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.

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.

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”.

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. 

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.   

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 114^th. 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.

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 19^th 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.

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.

Jack

“Satan is a liberal, anything goes, no rules, no

laws, no borders, no evil, murder is encouraged,

law and order is condemned, can you believe

any sane human would be a liberal??? NO WAY.”

Jack (I won't give his last name) shared these comments on Facebook reacting to the posting of a generic statement from nolabels.org on the need for National unity. It called for ending “political polarization” and “breaking the gridlock in Congress”…pretty standard stuff in this day in age.

Jack fits a stereotype (white male over 60 – his picture is below), but his comments shouldn’t be dismissed or marginalized by either Conservatives or Liberals simply because they express an extreme position. If his words were a picture, we would be wrong to focus solely on the colors.

I believe if pressed most Conservatives would not defend the notion that Liberals promote murder, that Liberals advocate the elimination of laws and regulations (they’re usually attacked for the opposite), that they want the abolishment of all boarders, or that Satan, a religious construct, has a political affiliation.  Is God really a Conservative?

Yet even then I think a majority of those politically Conservative would support Jack. They would because he represents what they feel. He articulates at a primary level the fear they fear. Jack essentially mirrors their emotions.

How did this fear and the hatred that has grown from that fear become so pervasive? Looking back through my generation I can remember that Liberal and Conservative positions were argued passionately, including their impact on foreign affairs.  However, I cannot recall a time in the last century when the supporters of an opposing issue were desperately feared.

Political party affiliation wasn’t limited by philosophical leanings as it is today. The socially liberal Republicans prior to the 1990s are now not only publicly extinct; they are viewed as never existing. That is hard to believe. The joke that says a Republican Congressman is anti-abortion until his girlfriend gets pregnant has real teeth.

I firmly believe the beginning of this divide began specifically in August 1987.

Analysis after World War II concluded that the totalitarian axis powers (notably Germany) were able to exist at all because of their control of mass media, a new 20^th century phenomenon. They concluded that unchallenged information made possible the horrors we can barely grasp today. It answered the question, “how could any nation let this happen?”.

In 1949 the US responded to this reality by having the new FCC enact the Fairness Doctrine , which mandated that in order to be licensed to broadcast, a station had to provide competing views on issues of national interest. This doctrine stood in place with practically no complaint by the public for 38 years (and through 6 Presidents) before Ronald Reagan succumbed to pressures in his seventh year. He ended it in August 1987 and soon after vetoed Congress’s attempt to make it law.  In less than a year, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk began their non-stop, dogmatic, hate-filled rhetoric…the seeds for making Jack who he is today.

The Republicans are a minority party, but they have been finely crafted by the circumstances that have evolved over the past 30 years. They have become attuned to the necessities of obtaining and maintaining power. They only needed money and Rush Limbaugh (figuratively speaking).

They have fed and been fed by the fears this new era of echo communication has engendered. In order to maintain power they need to keep their entire Party in lockstep. They do this by supporting the communication that keeps their Conservative minority (the famous Trump base) in lockstep, then using that base to keep individual Republican feet to the flame or face losing elections.

They need Jack to be afraid and to hate. It is their mother’s milk.

There are easily discernible reasons why Trump is as he is, even medical ones (take 20 minutes to read about people with the relatively rare condition known as a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, it explains everything). It is less understandable why intelligent men and women in Congress cannot see the danger his Office presents to this Nation.

These Republican leaders in Washington are so compromised by their desire for power and the wealthy that finance them, they cannot confront the Jacks of the Nation, no matter how ludicrous and destructive Jack’s fears are.

With Woodward’s account and the declaration of another Trump official, the instability of Donald Trump (something painfully obvious since he excoriated his inauguration coverage by, what we now know as, the “enemy of the people”) has now been sounded publically. That bell cannot be un-rung.  It all depends on Republicans in Congress and, to a lesser extent, this coming election November 6^th  to stop the bleeding.

If 3 Republican Senators said they would not vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation in favor of a bipartisan panel of Republicans and Democrats to produce a list of acceptable Conservative nominees (in the style of Anthony Kennedy) that Trump had to accept, it would change the entire trajectory of Washington governance. It won’t happen. But the irony is that it would be in the Republican Party’s best interest if it did.

What do you think Jack? 

My Morning With Fox & Fiends

Catching up on the morning news and then finishing it with 20 to 30 minutes of Fox & Friends is like eating a nutritious meal and then topping it off with tub of bacon fat for dessert. It leaves me feeling ill of course, but then I think about the millions of people who are eating nothing but the bacon fat. Where is the clarion cry?

Fox & Friends is essentially a political program that sprinkles in tabloid news to give its viewers occasional breaks of schadenfreude. Their support of Donald Trump and his administration is mostly accomplished through omission and selective sound bites.

I'd like to take a break from Donald Trump (oh my...that does sound good doesn't it?) and also the mindless voice that Fox News provides him. Instead I want to touch again on this "news source" that belittles its viewers at every turn.

One of the major "breaking news" stories this week on Fox & Friends involved one of Fox's favorite whipping posts, Elizabeth Warren. A woman who has accomplished more than Doocy, Earhardt, and Kilmeade combined, three times over.

They were commenting on a bill in Congress she introduced. Under her picture with outstretched arms were the word (the length of the studio) NATIONALIZE EVERYTHING. This bill, by their description was her attempt to "nationalize every major business in American". They stated categorically that such a law as she is proposing would be "the largest seizure of private property in human history".

Now I understand that their constant motives are to gin up the emotions of their viewers, but are their viewers really that stupid? God, I hope not.

The bill Warren is proposing, simply put, is an attempt to make the largest multi-national corporations operating in the US more accountable to the American people and their employees. It is a direct and reasonable response to the Citizens United decision which gave corporations the rights of individuals but with little or no transparency.

You might think Fox would bring in some established Conservative expert to lead Doocy through the entanglement of reading a bill. However, given the difference between "largest seizure in human history" and allowing employees a say in electing board members, you know an expert would be of no value to Fox.

Instead they brought on a true "Fox expert", Rebecca Walser, titled as CEO of Walser Wealth Management.

This was a 44 year old woman with a CFP (Certified Financial Planner...hey, I earned that too!) who started her business in Tampa FL in 2015. Now she is the CEO of a corporation with, you guessed it, one employee...her. That kind of makes me CEO of my home, right (or is that my wife, hmmm...) ?

Her knowledge was about as deep as her background. However, next to Doocy it's not hard to fake it. Never did they touch on Warren's bill specifically. They simply made broad inane pronouncements. I doubt either actually read the bill.

F&F followed this quality reporting by interviewing an individual who was there to provide insight on all of Trump's security challenges as this person had "just left the Pentagon".
 
That wealth of knowledge was provided by Guy Snodgrass, in his 30s. He was titled Former Top Gun Pilot. Well...that makes sense now doesn't it? Yes, he did work as a flight instructor in the Navy for a few years, then left the Navy to work several low level jobs for the Defense Department. However, the only thing I could find online about him was his published resume, where he described himself as "in transition" (which is a Top Gun way of saying "unemployed"). I trust the millions of dedicated Republicans watching drank in every word of his sage observations.

These examples are not unique for Fox News. In fact, if you make the effort to do the research you'll find that even their trusted regulars are paper thin with qualification.

Take numero uno...Sean Hannity. Like Rush Limbaugh he was a two year, college drop out. Other than doing a gig as a house painter he has been exclusively a radio, then TV talk show personality. Like Limbaugh he has made (and continues to make) a fortune in that industry, fleecing the MAGA devotees. So it makes sense that he should be able to talk to the President of the United States almost daily to provide advice on foreign and domestic affairs, right?

For those of you who say "yeah, right", I suggest you send your money to Walser Wealth Management. I'm sure Rebecca will take good care of it.

Deny, Deny, Deny

A true phenomenon is being played out by the Trump White House and Fox News on a National scale...before our very eyes. It is the creation of deniability or even an "alternate" reality by simply and repeatedly claiming that what we experience (directly or indirectly) is not true.

It's made me think back on a skit injected into the 1967 comedy film  A Guide for the Married Man. In it Robert Morse is giving Walter Matthau advice on how to have an affair, and for this piece (played by Joey Bishop and Ann Guilbert) he's advising him to "Deny, Deny, Deny":  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGu8qiBUf-4 . Watch this You Tube now then return to this post.

This method of shaping reality, as bizarre as it appears, has been part of the Trump playbook throughout his business life and where he has been recorded early on advocating the use of repetition. However, as a Presidential Candidate and now as President he has leap frogged this tool to virtually manipulate millions of people.

It is now done through a triangle of influence. Trump will personally (by camera, by Tweet, or White House communique) deliver an untruth.  Whether this is an out and out lie or his narcissistic interpretation is unknown, but that question is ultimately irrelevant. It is then picked up by Fox News, which treats it as de facto truth simply because it was said by the President.

They will surround the statement with some "what about(s)" and patriotic sound bites and feed it to their (and Trump's) "base". It is then picked up by Republican Politicians and Conservative Pundits, who will use Fox News and each other as verification. Fox News will then repeat it as confirmation by broadcasting the Republican's comments.

This week the Trump White House published both the official transcript of the Helsinki news conference by Trump and Vladimir Putin. These are done routinely by all Presidential Administrations for the National archives. I watched live, and saw several times after, the Reuter reporter's question to Putin as to whether he (Putin) had supported Trump's candidacy and directed Russian officials to help Trump. To both Putin answered "Yes, I did".

Yet somehow the part about Trump in the question disappeared from the official transcript. And incase someone was charitable in assuming it was a rather large typo, the mention of Trump was also deleted from the video. The brashness of this action in the face of millions of people seeing the truth (and in the face of being called out on it by several media sources) is a stark example of Trump playing the part of Joey Bishop.

Somewhere along the way Fox viewers need to be put on notice. The rest of American journalism needs to call out on what is happening. They need to do it by publishing (in both written and video) what is occurring at Fox News. Stop fact checking Trump. The people who watch the endless parade of untruths that pass his lips are already aware.

Start fact checking Fox News...all the time. It's time to empower your readers and viewers to understand the reality of why their Conservative friends believe as they do, and, frankly, to share that concern with them. 

The News is the News

Perhaps two or three weeks ago, I caught the brief interview of a white, middle-aged man from Fort Worth, TX, looking average in every way, being asked questions regarding our President by a street reporter. He was a Trump supporter, not unusual for the region, but additionally he viewed Donald Trump as an extraordinarily good President, moreover an extraordinary individual, period. To this man Trump was the best President in living memory.

Those observations by this person caused the same misfiring of the neurons driving my cognitive abilities as comments made to me personally, from nice people, saying Barack Obama was the worst President in our Nation's history. Seriously? Actually, yes...dead serious.

These definitively extreme viewpoints now tell me there is another story to be told that isn't as simplistic as: "we are a divided Nation".

The control of information has always been critical in maintaining power, even more important than the second most used tool disseminated by information...fear. The importance of information control has increased exponentially as the means of communication has expanded exponentially. From print media, to radio, to television, and now to cyber content, the reach of media information can nearly be constant.

Since the rise of mass media (in the 1920s with the advent of radio) there is no historical example where a political strongman (despot, dictator, thug...call 'em what you want) didn't use and ultimately control the sources of media. Critical to that control was the denigration and/or elimination of competing sources of information. The obvious nature of this requires no discussion.

The most compelling issue I see today in the American body politic is the dedicated influence by Rupert Murdock's Fox News Group, the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, and "Conservative" talk radio. It is time that that they become not just a source for "News", but actually become the News itself.

Those who read this blog know that I watch the first 20 to 30 minutes of both Fox&Friends and Morning Joe most weekday mornings. I also try to catch various programs from Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, CBS, NBC, and ABC. It's a daunting task and I struggle to limit the amount of dedicated time. However, this effort to be objective, which was built in during the period the "Fairness Doctrine" was in place (1948-1987), has revealed more about "US" than the great political divide.

The morning after the July 16th Trump/Putin press conference, the three TV personalities that comprise Fox&Friends actually began to talk directly to Trump to convey the need for him to apply damage control. It was obvious without being stated. They know he was watching, as they know he does nearly every day.  The power that they have, or say Sean Hannity who talks with Trump almost daily, to convey policy and shape Trump's thinking is virtually mind boggling.

The reason it exists is because they are communicating to the same audience.

Every other network, cable or otherwise (with the exception of Sinclair local broadcasting), constantly waxes dumbfounded on why this core Republican support continues to be so unshaken by Trump's ethical, personal, and political shortcomings. How is it possible that this Fort Worth gentleman thinks the way he does?

The answer to that question is so obvious as to wonder why it's a question at all.

He and all the other Trump supporters are only watching Fox and listening to the likes of Russ Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Why would they think differently?

It is no wonder why Trump has labeled all news media other than Fox as the "enemy of the people". It is no wonder why these Trump supporters (Conservatives, Republicans, call'em what you like) are so susceptible to conspiracy theories when they're told that all information other than the sanctioned Trump media is disseminating "fake" information to undermine the "truth" he represents.

Fox News, primarily, is the real story to be told. They control their viewers, they control the President, they control the compliant Republican congressmen. What Trump is and what he represents has essentially been cooked. What the rest of the world's information gatherers should be doing now is looking at how Trump is delivered to his "base". That's the real news.