Now that the elections are finally over, two quotations come to mind.  One from Will Rogers who said, “I don’t belong to any organized political party.  I am a Democrat.”  The other quote is by a contemporary curmudgeon, P.J. O’Rourke:  “Republicans tell you how bad government is then get elected and prove it.”

The Democrats, as usual, self-destructed.  At the outset of President Obama’s tenure, they were all for hope and change and a great wave of optimism swept the country.  Big dreams, big programs. Health care for all leading the charge.  The Republicans reacted with “fat chance.  We’re going to do everything we can to make him a one-term president, so there!”  Then things started not going well for Obama and just wonderful for the Republicans.  A mess in launching ACA (which, of course, had nothing to do with the content of the law, but never mind.) The Middle East started going terribly bad with everybody hating us and nobody helping us no matter how much money we spent on backing their corrupt governments, and ISIS beheading Americans and then, fortunately for Republicans, just before the mid-terms Ebola erupted in Africa and a couple cases popped up in America.  Now, the Republicans, as they have done for the last six years, blamed everything on Obama and insisted relentlessly about how everything bad in America and the world today is his fault.  The Democrats, who have been singularly incompetent at countering the Republican onslaught, ran for cover and abandoned Obama (meaning abandoning everything they supposedly stood for during the last six years) and lost just about everything in these  mid-term elections. 
Now, on the other hand, the Republicans, who have spent the last six years hammering at how bad Obama, the Democrats and their policies have been will now be required to come up with some real concrete ideas (something they have sadly lacked).  Of course, many Republicans have gone back to the rallying cry of repealing Obama care ignoring the fact that this is not really such a high priority among the majority of Americans but never mind. Now, the Republicans will have to be more specific and be required to explain what’s so bad about Obamacare instead of vague charges that it is a “train wreck."  Perhaps they might offer some real alternatives.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, now that they control both houses of Congress will drop the policy of obstruction and really begin to participate in governing the country or if they will prove P. J. O’Rourke is absolutely right.

President Obama is now a lame duck president.  It might be more accurate to say a “dead duck” president because despite the obligatory mumblings after the elections by both Obama and new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell about seeking “common ground” I wouldn’t count on it.

Unless you are brain dead, you know that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  This makes lots of people feel just wonderful about themselves because they believe they are helping to “fight” cancer.   This may come as a surprise to you, but some of us who actually have cancer thoroughly loath and despise this hoopla and exploitation of our dreadful disease.  Of course I would like to see a cure for cancer and I can certainly relate to my breast-cancerous sisters.  But, like everything else in America, cancer has become a “brand” to be marketed and exploited and I find all these “awareness” campaigns positively repulsive.  And breast cancer is the poster child for the whole cancer exploitation industry.

Believe me, for someone who has had to deal with melanoma, esophageal cancer, prostate cancer, chemotherapy, radiation, and two surgeries, a bunch of NFL football players running around in pink shoes is not going to make me more “aware” of cancer.  I can assure you, nobody is more aware of cancer than I am.

You will find that for several years a lot of people who actually have cancer share my opinion. When the Dallas Cowboys “pinked” their stadium for a game in October 2011, the New York Times wrote, “Like it or not — and some people don’t like it at all — the pinking of America has become a multibillion-dollar business, a marketing, merchandising and fund-raising opportunity that is almost unrivaled in scope.”

If you really want to know how despicable the cancer exploitation industry is, google “pinking of America” or go to Breast Cancer Action (www.bcaction.org).  I don’t think you will be surprised to learn that not a great deal of what you spend actually goes to cancer research and prevention? One example from bcaction.org will suffice:

“How much money goes towards breast cancer programs and services? For example, Yoplait donates 10 cents for every pink yogurt lid mailed back, meaning you’d have to eat three yogurts a day during the entire four-month campaign in order to raise $36 for the cause.” Of course, you will also have purchased 360 pots of yoghurt.  Pretty good deal for Yoplait.

Go on Amazon (which has 20 pages of cancer--predominantly pink--merchandise) or any promotional products web-site and you will find an extraordinary array of items to get you to spend money to raise cancer “awareness.”  You can get ribbons, jewelry, mugs you name it.  You might want to buy them in quantity, then sell them to make money.  (Most of the money raised by these promotional products and campaigns actually does not go to cancer research but you could make a buck.)

A lot of cancer “endurers” like me (I hate terms like “cancer victim” and “cancer survivor”) find it objectionable how cancer is exploited not only for blatant profit, but how it is also exploited to boost tv ratings and sell magazines.

You have all seen the tv shows that parade beautiful little children with chemo-bald heads smiling at the camera as the hosts gush all over them and tell you how “courageous” and “inspiring” they are.  No, they are very, very sick little kids who have no idea what’s happening to them and they are being paraded in front of tv cameras so whatever show it is can make you feel it is passionately caring (and get you to tune in again).  It’s cancer as show business!  

A recent People Magazine cover featured TV host Joan Lunden looking absolutely gorgeous despite her chemotherapy-induced baldness.  The cover headlines declared that Joan “fights cancer,” “I will beat this” and her “inspiring emotional journey.”  She is just smiling away and totally upbeat in the article.  It’s almost as if she’s saying, “Wow, cancer can be fun!”  Believer me it’s not.

Fortunately, October ends tomorrow and the pink onslaught will fade away until next year.  But, never fear, you can still “fight” cancer in November which is National Pancreatic Cancer Month so you can go out and buy yourself a lavender ribbon.

Post script:  If you really want to contribute to cancer research and prevention do what www.bcaction.org  recommends.  You can easily research organizations that truly expend their donations on research and give directly to them.  Many other types of cancer do not get much research money because they are not so highly promoted as breast cancer.  You won’t get a ribbon but you will know what you donate will be used for what it was intended.

You have no doubt noticed that the current Ebola hysteria has really whipped up the smash-bash-and-trash-the-government movement.  What’s interesting is that, while this has usually been pretty much the purview of Republicans, many Democrats and the so-called “liberal” press including the New York Times have all jumped on the let’s-hate-government bandwagon.  The Ebola episode has made it the news obsession du jour to expose CDC incompetence (and by extension everything governmental).  Since we love to deal in hyperbole in America, you could say this frenzied attack on the CDC is like blaming the Japanese government for Hiroshima hospitals not being prepared to deal with the atomic bomb. 

There are 5,700 hospitals in the United States.  The CDC does not manage nor control any of them.  It issues standards, regulation and protocols.  Yet what happened in Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas has now been construed to be a catastrophic failure of the CDC.

Some unnamed, probably low-level nurse at Presbyterian Hospital did not immediately quarantine Mr. Duncan when he first came to the hospital.  Please note, it is the hospital’s responsibility to train personnel and enforce those protocols but somehow, according to the politicians and the press, the nurse’s erroneous actions were explicitly caused by the CDC.  Evidently it is the DCD’s fault that some health care workers did not know how to put on protective clothing properly.  Perhaps they were just dumb or their hospitals’ staff did not adequately train them, but, no matter, it’s the CDC’s fault.

Then, another nurse preparing to travel called the CDC and reported a low level fever which was not prohibitive according to "protocols" and some unnamed employee said there was no existing restriction on her travel.  And, once again, this becomes uncontestable evidence of a thoroughly incompetent government agency.

Predictably, we have the obligatory congressional hearings and screams for the agency head to resign.  This, of course, resolves nothing, but it makes good political theater especially in an election cycle.

Now all this mess could have been avoided if our country were run according to former congressman Ron Paul’s ideas.  He wrote a column declaring that this whole Ebola epidemic would have been better handled by private industry.  In his column, “Liberty, not government key to containing Ebola,” he posits that private airlines have a greater incentive to protect their customers than governments and that Firestone which established its own Ebola treatment center at its plant in Liberia clearly demonstrates that the free market is our best defense against Ebola.  And this guy ran for president and his son wants to.

But I am going to give the CDC the benefit of a doubt and assume it is doing its job to do everything possible to protect the American public.  In the meantime, I am going to jump in bed and pull the covers over my head.

JOURNALISM 2.014

Politicians of both parties heap extensive criticism on the “media” for causing problems in our current noxious political climate.  Personally, I believe the political parties are at fault but there is no doubt the media exacerbates the situation by distorting, misleading and lying when reporting the “news.”  Here is an example from the venerable New York Times (October 16, 2014) which was once believed to be an example of high journalistic standards.  This illustrates how the supposedly liberal Times also participates in the current media trend go to any length to denigrate and criticize government in general and the Obama Administration in particular.  Here is what the Times reporter wrote regarding the second nurse contracting Ebola:

“Hours after Dr. Frieden spoke, a federal health official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly, said that because it was thought that Ms. Vinson’s protective gear would have kept her safe and because her temperature was only mildly elevated, she fell into a category not covered by C.D.C. guidelines.

“I don’t think we actually said she could fly, but they didn’t tell her she couldn’t fly,” the official said. He said the error was on the part of the C.D.C., not the nurse. “She called us,” he said. “I really think this one is on us.”

Examine this passage.  It quotes an anonymous federal health official who was not authorized to speak.  This immediately puts into question the official’s credibility since he knows he is violating one of his organization’s rules and violates it anyway.  Conceivably there was a reason he was not authorized perhaps because he was not privy to all the information regarding the incident. Then the “official” states that technically the C.D.C. was not wrong in allowing her to fly since she was in a category not covered by C.D.C. guidelines.  Then he adds that the C.D.C didn’t say she could fly but also did not say that she couldn’t.  This is an absolutely, senseless, stupid, and meaningless statement reinforcing the suspicion that the “official” did not really know what he was talking about.  And then he concludes, “I really think this one is on us,” which is purely his opinion and not a fact but effectively places the blame on the government which, I can assume, was both the source’s and the reporter’s objective. 

I have a personal reason for deploring the state of journalism today—both print and broadcast.  When I studied journalism at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1950s we were taught that reporters must stick to verifiable facts using the venerable 5Ws formula—Who, What, When, Where, Why and sometimes How.  Any opinion or political statements by reporters was forbidden. Speculation and opinion was the purview of editorial writers and columnists.  Reporters were required to be apolitical.

The above example is totally devoid of fact and is merely an opinion detrimental to the source’s own employer, and presumably shared by the reporter or he would not have included it.  In other words, I conclude both the source and the reporter had what we now call a “political agenda.”

When I was a correspondent for Fairchild Publications in Paris in the 60s I was assigned to NATO which at the time was headquartered there.  I got hold of a lot of sensitive information.  Of course we used terms like “informed sources” to shield our contacts but we did not have to justify why they were anonymous with excuses like “not authorized to speak,” “ongoing investigation” etc.  But what I reported from an “informed source” had to be actual facts and not opinions.  In those days, editors were more conscientious and if they had any doubts about the veracity of my source’s quote, I had to justify it or it was cut. Or, if I expressed an opinion or a personal political position it was automatically deleted. In those days there was some integrity in journalism. 

My discussion on the deplorable state of journalism could go on to include the damaging effects of the blogosphere, social networking, cell phones, cable television and all the current usual subjects. Trashing the government for anything and everything now seems to be the fashionable thing for both the liberal and conservative press.  It gets “eyeballs” as they like to say.

Delving into the past I could also acknowledge that journalists did not always hit above the belt citing H. L. Menken, Lincoln Steffens, Muckrakers, Yellow Journalism, tabloids, etc.  But we live in 2014 and I suppose in these times where conflict, hatred, fear, vicious partisanship, terrorism, and mass shootings grab all the headlines, it means the more confrontational, sensational and opinionated the news the more the public likes it whether it’s the truth or not.  Newspapers, like the Times, are desperately trying to reinvent themselves in order to survive.  Broadcast news is graded on ratings not content. That means they must whip up public emotions, and, to do that, fiction has proved to be much more effective than truth.   Ultimately, considering the mentality of the public today, we are getting the journalism we deserve.

 

 

My blog began in May 2012 essentially to keep friends informed about my adventures with cancer so they would not have to bring it up every time we met at the supermarket or look at me as if they expected me to drop dead before their very eyes. Since the surgery to remove a spot of melanoma on my left lung in June 2013 things have been rather uneventful so I dropped the cancer chronicles and have blogged intermittently on more horrible things like American politics.  However there have been a few recent cancerous developments so here is an update for anyone who may be interested.

In October 2013 a rather arduous medical runaround began with the discovery of a spot in my right lung which was too small to biopsy so they decided to “watch” it.  Then another too-small-to biopsy lung spot popped up in February 2014.  But them a CT scan in June suddenly revealed a “suspicious” nearly one-inch spot on my liver.  This was followed by a biopsy that was “inconclusive” followed by another CT scan that indicated the “suspicious” spot was still suspicious but had not grown, followed by another more elaborate biopsy that finally concluded last week the spot was not cancer.  That was, of course, welcome news. However, the biopsy pathology report noted that my liver has “minimal chronic hepatitis,” “minimal lobular hepatitis,” “no significant fibrosis,” “hemosiderosis” and “moderate macro and microvesicular steatosis.”  Of course I looked these up on the internet to learn they are all indications of perhaps over-enthusiastic alcohol consumption which of course took me completely by surprise.  (Just kidding.)  During the office visit, the doctor did mention something to the effect that it would be a good idea for me to stop drinking alcohol.  That would require me to eliminate some ingrained life style rituals like cocktails before dinner, beer with lunch and wine with meals in general (excluding breakfast).  After considerable thought, I now think there is something to be said for the idea that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.   The doctor evidentially thinks I am good for at least another three months and has scheduled the next scan for mid-January.  I am putting cancer on hold until then.  If we run into each other in the supermarket I will tell you in advance I am doing just fine so let’s talk about something else like the high moral character of professional football players

Contemporary philosophers and social scientists have added new terms to their lexicons to reflect modern American politics.   Philosophers are now referring to “the Republican paradox,” “the Republican dilemma” and “delusional justification.”  Social scientist are now discussing what they call “ideological intransigence.”

 According to modern philosophers, “The Republican Paradox” is a situation where a person (or persons) demands vehemently that something must be done and then does absolutely everything possible to prevent it.  What complicates this paradox is that the insisting party does not specifically define what that “something” should be so whatever solution is proposed it is not acceptable.

Another new term adopted by modern philosophers is “The Republican dilemma.”  (In philosophy you will find the terms, “moral dilemma” or “ethical dilemma.”  You can find lists of them on the internet.  One of the most well-known is “The trolley dilemma.”)  Here is the new dilemma established by philosophers, called “The Republican dilemma.”

You are a person in power.  In your position, you can do a great deal of good for people in need, e.g., provide food, a living wage or medical attention.  However, you have obtained your power by receiving large amounts of money and political support from certain interests who oppose, for their own reasons, helping people in need.  Now you must decide whether to help less fortunate people which might be the ethically preferable choice, or not to help them so you will continue to receive large amounts of money and support and keep your position of power.

The new philosophical term “delusional justification” means convincing yourself that you are doing what is required of you but actually that’s not what you do.  For example, assume you are the leader of a legislative body and you declare you are “doing the will of the people.”  You absolutely insist on that although polls show you are opposing just about everything the majority of the people want.   A facet of this is that you blame it on someone else for not “taking responsibility” when, in fact, you and your legislative body do not take responsibility for anything.   

Also, social scientists have recently established a new term, “ideological intransigence.” This means insisting on a position that bears little or no semblance to reality or common sense or has no basis in scientific fact.  For example, you insist there is no such thing as global warning although most science says there is.  Other examples are declaring the world is 6,000 years old and evolution is just a “theory” and people are poor because they want to be.  As social scientists have pointed out, maintaining a position of ideological intransigence is advantageous for keeping a position of power (see Republican dilemma above).  In the case of ideological intransigence, the reward is not necessarily monetary (as in the Republican dilemma) but the advantage of exploiting ignorance to retain your position of power.

In line with these developments in philosophical and social science terminology, lexicographers have determined that “Republican logic” is an oxymoron.  Oxymoron is a word that actually exists (it is a self-contradictory locution, e.g. “compassionate conservatism”) and is not to be construed to contain any reference to what may actually apply to Republicans.

Alien Canadian Geese Block Traffic in Nassau County, Florida

Unwanted South American children crossing our southern border is not the only alien invasion the country is dealing with.  In Florida, authorities have been facing the problem of an increasing number of Canadian Geese crossing its state line. The situation has become particularly tense in northeast Florida’s Nassau County where 20 or more geese have taken unauthorized refuge on the sidewalks around the county courthouse.

Although they are Canadians, they are considered a protected species in the United States and, just as the alien children, they are guaranteed protective consideration under American law.  The legal point becomes a bit complicated in that the law does not apply to Canadians or Mexicans who can be immediately sent back to their country of origin.  However, the geese have refused to comply with every attempt to send them back home.

Aside from their honking noise, the major problem is that they are allegedly breaking sanitation laws.  Experts have established that a single goose can drop up to two pounds of poop a day.  One of the maintenance workers involved in cleanup operations said, “With around 20 geese wandering all over our sidewalks, we have about 40 pounds of poop to remove every day.”  A local judge added, “It’s just nasty.  It’s slippery and dangerous.  And people are tracking it into the courthouse.” It is also costing the county money since maintenance personnel are spending too much time scooping poop.

Fortunately, unlike the unproductive bickering in Washington about what to do with the South American children, Nassau County officials have taken definitive action:  They have authorized shooting the geese.

Texas governor Rick Perry who has been griping that the Federal Government is doing nothing might take that into consideration.  He has ordered 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.  If he authorizes them to shoot the kids he not only solves the problem of them entering the country but also the problem of providing for them while they go through the established legal processes.  He has, of course, complained if he mobilizes the Guard he has to pay for them which is probably why he wants the Feds to act.  However, he has an absolutely free solution available.  He could invite Texas N.R.A. members to take their guns to the border and authorize them to shoot the kids.  Considering that many N.R.A. members loath and despise illegal aliens I’m sure the response would be overwhelming.

Governor Perry would become a national hero for solving the border crashing problem and for steadfastly upholding the Second Amendment.   With that kind of success he might even run for President.

Recently, the new head of the Department of Veterans Affairs told the Senate he needs $17.6 billion dollars over three years to hire enough doctors and nurses to fix the waiting delay problems at VA hospitals.  The president has asked for $3.7 billion to address the crisis of South American children crossing the Mexican border to take refuge in America.  In the same news cycle, 21st Century Fox offered $80 billion to buy Time Warner, Comcast wants to take over Time Warner Cable for $45 billion and AT&T is offering $48.5 billion for DirectTV.  Just about every one of our national problems requires money to solve, yet Republican dogma says cut taxes, reduce spending and block anything and everything the current administration tries to do.  Why don’t we just let corporations make a takeover bid and buy the American government?  Oh, how silly of me, that’s already happened.

For the past couple weeks the crisis du jour has been the large number of unaccompanied children from Honduras,  El Salvador and Ecuador crossing the border into Texas.  There is a very simple and effective solution to this:  drone strikes.

They would not only instantly, efficiently and definitely solve the problem of the unwanted, illegal children; this solution should satisfy both the political left and right.

Since the day he was elected, Republicans have accused the president of doing nothing to correct all of America’s and the world’s problems.  By ordering drone strikes in the Rio Grande Valley,  Democrats can claim it proves the President is capable of taking decisive action and the Republicans would be able to complain that he did not do it soon enough.

Drone strikes are also cost effective.  We already have the drones and experienced pilots who can kill people half way around the world so strafing and rocket attacks on the Texas border would be a piece of cake.

Drone strikes are also cost effective.  There is no need to invest in new equipment or personnel and instantly eliminating these young, unwanted intruders would obviate the need to shelter and feed them and avoid the lengthy legal procedures required by the 2008 law which Congress approved and President Bush signed.  By supporting this solution, the Republicans can say they saved the taxpayers money.  On the other hand, the Democrats can claim they are open to holding down government expenditures in certain instances.

This offers endless opportunities for training exercises that would appeal to the Republican factions that insist military operations can solve everything.  For example, Army Special Forces might construct scenarios where the illegal’s are simulated terrorists and perform realistic night anti-infiltration exercises using live ammunition.  John McCain said,  “The only thing that’s going to stop these children from coming is if their parents see planeloads of them coming back to the country of origin,”  The Senator would certainly agree that parents seeing nightly news videos of their children being mowed down by drone gunfire would be an even more effective deterrent.

Even the NRA would be on board and could triumphantly run an advertising campaign that assault weapons don’t create problems, they solve them.

And here is one of the most elegant aspects of this plan; there would be no cost for clean up operations.  That would be left to carrion eating wildlife and what remains of the corpses and clothing would be bio-degradable and therefore environmentally friendly.

This is an absolute win-win situation regardless of your political affiliation so write your congressman and tell him you support drone strikes to keep those illegal, unwanted children from coming to the United States.  God bless America.

 

 

 

  

There is a terrible epidemic sweeping the United States today.  It is called TMRSPD (Too Many Really Stupid Polls Disorder).  Symptoms are grinding teeth, rapid jumps in blood pressure, a tendency to obscene expletives (all depending on your political leanings) and a horrible realization that the American public may actually be composed of unbelievably gullible morons.  One if the latest RSPs (Really Stupid Polls) conducted by Quinnipiac University concludes that President Obama is the “worst president” in American history.  You must be aware of this because the right wing has been treating it as the greatest revelation since the Ten Commandments.  The left has been giving it a lot of play as well.  Here’s how the University introduced the polls results: "President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say."  Now this generated an explosion of headlines, commentary and talk show vitriol lambasting Obama and the “Aha, we told you so” gloating from the right.  Jonathan Topaz of Politico pontificated, “A plurality of voters think Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, a new poll says.”  Wait a minute.  The University says “33 percent of American voters” think he’s the worst.  Topaz says a “plurality” of voters think so.  Let’s see, there are 146,311,000 registered voters in America according to the 2012 census.  The University polled 1,446 people which is .000988 percent of American voters.  Now, 33 percent of 1,446 is 447. So, according to the sensational finding of the Quinnipiac poll, .000305 of the American electorate has determined Obama is the worst president since World War II. Now whether you are Republican or Democrat, I hope you get the point. Whether you think Obama is or is not the worst president since WW II is irrelevant.  It is your opinion.  But to conclude that this opinion is shared by a “plurality” of Americans based on 447 people is absurd. The media, both left and right, abets this absurdity by giving it sensational exposure without questioning its validity. In addition to all the other corruption, dishonesty and cheating that pervades our political system, polling has degenerated into a fine art of deception. (Or perhaps is always has been.)  Unfortunately, American voters have come to accept polls without questioning how they are being manipulated as long as the poll reinforces what they already believe.  Sophocles was right when he said, "What people believe, prevails over the truth."  If polls had existed in his day he might have said “What people are conned into believing, prevails over the truth.”

Well, once again, the so-called Supreme Court of the United States of America has shown it is the judicial arm of the Republican Party.  In its latest ruling, Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation can deny women certain contraception coverage in its employer-provided health plan on “religious grounds.”  Let’s not even get into the discussion of separation of church and state which Republicans ignore when it suits their purpose, nor the hypocrisy of Republicans’ ranting about government encroaching on citizens’ private lives (conception would seem to me to be something really private in peoples’ lives).  Let’s just consider a hypothetical new case brought before the Supreme Court.  Let’s say a Muslim family is the single owner of a privately owned, for-profit manufacturing company that makes toys.  It is such a prosperous company that it runs three shifts round the clock.  It employs 15,000 Americans.  However, It expects all employees on all shifts to report for work on December 25 and the employees, predominantly Christian, file a law suit saying that it is their most important holiday and they should get the day off.  By requiring work on that day, the plaintiffs contend, their religious freedom is being curtailed. The Muslim family retorts that based on their “religious grounds” it is not a holiday and they have no obligation to give Christian employees the day off.  Oh, this toy company also prohibits employees’ bringing ham sandwiches into the building also on “religious grounds.” Silly isn’t it, but that’s essentially what the Supreme Court did. Assume an exceptionally good female employee of Hobby Lobby wants to use contraceptives, specifically one the Hobby Lobby family objects to.  She does not share her employer’s religious beliefs.  However, in this instance she is subjected to the employers beliefs and denied something included in a United States law (yes, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act as law) because of “religious belief.” You can see where I am going.  What’s the next thing for-profit corporations will use “religious grounds” to avoid complying with a law they don’t like.  This, once again, is not a question of “Democrats waging a war against religion,” as the Republicans are wont to say.  It is a question of the political right in collaboration with a conservative-loaded Supreme Court endorsing and imposing Christian religious beliefs on others who not share them. 

Well until something else comes along to capture American media attention, (like another Malaysian airplane disappearance) we will be hearing endless theories, opinions, commentaries, interviews and unsubstantiated conjecture about the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.   We now have the conflict between the “we never leave one of our soldiers behind” and “he was a rotten deserter who cost lives looking for him” and “we’ve encouraged Al Qaeda to take more prisoners” and “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” and all this mess is President Obama’s fault because he did not give Congress 30 day’s notice before trading Berdahl for the Guantanamo prisoners.  Let’s imaging this scenario:  President Obama says to Congress, “I want to make a trade for Guantanamo prisoners for Sgt. Bergdahl” (Congress has known about the negotiations for a few years.)   So Congress has 30 days to approve or deny this.  Now here’s what probably would have happened.  House Republicans would have said they would not even consider it unless there was a clause in the release repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  And any discussion over Sgt. Bergdahl’s release would have to be done within the framework of the new Republican instigated Benghazi hearings.  Of course, all this is standard Republican procedure to thwart everything Obama proposes and obstruct any progress on anything in the U.S. KinderCongress.  So let’s say ten days pass after Congress is asked to decide on Bergdahl’s release and nothing is done which most certainly would have been the case.   So Al Quada posts a You Tube video showing Bergdahl being beheaded with the captions saying the U.S. delayed the prisoner transfer showing bad faith and the only thing to do was kill Bergdahl.  Then the Republicans in the House would be screaming that it was all Obama’s fault because he did not take immediate, bold action to get Bergdahl back and John McCain would insist if he were President he would have bombed the shit out of Al Qaeda to get Bergdahl back and forget about all this diplomacy crap.

 And that, children, is today’s lesson in how absurd politics are in the United States of America.

In my last blog post, I expressed my opinion that the Supreme Court has lost its credibility and that it has become an instrument of Republican policy, specifically the insidious ways it is working toward establishing a state religion which is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.  In that post I included the disclaimer that I am not a legal scholar.  Today’s blog post is an extract from the New York Times column by Linda Greenhouse who teaches at Yale Law School and is a legal scholar.  She agrees with my position.

“Nor was there any crossover (Republican judges voting with Democratic judges) in the Town of Greece decision earlier this month, authorizing sectarian invocations at local government meetings. Opening the doors to greater public expression and observance of religion is another central part of the Roberts court’s project. Here, the court has moved a bit more slowly. Three years ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit invalidated the practice of public prayer at county board meetings in Forsyth County, N.C. Local clergy members were offering prayers that just happened to be laden with Christian references. The Supreme Court declined to hear the county’s appeal.

But the pause was just temporary. The Town of Greece case didn’t differ from the North Carolina case in any meaningful way. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had found the steady diet of Christian prayer at town board meetings to be an unconstitutional establishment of religion. This time, the justices agreed to hear the appeal. Since it was obvious that the majority’s goal was to overturn the Second Circuit’s decision, it was no great surprise that the 5-to-4 opinion did so.

But Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the court was startling nonetheless for its obliviousness to the impact that sectarian prayers can have on those citizens for whom prayer before a government meeting is not “a benign acknowledgment of religion’s role in society” (to quote the opinion) but an affront. “Adults often encounter speech they find disagreeable,” Justice Kennedy said dismissively. This from a justice who in his majority opinion in a Florida death penalty case on Tuesday emphasized the right of a convicted murderer to be treated with “dignity” by having his intellectual deficit assessed meaningfully rather than mechanically. The Constitution’s “protection of dignity reflects the Nation we have been, the Nation we are, and the Nation we aspire to be,” Justice Kennedy wrote on Tuesday, overturning a death sentence. I was left to wonder about the dignity of the two women who sued Greece, N.Y., on the claim that the price of conducting their business with the town board should not include having to listen to Christian prayers.

The country didn’t need to have the religious culture wars reignited, but thanks to the court, that’s where we now are. Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian-right group that represented the victorious town, has taken out newspaper ads praising the decision’s “far-reaching implications” and offering its “model prayer policy” that people can press on their local governments. The Supreme Court’s “O.K. to pray” is being quickly and unsubtly turned into a right to pray. The Alliance’s reference to a “long-standing, important tradition of public prayer” isn’t accurate, at least as to its client; the Greece town board observed only a moment of silent prayer until 1999, when for unexplained reasons, the board started inviting local ministers to pray out loud.”

To read her whole column go to   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/greenhouse-polar-vision.html?ref=opinion

And it came to pass that the once great democracy, the United States of America, saw its Supreme Court become, rather than the upholder and defender of the Constitution and the law, the subservient lackey of the Republican Party just as that Party had become the subservient lackey of the wealthy and powerful. This, of course, is my cynical way of saying the Supreme Court has totally lost its credibility.  I am referring to the latest politically influenced decision that town meetings are constitutionally allowed to open their sessions with prayer.  The Chief Justice stated that prayer is only “symbolic” so it’s no big deal and the other right wing justices said there is a historic precedence because legislative sessions have opened with prayer since the beginning or our nation.  Neither of those arguments have anything to do with constitutionality. (You will recall it was a 5-4 decision split along party lines, not legal lines.) I make no pretenses to being a legal scholar.  But I would like to offer my interpretation of the United States Constitution.  (By the way, the Constitution does not specify requirements for being a Supreme Court Justice.  No age nor citizenship rules are stated not even the requirement to have a law degree so I guess I am qualified.)  Since most Americans have never read the Constitution, here’s what it says about religion: First Amendment—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  And in the Third Article of the Constitution itself it says: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  In plain language this means that the government cannot establish an official state religion, you can practice any religion you want and candidates do not have to adhere to a specific religion to qualify for office.  But, in a rather devious way, the Republican Party is attempting to establish an official national religion and many Republican politicians are touting their qualification for office by being “devout Christians.”   You might ask, is prayer before a town meeting the establishing of a state religion?  Not in and of itself, but what if you are Jewish, Muslin, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic and your town meeting is asking the blessing of “our personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” You might find that objectionable.  In an oblique way, the local government is imposing a religion on you.  And if you believe a woman has no right to have an abortion and you believe contraceptives are a sin because of your personal religious beliefs and if you push the government to impost yours beliefs, and if the government complies with your demands, then the government is effectively imposing the establishment of a state religion which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, the only “government” that would impose those religious restrictions would be Republican. We will find out how much sway the religious Republicans hold over the Supreme Court when it will decide whether an employer can deny insurance coverage for contraceptives or abortions on the basis of religious beliefs.  If the Court allows that, it will, in effect, be another step towards establishing a state religion, which, of course, is against the Constitution.

For those who have been following the op-ed columns and political magazines over the past few months—both left and right—some startling revelations have emerged that appear to be shaking the foundations of our self-righteousness.  We have begun to realize that the only people who think Americans are “exceptional” are Americans.  Nobody else does.  It is finally sinking in that we were not ordained by God to create the entire world in our image and we can’t tell every other nation on earth what to do and expect them to comply. We have been “spearheading” the Israeli-Palestinian “peace talks” since I had a 32-inch waist and we all know how successful they have been.   The confrontation with Putin is really somewhat ludicrous.  Our position seems to be that if we invade sovereign countries, overthrow their governments, arm rebels, create chaos and mayhem  in “our national interest,” that’s okay, but if Russia does it, we “condemn” such actions and sternly warn there will be “grave consequences” for doing acts we have already done. Then our rusting Republicans, lead by their doddery-old-man-in-chief John McCain, predictably insist the president is not doing enough.  Enough what?  First there’s not a whole lot more sanctions and stern warnings he can do and only McCain seems to want us to get into another war.  Secondly, European business interests heavily involved in Russian trade are not exactly supporting those economic “sanctions” whoever proposes them.  Now if trying to accept that we do not rule the world weren’t trauma enough, we have to face the destruction of some of our cherished national myths here at home.  On April 22, 2013, I posted on my blog: “If any of you still believe we live in a democracy, I have bad news for you. All of us were taught since grade school that in a democracy our elected government is supposed to uphold the will of the people.  This no longer applies to the United States.”  Admittedly, this did not have much of an impact since nobody listens to me.  But, just recently, a new study by Princeton researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page concluded that America has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.  They write, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."  In other words, what the voting American citizen wants does not matter, what the wealthy and powerful elite want does.  Unless you are really stupid you already knew this but now we have a serious research paper to prove those of us who are not stupid were right all along.  Perhaps the cruelest cut of all is the realization that good old American unfettered, profits-over-everything capitalism is causing more worldwide harm than good.  French economist Thomas Piketty’s new book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” has just caused an uproar.  If you are a liberal, you think it will scare conservatives to death because it basically says the wealthy are getting wealthier not by doing any thing to earn money but because of the money-generating assets they hold.  So we are regressing into a society where great wealth comes from inheritance and not from actually doing or producing anything.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are going hysterical over Piketty’s idea of world taxation on the wealthy and perhaps having to admit that the American myth that great wealth is earned by anyone willing to work hard enough is phony. Of course, predictably the conservatives are calling Piketty a “Marxist” hoping there are enough Americans old enough to know what they mean by that.  But there are also some voices on the right that think capitalism is no longer doing its job. Arthur C. Brooks, president of the right wing American Enterprise Institute, wrote an op-last week stating: “But while free enterprise keeps expanding globally, its success may be faltering in the United States. According to research from Pew’s Economic Mobility Project, men in their 30s in 2004 were earning 12 percent less in real terms than their fathers’ generation at the same point in their lives.”  In other words, the rich keep getting richer and free-enterprise capitalism is not doing much for anyone else.  Brooks also concludes, “The solution does not lie in the dubious “fair share” class-baiting of politicians. We need to combine an effective, reliable safety net for the poor with a hard look at modern barriers to upward mobility. That means attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected. It means lifting poor children out of ineffective schools that leave them unable to compete. It entails pruning back outmoded licensing laws that restrain low-income entrepreneurs. And it means creating real solutions — not just proposing market distortions — for people who cannot find jobs that pay enough to support their families.”  By the way, I repeat this is from a right-wing commentator. So listen up Americans, you are not exceptional, you do not live in a democracy and free market capitalism is screwing you.

 

Anyone following the political scene over the past year of so will have noticed rumblings that Capitalism, as we know it, is not working for the betterment of the country and, for that matter, the world.  The wealth disparity in American has been well documented.  Every day we are fed an endless stream of examples of how economically miserable so many Americans are.  Republicans—at least those trying to be somewhat realistic—are using phrases like “re-branding the party’s image,” “reaching out to minorities and women,” etc.  I am waiting for someone to resurrect the old Republican oxymoron, “compassionate conservatism.” As long as Capitalism functions only to make the rich richer and keep the poor economically stagnant or worse, the free enterprise system is no longer working in our so-called “democracy.”  Now before you conclude this is just left-wing griping, read this op-ed piece written by Arthur C. Brooks, president of the right wing American Enterprise Institute.

Capitalism and the Dalai Lama

By Arthur C. Brooks, a contributing opinion writer, is the president of the American Enterprise Institute.

APRIL 17, 2014

WHAT can Washington, D.C., learn from a Buddhist monk?

In early 2013, I traveled with two colleagues to Dharamsala, India, to meet with the Dalai Lama. His Holiness has lived there since being driven from his Tibetan homeland by the Chinese government in 1959. From his outpost in the Himalayan foothills, he anchored the Tibetan government until 2011 and continues to serve as a spiritual shepherd for hundreds of millions of people, Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.

Very early one morning during the visit, I was invited to meditate with the monks. About an hour had passed when hunger pangs began, but I worked hard to ignore them. It seemed to me that such earthly concerns had no place in the superconscious atmosphere of the monastery.

Incorrect. Not a minute later, a basket of freshly baked bread made its way down the silent line, followed by a jar of peanut butter with a single knife. We ate breakfast in silence, and resumed our meditation. This, I soon learned, is the Dalai Lama in a nutshell: transcendence and pragmatism together. Higher consciousness and utter practicality rolled into one.

That same duality was on display in February when the Dalai Lama joined a two-day summit at my institution, the American Enterprise Institute. At first, his visit caused confusion. Some people couldn’t imagine why he would visit us; as Vanity Fair asked in a headline, “Why Was the Dalai Lama Hanging Out with the Right-Wing American Enterprise Institute?”

There was no dissonance, though, because the Dalai Lama’s teaching defies freighted ideological labels. During our discussions, he returned over and over to two practical yet transcendent points. First, his secret to human flourishing is the development of every individual. In his own words: “Where does a happy world start? From government? No. From United Nations? No. From individual.”

But his second message made it abundantly clear that he did not advocate an every-man-for-himself economy. He insisted that while free enterprise could be a blessing, it was not guaranteed to be so. Markets are instrumental, not intrinsic, for human flourishing. As with any tool, wielding capitalism for good requires deep moral awareness. Only activities motivated by a concern for others’ well-being, he declared, could be truly “constructive.”

Tibetan Buddhists actually count wealth among the four factors in a happy life, along with worldly satisfaction, spirituality and enlightenment. Money per se is not evil. For the Dalai Lama, the key question is whether “we utilize our favorable circumstances, such as our good health or wealth, in positive ways, in helping others.” There is much for Americans to absorb here. Advocates of free enterprise must remember that the system’s moral core is neither profits nor efficiency. It is creating opportunity for individuals who need it the most.

Historically, free enterprise has done this to astonishing effect. In a remarkable paper, Maxim Pinkovskiy of M.I.T. and Xavier Sala-i-Martin of Columbia University calculate that the fraction of the world’s population living on a dollar a day — after adjusting for inflation — plummeted by 80 percent between 1970 and 2006. This is history’s greatest antipoverty achievement.

But while free enterprise keeps expanding globally, its success may be faltering in the United States. According to research from Pew’s Economic Mobility Project, men in their 30s in 2004 were earning 12 percent less in real terms than their fathers’ generation at the same point in their lives. That was before the financial crisis, the Great Recession, and years of federal policies that have done a great deal for the wealthy and well-connected but little to lift up the bottom half.

The solution does not lie in the dubious “fair share” class-baiting of politicians. We need to combine an effective, reliable safety net for the poor with a hard look at modern barriers to upward mobility. That means attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected. It means lifting poor children out of ineffective schools that leave them unable to compete. It entails pruning back outmoded licensing laws that restrain low-income entrepreneurs. And it means creating real solutions — not just proposing market distortions — for people who cannot find jobs that pay enough to support their families.

In other words, Washington needs to be more like the Dalai Lama. Without abandoning principles, we need practical policies based on moral empathy. Tackling these issues may offend entrenched interests, but this is immaterial. It must be done. And temporary political discomfort pales in comparison with the suffering that vulnerable people bear every day.

At one point in our summit, I deviated from the suffering of the poor and queried the Dalai Lama about discomfort in his own life. “Your Holiness,” I asked, “what gives you suffering?” I expected something quotably profound, perhaps about the loss of his homeland. Instead, he thought for a moment, loosened his maroon robe slightly, and once again married the practical with the rhapsodic. “Right now,” he said, “I am a little hot

American right-wing Christianity is just as noxious and dangerous as radical Islam is in other parts of the world.  Our so-called Christians haven’t yet sent suicide bombers into gay bars and abortions clinics but wallowing in their self-righteousness and adamantly believing they are the exclusive interpreters of “god’s will” they are attempting to impose their theology on the entire country.  It’s too bad our politicians who rant at the dangers of radical Islam won’t do anything to control the religious fanaticism going on here in America.  On the contrary, some politicians campaign on how devoutly “Christian” they are.  Texas is doing everything it can to shut down all abortion clinics and State Senator Dan Patrick, in his bid for Lieutenant Governor declared he’s running as “a Christian first, a conservative second and a Republican third.” Christian-conservative-Republican, I can’t imagine a more horrendous combination. But that’s Texas. The queen of the Tea Party Michele Bachman recently admonished Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for vetoing a law that would have allowed anyone because of their “religious beliefs” to refuse service to gays.  What is so terribly frustrating to many people, myself included, is that these “Christians” can’t seem to see the contradiction between what they say and do and the moral principles of their professed religion.  Maybe they should pay more attention to what their Jesus Christ actually said rather than apply their own interpretations of the Bible to justify their prejudices, bigotry and hatred (anti-gay, anti-black, anti-women, anti-Hispanics).  Yes, I know, I will get screaming comments from right-wingers insisting they are not bigots.  I don’t believe in the tooth fairy either.  You need not be a theologian to recognize that radical American Christians endorse policies that go against the same people their spiritual role model Jesus told them they should protect and support—the sick, the hungry, the weak, the poor.  The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind.  Considering the way the hypochristians interpret the Bible, it is not surprising that they would also distort the constitution.  No matter how many times you tell them the Constitution only guarantees the right to practice any religion you want but not the right to impose your religious beliefs on others they simply ignore it.  The Constitution says nothing about when life begins nor sexual orientation.  What is even more ludicrous is the contention that Christians in America are being “persecuted.”  To my knowledge we haven’t thrown anybody to the lions recently.  In their wacky logic “persecuted” means not making laws according to what they are absolutely certain is the way god wants it.  The aforementioned Texas state Senator Patrick asked in the debate over the abortion clinic law, “How would God vote tonight if he were here?”  Fortunately there is hope.  Recent Pew Research indicates the younger generation, the “Millennials”, tend to be independent politically, non-affiliated religiously, more tolerant, more inclusive and more liberal.   So perhaps the Christian-conservative-Republican will eventually disappear and, hopefully, never be resurrected.  Amen.

Recently I purchased a new TV.  That in and of itself is not much of a major life event.  But it reminded me of a lunch I went to 52 years ago in London.  The guest speaker was the president of Ferranti, Ltd., a British electronics firm, and I was covering it as the correspondent for Electronic News.  Why would my new TV remind me of a lunch that long ago?  The speaker, whose name I can’t remember, talked about the great strides electronics would make in the coming years.  I don’t recall much of the many non-existent things he predicted except for two.  He said one day we would have telephones that would work without wires.  He was referring not to cell phones but phones you could walk around within your home.  Even those were unheard of in those days.  Then he announced, (and I shall paraphrase from memory) “Someday we will have televisions that you can hang on your wall.”  The British well-mannered audience noticeably muffled a guffaw.  Now remember, in the 1960s televisions were big bulky things many of which were built into massive pieces of furniture.  The TV I just discarded is 12 years old, weighs about 85 pounds, is 19  inches deep and has a cathode ray picture tube.  (See photo.)  My new TV is an inch and a half thick and weighs about six pounds.  But back to my luncheon.  As a young enthusiastic reporter I thought I had a “big story.”  I could see the headline “British Electronics Executive Predicts the Future.”  I raced back to the office and whipped my story off by trans-Atlantic cable (there were no satellites nor Internet in those days).  When the next issue came out my story was not on the front page, in fact, it was not in the paper at all.  Highly chagrined, I called the editor to ask why a sensational story like mine didn’t make the paper.  His reply was essentially, “Are you kidding!  We are a respected, serious electronics newspaper.  If we put out a story about TVs hanging on the wall we’d be the laughing stock of the industry.” Can you imagine someone predicting that you could watch TV on a mini-screen mounted on your eyeglass frame?  Are you kidding?

 

Michael Sam, a six foot two, 260 pound defensive lineman and potential NFL player, just “came out” as gay.  The most shocking thing about his admission is that so many people consider it shocking.  “My God he is a football player!” they weep and wail and wring their hands!  (And probably gnash their teeth but we will get to biblical references later.) Would it shock them to learn there are gay doctors, lawyers, bank tellers and auto mechanics?  The issue here is that a lot of people in our country —especially white males--have this image of football players as the epitome of masculinity so a gay football player seems to go against their great American “values” (whatever they are any more).   Not only do these guys have to deal with learning that a big, talented male athlete who is capable of viciously slamming an opponent to the ground is gay, they also have to deal with their so-called “faith.”  You know, God says homosexuality is a sin, an abomination and all that and how can you argue with God?  Okay you’ve heard the familiar rebuttal to biblical homophobia that the Old Testament also declares that adulterers should be stoned to death.  Considering our statistics on divorce rates, probably half the adult population in the Unites States would be in serious trouble under Leviticus 20:10.  Doesn’t it strike you a bit absurd when God gets involved in whether someone is fit to play in the NFL?  Fortunately, the vast majority reaction has been very supportive of Sam especially among football players.  I guess the supportive people also read the Bible.  Remember John 8:5 when the scribes and Pharisees brought the adulteress to Jesus and pointed out Moses’s law said she should be stoned to death and Jesus replied, “Ok the one without sin should toss the first stone.”  Looks like Sam would be one of Jesus’s draft picks.  Can you imagine what the reaction would be if one of the bearded males in that revered example of masculine American culture Duck Dynasty came out as gay? 

The New York Times had a few startling revelations this morning.  One story reported that the Russians leaked a recording of a phone conversation between two American diplomats.  Can you imagine a national government listening in on the phone conversations of another country? Atrocious.  The United States has every right to be outraged.  Another story (deep inside on page A15) noted the ranking House Republican woman, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is being investigated for possible campaign spending irregularities.  She gave the official Republican response to the State of the Union address.  If you managed to stay awake for all ten minutes of it you got her entire autobiography, and the promise that the Republicans had a plan to make every American life peachy creamy without saying how.  Anyway, she is being investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics.  What I found interesting is that such an Office exists.  “Congressional ethics” strikes me as an enormous oxymoron.  One editorial bemoaned Russia’s repressive government. The phrase that caught my eye was “charges against those demonstrators are baseless and more evidence of “Putin’s way of getting revenge” on his critics.”  Politicians extracting revenge?  Shocking.  At least he could have been more subtle and shut down a bridge leading to Sochi.  And finally, John Boehner expressed doubt that there will be immigration reform during this Congress.  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) laid the blame for the immigration reform impasse on, guess what, the Affordable Care Act.