musings

 Musings

        It occurred to me the other day that just about every time I hear someone start a sentence with "Well, I'm a Christian, and.....!" I should be prepared to hear something either inane, venal, ignorant or any combination of those.

        Most recently, it was a woman weighing in on the (trans) gender associated bathroom controversy in a nearby county's schools. She opened her mouth and what came out was "Well, I'm a Christian and I believe that we are what we are born as." Of course, she was stating her opinion in opposition to allowing persons to use the bathroom appropriate to their gender identity, vice their plumbing.  As I weighed the varieties of ignorance evidenced by her pronouncement, delivered , of course in a typically morally upright, judgmental. and frankly snotty  tone, it came to me that she doesn't even know what she doesn't know.

        First off, let's be clear. Any pseudo-Biblical justification, which one would  think would be her basis for discrimination , is non-existent. The Bible is moot on transgender issues. That leaves the rash of transgender rapes in rest rooms. Oh wait...that never happens.  Finally, we come down to the real Leviticus driven fallacy  that for some reason permeates the brains of Christian (and other) fundamentalists. In the minds of most unwashed born agains,  any person whose gender identity, style of dress, sexual  preference, or whatever, are not main stream missionary position with the lights off oriented , is surely not only "homosexshull" but a pedophile as well.  Both assumptions are, of course, well and exhaustively documented as totally fallacious. This (factual information) of course bounces off the cast iron skull of many Christians like Johnny Manzeil recoiling from reason.

        It is disappointing how many otherwise reasonable  humans cannot overcome this disability. I once had a principal, a man whose judgment I respected in matters of educational leadership,  prove this point.  I was on the Orange County Classroom Teachers' association contract negotiating team for years, and when asked how negotiations were proceeding, I mentioned that  we had (again) been rebuffed by the district in our attempts to insert gender preference language in the County's mission statement along with other non-discrimination protection language. The reason, of course, is that if such language existed, then an aggrieved and discriminated against employee would have EEOC support. 

       The response from this man was "Well, what if their preference is children?" This was a person, just short of a PhD, equating  being gay with being a pedophile.  I then pointed out that I was aware of every charge brought against every member over the previous ten years or so, and that while there had been, regrettably, instances of inappropriate behavior by teachers of one sex against students of another, there had never, over that same period,  been any charge leveled against a gay teacher for any inappropriate contact or dialogue with a student. None. Period.  The discussion ended abruptly when I opined that if we wanted to really safeguard children, we should only hire gay teachers. Cue the crickets!    

When Johnny Comes Marching Home

When Johnny Comes Marching Home

      “Sometimes you wonder",  the Republican asked, “would there be some way to introduce some private sector competition” into veterans’ care?  What? Who said that?  It was 2012, and it was Mitt Romney, famous non-veteran and spokesperson for "Corporations are people, my friend!"  As "W" before him, Romney,  laissez- faire capitalism's perpetual bitch, couldn't stay away from the idea that  privatization is a cure for anything. One recalls that Bush II  wanted to look at privatization of Social Security which, considering the 2007-8 faux mortgage debacle and subsequent market collapse, would have been catastrophic.

        More recently, another expert on things military, Ben Carson , floated a similar notion   “We don’t need a Department of Veterans Affairs!”  This,  despite the VA’s record of excellence, and the fact that the VA system as a whole outperforms the rest of the health care system by just about every metric. Amidst even the harshest recent criticism,  all recent surveys also show that veterans give VA hospitals and clinics a higher customer satisfaction than patients give private-sector hospitals.

        Yeah. I know..."So what?"  I mention these things because as usual, in this seemingly interminable pre-election group bitch slapping exhibition, one significant factoid continues slipping by under the radar; that being the all too familiar phenomenon of ignorant citizens rabidly supporting candidates who do not have their best interests at heart. In this cycle we're seeing ex-military, military wannabees and generally unwashed militia dropouts all clamoring their support for Republican candidates who have little or no regard for any aspect of their life except their vote.

        As a military retiree, I have been confounded for years by this contradictory behavior  by many former peers. The subtleties of the current attitude of Republican establishment money men against the VA are far off the radar of the general public,  but reflect the very worst of self serving and venal attitudes of those who won't serve, but will happily feast on the bones  those who did

       The Commission on Care, created in 2014 was established to review and evaluate Veterans medical issues. Since many members were appointed by Congress, it follows that it is partisan in nature, and recent overt and covert actions reflect that bias.  It just so happens that four of the 15 members of the commission are executives with major medical centers that stand to gain from the outsourcing of veterans’ care. Another works for CVA (Concerned Veterans of America, a Koch brothers-backed group) and yet another for an organization allied with CVA. Last month these six commissioners plus a seventh were discovered to have written  a secret draft of the commission’s recommendations – in which they call for full privatization of the VA by 2035 – in possible violation of the Sunshine and Federal Advisory Committee Acts. This revelation infuriated the other commission members. It also led prominent veterans’ groups, including the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, to send a letter to the commission chair slamming the secret draft and expressing their united opposition to privatizing the VA.

        Over the last year, every major GOP candidate with the exception of Trump has made a vote whoring pilgrimage to gatherings put on by Concerned Veterans for America (CVA), an almost non-entity just four years ago, having  barely formed during the 2012 primary cycle. Whereas candidates back in the day were under pressure from the old-line veterans’ groups to promise undying support for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and its nationwide network of hospitals and clinics, the opposite has been true this season. Candidates at CVA rallies are now out shouting each other  to badmouth the VA and its allegedly shabby treatment of veterans. And all have pledged support for the CVA’s goal of moving as many vets as possible out of the VA into private care. Even Trump is calling for more “choice.”

        All this raises several questions to a reflective thinker.  I warn you, that some of my suggestions will offend liberals and conservatives alike.

"Is the VA medical system as it is today, reflective of the reasons it was established in the first place?" 

        I would suggest that the answer is, "Yes, but should it be?" As originally incepted, the VA was intended to guarantee that no American who was wounded or disabled in the active service of his country should  ever suffer from lack of availability of medical care. This dates back to pre-Civil War times, when even revolutionary veterans were supported by the community in many cases if disabled or indigent. At that time several significant factors that are relevant today didn't exist, those being Social Security (and the availability of disability), Medicare/Medicaid, and the proliferation of Health care insurance.

        Let's consider two men. One graduated high school, entered college and avoided the Vietnam debacle. The other graduated high school, did not go to college, was drafted and served his two years as a telephone switchboard operator at an army base in Arizona.  Both, by age 25 were healthy and  working. The College man works 40 years and has a major heart attack. He is dependent on private health insurance and, in the worst case, Medicaid, and maybe even social Security disability. The draftee, who never left the US, and left the Military in perfect health, suffers the same trauma 40 years later and has cost free VA medical care.  Why? What is the consequence of this non-service related coverage?

        Understand, I believe that any person who does service for his country, draftee (not any more) or volunteer, deserves full and lifetime medical coverage at a VA facility for any service connected medical condition or disability - physical or emotional .  Having said that, we are currently reading of  VA hospitals (as in Phoenix, a retirement haven) crammed with men and women who simply choose to go there in spite of the fact that they were, in many cases, physically unaffected by military service  and have no service connected issues at all.

        In like manner, back before retirees of 20 years' service or more had health insurance for life (Tricare, which at 65 becomes the best Medicare supplement on the planet), there was a more legitimate reason  for  retirees to use VA facilities. That is simply no longer true, but in Wisconsin alone, for example,  about 11,000 retirees with superb health care insurance (Tricare or Medicare/Tricare)  who should be using private  medicine and facilities, clog up VA clinics , not because they must, but because they can.  I live in the Villages, Florida, and have a friend, retired from the Navy on 24 years and the General Services administration for an additional 20. This person insists on using the VA for most routine, and some extensive medical services, although he has no service connected health issues. With retirement in the 100K annually range and ultra premium health care coverage via Medicare and Tricare, I believe this to be wrong, as every minute spent by the VA on this person who has no need of VA care is taken from a deserving veteran whose financial straits may make the VA his provider of last resort.

        I must point out that my late brother, a two year draftee, was treated for non service related medical issues at the VA. I am glad that he was, because like far too many Americans, he could not afford high quality health insurance, but should he have been ? I honestly believe not.  His medical issues had absolutely nothing to do with his military service of 40 years earlier.     

        So privatizing the VA without changing eligibility requirements simply adds more profit money to our already bloated medical establishment, since the VA is non-profit, and all else is definitely not!  If the desire is to streamline the VA and insure top quality care for those who actually deserve it, make a few simple rule changes, grandfathering those already in the system, of course.

1. Continue lifetime VA accountability for any and all service connected medical conditions or disabilities but, if the member is discharged in good physical and emotional health (as the majority are, since  only about 15% actually are deployed  in overseas military operations, and about half of those might ever see combat or hostile fire) that should terminate the health care relationship between the member and the service. Period. It simply strikes me as ludicrous that a discharged service person in good health can be injured on a civilian work site 36 years later and the VA is responsible for them, rather than Workman's Comp. and the employer. Yet it happens  all too frequently. If a condition emerges 10 years after separation, allow for VA reevaluation for service connectedness.

2. Retirement as a healthy individual from the military, with the attendant premium healthcare associated with retirement  should also sever the medical responsibility of the VA, unless an emergent condition is identified as having service connection. VA hospitals are crowded with terminal lung cancer patients whose decision to smoke for 50 years after a two year draft period has zero to do with the military and everything to do with a bad life style choice.

3. Of course, single payer universal health care would make all this irrelevant!

Liars, Liars, Pants on Fire.

         Yet one more letter in Sunday's news,  denouncing Hillary Clinton as apparently  the biggest liar in the history of American politics. The problem with such statements is that they reflect only  opinion, and are clearly biased to the extent that truth has become the casualty.

     A reasonable research effort reveals significantly different facts than those alleged in the letter.  Using data from a  news organization with ties to a conservative Midwest newspaper chain shows that  evaluating all statements from  candidates (and some non-candidates just as a point of interest and comparison) from both parties  shows some interesting facts regarding truthfulness in politics, admittedly an oxymoron much of the time. categorizing  statements by third party validation lets us group various candidates' statements. 

For simplicity, I grouped them by percentages of response as: True/Mostly true (T/MT),  Mostly false(M/F) and Completely Untrue/Blatant Lie (C/U) .

                    T/MT        M/F            C/U        

Obama         76%         12%             12%

Clinton         71%         15%             14%

Sanders        68%         17%              15%

Cruz             35%          29%             36%

Trump          24%         16%              60%  (!!)

Kasich          67%         15%              18%

Ryan             47%         29%             15%

Palin              44%         15%            41%

The all time winner, however, discounting radio rabble rousers, is former Congressperson  and former Presidential wannabee Michele Bachmann, whose percentage of either outright or blatant lies constitutes 62% of her political statements. I find it illustrative of the state of American politics that one party slanders the relatively truthful candidates(s) of the other, while generally ignoring their own truthful  office seeker (John Kasich)  and lauding  the fact that the biggest liar of the lot (Trump)is close to a nomination for the Presidency.   

Sarurday morning musings

Saturday morning musings

   

     As they always do on Saturday, today's  Villages daily newspaper ran the weekly column of  that senile, bigoted God-monger, Billy Graham. Today's gem was headlined, "The Bible doesn't forbid organ donation!"   My initial reaction was, "Really?  You mean when the Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD and decided what was really scripture and what wasn't, that someone peered 1700 years into the future and foresaw organ transplants?"  One assumes the logic then was, "Hey, 18 centuries from now a pope might need a kidney?" As an aside, the Bible also doesn't forbid pedophilia (a loophole exploited for centuries by some priests and the Mormon church), Reality TV, Hula hoops,  and Strawberry Twizzlers either, although that last  one should be banned as an insult to real licorice.

        A commercial which aired during the local news, extolling the virtues of some brand (I've forgotten which) of dog food, proudly proclaimed the inclusion of "Naturally sourced Sunflower seeds."  Now we've shared our various homes over the years with numerous sweet pups, from Bart the Wonder Dog to Belle, the world's most exquisite Bassett Hound. Other than being  of the genus Canidae, the only thing they really had in common was that neither ever indicated that they gave a shit about  seeds, sunflower or other. I mean can you imagine the state of the carpet if your dog ate and spit sunflower seeds all day?  Of course these are, as advertised, "Naturally sourced."  One is left to suppose that those artificial sunflower seeds (?) just don't cut it.

          Just briefly:  At what point do we just revoke someone's right to hold  public office for poor judgment, lack of impulse control, and bad taste? Our governor, Rick (Bat-boy) Scott must certainly be the test case. After being berated in a Starbucks by a dissatisfied and , admittedly, vocal and pissed off constituent, this "should be" felon was unable to just let it alone. He apparently took her rebukes so deeply to heart that he felt obligated to reply in a video. If every Floridian who thinks Rick Scott is a stain on the fabric of Florida politics responded in kind, the internet would implode.

        And finally (for today) the most recent sign of the impending red neck, zombie, brain dead apocalypse - the "NASCAR  Duck Commander 500", somewhere in Texas (where the f**k else?). "Stock (as if)" cars, drunken crash junkie voyeurs,  bigoted, bearded, homophobic sponsors.....It just don't get no better'n this, does it, Vern?  Know what I mean?"     

A Horses' Tale

        This in response to  Facebook discussion wherein someone mentioned that  their English ancestors had brought the first horses to Jamestown, in Virginia Colony, which led to a multi-party general discussion of equine  origins in North America:

        Absolutely, (name of poster) ! I wasn't being contradictory regarding the English horses' origins re: Virginia at  all, but it just ain't that simple!  The horse got here (to America) by sundry paths!  There is no doubt in my mind of your  ancestors  bringing the horse from England.  Remember, however, that some of these same Virginians also proudly claim that the pony herds on Assateague Island (VA) are descendents of Spanish horses shipwrecked there in the 1500s!  Said claims, are suspect, as there is no recorded history of such events, and even more compelling, the size and conformation of the Assateague herd suggests Northern European origin, probably from the stocks brought by your ancestors.  Assateague ponies more closely resemble ponies I've seen on Dartmoor, Welsh Bog Ponies, and Shetland ponies. The first horses actually documented as brought from England arrived in 1609. Those unfortunate critters ended up as food during the "Starving Time" winter of 1609-10!

          I would have zero doubt that the first domestic horses from England came into  Jamestown, or that local indigenous native Indian groups were unfamiliar with the horse to any significant degree, since they were Algonquian speakers, and most likely not in contact with more southern and western tribes. What we do know with relative certainty is that  when Cortez landed on the land which is now Mexico in 1512, the only large animals known  on either continent were the sure-footed, high country  Camelids,   Llamas and Alpacas, which had been domesticated in South America long before. There is however, in the interest of full disclosure, archeological evidence to suggest the dog has been used in some work capacity for at least 4,000 years, especially in the extreme northwest, as sled dogs, but also to pull travois. 

        One of the things which is well established is that the American Plains Indian could not have possibly had contact with the horse before the three Spanish contacts of De Leon (1513-his horses may well  be progenitors of the current Florida wild stock on Payne's Prairie FL), De Soto-(1540s, along Gulf coast and up into the Southeast , over to the  Mississippi and west), and Coronado-(1550s - Southwest at least up to the Grand Canyon, initially with 558 horses!).

          What is known from primary sources is that Hernando Cortez  in 1519 sent 16 horses into (modern day) New Mexico and Arizona with colonizers.  And yet, by the time Northern Europeans reached into the plains as settlers, they (Plains tribes) had become some of the finest light cavalry ever and some,  like the  Nez Perce farther north and west,  had even began breeding horses with special characteristics, such as the Apaloosa. It was Indian horses given to Lewis and Clark by Sacagawea's brother, Shoshone chief Cameahwait, which enabled then to cross the Rockies. It   would have been extremely unlikely, probably impossible, that the widening horse culture of the plains would have even been known to the more northeaster  native populations by 1603. However that might be, there is a possibility, however slight, that farther West and South in what is now Virginia, the horse had at least been seen.

       Discounting Vikings, (unvalidated theories  abound!) The first European explorers in what is now Virginia were Spanish, who landed at two separate places,  decades before the English founded Jamestown. The Spanish had charted the eastern Atlantic coastline north of Florida by 1525. In 1542,  Hernando De Soto in his expedition to the continent first encountered the Chisca, who then lived in southwestern Virginia. In the spring of 1567, the conquistador Juan Pardo, from a base at Fort San Juan,  in present-day western North Carolina, sent a detachment under  Moyano de Morales into present-day Virginia. This expedition destroyed the Chisca village of Maniatique, where present-day Saltville, Virginia later developed, about 350 miles southwest of Jamestown.

       It also noteworthy, although just an aside to this discussion,  that while there is little mention of the horse, in English commentaries on Jamestown, most of which are miserable diary entries for the first 5 to ten years, there are no mentions in those primary source writings  of bison (buffalo) either,  although, they were plentiful in the wooded regions of the Virginia Piedmont well into the 1700s. Jefferson in his "Notes on The State of Virginia" (pub. 1781)  describes the American Woods bison, but remember, "Virginia" as it was pre-Constitution,  extended all the way to  the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers. The year after T.J. published "Notes,"  Virginia ceded the "Northwest Territories" to the new nation as public lands, and took its present shape with West Va.  as part of that area.  The Bison lived in Virginia until the last was killed in 1832, in what would admittedly now be West Virginia.

        Recent DNA and tissue analysis indicates that Equus (modern horse) existed in North America until extinction along with other mammals about 5600 years ago. There have been tissue remains of  both camelids and horses  identified  by several independent examiners on Clovis points of ca. 11,000 BCE  in the last decade. This further modifies former theories that only proto-horses existed in the New World.  Statistical analysis by Andrew Solow, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution  explored the radiocarbon dating of the 24 most recent known ancient horse fossils. His analysis suggests that ancient horses of Alaska could have persisted to as recently as perhaps 10,000 years ago, providing an  Equus/human overlap of centuries. What these horses were definitely not, by all indices, is domesticated!

        Evidence of early Americans hunting horses have also been uncovered by University of Calgary scientists, who discovered the remains of a pony-sized horse while excavating the dry bed of the St Mary Reservoir in southern Alberta, British Columbia.  Several of the horse’s vertebrae were smashed and it had what appeared to be butcher marks on several bones. About 500 meters from the skeleton, they found several Clovis spearheads. Protein residue testing and examination confirmed they had been used to hunt horse. Dubbed by some "The Yukon Horse" , this animal would have been of roughly the same  shape/size as the modern  Somali Wild Ass and the Zebra, as indicated by fossil remains.

       However it evolved, the "second"  American horse experience eventually combined stocks of Northern European draft animals and the  Spanish horse (Arabs, Barbs and Moors), all taller and slimmer than  the sturdier, stockier and hardier horse of the North. Whatever the source, the horse,  being assimilated more rapidly than the vast majority of cultural adaptations, changed forever the life of the Southern and Midwestern American Indian, bringing some tribes (Siouans, etc) out of the wooded verges of the plains onto the prairie as they could now move with the huge Bison herds. Farther Southwest, the adoption of the horse was instrumental in the Kiowa, Comanche, Southern Cheyenne, Arapahoe and others severely hindering Spanish colonial efforts. Farther North and West, it enabled the Cayuse, Nez Perce, Shoshone and others to come out of the mountains for seasonal buffalo hunts as well. Cowboying as we know it is the evolved invention of the Spanish vaquero using the smaller, more compact horse which evolved from the Spanish imports.

So ends the horses' tale for today!

Get over it!

I wasn't going to say anything about this, but the more Facebook comments I read, the more it became apparent that there are some people in this country so retrograde in their thinking and so ignorant of anything outside their own trailer park that it is laughable and tragic at the same time, if that's possible.

The man in the photo, West Point Grad, Army Ranger and Bronze Star awardee,  Capt. Simratpal Singh, after applying through the chain of command has been granted permission to wear a turban,  wear his hair long, and wear a beard in accordance with the dictates of his religion, which he has eschewed for the previous 8 years,  Read the entire story here:  

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sikh-officer-in-u-s-army-wins-fight-for-religious-accommodation-1459554547

My initial reaction was that any Sikh who wishes to join the US Military is a valuable asset. I say that based on my knowledge of the contributions made by Sikhs in  various wars as our allies. British Army Sikhs were  instrumental in the liberation of Burma and have fought bravely in Afghanistan.  I would far rather have a Sikh as a friend than as an enemy, as they have a reputation for fierce loyalty and military discipline.

        The type of snotty comments which really got to me were the sort of thinly disguised aspersions you'd expect of   Christians who believe they are practitioners of the only real faith on the planet and  eager to cast criticisms on anyone  who is different.  There were (paraphrasing for brevity and correctness of spelling) "Well, what if a guy wants to wear a Hijab?"  Of course there are  multitude of errors in thought evident in this question. First  a hijab is a head scarf worn by women, not "a guy."  More to the point, wearing a hijab is not an Islamic article of faith, as the turban and beard are to Sikhs. 

        Another comment from a woman of at least my age, complained that this sort of "kinder, gentler" Army was why  "Many are leaving the Army."  Obviously she isn't really all that old if she has her finger on the pulse of today's army. 

         Even more to the point, there is nothing "kinder, gentler" about recruiting and retaining dedicated Sikhs in the US military. She seems to think that doing so is a sign of weakness, again proving that she knows zip about Sikhism.  A little reading before shooting off one's mouth would show the proud history of Sikh regiments  as well as integrated Sikhs in the British and Canadian armies. Captain Singh isn't even the first American soldier granted this religious accommodation,  he's just the first officer. The values prized and practiced by Sikhs are in many ways superior to those of modern Christianity and have been for centuries.

        Our allies to the north have a better understanding of the value of Sikhs in the ,military and have since before  WWII.  Obviously so does Queen Elizabeth. The  Canadian army has a Sikh in command of a regular army (not Sikh) regiment.  There are also two Sikhs, one male, one female in the Canadian Prime Minster's  cabinet, as well.  Sikhs have been more evident in Canada over the last 100 years, to some extent because of the far lesser degree of xenophobia exhibited by most Canadians

 These are Sikhs of the British Army. Snappy looking uniforms, huh?

This Sikh is the new Canadian Defense Minister!

And finally, this is a Remembrance Day (as in our Memorial Day) ceremony in Britain. Of course the same carping old farts who bitch about Captain Singh's  beard and turban would probably be fine if the wore a tam, a skirt, and a reverse fanny pack! 

And just because of the humor I sometimes find in abysmally ignorant points of view, here for comparison is a photo of an American  Civil War uniform, that of the New York Zouave regiment. Please note the out of regulation mustache. The engraving is of members of the regiment, of course they couldn;t have really been good soldiers, I mean look at the headgear shoes and beards, My heavens!