Thursday, December 31, 2015

New Year's Eve Rant

Subjective (def): "taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias."

         Things that are subjective are open to interpretation. If you go see a movie about a jewel thief, the topic is not subjective. But whether it's a good movie or not is subjective.
Subjective things depend on your own ideas and opinions: there isn't any universal truth. Subjective is the opposite of objective, which refers to things that are more clear-cut.

        Why be so explicit in the above paragraph?  Because a particularly noxious  would be candidate for the US Presidency is running on a  slogan which trumpets "Let's Make America Great Again."  The question  is,  what exactly does this mean objectively?  The answer is, "who knows?"  The would be candidate, while by no means brilliant, is smart enough to understand that many of his slavish devotees filter that vague generality into their own subjective version of a "Great America."  So what might this "Great America", mean to the average supporter of Donald J. Trump?  I'm reasonably sure that many Trump adherents see a newly "Great" America as one in which certain groups "know their place" and  stay there. Others will see it as a nation in which women know their place and remain in it.

        What I find truly troubling is that many Americans, either working in union jobs or retired on pensions bargained for them by unions, support Trump because of his tough talk  regarding immigration, yet are unaware of the disdain Trump feels for organized labor.

        Any  working American who, for even a moment,  believes that Donald Trump gives a hoot about the rights of the ordinary employed  American need only to look at what he has done in Ireland and Scotland  to discern the truth. Trump is the poster child  for white privilege and elitism in America.


        While the vision of a "Great America" may vary widely, depending upon the subjective perception of the target audience, it goes as a given that it probably doesn't mean anything to Trump which is remotely similar to that version of most of his followers. He disdains them and they love it. Trump followers are a cadre of masochists, pledging allegiance to a narcissistic political hack, who cares nothing for them.   

Year end Mutterings

Year End Mutterings (with no particular order or organization)

        We're told today that Theresa Guidice (a "real housewife" of somewhere ) is out of jail and back home. So?

        So, real housewives don't live in mansions with nannies. Real housewives don't get sentenced  to federal sleep away day camp (Danbury, essentially a day spa for "our kind of people")  for 40 several counts of securities fraud.  The news blurb also detailed the Guidice's fight to keep their mansion from foreclosure as they owe Wells Fargo just under $200,000  in punitive judgment and have over half a million in unpaid taxes. In spite of all this, which might make a prudent parent (the hubby is off to jail next) consider downsizing, there was a new Lexus SUV in her driveway Christmas morning!

          I am torn as to which aspect of this actually bothers me the most.  Is it the blatant display of white privilege gone wild? Is it the example of conspicuous consumption enabled by criminal acts?  Not really, we've seen this all before. I think what bothers me the most about this (and the vast majority of "reality stars" is that anyone really gives a shit about these relatively worthless examples of waste, fraud, and abuse of  opportunity.

        Speaking of real housewives, how about that Tonya Couch?  As we speak, she is reposing  in a Texas Jail, having been extradited from Mexico, where she had fled with her son, epic waste of flesh, Ethan.  You remember  Ethan - The poor kid who suffers from "Affluenza"?  Ethan was living in his own 4,000 square foot residence with wet bar at age 16 when he got all likkered up and killed four innocents with his vehicle. At trial, his mother, the aforementioned Tonya, admitted she never had any recollection of ever disciplining  Ethan. No shit? Again, my mental list of reasons this is troublesome  is varied. Mostly it is simply questions which I would love to have answered.

        Where is the father? He was at court, yet we've never heard a word from him as to why he has allowed his wife (with his complicity) to ruin their child.  Is Ethan deaf, dumb and blind? That would be just about the only way a 16 year old could ever truly not know that drunk driving was "not  OK."  

        OK, let's  concede that Ethan Crouch is/was flawed as a human being due to parental neglect to the point of  there being little hope for meaningful rehabilitation.  While Texas is not usually known for being forward thinking in legal matters other than leading the league in executions, it actually has a separate offense known as "Intoxication manslaughter" which carries a minimum of two years' incarceration and could actually result in up to 20 years in jail.  Only impairment is necessary for conviction, but Couch was 3 times the legal limit for DUI! These circumstances and the resultant outcome still beg several questions. What action was taken against the parents for neglect?  How much did they pay the "expert" hired gun psychologist who floated the "affluenza defense." Finally, why was there no appeal by the state's  prosecutor of  the ludicrous decision by the judge to award probation for killing four people? I find it difficult to believe that the Judge's financial outlook has not brightened as a result of  his decision.  Ask yourself what would have been the result if the identical crime had been committed by a non-white Texan of ordinary or modest means. Justice for sale in Texas!   

        At year's end, we're already deeply embroiled in the next November's election hoo- ha. I really like the UK idea that campaigning must be limited to six weeks before the actual election day. We have been exposed  to some of the most venal, xenophobic , and downright inappropriate campaigning I've ever seen, while also being treated to displays of epic ignorance which are so outrĂ©  as to amaze and amuse.

        Trump leads the pack with such gems as: "My IQ is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure; it's not your fault." Or how about: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” (it was about here that I decided that the "J" stands for "jerk off "!)  Or, finally, if sexism is your thing: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her… wherever.”

        I must admit that, while Trump is supremely offensive, he probably isn't certifiably insane, but several Far Right wannabees blur the line. Examples include: "Mormons believe that "Jesus and the devil are brothers," "When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down. (Mike Huckabee), "

     “The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely 'anti-historical' (ed: NOT!), And that is what the perception is by the American left, who hates Christendom.”  "All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land." (Rick Santorum)

        The hands down champion of the irrelevant and ill conceived misstatement, however is Dr. Ben Carson who, while apparently good at cranial hemispherectomies, sucks at essentially every other reality of life in the real world. Examples include

"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain. Now all the archaeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs’ graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it..."

" Fox News as the only thing keeping the United States from becoming Cuba."

"Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all,'"

"Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."

“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works. The president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch. So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibility to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law. And that’s something we need to talk about.”

        No, Ben, YOU have to understand how the Constitution works! Actually, this last one  is perhaps the most troubling because it shows a person who considers himself a viable candidate for the presidency who doesn't have the grasp of how the Constitution and Government work  that  we require of high school students.

        Finally, although  this late 2015 quote  comes from Ben Carson, it could have just as easily come from Palin, Bachmann, Huckabee, Santorum  or any of a host of others who have a religious agenda which, they seem to believe, trumps reality.  

         “The pledge of allegiance to our flag says we are one nation under God. Many courtrooms in the land on the wall it says ‘In God We Trust.’ Every coin in our pocket, every bill in our wallet says ‘In God We Trust.’ So if it’s in our founding documents, it’s in our pledges, in our courts and it’s on our money, but we’re not supposed to talk about it, what in the world is that? In medicine it’s called schizophrenia and I, for one, am simply not willing to kick God to the curb.”

        Sounds good, doesn't it? Sort of like "Chocolate."  The problem is that Carson's statements and the implication  therein are egregiously incorrect.   Where to begin?

        First and foremost, Our pledge of allegiance wasn’t written until 1892, and the words “under God” weren’t added until 1954. So, neither our pledge nor the words “under God” have anything to do with our Founding Fathers or the values on which this nation was founded.  In fact, 104 years lapsed between the Constitution's adoption and the Pledge of Allegiance. Another 62 years passed before in a flurry of McCarthy fueled jingoism, we added "Under God."   As far as  “In God We Trust” being on our currency, that didn’t happen until 1864. Again, 77 years  after our nation had already been founded. As far as our nation’s motto becoming “In God We Trust,” that didn’t happen until 1956, again  during the Cold War as some kind of asinine response to communism. Once again, this was a move that had nothing to do with our Founding Fathers or the creation of this nation.  It is deeply troubling to me that this sort of statement is blandly accepted by those who like the way it sounds and are apparently untroubled by the total fallaciousness of it all.


        The one promise I can make for the new year is that it will get worse before November.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

Enough with Benghazi, already.

        Yet one more letter in  Sunday's Daily Sun  screaming the word "Benghazi" as an anti-Clinton shibboleth, yet with absolutely no factual understanding of the overall issue involved. The writer cites a "stand down" order given which led to the deaths of four embassy staff.  No such order was given,  and every single surviving  armed respondent interviewed confirmed it under oath to the  Senate Intelligence committee. The committee did find confusion was rampant on the ground ,  not because of anything done by anyone in Washington , but because of poor on scene coordination.

        A second finding, that security was less than desirable and/or necessary, was corroborated, but so was the fact that Ambassador Stevens had twice refused additional security when offered by AFRICOM commander, General Carter Ham, in the month preceding the attacks.  A third allegation, that US military personnel could have responded in time to save lives was categorically refuted by every single military commander  with regional responsibility.

       A  Republican controlled House  investigative committee  drew these same conclusions, yet we are continually bombarded with fiction by voting citizens with obvious agendas  having nothing to do with any factual information, but much to do with partisan prejudice.


       One must assume that if the writer of Sunday's letter  truly believes that SecState  Clinton  bears personal responsibility for four deaths in Benghazi, then they must hold George W. Bush, by the same standard , even more loosely applied,  accountable for the 2,977 deaths resulting from the events of  9/11. I mean, after all,  another Clinton left a security brief (ignored by the Bush team)  warning of Al Qaeda specifically and the threat of domestic attacks specifically. Ridiculous, isn't it?    

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

What they said!


    Rather than publish all this in FaceBook, where the conversation began, I'll just post the link to this. The issue is one person's insistance that our nstion's founders were all religious and "separation" didn't really mean what it has come to mean. several of these, especially Madison (author of much of the Constitution, leave little doubt that that is precisely what he, at least, meant.  

John Adams

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents."
  
    letter to Thomas Jefferson

The  priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.

Thomas Jefferson:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone." (The lower case "G" is Jefferson's) 

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, (school?) place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

James Madison:

"Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance."

"The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State."

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U S forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?

Benjamin Franklin

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." -- Benjamin Franklin

George Washington

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February, 1800,

"Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter -- Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was even a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life."

-- Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963)

What we Really Need


        In response to an ongoing discussion regarding the church-state separation and the "war" on Christmas, so favored by Faux News as an example of liberal decay and decadence.

       Those who dance around the "separation" issue with protestations and interpretations of and about  what a group of 30 something well to do men may have intended about 230 years ago are a constant source of amusement and amazement.  As do many rabid religionists, many seem to suffer from a case of "we're right, you're not."  I would be the last to ever claim Christian scriptural interpretations to have validity, but since that is the rule book for many of the loudest protesters:

          Public prayer was decried by Jesus as inappropriate , so why before every school sporting event, town meeting, end zone pass completion, etc, is there an insistence on prayer by so many? (Matthew 6.6 ""When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."  It is the age old story of "we're right, you're wrong" and we want to proudly and publically proclaim our belief while being highly offended if you should choose to do the same. Take one step outside the Judaeo- Christian arena in a public display and the truth of this statement becomes obvious.  I once  had a fellow teacher in my former High School get offended because I allowed a Muslim female student to use my room alone at lunch during Ramadan to pray. It was a short conversation. 

        I use the public prayer analogy because of the similarity with Christmas displays. I have never heard of a church or private entity being harassed or criticized for Christmas displays, yet we have, according to Bill O'Reilly, a "war on Christmas."  As a Catholic, of course O'Reilly would be fine with public spending on religious displays and activities, as long as they are Christian in nature. He simply would deny the right of non-believers to eschew their portion of such public funding. I would suggest, people with this mindset visit a true theocracy to see why instituting any mandated religious structure is an execrable idea.


        The song says "we need a little Christmas......", but what we truly need is a song that addresses the entire calendar and scope of human interaction  entitled "We need a little tolerance..."

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Healthy Insurance?

                                 Healthy Insurance?

        The air is full of information and misinformation re: healthcare, these days. There are numerous misstatements and poor statistical analyses from both sides of the healthcare debate. A reasonable person with time on their hands can, if they are willing, find reasonably comprehensive and accurate answers to many of these questions, but many, blinded by partisan fervor of either side, simply take whatever their flavor of the month politico tells them and make it their mantra.

        Accordingly, as objective an analysis as possible might be appropriate. The best way I can suss out to do this is by posing the usual  pros, cons, and position  statements and then analyzing their validity. I will, however, start with an assumption, based on my own political belief, that being that First: Our current system is not working for most Americans financially, and leaves many unable to obtain even routine medical services, which would  in some cases, avoid far costlier emergency services in hospital vice preventive out patient care. Second: it is possible to specifically indentify reasons why that is true.    

1. "Single Payer Health Care is a panacea for all ills related to availability and cost."

          A: There is no perfect "one size fits all" approach to providing  universal health care. The UK National Health Service  is a single payer, universal system and Switzerland is a multiple insurer (but mandatory) system, both of which are aimed at every citizen having access to primary care fee free at point of service.  In fact, the US has a hybrid system, in which Seniors on Medicare and anyone on Medicaid already are being cared for in a sort of single payer reduced fee (not free!)  system.   Like it, or not, these services are paid for by everyone's tax dollars, while  many Seniors also pay additional out of pocket for various supplementary programs such as hospitalization and drug plans.

2. "Single payer systems cost  more in taxes"

        A: True, but incredibly misleading. American conservatives tend to ignore the composition of spending; to them, just about all spending is equally bad.

        As a percentage of GDP, Europeans do pay a larger share of income in taxes, but as far as health care itself is concerned,  the UK pays 8% of GPD for the national Health Service, while the US pays 15% , or almost double the UK's share, of GDP when public and private spending is considered as a whole. Europeans tend not to have this attitude towards higher tax rates because their governments provide them with benefits from which all residents gain.

        a.  First is cash allowances that almost all families with children receive. We have something similar, the earned-income tax credit. Because it is part of the tax code, it reduces the tax burden; in Europe such programs are part of the budget and thus raise spending. Moreover, the earned-income tax credit benefits only low-income workers; in Europe, family allowances benefit virtually all families with children.

        b. The impact on the tax burden can be dramatic if one views family allowances as negative taxes. For example, in Luxembourg, an average married worker with two children pays a nominal income tax rate of 16.5 percent (including state and local income taxes), while an American in the same situation would pay 5.2 percent. But once family allowances are subtracted from the Luxembourg worker’s income-tax payment, the effective tax rate falls to just nine-tenths of 1 percent.

        c. More importantly, almost every other country has some form of national health insurance that covers, on average, 72 percent of all health costs. The comparable figure in the United States is 46.5 percent, and almost all of that is accounted for by Medicare and Medicaid, which almost exclusively  benefit the elderly and the poor.

        d. The average American family of four in 2012, the last year for which I could find hard data, had an average total healthcare cost of   $24,671 in total healthcare costs.  Of this figure, $10,473 was paid by the family, $6,408 through payroll deductions, and $4,065 in out-of-pocket expenses incurred at point of care. What this means to the individual family is that the average 27%  of income paid in all taxes is actually (considering healthcare as a "must have") more like 38% when private health care spending (the $4,065) is factored in!)

3. "The health care isn't as good; wait times are outrageous."

        A:   Britain’s National Health Service stipulates a standard that patients should wait in an emergency room no more than four hours if they are to be admitted to a hospital. The organization also tracks how many patients wait more than six weeks for needed diagnostic tests (under 1% recently).  Latest UK data shows a wait of about 46 days for elective surgery, a number improving. Canada is much worse, but has made significant improvements over the last three years. This has not however, deterred  several politicians recently from using 2008 data as if it were current when comparing Canada's single payer system to US conditions.

         So OK, Single payer in the UK is quicker than in the US in most ER instances and not very far behind in elective procedures. This does not factor in, , and it is a huge factor,  the additional waiting due to  financial burdens which, in the US, may make a patient forgo the elective procedure altogether, due to co-pays, etc.

        Now the bad news: While we Americans sometimes look down on national health systems like Canada’s and Britain’s because of their notorious waiting lists, there is emerging evidence that lengthy waits to get a doctor’s appointment have become the norm in many parts of American medicine, both for general doctors and  for specialists. That includes patients with private insurance as well as those with Medicaid or Medicare.

        A July 14, 2014 Sunday Review article  cites a relevant recent study.  Merritt Hawkins, a physician staffing firm,  polled five types of doctors’ offices about several types of nonemergency appointments including heart checkups, visits for knee pain and routine gynecologic exams. The waits varied somewhat based on  market and specialty, but were revelatory.

        For example, patients waited an average of 29 days nationally to see a dermatologist for a skin exam, 66 days to have a physical in Boston and 32 days for a heart evaluation by a cardiologist in Washington.  In another unrelated survey, The Commonwealth Fund, compared wait times in the United States to those in 10 other countries last year. “We were smug and we had the impression that the United States had no wait times — but it turns out that’s not true,” said a researcher for the foundation. “It’s the primary care where we’re really behind, with many people waiting six days or more” to get an appointment when they were “sick or needed care.” By the way, "sick or needing care" gets you almost immediate  medical care in the UK. A footnote here is no searching for a doctor who will take your Medicare or particular brand of insurance!

4. This one from a grossly under informed acquaintance, but not atypical of  many who don't know  better. "Then why does everybody in the UK buy private insurance?"

        A: Simplest answer? 

       They  Don't!  "Everybody" is about 11.6% of the population. Private insurance isn't necessary, but will provide immediate (in most cases) access to private hospitals and  elective procedures - by the same doctors who work in the NHS in many,  almost all, cases!   It may be a perk of employment or privately purchased. No matter how purchased, the truth is that it is amazingly inexpensive compared to even US Medicare supplements. A married  couple on Medicare in the US will probably pay at least  $262  monthly for Medicare , parts B and D. This works out to around $3144 annually and doesn't even consider the 20% co-pay on most Medicare approved procedures. So, back to the drawing board for a Medicare supplement which, if a good one, may cost another $50 or more monthly, for another $1200 annually.

        By contrast, private insurance in the UK , which simply bills the NHS in the vast majority of instances (no co-pays, no point of service fees), would cost this couple at the most, for a top tier plan, perhaps $1500 annually. Private insurance in the US is a must, in the UK it is a luxury.

5. "But it's the damned profiteering insurance companies, right? They're the ones keeping costs up!"
        A: Not so much.  While it is true that insurers are frequently considered to be the bogeymen of American health care, it's primarily  because they do a lot of the unpopular stuff: They’re the ones who charge you money for health care, who say you can’t get something you want, who your bosses blame when they deduct more money from your paycheck to cover health costs. They're the face the consumer sees when he bitches  about of health care costs, and it’s hard to see what value they add to the system.

        Yet the preeminent problem with the Affordable Care Act isn’t the insurance industry. In fact, the main benefits of nationalized health care can be achieved in systems with hundreds, as Switzerland does, or  by even thousands, of for-profit insurers. No matter what Michael Moore or others think, Insurers aren't the profiteering bandits they are sometimes painted as.

        A clearer way to think about it is to consider profitability of the various stake holders in private insurance. This is huge bucks -- and insurers aren’t where the big profits in the health-care system go. In 2009, Forbes Magazine ranked health insurance as the 35th most profitable industry, with an anemic 2.2 percent return on revenue. To better understand this fact, consider that an average industry's net ROR is about 5 to 6.5 % annually. To understand why our  health-care system is so expensive, you need to travel higher up the Forbes list. The pharmaceutical industry was in third place, with a 19.9 percent return, and the medical products and equipment industry was right behind it, with a 16.3 percent return. Meanwhile, doctors are more likely than members of any other profession to have incomes in the top 1 percent.

        Generally,  Americans don’t use more health care than citizens of other countries. In point of fact we may, as a nation, use a bit less because many simply can't afford to see a doctor. But we pay a lot more for the health care we do get. Data gathered by the International Federation of Health Plans show that an MRI costs, on average, $1,121 in the United States and $363 in France. An appendectomy costs $13,851 in the United States and $4,782 in Switzerland. A birth by cesarean section costs $3,676 in the United States and $606 in Canada. A bottle of Nexium -- a common acid-reflux drug -- costs $202 in the United States and $32 in Britain. The sad truth about American health care is that it costs more not because insurers are so powerful, but because they’re so weak.

        There are few truly single-payer systems in the developed world. Canada has one, so does Taiwan. (Note, this means that private insurance is illegal in Canada, unlike the UK.)  Most countries rely on multiple  insurers. Germany, for instance, has more than 150 “sickness funds.” The Swiss and Dutch health systems look a lot like the Affordable Care Act's  health-insurance exchanges. About 90 percent of French  citizens have supplementary health insurance. Sweden has recently moved from a single-payer system to one with private insurers. The common factor, however is that  all these countries pay vastly less for drugs, surgeries or doctor visits than Americans do.

        Why, you ask?  Because in every case the government sets prices for health-care services and products. Insurers in Switzerland don’t negotiate drug prizes with Pfizer or Smith- Kline. The Swiss government simply sets its drug prices and lets Pfizer decide whether to sell in Switzerland -- or not. And sell they do!  “The problem is that in the U.S. payers are fragmented while in other countries they are unified even if there are many insurers,” according to Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at Johns Hopkins University.

        In the United States, insurers are left to negotiate with hospitals and drug companies on their own, resulting in their paying more as a result.  In fact, because of this weak negotiating position they frequently use whatever price Medicare is paying as a baseline and then, because they lack the power to strike a similar deal, add a percentage on top. One University economist  noted  that when Medicare increases what it pays for a service by $1, private insurers increase their payments by $1.30 a - 30% bump.  Thus, sadly,  US health care consumers suffer from the  worst of both approaches: Prices aren’t set by the market, but they also aren’t set by the government. Consequently, Medicare’s negotiating power is weakened by the threat that drug companies or hospitals will opt to do business only with higher-paying private insurers. We simultaneously miss out on the efficiency of a purely private system and on the savings of a purely public one.   Note that the previous  discussion refers to Medicare, a large entity, things are far more grim for the individual insurer.

6. "But I hate Socialism!"

        A: So did Theodore Roosevelt, but he knew extortion and monopoly when he saw it, too. I have written at length elsewhere outlining the profiteering of major drug companies. Above, I cited an "average" 19.9%  industry wide profit margin. Truth told, for the top three drug companies world- wide, the number is about 30%!!  While these sharks will tell you that all this profit goes into research and development, that is simply not so. All of the big three spend more on advertising than on research! They spend a lot on lobbying to protect the system which disadvantages each of us. A far too common trend is the gradual increasing of pricing on a drug as it nears the end of patent protection. While it costs progressively less to manufacture, sale price increases.  Multiple-sclerosis drugs are a good example—a study published n Neurology examined nine different MS drugs and found that their prices “increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation” between 1993 and 2013! Part of the blame for this piracy can be traced all the way back to Medicare, Part D.

        In 2006, the U.S. government made a great effort to improve access to approved cancer drugs by requiring Medicare Part D to cover such drugs. Conversely, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act contains legislation that forbids Medicare from negotiating drug prices. So -yes, Medicare must cover the drugs and yes, they must pay whatever the drug company has the balls to charge! These policies have created an opportunity for drug companies, rendering them the sole decision makers on the price of cancer drugs. At present there is considerable  question of whether current pricing of cancer drugs is based on reasonable expectation of return on investment or whether it is based on what prices the market can bear, with the latter a more reasonable assumption! It isn't just Martin Shkreli and Turing, either, a recent drug price change by Mallinkrodt for an infant seizure medication jacked the price from $33 per vial to $69o for the same dose!

        OK, that ought to do it for a while. I'm not 

going to post this as text on Face book, but will put it on my blog. and link to it on FB. Please if you have comments, let me know on FB. Thanks

Friday, December 11, 2015

The good, the bad and the incompetent


This in response to a former student and friend, one of the brightest and best of a whole slew of great kids over 20 years. her husband is teaching and he and the faculty in general are being jerked around by crisis managing administrators. It is, sadly, a syndrome with which I am not unfaniliar.

        All too frequently, such shoddy treatment is more an indictment of shitty administrators who fail to either make expectations clear, adequately explain and train to said expectations, or in the majority of the cases, crisis manage every event of the school year. Secondarily, it also arises  because of parents who want us to do things which ought to be  their jobs and then bitch about it when we do. I entered the public school teaching profession at the age of 49 with a master's degree in Human Resource Management having been exposed to and having exercised significant real leadership in a ,military setting when it really mattered over the previous 26 years or so. I was appalled at how little real knowledge of  people skills I saw evinced by many school  administrators.  Sadly, for faculty, this can sometimes mean becoming so used to bad or no leadership that a real leader who defines realistic goals, timelines and expectations is sometimes met with the well known and documented "resistance to change" syndrome which is a part of human nature.  Good schools are teams. Unfortunately many are not.

         As a codicil to this rant, and in fairness, There is a large and widening gap between generational norms of management and behavior, as the below chart points out..  



       A 60"ish" principal who expects a knee jerk positive response without question from a gen X,Y, or millennial teacher will almost assuredly be sadly disappointed. Tragically they probably have never been trained to know the difference. And yet, here we are with administrators being told by other administrators, ad nauseum,  that what is really important is the  meaningless "flavor of the month", hottest thing from California, being sold by a guy who has never actually done a year of public school teaching (can you say Marzano?).  We have repeatedly cycled through such crap, seemingly forever, driving potentially good teachers from the profession (along with shitty pay) while enabling marginal ones who connect all the dots like good little robots to remain and become entrenched in their marginality.  

     We would be far better served to allow real leadership and management training for administrators who already have the daunting task of  encouraging (supposedly) , training, and enabling brand new wide eyed  college graduates for success in what is at once the most frustrating and rewarding occupation there is.  We put these newbies at the mercy of administrators, some of  whom are only in their current job because either they really didn't like/weren't good at teaching or,  in many cases, left the classroom for more money.  The Peter Principle applies far too often in this instance.


       In any case  administrators who don't see the need to at least understand, if not identify with, their non age-peer faculty members can do more harm than good. I saw the gamut of administrators over 20 years at the same school, and was lucky for the most part, but as a  12 year member of the Classroom  Teachers' Association contract  committee in the nation's ninth largest school district,  I heard  horror stories of managerial and leadership incompetence which were staggering indictments of the supervisor/administrator  selection and appointment process.  We often saw elementary school principals who, apparently  believed that it made perfect sense to treat adult teachers, regardless of age, just like 6 year olds. Sad really. On one hand we expect top line professionalism from  23 year olds who are learning their craft, and stomp on their initiative and crucify them for not being perfect with all leadership ability and tactful guidance of  Donald Trump.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

With God on our side

Just some early morning brain droppings:
          First: Darwin and justice collided in Orlando last week, when a pair of house burglars were caught in the act. One fled in the conventional manner (on foot, on land) and was captured. The second however, apparently unencumbered by an IQ of greater than 50, fled into a lake. Let's make sure we understand - he went into a fairly large Central Florida lake at night. Days later, authorities recovered what the gator(s) didn't eat. Sometimes justice is served a la carte!

          Second: On the homemade dog biscuit front. This morning I stumbled on a "hack" (a term I swore I'd never use in this context) which made it sooo much easier, so here it is. If you have a standard sized food processor, put the nylon dough blade in (preferably, but the normal steel one will probably work) and dump in: 1 cup rolled oats. 2 cups whole wheat flour, i cup peanut butter, one small can (15 oz) of sweet potatoes in syrup, liquid and all. Blend until the dough comes together, It'll take a bit and I had to scrape down the sides several times (turn off the machine first!!!) The dough was perfect and blended far better and with much less mess than by hand. Put down some bench flour and flour a rolling pin. If you have spacers for the rolling pin use about 1/4 inch, but eyeballing it is fine. Roll and cut out the biscuits. Line a baking sheet with foil, spray with Pam, bake for 35 minutes at 350. Turn the oven off after 35 min. and let them cool in the oven. Belle will change the oil in the car for one of these. No preservatives, so store in the fridge. This makes about 30-32 biscuits, and at two per day, they are still fine when they are gone.

Third: I am so tired of political hacks appealing to the worst side of human nature (xenophobia and race/religious hatred) that I could puke. Having lived through the Civil Rights era I was hopeful that we were getting better. Now I'm not so sure. And yet, there are those on the far right, in such cesspools of hate speech and ignorance as Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma who would re- write history books as if we had always been the poster children for freedom and equality. 

     We should never forget, as we are being urged by some to  discriminate based, not on actions, but on religion and nationality that, once upon a time, Americans committed genocide on Indians for those same reasons, and Filipinos for even fewer reasons.  Christian Britons massacred Hindus, Irish Catholics, Maoris, and Zulus, to name but a few, in the name of empire. Christian Europeans slaughtered Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Crusades, Protestants slaughtered  Catholics, and vice versa, in the 30 years' war. It should be remembered that in many cases, the principal sin of the slaughtered was simply existing. All of this is apparently forgotten in light of current radical Islamic threats, which while abhorrent and brutal, are at least a response, however heinous, to a real stimulus.  Those who will not learn from history....... you know the rest!

Finally: From America's great poet of the 20th century, since much of the previous and current killing evinces the imprimatur of the messianic zeal of true believers:
Oh my name it is nothin’
My age it means less.
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I’s taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that the land that I live in
Has God on its side
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
l’s made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don’t count the dead
When God’s on your side
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side
I’ve learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It’s them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we’re forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God’s on your side
Through many dark hour
I’ve been thinkin’ about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can’t think for you
You’ll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side
So now as I’m leavin’
I’m weary as Hell
The confusion I’m feelin’
Ain’t no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God’s on our side
He’ll stop the next war

Bob Dylan (freely adapted from "The patriot game" by Dominic Behan)

Friday, December 4, 2015

It doesn't say that!

It seems, these days, that essentially every vocal pro-lifer cites some religious basis for their belief. Sometimes they even kill people to prove their point.  If this were just dogma, it would be simple to dismiss as the current ramblings of a religious leader who is making shit up as he goes, and there is plenty of that to go around (can you say Kim Davis?) Truth is, however, most of these persons cite  what they claim are Biblical justifications for their muscular pro-life stance. As a person unencumbered by any  attachment to the Bible as anything more than a poorly written (zero primary and precious little secondary source material) history of a minor Semitic tribe, I can, at least read what little there is relative to the topic without the handicap of  evaluating it through the filter of superstition.    

        Abortion as such is never mentioned in the New Testament portion of the  Bible, despite the fact that it has been practiced since ancient times by a variety of means. Jesus is mute on the subject, as he is on homosexuality. However, the OT books of  Genesis, Exodus and Numbers have interesting things to say which  toss all the current Evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic teachings, re: abortion, into the trash heap.

       Current avid pro-lifers, apparently with too much money and too little real knowledge of scripture, are fond of paying big bucks for roadside signs which trumpet "life begins at conception. If they choose to believe this, that's fine, just don't claim that it is really supported by scripture. There are many modern Evangelicals willing to interpret  some NT verses as relating to abortion, but that is dogma and modern bias applied to relatively simple words  in a way which , while suiting their modern desire for justification, are not such. This is especially relevant when we consider the "life begins at conception"  issue.

       The Old Testament,  In Genesis, clearly describes the beginning of life as related to the first drawing of breath, a position Augustine would echo in the 4th century. Of course modern apologists for the Church's current position blame this on Augustine's understanding based on "the inferior science of his day."  It would be well to recall, at this juncture, the fondness of the Church for killing , punishing, and censuring for a millennium, any who dared contradict that same "inferior" science.    
Exodus bumps that age of  "legal existence" to 1 month, apparently since infant mortality rates caused many newborns to die. Similar provisions appear in Leviticus and Numbers.

        Most significantly, and in direct contradiction to the Santorum, Cruz, Walker, Huckabee. et al cabal who insist that every pregnancy be allowed to proceed to fruition , no matter the circumstance, is the book of Numbers, the 5th chapter.  In summary, it provides the recipe for a priest to use to induce abortion in cases of adultery. Bear in mind, that in context, this would have included rape, as well, in a society where women are held accountable for any sex act performed upon them.  The drinking of the prescribed potion is actually the trial, in which God will kill the product of adultery; there is no requirement here or burden of proof on the husband.

  
      So: If you oppose abortion  on religious grounds. there is no justification in the Bible for your position. Don't cite more modern NT "interpretations";  they are the products of humans with an agenda. It should be noted that the overwhelming number of makers of such interpretative pronouncements have no uteri. 

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

More forgettable motion picture silliness

I read today that, media  furor notwithstanding, the new Adam Sandler movie "The Ridiculous Six" will be released by Netflix. There have been numerous complaints and protests , principally by Native American groups who cite several racial and ethnic slurs and portrayals of Indians. Examples include an  Indian woman squatting to pee while apparently smoking a peace pipe, a "squaw" named "Doesn't wear a bra,"  and other equally inappropriate and inane references.

        If this were all that was wrong with this film, it would suffice, but there is more, oh, so much more. Where to begin?

        OK, for starters, Sandler actually was able to convince someone with money that it was necessary and/or proper to attempt a remake (a "comedy" remake, no less) of the iconic western "The Magnificent Seven.  Remaking this motion picture as a comedy is only even worth considering if your name is Mel Brooks, and even he demurred. Sandler's decision to do so evinces a degree of hubris on a par with deciding to cast Paris Hilton as the lead in "The Mother Theresa Story."  This motion picture in its original form had a cast of  real actors, many with Oscar nominations and awards. You might assume that  Sandler might cast himself in the Steve McQueen role, or perhaps the Eli Wallach, Charles Bronson  or Yul  Brynner roles?  One waits with bated breath.         

        Secondly and more to the point. When did someone decide that Sandler really had the chops to carry a feature length film? Was it the flukey success of  Happy Gilmore, a film with actual moments much like what Sandler can actually do - that is sustain a 5 minute sketch, a la SNL? Sandler and Bob Barker calling each other names is actually funny for about three minutes. The Hanukkah Song is also an amusing three minutes, as were  the lunch lady sketches.  I think Sandler jumped the shark for me when he actually conned Kathy Bates into co-starring in "Waterboy."  She certainly didn't need the money, so I assume he blackmailed her.  It is equally remarkable to me that Burt Reynolds didn't find and kill him for remaking and ruining   "The Longest Yard."  And, lord knows, Billy Idol wasn't acting when he curled his lip at Sandler in "The Wedding Singer"


        Finally, someone, anyone, please tell Sandler that he isn't, and never will be, Ben Stiller. He lacks the acting chops and humanity  which Stiller displays when called for. Stiller is an actor first, comic actor second, a point lost on Sandler. Take every Adam Sandler attempt at comedy film  making so far (and I exclude Fifty First Dates, a somewhat non-comedic outing made better by Drew Barrymore's presence) and they are woefully short of Stiller's  genius turn in Zoolander. I just grinned simply thinking about  that movie. I have to stop now, I think I got the black lung, Pa.   

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Thanksgiving - the real story and the real moral!

         Below is yet another meme which is so horribly incorrect. Did the Pilgrims share their Thanksgiving meal with the local Indians, the Wampanoag and Pequot? No. That never happened, at least as pictured here. That is, until its inclusion in the "Thanksgiving Story" in 1890. The concept (openness and welcome to those in need)  has merit, but memes like this are what the Far Right does, and we of the center and left need to do better.  There is so much wrong with this image that one scarcely knows where to start. First, it didn't happen. Look at the Anglo woman conversing with the indian woman. No indian woman would have been present, only an armed war party of men. Notice the unarmed Pilgrim men, one holding a serving bowl- not! This is a romanticized and historically inaccurate depiction of a fictitious event.



        The REAL first Thanksgiving Day did occur in the year 1637, but it was nothing like our Thanksgiving today. In 1637 near present day Groton, Connecticut, over 700 men, women and children of the Pequot Tribe had gathered for their annual Green Corn Festival which is our Thanksgiving celebration. In the predawn hours the sleeping Indians were surrounded by English and Dutch mercenaries who ordered them to come outside. Those who came out were shot or clubbed to death while the terrified women and children who remained huddled inside the longhouse were burned alive. The next day the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared "A Day Of Thanksgiving" because 700 unarmed men, women and children had been murdered.  Cheered by their "victory", the brave colonists and their Indian allies attacked village after village. Women and children over 14 were sold into slavery while the rest were murdered. Boats loaded with as many as 500 slaves regularly left the ports of New England. Bounties were paid for Indian scalps to encourage as many deaths as possible.

        Following an especially successful raid against the Pequot in what is now Stamford, Connecticut, the churches announced a second day of "thanksgiving" to celebrate victory over the heathen savages. During the feasting, the hacked off heads of Natives were kicked through the streets like soccer balls. Even the friendly Wampanoag did not escape the madness, as Metacom  (King Philip) of the Wampanoag resisted (King Philip's War), ultimately being captured.  Metacom,  son of Massasoit, whose non-aggression had been critical to the Pilgrims survival during their first 4 or 5 years at Plimoth Plantation,  was drawn, quartered, beheaded, and his head impaled on a pole in Plymouth, Massachusetts -- where it remained on display for 24 years.

       Of course this is the true story, but the Far Rightists in Kansas and Texas would scrub the textbooks clean of the truth in order to further propagandize their children that we (the USA) have always done everything right and with moral correctness!  Of course this implies that we could never learn from our mistakes, because we never made any.  The truth, as relates to our dealings with native populations in North America is vastly different! Outside the US , this story is almost unknown.  This story doesn't convey the same fuzzy feelings as the one where the Indians and Pilgrims are all sitting down together at the big feast.  But we need to learn our true history so it won't ever be repeated.

        Thanksgiving as we celebrate it today is a wonderful idea, with a generally unconditionally welcoming and inclusive  national spirit which reflects well on the nation as a whole,  Next  Thanksgiving, when you gather with your loved ones to be thankful  for all your blessings, think about those people, then and now, who only want(ed)  to live their lives and raise their families in peace.  They, also took time out to say "thank you" to Creator for all their blessings. We should not treat them as the  Pilgrims ultimately treated the Pequots.

        

Friday, November 20, 2015

Modern Levites

        Many modern people, especially Christians, hear the word parable, and believe that they were  invented by Jesus and  used specifically to illustrate religious concepts.  Although this hubris is frequently typical of the arrogance which sometimes accompanies the messianic zeal of the true believer, parables  were not original with Jesus, or his era.

        The word parable actually comes from the Greek,   meaning "comparison, illustration, analogy."  It was the name given by Greek rhetoricians to an illustration in the form of a brief fictional narrative. The object of both parable and allegory  is to enlighten the hearer by submitting to him a case in which he has apparently no direct concern, and upon which therefore a disinterested judgment may be elicited from him.  A  parable is more condensed than the allegory, generally  resting  upon a single principle and a single moral, and it is intended that the reader or listener would (or should)  conclude that the moral applies equally well to his own concerns. Aesop used somewhat extended allegorical parables probably 550 years before the supposed birth of Christ.  In fact, the parables of Jesus also, at times,  incorporate the Socratic method as an enhancement.

        Interestingly enough, the parables most seen in art and most used as "good examples" have little to do with God, per se, and much to say about interpersonal relations and moral concepts related to them. Perhaps  the most well known and most frequently  depicted of  the parables of Jesus is the story of the  Good Samaritan, which has  little to do with religion and lots to do with  how we are to treat people. Interestingly enough, the "hook" of the story is essentially the golden rule, or the ethic of reciprocity.  Again, like the use of parables, this concept pre-dates even the Old Testament in writing, appearing  as far back as the Egyptian middle kingdom, even before Abraham had his alleged tȇte-a ̀- tȇte with God.  The concept of reciprocity is central  to essentially every major world religion for the past 4,000 years.  

        The essence of the story is that a man in need was ignored by first a priest, and then a Levite, but a Samarian, traditionally hostile to Jews, came to his assistance.  Now most of us know this story well, since it is frequently cited as a divine model for appropriate behavior  for the observant Christian.


        Leap ahead to the modern and consider the response of many, far too many,  self- proclaimed  Christians  to the plight of Syrian refugees. If you profess to be a true Christian and you buy into the pure unadulterated bullshit being hyped by most GOP  presidential wannabees, as well as numerous Republican governors, then you need to shift colors, because you my friend are the priest and the Levite. Of course many secular humanists  who have only their rational minds to apply to this crisis feel differently.  In actuality, they are the Samaritans to a great extent. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?  

Sunday, November 15, 2015

More GOP Blame Game



Reading the comments re: the horror story unfolding in Paris, and fielding the stray thoughts as they arise in response to some of the utter drivel being written.

In no particular order: Those who are advocating
all out "war on Isis", seem to have little or no concept of the difference between this lamentable situation and a "conventional" (for want of a better word) war. Of course they are appalled, as are we all, that the events in Paris happened, considering as we all do, that the dead and injured were/are "innocent civilians." What seems to pass unnoticed is the realization that any purely military effort to eliminate the threat of ISIS' terrorism will surely involve the death of not 150 civilians, but more like thousands of men women and children, whose only crime is living in a city occupied by ISIS forces.

In the minds of these persons, that's acceptable collateral damage because, well, because they're Muslims. I find the most amazing contradiction in the minds of those whose strenuous Christianity impels them to think and act in a most decidedly unchristian-like manner. These persons, many of whom insist on the continued existence of Israel as a state, as pre-requisite for establishing the conditions for the "second coming," should actually be hoping that if there was or is a Jesus who is a God and he comes back, and holds mankind accountable for moral behavior as he defined it, they are in trouble.

Finally: There is much delusional denial among those who supported the Bush desert adventure (The son's, not the father's) as to W's culpability and/or or share of the responsibility for the current situation. The argument goes along the lines of completely denying that the Iraq invasion was unjustified, and that when Bush left office Iraq had a stable central government and a viable military. Of course recent events put the lie to both statements, but these geopolitical naĂ¯f's continue, blaming President Obama for complying with Bush's withdrawal agreement. What is far less understood is really the "story behind the story" of the immense failure to rebuild civilian controlled military authority in Iraq. While it was a daunting task in any event, considering the millennium plus of sectarian strife in the region, the Bush administration by total failure to understand the culture and history of the parties involved, made it impossible.

Letting W, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowicz off the hook sounds good to GOP ers, but it simply isn't true.

Assuming we all agree that W's invasion of Iraq destabilized the region (really non-debatable) The issue then became "How do we reconstruct Iraq?" Remember, how many times Bush said categorically that we weren't going to get involved in "nation building?"

The initial choice to head that process, General Jay Garner, was bright enough to know that we had to incorporate and use former police and military personnel, especially those with education, in any reconstructed central authority. He proceeded upon that course, realizing that many of the former Iraqi military were no more in love with Saddam then we were. This, however was not "punitive" (for want of a better word) enough for Wolfowitz, Cheney, and especially Rumsfeld, at whose insistence, W replaced the administrator with another who alienated the former security forces and police, summarily making them unemployed and angry.


Paul Bremer, a civilian whose only former overseas assignment of stature was in Norway (that hotbed of unrest) was that guy. As the top civilian administrator of the former Coalition Provisional Authority, Bremer was permitted to rule by decree. Among his first and most notable decrees were Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1, which banned the Ba'ath party in all forms and Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2 dismantled the Iraqi Army. In 2014 he called for "a reconstituted Iraqi army". The issue, of course was that all the real army guys with experience were forbidden from having any role in the process. The result haunts us today.

       As much as GOPers would love to absolve Bush 43 and his cohort, it is historically unjustified. Alternately, these people immediately somehow blame the current administration for this. The theme seems to go that instead of holding individuals accountable for their actions, we should have, all along, been blaming an entire religion and its adherents. The closest analogy I can come up with would be to hold the Pope accountable for the hatred spewed by the Westboro Baptist Church, or holding all Christians accountable for Hitler's atrocities.

     The real tragedy is that ISIS, as much as anything arose from Western efforts to overthrow, or enable the overthrow of the brutal Assad regime in Syria. It was the Syrian uprising (a nation where we had zero troops, (zip, nada, none ) which triggered the following chain of events: As the last Americans left Iraq, the uprising in Syria pitted the country’s vast Sunni majority against the ruthless regime of Bashar al-Assad. There was little or no reliable intel to have predicted this upheaval, but Syria rapidly dissolved into anarchy. At this point, had President Obama actually tried to re-insert troops in Iraq, he'd have probably been impeached!

     Desperate and seeing an opportunity, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, dispatched a handful of soldiers to Syria, where, in a matter of months, they had gathered an army of followers and had begun attacking the Assad regime. Suddenly, Baghdadi’s group—which had been staggering toward the grave only months before—was regaining strength. In 2013, the I.S.I. became the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria. ISIS was born. hey were/are a self created group, born of a singularity, but a weak Iraq created the nursery. Imagine if the (at least) 800,000 out of work Iraqi police and military who now hated the USA had been reincorporated into the Army of a strong Iraq. Sad, really, isn't it?