Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Thursday, December 13, 2018
The Writing is No Longer on the Wall
The
slow-motion-corrosion of the Trump Organization, the Trump Administration, and
Donald Trump himself has not garnered much satisfaction. Both his opponents and those supporters who
drank the Kool-Aid two or more years ago are tired of the speculation. What
will the Mueller investigation reveal? How will the Republican Congressmen
react? How aggressive will the Democrats
be? It engenders a National equivalent of The
Rumble in the Jungle , only without a timeline.
Well,
now I feel there is something that is emerging as predictable.
With
the recent wrapping up of the Michael Cohen case, along with the immunity
granted to AMI Inc and Trump Organization’s chief financial officer (Allen Weisselberg),
there is no more doubt that Donald Trump, and possibly his three oldest
children, are guilty of a crime: conspiring to and violating campaign finance
laws.
Of
the variety of speculative crimes that Trump might be guilty of, this paying of
hush money to women with whom Trump had engaged in sexual relations while his
wife was still nursing his youngest child is at the bottom of the pile.
Important
Republicans, Senators and Congressmen alike (no Congresswomen I believe), are
already on record with two conclusions: first, “…campaign finance violation? Big deal!” and second, “…why wouldn’t he want to suppress the
comments of immoral women? What would any red-blooded billionaire do?” Amazingly
these politicians, who so vigorously court the Religious Right, are just fine
with the underlying behavior that motivated the crime. After all, it’s just Trump.
Republicans
will claim the focus on Cohen needs to be his associated tax and financial
violations. However, the bell cannot be un-rung. Campaign finance violations are part of Cohen’s
conviction and he’s going to be doing three years in prison and paying a couple
of million dollars in fines and restitution. Further, Cohen accusations that Trump
personally directed his crime are now backed up by AMI Inc., and it appears the
money trail (which constitutes the conspiracy) is going to be revealed by
Weisselberg.
At
least on this crime Trump is toast…no more speculation. You can erase those speculations
off the wall.
Does
that mean it’s full steam ahead to impeachment by the House and conviction by
the Senate? Don’t hold your breath. The
new Democratic House may be so emboldened, but the Republican Senate would
never convict on that alone. Mueller will have to come up with a lot more
before that happens.
However,
I believe we can confidently begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel,
namely the end game for The Donald…and quickly.
I
think it is likely we will soon see Republicans begin their quest to challenge
Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020, even before we hear a discouraging
word from Robert Mueller. Flake, Kasich,
perhaps Corker and who knows who else. I believe it’s going to happen and because
the time frame for mounting a Presidential campaign is so long we should start
to hear about it very soon, probably in January 2019.
The
result of an insurrection in the Republican Party to de-throne Trump would
eliminate him in the summer of 2020, cause him to quit under the threat of
losing the nomination, or so split the Party as to make his candidacy, should
he get the nomination, the least effective in the history of this Nation.
The
thought of it being orange jump-suit time for Donald Trump doesn’t make my
Christmas list. However, the vision of
the TRUMP name being removed from buildings around the world is the equivalent
of sugar plums dancing in my head.
Merry
Christmas
Friday, November 30, 2018
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Another Death in Vietnam (revisited)
The following post was published on this blog 20 months ago, less than 70 days after Trump inauguration. It was striking to me how so little has changed since then that I felt compelled to re-publish it:
My brother Bobby was killed in Vietnam. We didn’t know it at the time, for that matter neither did he. It took 43 years for the herbicide that entered his body at age 21 to end his life. The Agent Orange causing the particular lymphoma that killed him was just as reliable as the bullets, bombs, accidents, and illnesses that took the lives of the 58,220 Americans that were recorded as dead “in-country” during that military engagement.
My brother Bobby was killed in Vietnam. We didn’t know it at the time, for that matter neither did he. It took 43 years for the herbicide that entered his body at age 21 to end his life. The Agent Orange causing the particular lymphoma that killed him was just as reliable as the bullets, bombs, accidents, and illnesses that took the lives of the 58,220 Americans that were recorded as dead “in-country” during that military engagement.
There’s
undoubtedly no accounting of what the real number of Americans lost was, any
more than the incomprehensible number of non-Americans who died with them and
since. There’s also no telling when it will end.
Lately
I am weighted with pangs of responsibility in realizing I am of the last
generation of Americans to remember firsthand what we as a nation were
experiencing at that time, roughly between the years 1965-1972. What should I
be sharing…what should I just forget?
The
historical experience of World War II was quite different, as I was taught by
my father’s generation and in countless stories and films. There was near total engagement by the
American population. Even with carnage that pales all military conflicts that
have followed; the unification toward a common goal resulted in a remembrance that
is mostly Romantic. The somewhat unique American post-war euphoria that
resulted from that Romance is the “Great” in Donald Trump’s “Great Again”.
Vietnam
was essentially its antithesis. It was ill-conceived,
non-transparent, over-weighted in politics, ultimately divisive, and too easy to
discount and disregard. If it weren’t
for the existence of a draft carried over from WWII and Korea, the whole conflict might
have been relegated to second page news and its opposition might have more resembled
our recent fiasco in Iraq.
Thankfully
the lessons it left are not clouded in Romance and their relevance has never
been more important than they are today in Trump’s America.
What
I remember from the Vietnam War era and how it relates to 21st
century America is not the foolish ideological tools that were used by equally foolish
leaders to begin and sustain the conflict. What I’m recalling is how the nation
reacted to that foolishness daily and why. Such was the national response to
the War that lunacy became lucid and, therefore, insulated from reason.
The
presentation of the Vietnam War to the American people was insidious. It started slowly, utilizing the undercurrent
of manufactured fear of Communism to justify deaths and injuries. Long before the devastation of the Conflict
reached its height, the bullshit of falling dominos to the “Red Peril”
vanished. It simply became a “them vs. us”.
News
reporting on the War basically folded into the routine of people’s lives. There was little to report daily other than
the number of dead and wounded, and where in that little country it occurred. In
1968, an average of 46 US soldiers were killed every day, with 6 to 8 times that many wounded or injured…every day. The Pentagon and the White House released whatever they
could to make it sound acceptable. The most common was to list North Vietnamese
(and Vietcong) killed and wounded in numbers so large the accounting was not
believable. But few expressed skepticism and it was hardly questioned.
You
see, as a Nation, we got used to it. Protesting was considered unpatriotic and
didn’t really take hold among ordinary Americans until the 5th year
of the War. Nixon was elected in 1968 by the “silent majority”. Like Iraq, if people didn’t have someone in
the conflict the news of the War was just and only that. The current day's news made yesterday's vanish into desert air.
Donald
Trump has not (yet) drawn us into an extended military conflict, thankfully.
His “playful” attitude regarding nuclear weapons gives pause, but for now the
lesson of Vietnam doesn’t actually relate to how we are reacting militarily. It relates to how we as a nation are reacting
to the fundamental functioning of government.
If
Donald Trump feels he has a mandate it is based on an irrational concept that
he was elected to dismantle whatever he can and by whatever means he is able. He has no more ideological basis for his
attack on the existing US Government than Johnson or Nixon had in perpetuating
the Vietnam War. He is freewheeling and his disabling narcissism
has resulted in him being surrounded only by his family and those who were
loyal when anyone with a half a brain viewed him as scary clown.
The
truly serious problem is that the Nation and the media have gotten used to it.
His and his administration’s bizarre actions have become habitual and routine.
There have been so many instances of disinformation, distasteful antics, subversive
behavior, incompetence, nepotism, pandering, lying, and psychosis over the
course of the election and the first few weeks of Trump’s term no one is
keeping count anymore. And those are just the public ones.
Nearly
any one would have torpedoed a prior administration.
Just
like another death in Vietnam, the next Trump shoe to drop hardly moves the
meter, and even then only briefly.
The
danger is that complacency to incompetence, indecency, corruption, and (most of
all) dishonesty may take many years to undo. In nations that find difficultly
in thriving, these factors seem often insurmountable, especially where public
division is encouraged.
We
should be raging against legislators who think they can personally benefit by
supporting this dangerous new “normal” and to media moguls who are devoted
first to ratings. To want and expect
something better from government we need a better
government, not its elimination in favor of some kind of chaotic oligarchy.
Reject
any legislator who supports Trump, restore the Fairness Doctrine (ended in 1987), and seek with an open mind to understand why
overall health care in the United States (and ONLY in the United States
throughout the developed world) is an abject fiscal failure.
We
don’t want another Vietnam lingering around for another four decades or longer.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
My Daughter Trulicity
I
find it curious the creative nature at which new parents name their children these
recent years (or even decades). Where do they come up with those names? Where can they
find more? I have one thought:
I came home the other night forgetting the slumber
party my daughter had arranged for that evening. I walked in and was gleefully
accosted by my daughter’s two best friends Cymbalta and Pamelor. They were immediately joined by Lyrica,
Latuda, and Humira all very anxious to introduce me to their new Latino friend
Fetzima. I went into the family room to
meet her and first saw Eliqus (a bit mature for her age) lounging in front of
the TV. Before I could say a word the doorbell rang. I went to answer it with
my nervous looking daughter and there on the doorstep were three familiar boys
Paxil, Lipitor, and Cialis, plus an Italian exchange student named Entresto. I
said “not tonight fellas”, and asked my daughter, Trulicity, to close the door gently.
That’s
right, in the endless quest to find names that distance themselves from such as
Kathy, Susan, Jane, and Amy you need go no further than your flat screen TV. At
almost any given time you will be subjected to long, drawn out prescription
drug commercial that features a clever name that’s just perfect for your next born.
Further, they’ll use the name repeatedly in the most comforting of situations;
romantic fall colors, bubbling brooks, colorful kites, loving smiles, you name
it. How could you go wrong? Besides, you’ve paid for this creativity…dearly.
In
the 1980s, under the banner of deregulated free markets holding sway during the
Reagan years, the FDA made no attempt to restrict pharmaceutical companies to
advertise on television and radio. Today only one other nation in the world
(New Zealand) allows such advertising. Since that time our Nation’s drug
suppliers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on “direct to consumer” (DTC)
advertising of prescription drugs (Rx).
There
has been a bit of controversy to this practice surfacing from time to time, but
mostly there has been a passive acceptance. The affect of advertising is
normally positive in a free market, even necessary, but it is also potentially
insidious. We view advertising submissively, rarely thinking about it. Its very purpose is to create recall only at
that the time of or decision to purchase.
The
limited debate over DTC Rx advertising has mostly focused on the effect
advertising has had on the decision making of the doctor: to what extent does the motivated patient sway the doctors decision
making on which drug to use. I
believe that debate is useless and nearly irrelevant. It requires second guessing
physicians and cannot be determined in any practical way even if we intuitively
know it’s true. The primary debate
should be centered on the economics of DTC Rx advertising, what is really happening
and what the obvious consequences are.
Advertising
by definition is targeted toward a consumer who might be interested in
purchasing the product advertised, or to the individual who might influence the
purchaser (such as advertising to small children). DTC Rx falls loosely into that second
category. The identity of the Rx
consumer, however, is the first misnomer.
The
patient is not the consumer when it comes to Rx, rather the purchaser is the
physician. It is important to understand that the patient doesn’t buy Rx for
himself, rather he/she buys it for the
physician. Prior to the development
of retail drug distribution, doctors disseminated Rx when the patient was seen
and the patient would pay or reimburse the doctor as part of the overall cost
of treatment, just as it’s currently often done in hospitals. As the number of Rx expanded it became
impractical for doctors to maintain the drugs and so Drug Stores became a
centralized point from which doctors could disperse medications.
Therefore,
DTC Rx advertising is directed toward individuals who can’t buy the product, any more than a three year old can buy that
box of Cocoa Puffs she’s seen on TV. The
difference is, of course, the Rx purchaser is an adult who actually thinks they
are the one buying the Rx. At least the 3 year old intuitively knows their
Cocoa Puffs are coming from mommy. I believe it is this misunderstanding by
adult patients which fundamentally impedes
this debate from reaching the American people. It is our profit driven health care system
that suppresses the issue.
Cost
of Healthcare and Prescription Drug Advertising: The American
health care consumer should constantly be reminded that the cost of health care
for him/her is revenue for someone else.
There is a transfer of wealth in the US of over $4 trillion annually. An estimated $30 billion of that amount goes
to those involved with the marketing of Rx (advertisers, media, and the
marketing overhead of the pharmaceutical companies). It matters not what health care plan our
current or prospective political leaders espouse, none will work unless the
cost of healthcare in the US is reversed. The billions spent on DTC Rx
advertising are perhaps the most wasteful dollars spent in our ongoing healthcare
catastrophe as they do not directly benefit the healthcare recipient or the
system generally. In fact, there is no benefit, direct or indirect, to the
patient. The only purpose is to
generate profits for the pharmaceutical companies.
Prescription
Drug Advertising as a Disincentive for Drug Research: The argument frequently heard from drug
companies is that the price of a drug is often very high due to the large
investment that took place prior to the drug being released to the public. It
is a good point as those costs must be recovered, as well as the costs of
research on failed drugs that ultimately are not released. However, once the drugs are released the
revenues can be used for further research on new and improved Rx, but what
happens? The Pharmaceutical Companies
continue to invest in these drugs, in the billions of dollars, through mass
marketing. Not only are those billions not being used for further research, but
they drive up the cost. Further, with the Pharmaceutical Companies continuing
to invest billions in a drug to make it more profitable, there is a disincentive to develop a new and better drug
that might replace the highly marketed drug. It is simple human nature (and
therefore business nature) that they will continue to support these marketed
drugs rather than new ones due to the continued investment from which they have
calculated an expected financial return.
None of this equates to any benefit for the patient…past, present, or
future.
Prescription
Drug Advertising Adversely Impacting the Quality of Rx: As the Pharmaceutical Companies continue
to invest in a prescription drug they become less likely to continue critical
review of that drug, or maintain even a practical semblance of objectivity in
any critical review. Again, why would they?
Not only have they invested in the development of the drug, but after
its release they continue that investment and now have projected levels of
profits to defend. There is a further
element, however:
With
mass marketing the pharmaceutical companies have exposed themselves to more liability;
both on a retail level which can affect shareholder equity, and on a tort level
with possible injured parties. This has
already been made obvious by several highly public drug failures such as with
Vioxx and several statin drugs. The heavily marketed drug increases public
awareness, which is what mass marketing is supposed to do. With that visibility, however, comes equally
visible news worthiness should a drug fail. This becomes merely a cost of doing
business and an indirect expense added to the retail cost of the drug.
There
are other less critical reasons why Rx advertising should once again be banned
from radio and television:
The
information regarding the prescription drug that is supposed to be provided
with the advertisements is laughable and completely ignored by the FCC. It is the audible and visual equivalent of an
80 year old trying to read minuscule type on a label without glasses, she knows
it’s there but it has no meaning. Warnings of death or diarrhea while people are
dancing in flowered fields or hugging babies are pointless. In fact, it is a
practical impossibility for such communication further strengthening the point
that drugs are marketed to the wrong people.
We
know the uninformed influence of the patient adversely affects the doctor’s
best decision making, we only don’t know how much, and we never will. We also
will never know to what extent mass DTC Rx advertising contributes to defensive
medicine, although it surely does, putting both the patient at some additional
risk and driving up cost.
Mass
marketing of prescription drugs exists because, for the most part, it
accomplishes what it seeks to do. It
gets the patient to influence the consumer (the doctor) to buy the Rx thus
increasing sales and profit. However, in
a world where healthcare should be an available standard commodity to all
people, like clean water, then prescription mass marketing takes us in the
wrong direction. It is far from an answer
to the overall healthcare problem, but its elimination would take us one step
further in the direction we need to go, and at $billions a year it would be no
small step.
Think
about it. How worse off would your life be if you never saw another
prescription drug commercial again? Call
or write your Congressional representative.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
The Brain of an American Anti-Semite
If
aliens dropped in from outer space and absorb American and World history they
would no doubt be astounded by the contributions to humanity by one relatively
small group of people. No matter the discipline; e.g., social, arts, science,
medicine, literature, education, entertainment, or philosophy, people of Jewish
decent have had a greater positive impact on the human condition, pound for
pound, than any other sub-set of modern Homo sapiens that have roamed this
planet.
It
therefore begs the question of why many non-Jews are often manipulated to
believe Jews should be contained, restricted, and (in historically extreme
cases) eradicated.
Jews
and those of Jewish decent are no different than any other sub-set of people in
that they face the same trials all individuals face. There is no objective or
mystical power that isolates them, negatively or positively, from the rest of
humanity. Their individual numbers spread across the same spectrum of success
and failure, happiness and misery as everyone else.
Why
they have had such a genuinely constructive impact on our culture could be due
to a number of things; history, education, family structure, values, social
support among others, but that is not the point of this discussion. I want to look at why in today’s American
culture they are still used as a threat for those who want to attain or retain
power, and what kind of brain is so susceptible to that threat.
By
the end of the 1940s the World was emerging from its cultural car wreck and
beginning to ask the question, “what the
hell just happened?” The term Holocaust
really has meaning that goes beyond the horror and tragedy inflicted on Jews. Although
prejudice has always been part of the human condition, extreme anti-Semitism,
as well has other prejudices, had spread world-wide like an infectious
disease. History is clear that Nationalism, relatively new in a
worldwide context, was the vehicle used by influential individuals to drive the
world into catastrophic conflict. Targeting vulnerable minorities was their
fuel.
America
today is not 1932 Europe generally or 1932 Germany specifically. It is not even 1932 America when it comes to
anti-Semitism. Yet many of the same
elements now exist and are getting stronger in this period of Trump and the
reactionary effect he elicits.
Overt
anti-Semitism, Racism, and bigotry in America today is primarily a product of
irrational conspiracy mania created by those who skillfully use fear in order
to secure support. The fear generated by those who profit from it does far more
than motivate (what I call) the lunatic fringe, e.g., white supremacists, Dylann
Roof, or Robert Bowers. It impacts a significant portion of adults in America,
some you might call friends. Some, perhaps, attracted to Trump Rallies without
a lot of understanding of why.
It
appears (and it is logical) that Robert Bowers was just as hostile toward (in
Trump’s words) the invasion of
immigrants as he was toward Jews. The same would be true of the torch bearing
Nazi-types in Charlottesville, although their malice was more focused on Jews
and African Americans than Latinos. As
tragic as their actions are toward innocent victims and the emotions they
generate among survivors, they are not a threat to the United States or any
race or religion contained therein. They are part of the disease that can be
seen and treated.
It
is the passive racist or anti-Semite who bears no grudge against any individual,
but who harbors fears of an amorphous and dangerous adversary; the Deep State, the “Government”, the “Liberals”,
the “fake” press (aka: enemy of the
people), welfare, Socialism, taxation, or immigrants are
all examples. Each poised to rob you of your property and well being. You could
throw space aliens into that mix
without missing a beat.
It
is not a huge step to surreptitiously link such paranoia to Blacks, Jews, and
Latinos. The goal is to retain power. The fruits of that power are another
discussion entirely.
Since
the removal of the Fairness Doctrine
in 1987 (an FCC doctrine created in 1948 out of the rubble of WWII to
neutralize propaganda) the brains of these Americans have acted like sponges,
sopping up the sewage that has been pumped out of talk radio, Fox News, and
Sinclair Broadcasting for nearly 30 years. Out of this you not only get a
Donald Trump, but you also get an entire Political Party that is willing to
compromise almost any degree of decency, anti-corruption, international
responsibility, or fiscal conservatism in order to keep their individual jobs.
Please
keep in mind that almost all those manipulated brains are in the heads of
decent people, but this fear-driven misinformation is all they watch or listen to. That reality gives Trump’s “enemy of the people” effort enhanced
meaning. Trump and the Republican leadership don’t want them to listen to anything
else. It is the life's blood of authoritarianism.
The
election and re-election of Barack Obama did much to unleash the fear among
many Conservatives. “How could a Black man become President of the United State” was a
small echo in the back of the anti-Semitic brain (no different than the racist
brain). When it came to public
consumption they simply pasted “extreme
Liberal” over the words “Black man”.
The
answer to that question was tendered through talk radio and Fox News with conspiratorial
rhetoric. By the time Trump came on the scene Republicans were scrambling to
distance themselves from the “conspiracy” known as the Federal Government, or in Trump speak: the Swamp. It should be no surprise that Republicans made the
Faustian bargain of aligning with Trump to avoid primary challenges.
Is
Trump an anti-Semite or a racist? Not likely, and certainly not in any
ideological sense. His Narcissistic
Personality Disorder doesn’t allow for objective labels. Does he trade in
anti-Semitism and racism? Absolutely. Is he also responsible for the resurgence
in America today of anti-Semitism, racism, and bigotry in general? Of course he
is.
That
he refers repeatedly to the asylum seekers from Honduras as an “invasion” (calling out for a military
response) or warns of Liberal “mobs”
or labels the main stream news media as “the
enemy of the people” is simply him ringing the dinner bell.
The
brain of today’s American anti-Semite or racist wants serenity, like everybody
else’s brain. However, it is so stoked with fears that are fed by conspiratorial
language that it will often act against its own best interest (such as supporting last year's inequitable tax bill). Pushed far
enough it becomes unstable, especially on the fringes. Yet I hope that fear for
personal safety does not become the driving focus in the attempt to counterbalance.
That would be futile, indeed. Confidence is the element that needs to be embraced,
confident that leaders who represent the truth will emerge because the
alternative is not sustainable. The first step is to understand that your vote
will make a difference.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
There is No Freedom in the "Freedom" Caucus
As
a member of the Congressional House Freedom Caucus, Dave Brat has opted to
apply his influence as an ideologue. He and the other members of his caucus
believe that by banding together they could promote a pro-Libertarian ideology
that has its modern roots with social philosophers such as Ayn Rand (yes, Rand
Paul’s namesake) and contemporary advocates such as the Koch brothers.
This
ideology promotes small government, but idealizes the concept of no government. It promotes the reduction
of regulations, but swoons over the idea of no regulations. It views the concept of Democracy as an Achilles
Heel and (oddly for Conservatives) is vehemently anti-religion. In fact, Capitalism is elevated to the status
of a religion for today’s Libertarian (despite their public protests to the
contrary).
It
is a concept that glorifies only the individual in society and demonizes any
efforts for people to act collectively. It views itself as the antithesis of
something like Communism. However, very much like Communism, Dave Brat and the
Koch Brother’s chosen politics are not workable in the real world and always gravitate
toward self-interest, greed, and exploitation.
There
is no issue in this year’s election that illustrates this better than Health Care.
If you listen to Brat or read his campaign
pronouncements he claims that all problems with Health Care in the United
States can be solved with “free market
solutions”. I would not claim for a
second that Dave Brat is a stupid man. Given his Libertarian bent I suspect he
wants to believe his claims more than he actually believes them. The reason is
that there are no “free market
solutions” to health care. The people of the United States have paid a dear
price with both money and pain to prove it.
That
Dave Brat considers himself an “economist” only adds irony to his shameful and
disingenuous advocacy.
The
rest of the world has figured out that freedom can only exist where there is an
absence of fear. Who hasn’t encountered a young person, a parent perhaps,
afraid of changing jobs or of being fired because they might lose their health
insurance? Who hasn’t heard individuals afraid of losing all they have because
they or a family member got sick? I have watched individuals struggle over
choices on allocating limited funds to insurance premiums and/or prescription
drugs, afraid of the consequences in making the wrong choice. There is no “freedom”
in any of it. Freedom, in this sense, only exists for those who have
accumulated enough wealth to purchase it in the “free market”.
The
reality is that Health Care in the real world, like many services that are
necessary in a society, does not fit the Libertarian models. Demand does not
drop when prices go up. Further, the purchasers of health care services (us)
have no clear idea of cost and are at the mercy of a system that is intentionally
opaque. As a result Americans have paid the happy Libertarians multiples more
for health care than anywhere else on the planet.
The
ACA (Obamacare) took us an important step away from that insanity. Dave Brat
wants to take us back.
Abigail
Spanberger, to her credit, has recognized that the ACA is not a complete answer
to our Nation’s health care. She has advocated the integration of private and
public insurance (expanding our current system; private plus Medicare, Medicaid,
and VA) as has been successfully done in countries like Japan and Switzerland. In doing so she knows that a Public Option would not only provide
universal access, but also enable control of costs by empowering the large pool
of Americans to negotiate or set costs, something the “free market” cannot do.
If
Dave Brat was honest he would be advocating billboards and television commercials
offering 20% off sales on hernia repairs and coronary bypass surgery. Instead he regurgitates nonsensical statements
echoed from talk radio like “32 trillion dollar takeover of health care” while in reality a
$3.2 trillion annual cost for health care presented by Senator Sanders (which Spanberger is not
a supporting).
Mr.
Brat, health care in America is currently (and unfortunately) about a $5
trillion industry, of which a nauseating proportion goes into the pockets of
your corporate supporters. When you go
back to teaching Economics next year, I suggest you enroll in some continuing
education courses and take a better look at the definition of “Freedom”.
Friday, September 28, 2018
Kavanaugh, Reality TV
In
the Kavanaugh hearing yesterday (9/27/18) the most important question was the
very last one of the day, asked by Kamala Harris. It probably should have been
the first asked of Judge Kavanaugh. Question to Brett Kavanaugh: “Did you watch Dr. Ford’s testimony”,
answer: “No”.
It
immediately begs the question of why did the Senate Majority refuse to allow
Dr. Ford to testify after Kavanaugh, as she had requested. The (understandable)
reason given was that a person should have the right to hear an accusation in order
to respond to it. That obviously was not necessary.
The
eyes of the Press had shown that Kavanaugh spent 9 hours in the White House
preparing for this testimony. Regretfully
no Democrat asked him what that preparation was for. How many ways can you say no I didn’t do it?
In
hindsight the obvious strategy had nothing to do with the accusation. Brett Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans, and Trump
did not care what Dr. Ford had to say. Frankly, I think she could have provided
photographs and it wouldn’t have made a difference. The strategy devised during
those nine hours was out of Trump’s favorite playbook; be loud, be angry, attack,
be the victim, and (apparently) be unhinged.
Whether
Kavanaugh might have chosen that tact on his own we’ll never know. Lindsey
Graham shamefully (and with equally prepared theatrics) only made this farce
more palpable. Graham pointed at Kavanaugh and yelled "YOU HAVE NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR, NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR". It should be noted that an apology never came close to passing Kavanaugh's lips.
They screamed political foul from the first words leaving Kavanaugh’s mouth.
They screamed political foul from the first words leaving Kavanaugh’s mouth.
Republicans
and Kavanaugh claimed Democrats conspired to manipulate the timing on a process
that HAS NO DEADLINES. Kavanaugh implied
Left-Wing conspiracies headed by the Clintons!! It could have been a Rush
Limbaugh broadcast.
This
was Reality TV in every respect …except
one; the testimony of Dr. Ford.
Dr.
Ford was beyond reproach and totally believable. I believe her and would be at
a loss why anyone wouldn’t. I might have
considered that Judge Kavanaugh does not remember the incident, if he had suggested
that possibility, but now such is irrelevant.
His
pattern of behavior as a younger man was flagrant, obvious, and consistent with
Dr. Ford’s testimony. However, for him to shout thunderously that exposure of
this behavior in his youth (which he claims did not happen) has “destroyed me and family…permanently” is absurd
on its face. Even with this personal history he has risen to second highest
level in the American judiciary, a position of immense power held by few. If he
should feel so destroyed it is clearly subjective, possibly from guilt or
regret.
Kavanaugh
and Senate Republicans either did not realize or did not care that every attack
they leveled at Democrats or the accusations was an attack on the only truly
neutral party at that hearing…Dr. Ford. Democrats on the Committee had
obviously caucused and decided to hone in on the refusal by the Majority and
Trump to have the FBI investigate. As a result they appeared to barely listened
to Kavanaugh’s testimony or observe his bizarre behavior. For the TV audience,
they seem to cower before Graham’s tirade.
In
the end there were two take-a-ways from the hearing. One was the testimony of
an honest woman who had done her best, at great personal cost, to do the right
thing for her Country. The other was the testimony of a man who demonstrated
the absolute opposite of what we should expect in a Supreme Court Judge;
emotional, erratic, political, and (sadly to say) unstable.
If
I were a Senator and knew virtually nothing of this nomination other than
hearing Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony yesterday, I wouldn’t let him get within a
stone’s throw of the Supreme Court.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Women: Pay Attention to History
As
a white American male and a member of a privileged class (with 200+ years of
history behind it), it is instructive to imagine how I would feel if suddenly
the powers of business and government were continually manipulated to act against my best interest…because I was a white male. I would feel defensive, and I hope I would
have the courage to react furiously and definitively.
Women
have faced this discrimination for centuries. Yet somehow too many men in power
today think women have arrived, the prejudice is over, and everything is just
fine the way it is.
The
Republican effort to coronate Brett Kavanaugh to SCOTUS demonstrates just such
an attitude. It caps hundreds of years of suppression that have been baked into
this culture. If you’re a woman reading this I don’t care if you’re
Conservative, if you’re a Republican, if you love guns, if you are repelled by
abortion, if you love your man, or
any homespun consideration, you should be angrily opposing this
nomination.
If
you have a daughter or care about young American girls at all you should be
livid.
This
next Supreme Court Justice will be the Nation’s 114th. Out of that
114 only 4 have been women and half of them confirmed only in the past 9 years.
Women comprise an absurdly small
percentage of the Federal Judiciary, about 20%.
However, that still says that there are about 500 Federal female judges
out there. Are we supposed to believe
there isn’t one qualified, moderately Conservative woman in that pool that
Republican’s couldn’t find?
They
couldn’t find one because they weren’t looking. The token inclusion of Amy
Barrett to Trump’s “short list” was simply his version of reality TV applied to
reality…meaningless.
Obama
appointed 268 judges to the Bench out of which about 40% were women. If you add
minority men the percentage approaches 60%. To date, of Trump’s appointments
72% have been white men. It would be too easy just to blame Trump. He is an
intellectually challenged and clueless President who takes his lead from those
who pay him homage. This is simply the old
boy network in action, and I’m sure that suits Trump just fine. They had
been feeling a bit neutered with Obama’s Presidency.
Brett
Kavanaugh is just another boy in the network. Did he, as a 17 year old Prep
School student, attack a 15 year old girl at a party where underage drinking
was extensive? Of course he did. For an accomplished woman with extensive degrees
and a professional career to risk it all, including her request for a FBI
interview in which lying would be a felony, makes no conceivable sense unless
it occurred. Her courage dwarfs those of her adversaries, included Kavanaugh
and the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ultimately,
the implied defense by Kavanaugh, Trump, and Senate Republicans will be simply
that Dr. Ford is a woman. It worked for Clarence Thomas.
Just
the fact that Kavanaugh’s response was to deny it outright instead of arguing the
circumstance shows an elevated sense of white male superiority. Add to that his
rulings, notably of the 17 year old immigrant girl seeking an abortion last
year where he used his power to manipulate the system against her, his attitude
toward women is as baked in as it is in our culture.
Please,
women of America…pay attention. Too many
of you are not. It makes no difference if he truly loves his wife and daughters
or coaches a girl’s soccer team. It makes
no difference!!
History
should be a continual alarm that keeps going off for women (in the US and around the world). It should keep
going off no matter how many times women hit the snooze button. Women comprise at least half the population.
They comprise a majority of college graduates. Their labors underpin economic stability
equally with men. Yet they are still treated as a support class by too many men
of power.
I
am in my 60s and I only have to go back to my mother’s generation to find a
time when women in America had no right to vote. The myriad of rules and outright laws
that have restricted and underrepresented women in this Country, some confirmed
by our Judicial System, have been whittled away over relatively recent years,
but only that…whittled. Status quo
should not be an option.
Women
of America, hold onto your values be they Conservative, Liberal, or in-between.
But rage against a history that has categorized you and your daughters as
something less than what you are.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Who Are the Real "Pros"?
With abortion and Roe v Wade surfacing as a political issue again for this coming mid-term election, and the decision regarding Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation, I thought my November 2015 essay was worth reposting:
"Christian, right-to-life Conservatives promote abortions." Wouldn’t that be an interesting concept to see addressed in a serious yet proactive way? That it seems contradictory only adds irony to reality.
Regrettably,
abortion has become the biggest social issue political candidates exploit, even
though the issue is simply not political, nor should it be. I know good people
who will support politicians and vote on this one issue alone, their
rationality virtually disabled by emotion and manipulative rhetoric.
The
subject of abortion as a significant political issue is nearly unique to the United
States among developed countries, regardless that the personal conclusions about abortion exist everywhere. A primary
reason is that those who influence the Conservative electorate in the US have
successfully linked the right to choose
an abortion as a desire to have an abortion.
You will rarely if ever hear an activist, "right-to-life" Conservative refer to someone as supporting a “right to choose”. Instead you will hear the term pro-abortion. They have even been successful in having the
media divide the debate between “anti-”
and “pro-”.
The
great irony is that, in fact, it is your Christian Conservative who is unwittingly
pro-abortion and your right-to-choose liberal who seeks a path toward reducing abortions.
Why?
It
is a fact that abortion has been an active human endeavor at least throughout
recorded history, if not before. Look it
up.
The
world’s historical record shows that from ancient times through the 19th
century when and where abortion was occasionally made illegal was not due to
some ethical valuation of life. It reflected the desire of those in power to
manipulate the transfer of wealth or to increase the population of the laboring
class.
In
other words, those in power who opposed legal abortion did so in their own self
interest. Not much has changed. Efforts to make abortion illegal today (or
impossible to obtain) affect only the poor or disadvantaged. Even your most diehard
Christian-Conservative can’t deny that the wealthy will always have the resources
to obtain the procedure in a clean, safe environment. So what really are the
anti-abortion group's motives?
No
one argues that the emotion which right-to-life activists convey is not real. It is clearly born of the ethics they find compelling given their religious faith.
The question, however, is what this
outcry of emotion accomplishing? It
is presented as a love of life (I
guess not to be confused with life as
it relates to warfare, guns, or capital punishment).
Yet,
wouldn’t it make more sense that their efforts be directed at reducing abortions rather than attempting to purify humanity by making women and doctor’s criminals? But the right-to-life movement is not really
interested in reducing abortions or the related potential harm to pregnant
women.
Nothing short of a social law on the books will do. They overtly or unconsciously want to promote and satisfy their own personal self-righteousness at the cost of women's lives and increased abortions. They will vote for any politician, no matter how corrupt or unethical, as long as he vows to support their goal.
Nothing short of a social law on the books will do. They overtly or unconsciously want to promote and satisfy their own personal self-righteousness at the cost of women's lives and increased abortions. They will vote for any politician, no matter how corrupt or unethical, as long as he vows to support their goal.
There
are no women who desire an abortion or find it a positive experience. They don’t get pregnant for the purpose of having an abortion. How
refreshing would it be for all participants in this debate to take this fact
and mutually find ways of reducing unwanted pregnancies, not even taking into
consideration the societal gains from less burdened single women or families. Most of what Planned Parenthood does is just
that.
Unfortunately,
unwanted pregnancies cannot be reduced without sex education and contraception, two
factors Christian-Conservatives often don’t want to address or oppose outright.
For
example; they’ll rile about abortions by African-American
women in New York City exceeding live births by the same minority, but never mention
the soaring teen pregnancies within that group.
How mindless to think making abortion a crime will stop these girls from
getting pregnant.
Just
who benefits from tying abortions to acts of sin and criminality? It is certainly not the unborn in the US,
where abortion rates are higher than other western nations with greater
abortion availability and acceptance. Nor
is it the disadvantaged pregnant women who are subjected to a system that
wrenches from them their self-esteem as they deal with emotional and physical
distress.
The
great beneficiaries are the Republican politicians who manipulate the issue as
a means of garnishing votes for elective office, or at least in the primary process if not general elections.
An
omniscient Christian God could have designed women to lay eggs instead of live
births, where wealthy white men could oversee their gestation…but he didn’t. By design, women have the difficult burden to
decide what happens within their own bodies, not Republican politicians or
religious zealots.
Perhaps Republicans can kindle Huxley’s Brave New World concept of human hatcheries.
The necessary technology isn’t all that far away. Now there’s a great job for “limited
government”. Until that nightmare, Republicans and Christian-Conservatives can continue
to facilitate the killing of unplanned and unwanted fetuses which their own
self-interest forces to take place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)