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.

The Middle East Mess

You’ve heard the cliché, “hindsight is always 20/20.” This has become a kind of mantra for all the pundits who now agree that invading Iraq in March 2003 was a really bad idea especially since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz concocted the WMDs that never existed simply to justify their “shock and awe” extravaganza.

As President Obama prepares to send another 400 plus “trainers” to Iraq, the radio/tv talkers and op-ed writers are outdoing themselves with 20/20 hindsight on all the Bush administrations post invasion goof ups.  Number one in the “stupid stuff” category is the disbanding of the Iraqi army of some 400,000 well trained troops and highly efficient officers.  Now it turns out that after the Bush-installed Iraq overseers humiliated the top Iraqi military brass and kicked them out, those generals are now directing ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria and rather efficiently.  The American-trained new Iraqi forces seem to have no stomach for a fight and drop their weapons and run away whenever they get into heated battle with ISIS.

No matter how accurate hind sight may be, we have to deal with what is happening now so Obama’s solution is to send in more “trainers” to train more incompetent Iraqi soldiers. This brings us to another famous quotation.  In his 1905 work The Life of Reason, George Santayana wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

Let’s flash back to the 1950s and 1960s.  (I served in the Navy from 1959 to 1963 and remember it well.)  That’s when America decided it was going to save the world from Communism and established Military Assistance Advisory Groups (MAAGs).  The most famous one was in South Vietnam.  You all know rest of the story.  We started with a few “advisors” (as they were called then) and ended up sending about 2.5 million military personnel to fight South Viet Nam’s war.  In case you have forgotten, despite all our vast military might and our American exceptionalism we lost that war.  In fact we were ignominiously routed because, as many historians pointed out afterwards, the war was fought with passion on the other side—not so much for political ideology, but because they wanted to force out the “invaders” that is, the Americans.

We are now seeing the same pattern.  We are sending in “trainers” to train Iraqi soldiers who have no passion to defend their country and who must fight an enemy who not only has the passion to achieve its goals but is also fired by religious zealotry.  In other words, we are getting involved in yet another military adventure that we simply cannot win.  (Several of our generals are saying the same thing with some qualifying it by adding unless we send in massive numbers of troops which is unacceptable to the American public.  Massive troop commitments didn’t work in Viet Nam why would it work in the Middle East?)

Things are even more complicated when you consider the convoluted animosities of Islam.  The dreaded ISIS is a Sunni organization.  The vast majority of Muslims in the world are Sunnis (87 to 90 percent).  So now we have to get Sunnis to fight against Sunnis which is problematical at best. (Saudi Arabia our so-called ally is Sunni so factions in that country have been bank rolling ISIS).  Shia have the majority in Iraq and Iran.  But the Iraqis aren’t very good fighters despite their American trainers and we can’t enlist Iran in the fight because they might get atomic weapons and our Republican hawks want to bomb them rather than negotiate because they love Netanyahu.

Another thing going against us is our cultural mind set.  We expect not only instant gratification but also instant goal achievement.  (Remember George W. and his “mission accomplished”?)  Other cultures do not think our way.   Here is what North Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong said in 1966.  “How long do you Americans want to fight?  One year? Two years? Three years? Five years? Ten years?  Twenty years?  We will be glad to accommodate you.”   This applies to Middle East mentality as well. Sunni and Shia Muslims have been at odds with each other for 1,500 years.  Do you think they are in any hurry now?

Since we Americans like price tags on things, the Pentagon just released figures that put our cost to fight ISIS at $9,000,000 per day and that we have spent $2.7 billion just since airstrikes began last August.  Your tax dollars at work.

Unfortunately, it is far easier to define the problem than to propose a solution.  Many Americans, myself included, believe we never should have gotten involved in the Middle East mess in the first place.  But we did and we can’t change that.  There are others who say we created the mess by invading Iraq and Colin Powell was right that “if you break it you own it” and we have a responsibility to fix it.  I don’t agree with that because we have been trying to “fix it” with very little help for 12 years so more years going virtually alone and more millions of American dollars isn’t going to work.

But let’s take another look at the Viet Nam analogy.  We ignominiously pulled out in 1975.  We lost that war, period.  Face it, America is not invincible.  Forty years later we are doing business with Viet Nam and tourism between the two countries is booming.  Our government was wrong insisting that losing Viet Nam meant the Commies were going to take over the world. 

We are once again in a war we cannot win.  Why can’t we just admit we made a huge mistake, get out and let the Middle East resolve its own problems?

Republicans for Christian Ayatollah of America

 

One might think that Republican presidential candidates are actually running for the office of Christian Ayatollah of America. 

In a recent New York Times article headlined “Republican Field Woos Iowa Evangelical Christians” the nine candidates who showed up in the worship hall of Point of Grace Church in a Des Moines suburb, went to great lengths to convince Iowan evangelicals just how really, really Christian they are.

               This could almost be consider quaintly amusing if it were not for the real threat that Republicans are attempting to inject their religious beliefs into our nation’s laws.  Our “founding fathers,” which Republicans are so fond of quoting, never intended the United States to become a theocracy.

The U.S. Constitution, which Republicans use to justify their bigotry against gays as “religious freedom” specifically states in Article VI, paragraph 3,   “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  Yet the Republican candidates vaunt their Christianity as if it were, indeed, a “qualification” for the Presidency.  “If you don’t love Jesus, you can’t be President” could be their campaign slogan.

You may draw your own conclusions.  Here are some quotes from the NYT article with a few of my comments thrown in.       

“Many portrayed Christians as an increasingly persecuted community, seeking to appeal to the evangelical audience with vows to protect what they described as religious liberty for people of faith.”

My comment:  Christians “persecuted” in the United States?  I don’t know of any Christians who have been “persecuted” in America in my lifetime.  Did we crucify anybody recently?  “Religious liberty”?  Has anybody forbid Christians from worshiping as they please which is all the Constitution guarantees?

“Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, told of moving back into his childhood bedroom after a career in the Air Force, when he felt lost, until he had an epiphany that “I was going to spend the rest of my life doing God’s work.”

“I just really never realized how large the pulpit was going to be that he was going to make available to me 30 years later as the governor of Texas,” he said.

My comment:  Now you may remember that Perry, as Governor of Texas, asked his citizens for three days of prayer for rain to end a drought in his state.  It didn’t work.  God evidently wasn’t listening.  Sorry, I do not want a President who thinks praying to god will solve the country’s problems.

“Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, talked about how after losing a daughter to addiction, “it was my husband Frank’s and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saved us from a desperate sadness.”

“And Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, said the most important moment in his life was not his wedding day or when he held his first child, but “the moment I found Jesus Christ.””

My comment:  Almost makes you want to weep, doesn’t it.

“Mr. Rubio, a Florida senator, defended traditional marriage. “I remind people that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman existed long before our laws existed,” he said. “Thousands of years of human history teach us a simple truth: The ideal way to raise children is when a mother and father married to each other, living in the same house, raise children together.”

My comment:  Now I just wonder who Rubio is referring to as the people who are not mother and father married to each other and not raising children together. 

“Mr. Jindal offered a message for “Hollywood and the media elite.”

“The United States of America did not create religious liberty; religious liberty created the United States of America,” a line that earned a standing ovation.”

My comment:  Well, that’s not exactly historically true but Republicans don’t put great value on facts.

“Mr. Cruz, the Texas senator, also used much of his speech to highlight the importance of religious liberty, and said that believers in traditional marriage must “fall to our knees and pray” between now and the start of oral arguments next week at the Supreme Court on a case that could legalize same-sex marriage across the country.”

My comment:  Republicans now want god to influence Supreme Court decisions.  I wonder if god had anything to do with Citizens United?  I hope god responds as he did to Texans prayers for rain.

Am I the only one who thinks that Presidential candidates should discuss issues and offer solutions to the very pressing problems we are dealing with in America and the world rather than tell us how much they love Jesus?

Here is a link to the full NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/politics/republican-field-woos-iowa-evangelical-christians.html?ref=politics

 

 

 

A Christmas Fish

a short Christmas story

By William Raser

 

            "Hey mom, what's a Christmas fish?"

            Miriam Collins stopped mixing the cookie dough, wiped her hands on her apron and turned to see her eight-year-old son looking up at her with that familiar quizzical expression.

            "A what?"

            "A Christmas fish," Jimmy repeated, "I heard Mr. Steinman talking about the tradition of giving people a Christmas fish."

            "Now what would Mr. Steinman know about Christmas?"  Miriam said to her son. Of course, she herself had no idea what a Christmas fish might be.  "Mr. Steinman is Jewish and doesn't celebrate Christmas," she said in a tone that indicated the matter was settled.

            "But I was in his store with my pal Artie," Jimmy insisted, "and I heard his grandpop talk about giving friends a Christmas fish."

            Although Millersville was a small midwestern town, it had a large enough Jewish community to warrant a Kosher butcher, a function Mr. Jacob Steinman had performed from the time he immigrated to America as a young man.

            "I really never heard of a Christmas fish, Jimmy, now run out and play," Miriam said shooing him out the door. "And keep your mittens on."

            Miriam Collins was now perplexed.  She hated it when she could not give Jimmy an answer for something, and she knew he would persist with her and everyone else until he had one.  And she really had no time to waste over Mr. Steinman's Christmas fish. The holiday was tomorrow and she still had her baking and other preparations to finish for the big family dinner.  Miriam crossed the kitchen and picked up the phone.  In matters of Christmas there was only one person to call.

            "Millersville Lutheran Church, Gladys speaking, how can I help you?"

            "It's Miriam, Gladys, can I speak to Pastor Gunderson?"

            "Miriam, are you baking your spice cookies again this year?  They were so..."

            "Could I please talk to the pastor?" Miriam interrupted, impatient and in no mood to talk about spice cookies.

            "Well, of course," Gladys sniffed in her most indignant tone.

            The phone clicked and the pastor came on the line.

            "Pastor Gunderson," Miriam began, "I know this will sound rather silly, but could you tell me what a Christmas fish is?"

"Well, uh, it..." Gunderson hesitated. "I really don't know of any reference to a Christmas fish.  The early Christians, of course, used a fish as their symbol, and there are quite a few references to fish, fishing and fishermen in the Bible, but I can't recall any mention of a specific fish  pertaining to Christmas.  Why do you ask, Miriam?"

            "Well, my son Jimmy overheard Mr. Steinman talking about giving people a Christmas fish and I didn't know how to tell him what it is. I thought you would know."

            Pastor Gunderson coughed slightly, rubbed his ample double chin, and felt slightly offended that his theological credentials were being questioned.

            "I'll certainly research the matter and will get back to you, Miriam."

            "Thank you Pastor Gunderson."

            It was close to lunch time, so the clergyman put on his coat and began to leave.  As he passed through his secretary's office, he paused.  "Gladys, I may be a little late coming from lunch. I'm going to stop at the Presbyterian and Catholic churches to confer with my colleagues about something."

            Gladys was in the habit of not always hanging up the phone when she transferred calls to the pastor which is why she inadvertently overheard many conversations.  Checking to be sure the pastor had left, Gladys dialed a number.

            "Hello Janice.  It's Gladys.  Well, here's something interesting for you.  You know that Jewish butcher.  Yes, Mr. Steinman.  Well, he's telling all the little children in town that there's such a thing as a Christmas fish.  Yes.  Can you imagine?  He's telling them they absolutely must give people a Christmas fish."

            That beautiful day-before-Christmas had spread itself gloriously over Millersville.  A cloudless, crystal blue sky shimmered off the pure white snow that had fallen the night before.  Ovens throughout the town gave forth the rich aromas of cookies and cakes and pies.  Last minute shoppers with rosy cheeks and mittens and mufflers, hurried in and out of the stores on Main St.  Another perfect Christmas was about to descend on Millersville.  Perfect except for one thing.  No one could figure out what a Christmas fish was.

            After Gladys's phone call the word about the mysterious Christmas fish had spread quickly through the town.

            During the afternoon, the Lutheran, Catholic and Presbyterian church offices were beseiged with calls and all the pastors instructed their secretaries to assure parishioners that their spiritual leaders were carefully researching the matter.

            Reverend Everett, the Presbyterian minister, had suggested they might just call Mr. Steinman, whom they all knew, and ask him.  But on second thought, the pastors decided it was not appropriate for three Christian clergymen to ask a Jewish butcher, Jacob Steinman, to explain something pertaining to their own holiest of days.

            By nightfall every family in town was pondering how Mr. Steinman, the Jewish butcher, could know all about the traditional Christmas fish and they did not.  It was almost as if a feeling of collective spiritual inadequacy had spread over the town.

            Christmas day came as scheduled to Millersville.  Bright, beautiful, clear and cold.  The pastors all preached of joy and peace and love but made no mention of Christmas fishes.  As they shook hands with their pastors at the door, parishioners decided to limit their conversations to exchanges of "Merry Christmas" and avoided bringing up the question that was foremost in everyone's mind

            A dancing yellow, red and blue fire spread its warmth over the family gathered in the Collins home.  Grandmom and Grandpop, Uncle Albert and Aunt Bertha were there.  Jimmy had received all the toys he had wanted, and he knew he would have his favorite pumpkin pie for dessert after the abundant meal his mother was preparing.  But he was still bothered.

            "Grandpop, why can't anybody tell me what a Christmas fish is?"

            "You know, Jimmy, the only person who can answer that question is Mr. Steinman.  We've got a little time before we eat.  I know Jacob very well, and he doesn't close on Christmas, so why don't we just go over and ask him?"

            Jimmy and his grandfather bundled into their heavy clothes and walked downtown.  As they turned the corner at the entrance to Mr. Steinman's butcher shop, they were startled as they colided with three men -- Pastor Gunderson, Father Thomas and Rev. Everett.

            "I guess we're all here for the same reason," Grandpop Collins said with a smile.  After an awkward pause, the pastors acknowledged they were, and they all entered the butcher shop.

            Mr. Steinman, a short, rather large, jovial man, clapped his hands and smiled broadly as his visitors entered the shop.

            "Jacob, we wanted to talk to you about Christmas fishes," said Grandpop Collins.

            "Ah yah," Jacob Steinman said, his round, reddish face bursting into an even wider grin. "I vas going to do da same ting vit you."

            Despite his 30 years in the United States, Jacob had never lost his thick accent.

            "To all of you, my Christian friends, may you haf joy and happiness for your holiday and da New Year.  Dis, for you, my friends, is my Christmas vish."

##

 

 

Did you know that Cubans who set foot on American soil and ask for asylum are immediately given legal immigrant status?  Even those smuggled in or who cross the Mexican border. Normalized relations with Cuba now being established by President Obama could mean Cuban immigrants would become subject to the same treatment as Mexicans.  Is it any wonder why a Cuban-American politician like Marco Rubio is lambasting the President? 

Here are excerpts from a Reuters article explaining the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA).  Note the article was written before the President took action so it did not come as a surprise to Rubio and Cuban status quo supporters:

Under the CAA, Cubans receive unique and highly favorable treatment, including granting of permanent residency a year after arrival, as well as being eligible for government benefits, such as Medicaid, supplemental social security income, child care, and disability.  (My note: The anti-illegal immigrant factions whip up hatred by saying undocumented immigrants receive these benefits but they do not.)

No other foreign nationals enjoy these benefits except for the few who are granted political asylum.

"I'm not sure we're going to be able to avoid, as part of any comprehensive approach to immigration, a conversation about the Cuban Adjustment Act," Florida's Republican Senator Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants, told reporters last month.

Rubio, one of eight senators pushing for bipartisan immigration reform, said the CAA was intended to protect refugees fleeing an oppressive regime but an increasing number of Cuban exiles were traveling to and from Cuba on family vacations and business trips, undermining the justification for the act.

"It's becoming increasingly difficult to justify it to my colleagues," said Rubio. (My note:  Obviously Rubio does not think repealing the CCA should be part of immigration reform.)

The reform could also mark the end of the controversial 'wet foot, dry foot' policy, coined after the 1994 Cuban rafter crisis, that allows entry to undocumented Cubans who reach U.S. soil ('dry foot') either by home-made rafts or smuggler 'go-fast' boats, as well as thousands who show up each year at the Mexico border. Others intercepted at sea ('wet foot') are repatriated.

According to an estimate by the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, the cost of public benefits provided to Cuban immigrants was $322 million in 2008. (My note: Imagine what it is now.)

"We cannot keep giving all the benefits to people coming from Cuba who have not paid a penny into the system, especially at a time when Congress is talking about taking benefits from people who have been paying into the system for years," added Mannerud, who is of Cuban descent.

To read the full article go to:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/08/us-usa-immigration-cuba-idUSBRE9170F920130208

At this time of year we are exposed to many emotional, inspirational and heartwarming stories related to the season.  Some are pure fiction, some are mushy, outlandish or unbelievable.  But, some are true like the one I have to tell.  During the Thanksgiving week, my wife and I visited New York City.  We went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art to see the fantastic Angel Tree and Nativity (also the Cubist Exhibition and Thomas Struth Photography).  At the Museum store, Linda bought a large cut-out nativity based on the Angel Tree display.  When we got home, she discovered the box was empty. 

 

I called the Museum Store the following Saturday and spoke to a young man who was on duty that day.  I explained that the box was evidently the one for the display piece and my wife accidently picked it up instead of a full one.   Obviously, there was no way I could prove this and I had no intention of trying to convince the sales associate to send me another one free.  Because Linda was so disappointed I just wanted to surprise her by purchasing a new one.   Fortunately, I had the empty box with the item number so I could identify what I wanted.  He asked, “What day were you here?”  That was easy as I had the entrance receipt.  “Do you have your wife’s credit card receipt?”  No, I didn’t and I had no way of finding it because she was out (which is why I was calling at that time).  Then he asked, “Did she buy anything else?”  Yes, she did and the box of Christmas cards, also based on the Angel Tree was on her desk.  I gave him the item number on the back of the box, and he said with the date of visit and that purchase information he could track it down.

As you have guessed, the new Nativity arrived in the mail yesterday.  In these days of so much hatred, animosity, antagonism and doubt, it was nice to see that sometimes honesty and trust can still work.   I have no idea who the young man was except for the entry on the packing slip that said, “Sales Associate 33469”

So to Sales Associate 33469, thank you and Merry Christmas!

 

 

 

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.