Is righting social wrongs equal to 'revenge'?

My last brilliantly titled post ruffled feathers. I stated right off the bat that the taunt 'neener neener' was immature, and I will state again: It was not Shakespearean in quality. But is it revenge?

I am thin skinned when it comes to criticism. Funny that I write publicly for a living and I cringe when I have a reader who does not love me. ;) The likelihood of all people loving what I say combined with a delicate set of 'feelers' (my son's word for 'feelings'), does not make for complete bliss...

So, when my friend 'cyco' said I was being vengeful and it was wrong to be that way...I did some fish watching, (they are lovely). I also considered what my friend ms15 said about publicly supporting the less fortunate.

I don't believe that being happy about Jan Brewer being told she can't cut medical insurance for disadvantaged children is/was revenge. I am not a vengeful person. I don't wish for anyone to suffer or hurt, or be unhappy. I do believe in the adage: 'What goes around, comes around'...and that is what happened to Jan Brewer. She did something crappy, and crappy came back and nibbled her behind. Is that revenge? I dunno...I've even done research on revenge. Apparently Justin Timberlake has a very successful song with that title....then I tried my 'goes around comes around' saying....which took me to Karma. Not a Buddhist...but I do believe in the concept of Karma.

So then I started thinking about the social aspect of the KidsCare...protecting the poorest from unnecessary illness due to lack of medical care. Here is what I came up with:

If your house catches on fire, the fire department comes, and puts it out. Heyyy...did I pay for that?!? Well, yeah...I kinda did. If your house is robbed, and the police come...did I pay for that? Yup...I kinda did. If your horse becomes stuck in the middle of a river...and your best efforts to rescue the animal fail...and in order to save the life of the horse-assistance is offered. Did I pay for that? I actually don't know who would have paid for that...but I suspect it was public funds.

I have been lucky enough to have never been the victim of a crime or a house fire, OR a stranded horse. So... I have never used those services before-but I have paid for them- because it is the right thing to do for our society. I would not begrudge someone help with a house fire, or a crime victim access to police. So why kids? How is it not a priority to keep them from harm? ms15-the only way your anti social program take on insurance for kids without health care (no matter the how or why they need help...no one asks the person whose house is on fire 'why is your house on fire?' It doesn't matter!!)...would be to say that there is NOT a social responsibility to other humans.

No one except someone who has been there, can know the suffering a parent feels when they are helpless to ease the suffering of their child. To see your child in pain, and either not have access, or there just simply isn't a cure, is horrific. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I would say to you that I'm glad. It is something that changes who you are inside in good ways and bad. To say that children should be left to suffer because their parents can't or even won't provide for them, would be to say that those kids deserve to suffer. It would also be saying the parents deserve to watch-which I simply cannot object to that notion loudly enough.

So...the happiness I felt when I heard that the insurance funding for children's healthcare was being forced back into Jan's budget...Revenge? Really? I don't think so.

The fish agree...

Respectfully,

Tracy Lynn Cook