, it may be in part because over time what remained of his inspiration, his gift, no longer granted him expression in that same brilliant way. Age and aging have observed the withering of the prescience and insight—the power—of his poetry and prose, as it has his rude, once commanding voice. I doubt that he knows why—we never do—but he no longer has the creative, impassioned inspiration he once had, at least not for me. It's now as if his muse has been spirited away, and we're all a little sad she's gone.

But even if Dylan is now more celebrated for the work done than the work he is doing, the genius and insight of his earlier work endures. And it will continue to endure, for me at least, even if his light has grown dimmer in the archives of my own recollections. His voice on civil rights, war, life, love and hate, his songbook, will long outlive his quirky personality and predilections. I feel fortunate to have been both informed and entertained in such a singular way by such a singular talent at that impressionable time of my life. And I was pleased, warmed, to reacquaint myself with the nature and origins of those foundation stones.

Torture: Our Slide From Grace

I. Understandings: Human Nature & Governance Principles

Let's be honest and clear about all this. When imminent danger threatens the American mainland and its people, it is instinctive--or, at least completely understandable--to want to pull out all the stops to protect them. And do it fast. That's exactly what President George W. Bush did immediately after 9/11. And most all of us supported him in his pursuit of al Qaida into Afghanistan--even if the remainder of his presidency was at best misinformed and misled in so many areas of national interest.

And if using extreme interrogation measures--torture, yes--to gain information thought critical to protecting the American homeland from another attack was what it might take, then we might understandably consider making an exception this time. Erring on the side of doing everything possible--torture or not--was embraced by many people in the emotional moment of this immediate threat. And even if you don't relate to this emotion personally, you can understand it, perhaps even sympathize with it.

We might then also understand and sympathize with those in subordinate positions--even important positions--called upon to formulate the national security rationale and legal support for a policy change on torture. We might see how they would view it as their patriotic duty to support their government leaders and help make it happen. Under these circumstances, it is at the very least unfair and inappropriate to hold subordinate staff in the national security apparatus and the Justice Department criminally culpable for bringing their best skills to their duty to serve their superiors, including the heads of the CIA and Justice Department and, yes, the Vice President and President of the United States. It is after all, a legitimate issue of national security, and they should bring their best supporting arguments to the policy discussion, as they also address arguments to the contrary.

Lawyers are by training and the requirements of their codes of ethics aggressive advocates for their client-employers. Wherever there is an argument to be made on the merits, the facts or law, it is their duty to their client-employers to make that argument and defend their interests aggressively. National security agents, in turn, must be able to depend on the rulings of the Justice Department and their agency or departmental leaders. It is not their place to be jurist or moral arbiter. That responsibility rests with those whose job it is to judge the merits of the arguments and appropriately protect the higher moral ground (see II, below). In this case, that responsibility fell to the same heads of the Justice Department and the CIA, National Security Council, and the Vice President and President of the United States of America. And, as a matter of sound policy, great latitude must be allowed in exercising those judgments.

Justice Department lawyers who did their professional duty (writing supporting opinions), however narrowly defined, and those CIA or other staff operatives or agents who in turn did theirs in effecting the policy (using approved torture techniques in interrogations) should not be punished for doing what their government and their professions expected of them. Any other approach would inappropriately, perhaps dangerously, impede the proper functioning of departmental and agency professionals in their service of both the government and the governed. It would also encourage and expand the unseemly "get-even" tendencies extant in our adversarial political party structure to the point where the first order of business for each succeeding administration would be a witch hunt for those responsible for policies they disagreed with. That approach to governing would be profoundly lacking in reason and wisdom. And it would surely weaken government's ability to function responsibly and accountably in the future.

Of course, however unsatisfying it may be, this same policy concern applies to our policy leaders as well. If government executives had to second guess every policy decision entertained based on whether they might somehow be charged with criminal culpability by a later-elected administration--an opposing political party, perhaps--government would be restrained from making difficult decisions addressing our country's most important issues and serving its best interests. This would be an untenable context for government. Excepting clear and material violations of U.S. or international law, policy decisions of senior policy makers must be immune from prosecution.

So, then, is there no recourse against our senior-most policy making executives of government? Of course not; that too would be unjust and fail to serve good and accountable government. If there is a question of violation of international law--the Geneva Convention, for example--the appropriate international authority or court has the primary responsibility of bringing forward such charges. Where timing is critical, a sitting legislature may bring articles of impeachment in appropriate cases. Otherwise, it is the duty of congress and succeeding presidential administrations to investigate serious concerns with material policy breaches of U.S. or international law by predecessor administration officials. In egregious cases, a bi-partisan commission should be empaneled to investigate and report findings--a "truth-telling" commission, if you will. Such exercises may be important to understanding and correcting institutional and individual governmental failures, and advancing reconciliation between the American people and their government. Of course, it also identifies those guilty of indiscretions, errors and harm done. And, if important to the cause of justice done, individual censure may also be appropriate. Public shame--shame as history--is punishment enough for the culpable. We shouldn't underestimate the power of the effects results.

II. Leadership: A Shining Beacon of Principles & Ideals?

Among the qualities we should expect in a U.S. president are those of the classic philosopher-leader and statesman. Presidents, to be sure, but vice presidents, and senior government and legislative leaders, too, should aspire to that ideal. But over the course of my lifetime--62 years--it appears to me that we have seen less and less of those qualities reflected in our presidents and leaders.

This is not a unique or profound observation; it has been noted often by many thoughtful writers over those years. And doubtless, it has been an issue of concern at various other times in US history. But seldom has it reached such a low point as it did in the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. There were precious little of those qualities present or expressed by him, his vice president, and many in his administration. And as ideological purists and the political Religious Right combined to dominate and tightly narrow the identity of the Republican Party, the political and legislative process became partisan, polarized, and dysfunctional to the extreme--a matter of deep concern to those who observed and chronicled it all from the fewer places where wisdom resided.

The ideal of the philosopher-leader and statesman balances the exigencies and practicalities of everyday politics, economics and the national welfare--yes, including the lower expressions of populist demagoguery and political self-interest--with the need to define and protect the higher principles and ideals of enlightened humanity in community: the shining beacon on a hill, if you will. Yes, American presidents and their administrations have seldom fully realized or fully reflected those highest of ideals. But many came close, especially those founding thinkers and statesmen like Washington and Adams, those who set the foundation stones, the visionary principles and ideals. And, yes, there was Lincoln. Others would fairly suggest the presidencies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. All these presidents and others acted consistently and unambiguously to express and defend our ideals and policies condemning abuse and torture of prisoners.

But President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their cabinet leadership left little evidence that a philosopher-leader's and statesman's more enlightened principles found a respected voice in the decision making of their administration. Theirs was more a creature and servant of the unregulated marketplace, and therefore of large corporations and the most wealthy--but also of the narrow cultural dictates of the highly political, judgmental Religious Right, and the often xenophobic, jingoistic and bellicose nationalism reflected so often by their core constituencies.

The world was changing around them, and they didn't understand what it meant or how to respond. Their only instinct and personal point of reference was the lowest common denominator of the simplest, black-and-white constructions, understandings, and responses to complex, interdependent cultural, economic, and geopolitical changes. They refused to talk or listen to other voices, honorable voices who might help them--including the wiser former President G.H.W. Bush and key members of his very able cabinet.

What does it say about us that, when our people, leaders and ideals are threatened, we bow to our basest instincts and abandon the higher ground for expediency's sake? What does it say about us that we would waterboard a man 183 times in one month? I'm still stunned by the reality of it. What more could we expect to be confessed by the man the last 170 or 180 times? As civilized people, don't we recognize this as cruel and unusual punishment in extemis? In states where capital punishment is allowed, this level of pain and suffering could not be imparted in a legal execution, however heinous the crime or deserving the criminal. These "enhanced interrogation techniques" appear as much about illegal punishment as interrogation.

Former Vice President Cheney would have us believe that justification for these "enhanced interrogation techniques" stands or falls based on their efficacy. That is, did they produce actionable, "high-value" intelligence? Somehow, the vice president missed the college class discussion on Aristotelian ethics, the discussion on means and ends. A foundation stone, a necessary consideration, in any discussion or decision making is whether the ends justify the means. If you are the US--or most other civilized Western countries--and purport to occupy, exemplify and defend the high moral ground, then honoring and protecting our principles should not be a negotiable matter. And when it came down to these circumstances and the use of torture in interrogations, our Western allies, staunchly reflecting their values, said, no. But the Bush administration abandoned our place on the hill as they compromised our ideals and identity; they said, yes.

Of course, we can talk about the efficacy of torture in interrogations, but those discussions and arguments have been repeated so many times over the decades. And the voices reflecting the honor, strength and discipline of an ascendant humanity have always concluded that torture has no place in it. Yet, that history, those ideals, and the duty to honor them somehow eluded President Bush's administration. Somehow they thought efficacy should be the determinative question. So, since it is again the subject of discussion and dispute, lets talk about efficacy.

The information gained through torture is too often unreliable. So say the real experts in the field, the most experienced professional interrogators and those who have researched the issue. It's not that you can't extract some "high value" or "actionable" information from some prisoners; it's just that it is very hard to separate what might be useful from the other information tortured prisoner may be eager to provide. Most often prisoners will say anything to stop the pain or fear of death. Sometimes what they say may be true, often it is not. The stronger subjects may lie, and lie again. Even if they do not know the answers, they will guess or fabricate answers--anything to stop the process, even if only temporarily. And more, many of the most experienced, most effective professional interrogators are confident they can gain the most reliable information, without the indignity to us and our prisoners of giving expression to our basest instincts to punish while we interrogate. We do not have to torture.

What do you say, then? Why not dust ourselves off, raise our heads and straighten ourselves again? Let's reaffirm to the world who we are and the higher values that have always been ours. Lets polish again that beacon and carry it with us back to the top of that hill where we belong.

Sharing Power With China (and Others): An Unaccustomed Relationship

Beijing is challenging the world's economic and financial order. Americans had better get used to it....

The Chinese government has not been sitting idly by while the Obama administration has gotten into gear. Put another way, there has been chaos under heaven, and Beijing's situation is excellent. Over the past two months, Beijing has made a series of moves that could be interpreted as a challenge to the American-led economic and financial order. In March, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao explicitly voiced concerns about the direction of U.S. fiscal policy at his annual press conference. Later in March, China's central bank governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, argued that the costs of relying on the dollar as the world's reserve currency now exceeded its benefits....

--"Fearing China," by Daniel Dresner, Newsweek

A variation on a theme stressed here before: the American public must get past it's last-century, nationalistic misperceptions of its place in an evolving, "flattening" world--and especially with regard to China. And our leaders, who should understand this quite well, must act wisely and collaboratively in our new and evolving international relationships. It's not just that the Chinese are on such a steep ascendancy, or that the place of India, other Asian countries and the EC are also more prominent, but also that the self-inflicted damage to our financial system, economy, international standing, and our vulnerable creditor status, have so weakened us that there is no other wise and workable strategy available to us.

Chrysler's and General Motors' self-inflicted failures offers another example of changing industrial leadership--and another example of China opportunistically advancing its leadership ambitions during this time of international economic weakness. An article in the Washington Post (5.18.09), "As Detroit Crumbles, China Emerges as Auto Epicenter," makes the point:

The global auto industry is restructuring. Italy's Fiat is on the verge of taking control of Chrysler. Last year India's Tata Motors, already famous for its $2,000 Nano, acquired Jaguar and Land Rover.

And China's auto sector has emerged as a threat to the long-standing pecking order. Earlier this year, Geely Automobile, one of China's largest private carmakers, purchased an Australian drivetrain transmission supplier, a leading gearbox manufacturer. Weichai Power, one of China's top diesel engine manufacturers, acquired a French diesel engine producer. Another Chinese company, BYD, which counts Warren E. Buffett as an investor, launched a mass-market plug-in electric car, ahead of GM's anticipated Chevrolet Volt.

Detroit's annual auto show in January was somber, but Shanghai's show dazzled attendees with throngs of models, rock bands and light shows. This year, Nissan skipped Detroit and attended the Chinese event in April. Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Porsche all unveiled new-vehicle models in Shanghai.

"The center of gravity is moving eastward," Dieter Zetsche, chairman of Daimler, told reporters at the show.

This is just one example of China's evolving industrial leadership ambitions. And as we discussed in an earlier post, they are also moving confidently toward a greater financial leadership role in the world--and critically initiating a dialogue that calls into question the appropriateness of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice. (See my post, China's Way Forward, the US Response, 4.26.09, Hyde Park's Corner.)

The challenge for the U.S., however, is not to overreact, but to find a balanced view of how threatening these changes actually are to the U.S., and to fashion a balanced, constructive response to it. And there is also the challenge of preparing the American people for these inevitable industrial and financial restructurings, and that new role of constructive, shared power in an evolving 21st-century world economic and geopolitical reality.

The Newsweek article by Dresner provides reasons why most of these changes should not be viewed as a threat to American prosperity, but only if we assume that shared leadership role. And there's the rub. The greater concern, posits the article, is that America is unaccustomed to a role of shared leadership, and unprepared to carry it out successfully, even if that is our stated strategy and clear intention. From the article:

If these moves do not amount to much, then why all the hubbub? To be blunt, America is out of practice at dealing with an independent source of national power. For two decades the United States has been the undisputed global hegemon. For the 40 years before that, America was the leader of the free world. As a result, American thinkers and policymakers have become accustomed to having all policy decisions of consequence go through Washington. Our current generation of leaders and thinkers are simply unprepared for the idea of other countries taking the lead in matters of the global economic order.

Dresner concludes by summarizing his conclusions on each point:

Most of China's recent actions do not constitute a real threat to the United States; indeed, to the extent that China helps to boost the economies of the Pacific Rim, they are contributing a public good. Obama—and Hunstman—need to make the mental adjustment to a rising China, welcoming many of China's policy initiatives while pushing back at those that threaten American core interests. If they can make this cognitive leap, then Sino-American relations can proceed on the basis of shared interests rather than mutual fears.

And they have to prepare the American people to make the same mental adjustment, the same cognitive leap, don't they?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/198586
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702269.html

Staying Healthy, Happy Across the Years: A Longitudinal Study

Is there a formula—some mix of love, work, and psychological adaptation—for a good life? For 72 years, researchers at Harvard have been examining this question, following 268 men who entered college in the late 1930s through war, career, marriage and divorce, parenthood and grandparenthood, and old age. Here, for the first time, a journalist gains access to the archive of one of the most comprehensive longitudinal studies in history. Its contents, as much literature as science, offer profound insight into the human condition—and into the brilliant, complex mind of the study's longtime director, George Vaillant.

--"What Makes Us Happy?" by Joshua Wolf Shenk, The Atlantic

I like The Atlantic magazine because it so often offers me articles like this one. It is interesting, even compelling, not just because of the case studies and findings, but because of the story of the study itself, and the medical researcher who carried on this very personal relationship with both the longitudinal research and the people who were the subjects of it. And I suppose it should surprise no one that even among such a gifted, privileged, and initially healthy population, the study of their lives was as much the chronicling of failures, deteriorating health, and emotional distress, as it was of successes, health and happiness. From the article:

And as the Grant Study men entered middle age—they spent their 40s in the 1960s—many achieved dramatic success. Four members of the sample ran for the U.S. Senate. One served in a presidential Cabinet, and one was president. There was a best-selling novelist (not, Vaillant has revealed, Norman Mailer, Harvard class of '43). But hidden amid the shimmering successes were darker hues. As early as 1948, 20 members of the group displayed severe psychiatric difficulties. By age 50, almost a third of the men had at one time or another met Vaillant's criteria for mental illness. Underneath the tweed jackets of these Harvard elites beat troubled hearts. Arlie Bock [who initiated the study] didn't get it. "They were normal when I picked them," he told Vaillant in the 1960s.

In approaching the study and the subjects, Vaillant was focusing on what he calls "adaptations," or unconscious responses to pain, conflict or uncertainty--what others have called "defense mechanisms." According to the author and Vaillant:

At the bottom of the pile are the unhealthiest, or "psychotic," adaptations—like paranoia, hallucination, or megalomania—which, while they can serve to make reality tolerable for the person employing them, seem crazy to anyone else. One level up are the "immature" adaptations, which include acting out, passive aggression, hypochondria, projection, and fantasy. These aren't as isolating as psychotic adaptations, but they impede intimacy. "Neurotic" defenses are common in "normal" people. These include intellectualization (mutating the primal stuff of life into objects of formal thought); dissociation (intense, often brief, removal from one's feelings); and repression, which, Vaillant says, can involve "seemingly inexplicable naïveté, memory lapse, or failure to acknowledge input from a selected sense organ." The healthiest, or "mature," adaptations include altruism, humor, anticipation (looking ahead and planning for future discomfort), suppression (a conscious decision to postpone attention to an impulse or conflict, to be addressed in good time), and sublimation (finding outlets for feelings, like putting aggression into sport, or lust into courtship).

"What allows people to work, and love, as they grow old?" the author asks. By the time the study's subjects entered retirement, Dr. Vaillant had identified seven factors that best predicted both physical and psychological health as the population aged. From the article:

Employing mature adaptations was one. The others were education, stable marriage, not smoking, not abusing alcohol, some exercise, and healthy weight. Of the 106 Harvard men who had five or six of these factors in their favor at age 50, half ended up at 80 as what Vaillant called "happy-well" and only 7.5 percent as "sad-sick." Meanwhile, of the men who had three or fewer of the health factors at age 50, none ended up "happy-well" at 80. Even if they had been in adequate physical shape at 50, the men who had three or fewer protective factors were three times as likely to be dead at 80 as those with four or more factors.

Are there overarching factors or concerns that should be highlighted? Yes, says Vaillant: on the positive side, the power of relationships; on the negative side, the destructiveness of alcoholism. From the article:

One is alcoholism, which he found is probably the horse, and not the cart, of pathology. "People often say, 'That poor man. His wife left him and he's taken to drink,'" Vaillant says. "But when you look closely, you see that he's begun to drink, and that has helped drive his wife away." The horrors of drink so preoccupied Vaillant that he devoted a stand-alone study to it: The Natural History of Alcoholism.

Vaillant's other main interest is the power of relationships. "It is social aptitude," he writes, "not intellectual brilliance or parental social class, that leads to successful aging." Warm connections are necessary—and if not found in a mother or father, they can come from siblings, uncles, friends, mentors. The men's relationships at age 47, he found, predicted late-life adjustment better than any other variable, except defenses. Good sibling relationships seem especially powerful: 93 percent of the men who were thriving at age 65 had been close to a brother or sister when younger. In an interview in the March 2008 newsletter to the Grant Study subjects, Vaillant was asked, "What have you learned from the Grant Study men?" Vaillant's response: "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people."

So then, "What factors don't matter?" asks the author. I have to give you some incentive to read and enjoy the whole article, don't I? Perhaps learning of things that don't appear to matter and some other interesting findings will be incentive enough.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200906/happiness