Climate Change and Pascal’s Wager

Whenever the subject of climate change comes up, I am reminded of “Pascal’s Wager.”   Blaise Pascal, a 17th century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist, formulated his wager addressing the question of whether or not God exists. 

Essentially it states:  It’s better to live your life as if there were a God, then die and find out there isn’t, than to live your life as if there weren’t a God, then die and find out there is.  Kind of hedging your eternal bet.

Applying Pascal’s logic to global warming and climate change:  It’s better to act now as if climate change does exist and find out years from now that it doesn’t, than to do nothing and find out years from now that it does.

At the just concluded Paris Conference on Climate Change scientists in 195 countries, including the United States, have overwhelmingly agreed that climate change is, indeed, is a fact and we must start doing something about it now.    Of course, as with everything since Obama was elected, if he supports it, the Republicans are against it.  But then, a lot of Republicans believe the universe is 6,000 years old, the earth was created in six business days and evolution is simply a theory and not a fact.  I don’t have a lot of respect for Republicans’ scientific credentials.   Evidently American Republicans don’t mind appearing stupid before the whole world.

We all know that for our conservative politicians the interests of Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers take precedence over science.  And it is hard to whip up enthusiasm among the public since nearly everybody living today will be dead before any catastrophic events take place unless, of course, you live on an island in the middle of the ocean or are a polar bear.

The Republican are always complaining about Obama not showing leadership and that America must be the world leader.  Evidently that only applies to starting wars, invading other countries, telling others what government system they should have and “bombing the hell out of them.”  However, when it comes to something constructive like climate change the Republicans seem willing to concede that leadership to China.

There are also other conceivable benefits to addressing climate change.  Just as space research produced a considerable number of technological advancements benefiting the public overall, research into renewable energy and other energy saving measures—like battery developments—could provide many benefits not directly associated with climate change.

So the issue is not whether global warming is real or not but how effective the fossil fuel industry and their Republican political puppets will be to insure today’s profits no matter how many islands may sink or polar bears may die in the future.

Dumb and Dumber

Just when you think Donald Trump makes the most stupid, preposterous remark, another Republican presidential candidate tries to top it.

"Now listen, here’s the simple and undeniable fact. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats.”  That’s what Ted Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt when commenting on the shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic.  According to Cruz, Democrats “fight to give the right to vote to convicted felons. Why? Because the Democrats know convicted felons tend to vote Democrat."

Of course, Cruz hits a double target with this one.  You know what color the Republican base associates with violent felons?  Wink, wink.  So in one swipe, Cruz whips up the Republican hate base by playing both the fear and race cards.  Can you imagine the damage a released violent criminal, you know “those people,” can inflict by voting? 

I doubt very much that the white man who killed three people at the Colorado clinic is a Democrat.  More likely he is an Evangelical Christian Republican.

Bonus Cruz stupid remark:  "Last I checked we don't have a rubber shortage in America. When I was in college we had a machine in the bathroom, you put 50 cents in and voila! So yes, anyone who wants contraceptives can access them, but it's an utterly made-up nonsense issue." — Ted Cruz in Iowa responding to Democrats' assertion that Republicans are against contraception (Source: Time)

John Kasich’s supremely dumb idea

Just when you think Republican presidential candidates have run out of really dumb ideas, one of them comes up with an idea that is colossally stupid.  In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, Ohio Governor John Kasich has proposed creating a new federal agency to promote Judeo-Christian values around the world.  You probably find that preposterous so go back and read it again.

Yes, a Republican is proposing to form a new government agency which is not exactly in line with the “small government” Gospel According to St. Ronald.  You will recall Ted Cruz, during the Republican debate, bragged that he would completely eliminate five agencies (although he could only remember four of them)—the IRS, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy and HUD, which put him in the lead for Republican dumb ideas.

But now Kasich really hit the top of the dumb-o-meter with the “purpose” of his new agency.   As he told NBC News, he wants to establish our Judeo-Christian values as the standard for the entire world.  "We need to beam messages around the world" about the freedoms Americans enjoy he said. “It means freedom, it means opportunity, it means respect for women, it means freedom to gather, it means so many things.”  Now I am not exactly sure how those things, for example “freedom to gather,” or “respect for women” are examples of Judeo-Christian values but Republicans have never impressed me with their grasp of logical, rational thought.

According to Kasich the new agency would promote our Jewish-Christian-based belief system to four regions of the world: China, Iran, Russia and the Middle East.  (Note for Governor Kasich: China has a rather well establish religious tradition dating before the Judeo/Christian--Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism; the Middle East actually includes Iran and is predominantly Muslim; and Russia’s major religion is Russian Orthodox Christian.)

By the way, the Republicans collectively added another dumb idea by insisting that America only accept Christian Syrian refugees.  If you really wanted to find the ideal way of pissing off ISIS and all the radical Muslim terrorists in the world and stirring up more religious hatred and disdain for America, Kasich and his Republican cronies have found it.  The Chinese might react, “Confucius say, Americans full of shit,” the Russians could say “Who needs your Pope anyway,” and you can almost see the ISIS recruiting posters, “Americans hate Islam, they want to impose Christianity on us! Kill Americans!” 

Kasich did not offer a name for his new government agency so I would like to propose one that would reflect the Republican presidential candidate’s foreign policy idea, Department of Offending Foes of the United States or, for short, DOOFUS.

Now I am coming out

Since Bruce Jenner declared he was born a girl and Rachel Dolezal, President of the Spokane NAACP chapter, stated she was born black even though her parents are white, it is now acceptable to reveal you were actually born something people think you weren’t.   So I can finally come out and tell you that I was born a genius.

I realize, of course, some people might use other terms to describe me such as “wise guy” or “smart ass,” but I prefer “genius.”   For example I recognized immediately that the eight Benghazi hearings mounted by the Republicans were a trumped up (excuse the pun) excuse to make Hillary Clinton look bad for blatantly political reasons.

If you are a genius you understand that the Republicans have no new ideas about anything so the best they can do is generate endless, meaningless politically motivated attacks, shut down the government, refuse to raise the debt ceiling or vote over 50 times to repeal a law they don’t like without proposing a valid alternative just because they hate Obama.  It takes a genius to recognize that kind of stupidity.

Getting back to the Benghazi hearings, Chairman Gowdy insists that his committee must get to the “bottom of this” so that measures can be taken to ensure that it never happens again.  Now any genius would assume that the C.I.A., the military, the state department and all government agencies involved in the event would have immediately investigated and analyzed what happened and looked for ways to ensure it never happens again and have already taken necessary actions.  They would not wait around two years for Gowdy’s commission to tell them what to do.  But Gowdy never served in the military so he has no idea what happens during unpredictable, fast moving, rapidly changing situations happening half-way around the world nor how to deal with them.

Another demonstration of my genius is that after the horrible, tragic mass killings in the NC church, Jeb Bush declared he was not sure it was a “hate crime.”   As a genius, I knew immediately that it was.  Of course, nobody ever considered either of the Bush brothers as a genius anyway.

Republicans have also been pushing for more restrictive voter registration laws which they claim are specifically intended to reduce voter fraud.    Since there is no evidence that voter fraud is a problem and the Republican laws are specifically intended to restrict voters who typically vote Democratic, it obviously takes a genius to see that this is just another Republican political con job.  Actually, if we were a real democracy, we would encourage voter turnout--which is not that great in America--but that’s too subtle for Republicans to understand.

Now that I have finally come out and revealed that I am a genius, I will be offering, as a public service, my assessments on all the dumb stuff we can expect from the Republicans for the next year and a half until the Presidential elections.

The Pope and Kim Davis

Now that the pageantry, adulation and hoopla over the Pope’s visit have dropped off the news cycle radar, we learn the inconvenient truth that Francis and his church still endorse bigotry against gays and the idea that his god’s law supersedes civil law.

How else can you interpret his secret meeting (revealed after his departure) with an obscure Kentucky county clerk, an elected official who gained national attention by breaking the law because her god (and the Pope’s) hates homosexuals?

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an advocacy group for gay Catholics was quoted in the New York Times as saying: “The news that Pope Francis met privately in Washington, D.C., with Kim Davis throws a wet blanket on the good will that the pontiff had garnered during his U.S. visit last week.” He’s absolutely right although I might have used a less gentle term than “wet blanket.”

I was almost beginning to buy into that “good will” idea but then, as Yogi said, it was “déjà vu all over again.”  Oh, by the way, wasn’t Francis quoted as saying about gays, “Who am I to judge?”  Evidently, the Pope considers an Evangelical county clerk eminently more capable than he is of judging gays.

 According to news reports, Francis told Davis to “stay strong,” and, “Thank you for your courage.”  That sounds to me like a pretty emphatic endorsement of her denying gay marriage licenses.

Some pundits have opined that after tossing some barbs at conservatives with his views on climate change, capitalism, poverty and immigration in his televised speeches and declarations, he decided to sneak through the backdoor of a secret meeting with Ms. Davis to toss the Evangelicals and the social conservative right a little bone to pick on.

Whatever.   

You’ve probably heard the term “Papal Bull”--an official document or proclamation issued by the Pope.  I have a new definition in mind. 

 

In defense of Ben Carson

Actually I like Ben Carson.  He seems like a nice guy.  During the last debate I was not quite sure whether he had just awakened from a nap or was about to take one, but he comes across as a decent man who certainly says what he thinks.  I mean this guy is a distinguished neuro-surgeon—which would surely qualify him as a scientific person—yet he says with absolute conviction that he believes in creationism and that evolution is a myth.  You can’t be more say-what-you-think than that.

What got him into big trouble was when he said on Meet the Press he would not want to see a Muslim in the White House.  Kabam!  All the other candidates, Republican and Democrat, immediately wrapped themselves in the cloak of self-righteousness and attempted to drown him in a tsunami of political correctness.   The Republicans waxed indignant declaring that he did not represent the pristine principles of their highly moral party and the Democrats said:  Ha! See what real bigots and racists the Republicans are!

To make matters worse, Ben would not back off, and in a subsequent interview with Yahoo News he said: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.  Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Well technically speaking he is absolutely right.  I will not subject you to a litany of just how weird Islamic Sharia is. You can Google that yourselves.   So, unless stoning your adulterous wife to death or killing your daughter for kissing a non-Muslim or giving me 80 lashes because I had a cocktail last night is something that appeals to you, I think you will find that there are some valid reasons to say that Sharia is not, in fact, “consistent with the Constitution of this country.”  But that same principle applies no matter what the religion happens to be.

Consider this:   If you take his second sentence and substitute “Evangelical Christians” for “Muslims” you can make a valid, rational comparison.  They, the Evangelicals, think that “their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official.” 

All the Republican candidates have fallen over themselves trying to impress the public how Christian they are (see my blog of April 27, 2015 Republicans Running for Christian Ayatollah) and Jeb Bush quite blatantly admitted his Catholicism influences his political decisions.  Republican Presidential candidates are still bringing up whether Obama is a Christian or not.  For secularists like myself, who are adamant about the separation of church and state, I am alarmed at the insidious way religion is creeping into our civil liberties.

The current instances of Evangelical disruptions to our civil society—county clerks refusing to issue gay marriage licenses, threats to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood—are essentially encroachments of religion on civil government and, while not nearly so peculiar as Sharia, the concept is the same.  A religious sect—Evangelical Christians-- is attempting to make “their religion” “a part of your public life.” 

For me the question of a Muslim in the White House is a moot point.  I don’t really care what religion the President is.   The President’s religion itself is irrelevant to me, but imposing any religion’s laws or beliefs on all citizens is, indeed, not consistent with the Constitution. So Ben, you’re right on that point.

American soldiers, sailors and marines did not fight to deprive women of their right to abortion

Here is what Representative Trent Franks, R-Ariz. said about the impending Republican threat to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood:  “Our response as a people and a nation to these horrors shown in these videos is vital to everything those lying out in Arlington Cemetery died to save.” I don’t give a damn what your position is on abortion.  Personally, I think abortion is none or your business, my business, nor the government’s business.  But what I really find despicable is Franks’s reference to our dead military personnel in Arlington.  This asshole was born in 1957 and never served a day in the military.  I’m old enough to remember WWII and all our subsequent wars.  My uncle Bill was on the beach at Iwo Jima and my uncle Cliff was in the battle of the bulge (Bastogne) and I can assure you my uncles and all America was not fighting to deprive women the right to an abortion.  This is the kind of disgusting pseudo-patriotic crap the Republicans are foisting on the American people to justify their repressive policies.

Give us this day our daily absurdity.

The bikini costume worn by princess Leia in Star Wars, Return of the Jedi will be auctioned off.  Starting bid is $80,000.  It is expected to reach $120,000.  Now if there are people rich enough to spend that kind of money on a bikini why do they bitch about paying income tax?  Just asking. 

Kim Davis and the Immaculate Perception

Where are the moderate, rational, intelligent Christians?  Why aren’t they opposing the elected Kentucky clerk who has claimed god’s authority for refusing to do her job?   Evidently, they endorse her bigoted interpretation of Christianity.  Evidently, they accept her as the ultimate interpreter of god’s will.  We now have the Gospel According to Kim.

She’s certainly not a virgin—married four times--but she seems to claim she has an immaculate perception of what god thinks and that he grants her the divine authority to discriminate against gays.

Consider the thousands of letters to the editors, blogs, op-ed columnists, talking heads, network and cable news  anchors and legal ”experts” commenting on her refusal to grant gay couples marriage licenses.  Almost without exception they deal with the legal, secular aspect of an elected county official refusing to follow the requirement of her office.  No one seems to question her contention that she is justified by god. 

What about the moral, theological questions?  What gives her the authority to determine what god wants and how, according to her immaculate perception, his wishes can override civil law.  This is where “real” Christians seem to be missing in action.  Since they limit their arguments against Davis to “legal” grounds, they safely avoid pointing out that she is using theological arguments to justify her bigotry and the “real” Christians haven’t got the balls to confront her on that.

Conceptually, it’s similar to Muslims arguing that theirs is a loving, peaceful religion then one of their brethren goes out and blows up a bunch of people.  The Muslims reply, of course, “That’s not real Islam.”  Well, the Christians sing “Jesus loves you,” every Sunday then someone like Davis comes along and qualifies that on Monday by adding “unless you are gay”.  Christians might reply, “But that’s not real Christianity.”   Really?  Then why don’t they have the courage to stand up against an obscure Southern county clerk who claims to have an inside track to the mind of god?  By omission the “real” Christians are silently endorsing Davis’s as some kind of theological authority.  The fact that presidential candidates Huckabee and Cruz endorse the new high priestess of Christianity is so stupid it is not worth discussing.

I did some research looking for any conservative who is pushing back against Davis and I found this written by conservative columnist Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: "Whatever their intentions, these people are doing great harm to the cause of religious liberty and to the reputation of their faith.”

In other words, this kind of “Christian” behavior is further alienating thinking, rational Americans and contributing to the growing number of “nones” in America—those who ascribe to no religious faith.  So, if you already had a rather low opinion of Christianity in America, Ms. Davis just gave you another reason to lower it even more.

God vs. Government in Kentucky

There are actually some good things coming out of the controversy over Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to grant gay marriage licenses.  It is showing just how detrimental religion is to our social order.  It is making a mockery of Christianity.  And, it is showing just how ridiculous some Republican presidential candidates can be.  The secular backlash against this religious and political foolishness will hopefully lead to eventually getting god out of our government.

Our social order is based on civil laws.  Whether you like them or not does not make them optional.  Ms. Davis, who is a rather low-ranking elected public official, decided she can refuse to comply with a civil law because her god says so.  She does not seem to realize many people do not acknowledge the existence of her god and, even some who do, do not recognize his authority to override civil law. 

Regarding the mockery of Christianity, Ms. Davis’s defiance of the law in the name of god is yet another example that American Christians are pathetically hypocritical.  No matter how many times anyone points out to them that Jesus said, “feed the sick, clothe the naked, help the poor, feed the hungry,” and above all “love one another,” American Christians seem to think those were nice things for Jesus to say , but they do not apply to people currently residing in America.  Aside from Republican policies diametrically opposed to Jesus’s teaching, the American neo-Christian doctrine states that god does not approve of homosexuals so that permits a judgmental, self-righteous clerk of courts to refuse granting gay marriage licenses in defiance of civil law.  Most rational, thinking people see that for what it is—using god to justify bigotry and hatred.

Now what about those Republican presidential candidates? Here are a few of the really absurd things Republican candidates have said:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: “Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.  We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny.”  Did you get that?  “Criminalization of Christianity”?  “Judicial tyranny”?

Ted Cruz:  “Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith — or be sent to jail.”  What was that?  “Persecuting Kim Davis”?  People believe Christians should not hold public office?

Bobby Jindal:  “We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it’s clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that’s wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience.”  Government discrimination?  What about religious (hate gays) discrimination?  Actually, the government is saying you can’t discriminate because of religious beliefs.

Scott Walker:  “I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion — you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it’s a fundamental right.”  It’s too bad Walker doesn’t understand the Constitution he claims to have read.  You have the constitutional right to practice your religion of course, but you do not have the right to impose it on anyone else and if you do so as a public official required to follow the law you are even more in violation of the religious freedom principle because you are imposing yours on others.

These politicians, of course, are desperately pandering to the religious righteous to get their votes, but there is something radically wrong with our society when we have candidates for our highest office and arguably the most powerful person in the world who believe god overrides our civil laws, who believe the world is 6,000 years old, who believe in creationism and not evolution, who deny climate change despite overwhelming scientific evidence and who think days of prayer accomplish something.  These politicians are disingenuous at best and liars at worst.   Religion is the most destructive force human beings have ever invented, and, as this most recent gay-marriage-county-clerk incident shows, our country would be better off is we could get god out of our government entirely.  If this current Kentucky clerk incident motivates more Americans to insist on a secular, rule-of-law based government, it will have been worth enduring the media-hyped stupidity.

Oh, if any of this irritates some of you readers, god made me do it.

 

Republican continue their "Let me entertain you!" primary campaign

One of the more entertaining elements of the Republican presidential nomination race is watching to see which demographic group the GOP candidates are going to piss off next.  Trump set the bar pretty high when he called illegal Mexicans “rapists” during his candidacy announcement.  Then this week Jeb Bush slammed those dreadful “anchor babies” whose illegal parents arrange to have them born in the U.S.A. so their kids can get immediate citizenship.  Everybody assumed, of course, he meant Latinos.  But then he clarified it by saying he was actually referring to Asians. So now we can add Asians to the list of people Republicans don’t like.  Of course, Trump wants to repeal that birthright citizen amendment completely so he handles Mexicans and Asians in one swoop.

Ted Cruz reinforced the Republican aversion to women’s rights by declaring he might consider shutting down the government again unless Congress denies funding to Planned Parenthood.  Oh, then we have that southern clerk of court defying Federal Law by denying marriage licenses to gays.  We already know where the Republican Candidates stand on that although a couple GOP presidential hopefuls actually admitted they could attend a gay marriage just to show how open minded they are.  I just hope we are not submitted to one more video of a baker sobbing over his religious rights being violated because he refused to make a cake for gays.

We also had a brilliant example of Republican Kinderdiplomacy from Scott Walker.  Big bad China manipulated its currency to bolster its sagging economy and Walker called for cancelling the Chinese President’s state visit next month.  Sort of like the little kid stamping his foot in the school yard and whining, “I don’t like what you did so you can’t come to my birthday party, so there!” 

Walker complained, “Americans are struggling to cope with the fall in today’s markets driven in part by China’s slowing economy and the fact that they actively manipulate their economy.  Rather than honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping with an official state visit next month, President Obama should focus on holding China accountable over its increasing attempts to undermine U.S. interests.”

If I remember correctly, the United States, has manipulated interest rates for the last several years and bailed out its financial industry which had recklessly engaged in speculative junk and nearly destroyed the world’s economic system.  Why is it when another country acts in its best interest that’s bad, but if we do it then it’s okay?  Another example of “Republican logic.”

I’m curious as to why Walker and the Republicans are not suggesting the Pope’s visit be cancelled.  After all, he believes we humans are hurting the environment, has said some nasty things about capitalism and even made some overtures to gays and divorced people.  Come on Republicans, show how tough you are and demand the Pope stays home!

The “Military Option”

By now everyone has taken sides on the Iranian “nuclear deal.”  Some democrats, like Charles Schumer the ranking congressional democrat—and as Republicans like to point out, the top Jewish Democrat--oppose it.   Twenty nine top nuclear and arms control scientists wrote a letter to Obama endorsing it.  Two Jewish New York Times columnists rendered a split decision—Roger Cohen: For--David Brooks:  Against.  But let’s just drop the obvious religious/political quibbling for the moment.

What I found interesting is the argument over the “military option.”

Some of the deal’s opponents hammered Obama because he “showed weakness” by taking the military option off the table. I don’t buy that. If you look at our history—going all the way back to the Revolution—with Americans, the military option is NEVER off the table.   It may not be visible sitting on the table but if you peek underneath it is still there.  And I think the Iranians know that.

I have no pretenses about being a skilled negotiator, however, opening negotiations with, “Agree to everything I want or I will bomb you off the face of the earth,” is not a productive technique.  That logic was applied in Iraq.  “Show us your WMDs or we invade you.” Bam!  We know how that turned out.

The United States will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb.  That is a given. Opposition to the deal is mainly political posturing.   The Republicans and Netanyahu are using it, once again, to attack Obama, score political points with their base supporters and woo the Jewish voters in America.  Their scenario is that Iran will absolutely break all the terms of the agreement, secretly acquire nuclear weapons and the United States and the other five nations involved in the negotiations will just sit back and say, “Aw shucks, shit happens.”

Does anyone really think that America, Russia, China, France, England and Germany are so stupid that they will allow Iran to break all its promises and do nothing?   Do you really think they have not considered how to deal with Iranian skullduggery?  Do you really think the Iranians feel they can get away with breaking the agreement without consequences?

It’s probably just a coincidence but during the talks I happened to notice several items in those annoying “news” items that pop up on your screen talking about our super-destructive MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs).  I am not into conspiracy theories so I’m not suggesting these were planted to remind Iran that we have such devices since I assume Iran’s military intelligence is well aware of what weapons we possess. 

Considering our past history of using military force, if Iran blatantly reneges on the deal it would bring down the wrath of whoever happens to be president at the time (Republican or Democrat).  The Republicans are the rock stars of wanting to use the military force to solve all the world’s problems but when the chips are down I think a Democrat president would not hesitate to act.  Remember Harry Truman, a Democrat, dropped the bomb on Japan just 70 years ago this week. Hopefully we will never get to anything that horrible and drastic with Iran.

So you may not have seen it on the table, but it was there.  It’s our traditional American ace in the hole called the military option.

These are pertinent links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1860.E2.80.931869

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/militaryoperations.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Bucket list postponed…

Yesterday’s visit to the oncologist resolved a dilemma I had been agonizing over for several weeks.  The question I faced was whether I should prepare my “bucket list” or should I renew my magazine subscriptions.  Time and Food Network Magazine will be pleased to learn I am renewing for another year.  I am not so optimistic as to take advantage of their special two-year rates but the spots on my lung and liver have remained benign and the esophageal cancer does not seem to have returned.

I must admit, I did compile certain items for my bucket list just in case.  The top two things I had resolved to do before permanently departing were to finish landscaping my back yard and clean the garage.

               You may find that strange, but when faced with the possibility of actually having to prepare a list of things I wanted to accomplish while still here, nothing particularly dramatic or spectacular came to mind.  I’ve already learned how to fly an airplane and as pilots used to say, “Why would anyone want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane?”  So skydiving was out of the question.

               I have traveled to the Orient (complements the U.S. Navy); I’ve lived in Paris, London and Milan as well as in several large American cities and really don’t like travelling any more (thank you airlines), so the Great Wall of China and African safaris are also out.  I’ve had a varied career as a newspaper correspondent, marketing executive and magazine owner/editor and photographer.  Would I change some things if I could?  Sure.  Was is all bad?  Of course not.  So when the oncologist said to me, “See you in six months,” that was good enough for me.

Certainly, age has a lot to do with my attitudes towards preparing for the hereafter.  I’m sure if I were younger I would view approaching mortality much differently and with a considerable degree of sadness.  A young person dealing with cancer still has a long list of things to be hoped for and accomplished but must face the possibility and disappointment that they may never happen.  Parents with children undergoing the horrors of chemotherapy must feel an unimaginable agony.

But at my stage of life--at slightly over three-quarters of a century--hopes and dreams give way to stark reality.  I have reached the point where I have no fear of the inevitable so I have adopted the philosophy expressed by one of my favorite comedians, Red Skelton, who said:  “When I wake up in the morning and I don’t hear organ music and smell roses, it’s going to be a good day.”  

What's in a name?

Like all political discourse in America today, the McCain-hero exchange is a circular discussion.  It goes round and round with everyone producing evidence to support his or her position and it all goes nowhere.  My recent post on the McCain/Trump episode was not so much about whether McCain was or was not a “hero,” but an observation that it is now a political requirement to label everyone who wears a uniform as a “hero.” This "hero" attribution is intended to assuage the collective American conscience and to give politicians a way to demonstrate how patriotic they are.  I am not the only one who looked at the issue from this point of view.  Here is a transcript excerpt from an NPR interview between Robert Seigel and David Greenberg, professor of history and journalism at Rutgers University:

SIEGEL: And we have the John McCain experience - being a POW for more than five years, being tortured by his North Vietnamese captors, a man who literally agonized for his country - an unusual description of the war hero?

GREENBERG: Well, certainly not the conventional one. But I think it's fair to say that we can go back in history and also find examples of people who were taken captive and for that reason are considered heroes. Nathan Hale was the first one that came to mind for me, who famously said he regretted he had but one life to give for his country. He was, of course, a spy for George Washington, going behind enemy lines and was apprehended and executed by the British in the Revolution. So that too has a longer lineage than we might suppose.

SIEGEL: And of course, many medals have been awarded posthumously to people who've died in combat - not been taken captive, but didn't survive the battle.

GREENBERG: Yes, that's exactly right. These are things we recognize as heroism. I think with the Vietnam War though, there is something of a change or a new understanding of heroism. And we have the celebration, if you will, of the POWs and MIAs, who it was assumed were abandoned by our leadership in the Vietnam War. Now, a lot of research has found these claims to be overstated, but it's had a power hold on our imagination because the Vietnam War was such a troubled war for us. And the MIA legends or myths came to embody, I think, a sense that it wasn't our soldiers who let us down. It was we who let them down.

In other words,  the classic definition of “hero,” was modified to include Viet Nam POWs and MIAs and is now applied to all active duty military personnel, which is a guilt reaction not only to the fact that American young people have no obligation whatsoever to serve and to the rotten way Viet Nam veterans were treated. 

At any rate, whether McCain was or was not a “hero” is now a moot point since anybody or anything can be one these days.  Remember the video that went viral of the cat who saved the little boy from a dog attack which was carried repeatedly on national tv news networks?  That cat was called a “hero.” 

To read the full transcript go to:   http://www.wbur.org/npr/424722437/donald-trumps-remarks-on-john-mccain-question-meaning-of-war-hero

Trump was right

Technically speaking, Donald Trump was right, John McCain is not a war “hero.”  Getting shot down and being a POW are not really acts of heroism.  But McCain has exploited that image for years to boost his prosperous political career and to lend credibility to his belief that every foreign policy problem can be solved with military action.  Whether you like Trump or McCain—and I dislike them both—when the Donald called McCain on this (“He got shot down!”) the tiff between them exposed another absurdity in today’s American politics.

The very word “hero” has become so overused and overworked that it has become meaningless:  Now everyone who has ever served in the armed services is a “hero;”  all first-responders—whether at the World Trade Center on 9/11—or in your local fire department are “heroes;” teachers who endured seeing their grade-school students slaughtered are “heroes;” anybody who has had cancer and is still alive is a “hero;” and just about anybody the evening news deems worthy, like someone saving a kitten up a tree or tutoring an underprivileged child is a “hero.”  One of my local tv stations even has a segment called “The Hero Next Door”—it’s kind of your hero du jour.

It is now an absolute requirement for politicians—Republican and Democrat—to proclaim all service personnel are “heroes.”  If they don’t, they are immediately vilified and branded “un-American” or “unpatriotic.” Most of the Republican candidates never served because the draft was abolished for everyone born after 1953 so they are even more emphatic in exalting the "heroes" since they didn't have to become one.

This has led to the practice of people going up to uniformed soldiers in airports and thanking them for their service.  There have been numerous articles and interviews where soldiers themselves have stated how much they despise that.  They know it is insincere and actually means, “I’m glad you’ll get your ass shot off and not my kid.” 

Just consider the fickleness of Americans.  During John McCain’s time in service, if he had walked through an airport in uniform people would have spit on him because that’s what patriotic Americans did to our service people in those days. 

Instead of fostering this artificial hero worship, perhaps our politicians would be better advised to figure out ways to keep our fine young men and women, and they are fine young men and women make no mistake about that, from getting into wars that kill and maim them in the first place.

And perhaps Donald Trump’s rabble rousing might cause the American public to begin insisting that presidential candidates start talking about how they propose to solve our very serious problems.

 (In the interest of full disclosure, I served as an officer in the United States Navy from 1959 to 1962.  I state unequivocally that I was not then, am not now, nor have I ever been a hero.)

 Political irony and the Supreme Court decision

Politics has its strange ironies.  The Supreme Court decision this week basically upheld the legality of the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare).  The President and the Democrats were elated and, here’s the irony, the Republicans were relieved.

As the Supreme Court decision drew nearer and nearer, lots of Republicans started getting nervous that SCOTUS (text code for Supreme Court of the United States) might strike it down and then they, the Republicans, would be forced to explain why the ACA is bad and what they propose to replace it.  They would have to explain why they wanted millions of newly insured in states that did not expand Medicaid to lose their health insurance.

Now the Republicans are off the hook for the time being.  They immediately started huffing and puffing about how bad the law is and, despite the Supreme Court ruling, how they are steadfastly determined to repeal it (never mind their 50 plus attempts so far). And therein lies the Republican problem.  During all their opposition to the ACA, they have never proposed specific reasons why it is bad nor any valid alternatives.  They have called it a “train wreck” a “disaster” and even “the worst thing since slavery,” but, they have never explained why.  Oh yes, they called it a “job killer” which is their meaningless generic objection to everything Obama proposes.

But the Republicans continue to count on Americans’ stupidity, believing they can continue to con the people.   Despite the Supreme Court decision, Republicans are still declaring “the law is broken,” it’s a “spectacular flop” and Mitch McConnell declared it is a “rolling disaster.”  Of course, all of those phrases without substantiation are totally meaningless.

But it makes the Republicans sound tough and unfortunately, most of their followers  just accept  this bombast without requiring explanations.

Now the bigger irony is that the American public is beginning to realize that affordable health care insurance for all Americans is really a good idea.  In fact, polls are showing that more and more Americans are viewing the ACA favorably.

Remember, the Republicans opposed Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and still do.  These programs happen to be very good and very popular among the American public.  With the Supreme Court decision, we will now have another social program that will benefit all Americans.

Hey America, it’s “thoughts and prayers” time!

Another mass murder.  So once again it’s “thoughts and prayers” time.  Innocent people were killed by a deranged individual and here we go again.

All the politicians and talking heads gravely intone their “thoughts and prayers” go to the families of all the victims.  That has become the obligatory expression to give the impression that they are doing something proactive for the dead peoples’ survivors.  Fat lot of good it does. 

Then the craziness begins.  Once again, we get the absurd argument that if we had more guns in the hands of “law abiding” citizens it would reduce gun violence.  A pastor supports the idea that people in the church—pastors included—should carry guns to protect their parishioners. We need “increased security” in places of worship.  Isn’t God supposed to handle that?

And then we get an asinine discussion over whether this is a “hate crime” or a “terrorist act.”  As if that makes any difference.  Of course, the bigots who hate blacks can use the “terrorist” argument to deflect their inherent prejudice.   

If you think the aftermath of this tragedy could get any more absurd, Fox News expressed the opinion that this is not a racist incident but an attack on Christianity!  This is yet another example of how the ridiculous religious right tries to spin everything as some kind of infringement on their religious freedom.

These “Christians” seem to think that shooting innocent people in a church is somehow more horrendous than shooting kids in an elementary school, or people in a movie theater or shopping mall.  I wonder what God would think of that.  Of course, when these things happen God doesn’t seem to be anywhere around except after the fact to accept all those “thoughts and prayers” for the victims’ families.

And then Jeb Bush, you know the presidential candidate, isn’t really sure this massacre was racially motivated.  This prompted one commentator to question whether Jeb! can read considering the overwhelming evidence that the killer hated blacks.

Naturally when people get killed in an incident like this, especially if they are black, it becomes a political issue.  Fox News and the right wingers immediately slammed Hillary Clinton saying she “blamed” the Charleston shooting on Donald Trump because of his remark about Mexicans in his surreal announcement that he is running for president.

What she actually said was: "Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.” She added, “I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”

If you read that again, she said basically that public discourse should avoid inflammatory language.  Although she was obviously referring to Trump, specifically about his opinion of Mexicans, she did not “blame” him for the Charleston shooting.

           So the news cycle will evolve and this too shall pass.  Nothing will be done. The NRA will continue to contend that we need more “good guys” with guns, and the politicians will cringe and obey.  African Americans will continue to ask why they are so hated by a sector of the American people.  Right wing politicians and Christians will continue to exploit hatred, bigotry and fear to accomplish their own ends.  And then something atrocious will happen again and, guess what? it will be another “thought and prayers” time.