Real History by the Numbers

370: The number of written treaties made between the United States  government and various native populations.

0: The number of said treaties honored by the US Government.

***

25,000: A (probably) high estimate of Christians killed by Muslims in the past 30 years. This includes some who fled their nation (Iraq, Iran,Syria)  but weren't actually killed.

Between  6.5 and 11 million: Number of Christians killed by other  Christians in the 30 Years' War in the 1600s.

24 million: Number of native peoples killed by Spanish Christians, principally for not being Christian and being unwilling to convert  during Spanish conquest of America 1492-1550

2 to 4 million: number of French (Protestant) Christians killed by other French (Catholic) Christians (and vice versa) 1562-1598.

***

More than 242: Number of predictions of the end of the world based on shamanic interpretations of ancient folk lore, aka the Bible, Koran, and Hindu writings.

0: Number of correct predictions 

***

1.35 million: Number of deaths incurred 1965-1974 while trying in vain to keep South Vietnam from becoming Communist.

0: number of Vietnamese citizens who live in a non-communist state.

0: number of deaths which would have yielded the same result in 1949

***

60 years more or less: Time which Jesus supposedly said would elapse before he returned.

1950: number of years which have elapsed since he allegedly said that.

***

3500: Number of lawsuits in which Donald Trump has been named, the vast majority as defendant.

$25 million: cost of trump University settlement alone!

20 +: Number of such suits which claim sexual harassment

***

Perhaps 100: Number of persons who became upset when Theodore Roosevelt "bent"  the 1906 Antiquities Act to protect the 800,000 acres of the Grand Canyon from avaricious Arizona developers.

Waaay more than 100: Number of (Republican) persons who are protesting the preservation of  Bear's Ears in Monument valley by President Obama, using the same Act. It must be noted that this is already non-arable Public Land, not in private hands, and loaded with archeological ruins. Read the truth here:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4762647-155/separating-fact-from-fiction-in-bears

***

About 100 more or less: Number of times Bill O'Reilly has been documented factually to have knowingly lied to America, from his "two Peabody awards" (he actually has none) to his claims that "courtroom perjury is on the rise since the Bible is no longer used for swearing witnesses."  The truth of course is that the Bible is still used essentially everywhere, and there is no evidence anywhere of increased perjury.

1 or 2 : number of times Mrs. Clinton was documented to have knowingly lied. 

It Gives me a Headache

Trying to keep my head from exploding over the kerfuffle regarding the UN  resolution on Israel.  Rather than attempt to detail all the nuance of this (since 1948) soap opera, I will post the url of an excellent, fact driven article  

 http://www.vox.com/world/2016/12/28/14090228/9-questions-un-vote-israel-settlements-explained

Having done that, I will attempt to  explore a bit closer to the less well defined edges of this 68 year old dilemma.

          Briefly, then, Israel exists primarily due to the civilized world's shock and horror of the Holocaust and the fact that Zionists aided by wealthy European Jews and at the urging Zionism's founders,  Theodor Herzl, and later Chaim Weizmann,  had , by that time, already been settling in the British mandate region of the Levant known as Palestine.

        As European Jews stepped up immigration in the period after WWI,  Britain  tried in 1922, 1930, and 1939 to limit immigration (and acquisition of land) by Zionist Jews in response to indigenous Arab pressures. This was a bit odd, in that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 had supported the concept of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Unfortunately, the British had also made promises to the Sharif of Mecca which said in part, "Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca." These assurances were given as an inducement for Arabs to take arms against the Turks. Remember that whole Peter O'Toole/Lawrence of Arabia  thing? This had been understood by the Arabs as including  all of what is today Israel and its occupied territories of Palestinian Arab majority, but a year later the British, who apparently had their fingers crossed earlier, pulled all of Syria and a bit of northern Palestine out of the mix. meanwhile, regardless of British pressures, more Zionists came to Palestine.

       Following WWII, there came a  realization that there was a multitude of homeless or nationless  Jews as a result of the holocaust and equally horrid, but less well published, Russian atrocities at home and elsewhere. There was great sympathy almost everywhere except Arab Palestine for what now became a tidal wave of Jewish immigration to the region. There was significant monetary and moral support from most victor nations including the USA, many of whose Jewish citizens had a sort of "There, but for the grace of God, go I" revelation.

       Without too much detail, the Zionists used many tactics including the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 by the militant Zionist Irgun, led by Menachem Begin,  eventually to become Israel's sixth prime minister. It must be noted that during the time period in question, Britain was,  by UN edict, still nominally responsible for governing the region. The Irgun action was simply terrorism, as British government officials based at the hotel were targets, and 91 of them died in the blast. Soon after, Britain, a la Pontius Pilate washed their hands of this largely home grown mess, turning it over to the United Nations.

          In November,  1947, the UN  adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Partition Plan, which among other verbiage provided as follows:- Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem. The resolution acknowledged noted Britain's planned termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and recommended the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem area being under special UN/International  protection.  The resolution included a  detailed description of the recommended boundaries for each proposed state as well as a plan for economic union between the proposed states, and for the protection of religious and minority rights. The resolution sought to address the conflicting objectives and claims to the Mandate territory of two competing nationalist movements, Zionism (Jewish nationalism) and Arab nationalism, as well as, predictably,  to resolve the plight of Jews displaced as a result of the Holocaust.  Along with all the above, it should be noted that there had been no Jewish state in the Levant for the previous 18 centuries!

        The more recent history of Arab Israeli conflict is well enough know by many that I shall elide past it. to focus on why I am concerned about the present state of affairs, which includes Alan Dershowitz and, believe it or not, Don King, (who knew?) siding with Mr. Trump in castigating SecState Kerry and President Obama  for supporting a UN resolution calling for Israel to stop expanding settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, which are nominally Palestinian, but occupied by Israel , frequently at bayonet point.

        First, and perhaps most persuasive to me, is the fact that the vast majority of the world's nations hold the Israeli occupation of the west bank and Gaza to be illegal. We, the great advocates of democracy and majority rule, are in the minority here.

        Second, the gist of the proposal is simply that increased settlement by Israel makes the chance of a peaceful settlement of any kind remote. This is complicated by Israeli P.M. Netanyahu, who ignores all counsel save his own, refusing any such advice.

       Third, the proposal does not in any sense weaken US military  or even more significantly, economic  commitment,  to Israel's defense or independence, and the  facts are staggering. The following information is from an  article from the Washington report, and is  revelatory. I have abridged for length, not meaning:

       "Since 1992, the U.S. has provided  Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees...... between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants...... Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have  been forgiven by Congress, spiking Israel's often-touted claim that they have "never defaulted" on a U.S. government loan. (ed. note: because it's impossible to default on a gift!) U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through purchase U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.

        In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks. ( as high as $1 billion annually in recent years)

       Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Israel's Gross national Product (GNP)  is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. At a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.

        The resolution in question would have zero effect on any of these commitments or military assurances, moreover, President Obama signed  the largest single Israeli aid package ever granted, which makes one question Trump's true agenda, but wait...!

        Fourth in line of concerns I have is that if this were any nation except Israel, we'd almost certainly be "siding" with the other guys. The Ukraine is relevant here, as are the three Baltic States, all of whose independence from an uninvited invader we (the US) have supported. based on the current state of affairs, it almost makes one wonder if the Mohawks wanted to reclaim New York State whose side would the rest of us favor? Yes, that last is a reductio ad absurdum, yet it is relevant, and the circumstances troublingly similar. In fact, any American Indian tribe can relate! Anyone supporting the Republic of Ireland should also be able to relate.

        Fifth, and most absurd, is to examine the real reasons for US slavish support for Netanyahu's adventures in Palestine. As sick and sad as it may seem to many, religion is at the root - not Judaism, but fanatical Evangelical Christianity. A fair number of Republican legislators and their supporters have been conned by their shamans into believing that the Bible foretells that the "end times" must be precipitated by the resurgence of the nation of Israel. To them, this means the modern state. Now, I'm all in favor of these people going to meet whatever cosmic muffin they envision, but I refuse to get on the bus with them. Of course there have been more than a thousand such prophesies, including the one which makes the rest irrelevant, and that was the alleged statement by Yeshua bar Yusef  that he'd be back with the pork chops while some witnesses to his life were still living. Didn't happen. I imagine wealthy Jewish supporters of Israel laughing up their sleeves at these yokels, and saying , oh, well the checks cash anyway!" Of course there are some wealthy members of the tribe who might also consider a reputed 3600 year old oral contract  as worthless; that is, of course unless it's the deed to Palestine.

Sure, They Aren't.

        A recent article written by a New York Times contributor  ("Sorry, Liberals. Bigotry Didn’t Elect Donald Trump.") (makes the statement that most Trump supporters aren't bigots. The writer cites a single set of surveys as evidence of his conclusions. As a person who is more informed than not on the subject of politics and who has had contact with bigotry in many forms over my years of experience with humans of literally every age group,  I was a bit surprised to see this conclusion. As the holder of a BA in Psychology and a Masters in a related field I have been exposed (not by choice) to several statistics courses. What we have here is op-ed and assumption masquerading as verifiable data.

        Statistics is at once perhaps the most boring and yet meaningful measurement method we have when determining, or better yet, "trying to determine" the actions or motivations of the many based on the samplings of a relative few. As such, Stats (to shorten it)  is an imperfect science, as are all the "soft" sciences - Psychology, Sociology, etc.  When applied in hindsight, however, Stats is relatively meaningless when being  used to explain the unexplainable by reverse engineering.

        This is where the article's author  in his own analysis ignores the bane of all survey composers and administrators - bias. One might argue that bigots ARE biased, and no one could contradict that statement, but as relates to stats, there is a far more subtle method to the madness of bias.

        Among the several significant forms of statistical survey bias, one of the more meaningful, and probably in this case most relevant, is also the simplest:  attention bias. Attention bias occurs because people who are part of a study are usually aware of their involvement, and as a result of the attention received may give more favorable responses or perform better than people who are unaware of the study’s intent. A survey of voters who voted for Trump and are aware he's been elected are very likely to attempt to ennoble their efforts, regardless of their real motives.  "I voted for him because he's a brilliant businessman" (as incorrect as that statement has been shown to be) "The fact that he dislikes Muslims, immigrants, and blacks don't enter into it, nosirree Bob. I ain't no bigot."

        Researcher bias is another huge factor in skewed survey results and it isn't even statistical or measureable.  The viewpoint of the researcher has a way of creeping into question design and analysis. Sometimes this is intentional, but  can be  more subtle. All research designers are human, and have points-of-view. Even the most practiced and professional researchers can have subtle biases in the way they word questions or interpret results. How we frame questions and report results is always affected by our experiences and viewpoints – which can be a good thing, but can also affect the purity of the study. An example: "So, why did you vote for this great man?" After the sense of the question, it unlikely that the respondent, even  if biased , would acknowledge it in a response such as "Well, ole Donny boy loves him some coochie, just like I do."

        In statistics, sampling bias occurs when  a sample is collected in such a way that some members of the intended population are less likely to be included than others. Simply put, if I only ask Trump voters why they voted as they did, and they know the result, their responses may well have no resemblance to their actual reasons.

        Finally, we all have , at one time or another met someone, perhaps even had a collegial relationship with someone, whose reflexive response on race, ethnicity of sexual orientation  is "Well, I'm not a bigot, some of my best friends are (Black,  LGBT, Hispanic, etc)!" Shakespeare had this sussed out over 400 years ago when he wrote that "the lady dost protest too much, methinks." Although contextually different, it sums up the reality of those more sophisticated racists, homophobes, etc,  who while outwardly supporting all members of society, use terms like "the Blacks", The Gay Agenda", "Welfare queens", in conversations with 'their kind' of people.

        Years ago, Humphrey Taylor (Chairman of the Harris Poll) offered a particularly shocking quote to others in his  industry:

        "On almost every occasion when we release a new survey, someone in the media will ask, “What is the margin of error for this survey?” There is only one honest and accurate answer to this question — which I sometimes use to the great confusion of my audience — and that is, “The possible margin of error is infinite.”  When the writer starts with a conclusion , in this case, manipulating statistics to seemingly expiate the guilt of  Trump supporters for  their association or complicit sympathy with racists, homophobes, and others, the statistical error is predetermined. 

        Finally, even a person who truly sees themselves as non- biased, and voted for Trump, which means against reproductive choice, LGBT issues, Racial equality, the poor, civility, organized labor, etc, etc, must have done so because these groups and issues are, in their opinion, just not as important as White, Anglo Saxon men. I feel safe in stating categorically, that while it is probably true than not all Trump voters are bigots, all bigots who voted are Trump supporters.

        Peace out.  

Things I've Thought About Recently

It's been a while since the disastrous events of Election day and I haven't felt much like being even mildly humorous, but It's time to get back on the horse, so to speak.

        In no particular order:

        Choosing Rick Perry for any position which entails  responsibility for thoughtful policy advice (never mind Energy Secretary!)  is much like assigning Wile E. Coyote to baby-sit your Roadrunner. The man has proven his ignorance on various public stages so often, that we  are numb to his dumb.

        Saw a commercial yesterday for "Opdivo" a treatment which has been shown to, among other things, increase life expectancy by a relatively small percentage in some cancer patients. In the first place, it asks, "Who wants to live longer", as if there is some doubt as to the answer. Second - who makes up these names?  Is it the same savant who names Asian car models?  By the way, the "other things" include a list of side effects which might well make one wish they'd just hurry up and die.

        This is, sadly,  all too common these days as new therapies created to make  Big Pharma even richer show us the  small print afterthoughts of possible consequences which are as bad or worse than the condition being treated. Your night leg cramps may lessen, but, by the way,  your lungs may  fill with fluid, or something equally heinous. Sadly, there is usually an afterthought to these commercials which ballyhoos either low or no copays, but with an asterisk which tells us that this is for privately insured users only.

         The dirty little secret here is that Medicare will only pay full retail (and consumers the full co-pay!) price for any medication, while private insurers often negotiate significantly lower  prices. This legislation was the Bush 43 concession  to Big Pharma in order to obtain Medicare part D passage in 2006. One quick example: Anyone with private insurance is welcome to use the $300 Epi-pen coupon to reduce the cost of the drug. Medicare, however will only pay the full inflated price Mylan Pharmaceuticals asks and Medicare patients will be stuck with the full co-pay.  Anyone for national single payer health care?  

        Finally, enough already with the flood of e-mails telling me what new scheme is afoot and what petition I should sign to prevent a Trump inauguration. Wake the hell up. As I said immediately post election that it would , the Electoral College did what It was chosen to do, i.e. vote strict party lines. It was never going to be otherwise, but a slew of well meaning persons wasted a lot of energy and bandwidth in vain.

        Face it, we're gonna be stuck with this flaming arsehole for a bit, but there are real world,  reasonable things to do to minimize the pain. essentially none of them involve moaning, petitions, or Facebook rants. What to do?

        First, recognize that there are elections in less than two years. Every member of the House and 1/3 of the Senate will have to run for reelection. Start right now working your Congressman, flood them with letters. work for the good ones and against the poor ones. Likewise, we only need two sitting Republican Senators to lose and be replaced with Democrats to change the entire picture.  Just two! Be an advocate and persuader to those friends in labor who, for whatever reason supported Trump. He is demonstrably not a friend to labor,  organized or otherwise.

        Second, to effect real change, realize that there is no need of  a Constitutional Amendment to "do away with" the Electoral College. I am constantly amazed by the ignorance exhibited by both sides when considering this issue. Many, if not most, Americans apparently believe that current election law is determined by the federal government and ordained in the Constitution, when, in fact only the age of voters at 18 (26th Amendment), separate votes cast for President and Vice president (12th Amendment) , and the date of Presidential elections (first Tuesday after the first Monday in every other even  numbered year)  is specified. All other election law is determined at the state level. While the Electoral College is specified in print, the manner of choosing/allocating  Electors is not.

         So what? Well, Sparky, only two states -  Maine and  Nebraska make any attempt to allot Electoral votes in any manner other than "winner takes all."  If, however, all states allotted Electors in accordance with the popular vote percentages by party, the electors would at least be chosen in an equitable manner. While not, by any means a panacea,  it is well within the power of state legislatures to "fix" this issue without touching the Constitution,  yet many believe lobbying Congress is the only way to do this. Not so.

        Finally, choose electable candidates, work for them and get out the vote. The lamentable events of last November, had some aspects of self inflicted injury. If you read this and voted for either "third party" candidate, I hope you're delighted with the result.

        

Gonna Miss Him

        I  have noticed without amazement, but with great  sadness, those partisans who are gleefully saying  "bye, bye" to the President. Accompanying this is an underlying sentiment of a sort of "good riddance" nature, which seems based on some belief that  Barack Obama has been a "bad" President. History will prove these morons wrong, as it proved their parents and grandparents wrong about Harry S. Truman.

       I have heard probably just about all the possible reasons for the shade which has been constantly thrown at Mr. Obama by the haters over the last 8  years. It ranges from the incredibly preposterous "He has big ears and I don't like that,"  to the more mundane, "He wants to give our tax dollars and other free stuff to those who don't deserve them." In between we have the  "too many executive orders", "too many vacations," "Too much money spent on the family," "Disregard for the Constitution," and finally, and most egregiously, "Obamacare is socialized medicine."

        It is fairly easy to explain these attitudes if we consider that the bulk of these people  get their "news" solely from Faux News. The O'Reilly/Hannity  axis of misinformation and outright lies has done yeoman service to their mindless drone viewers by removing all need for critical evaluation of fact,  replacing that process with their predigested bile, rather like a vulture feeds its young by puking into their gaping maws. It might be added that, like the young vulture, the Faux viewers aren't particularly finicky and even less discriminatory about what they ingest.

        Start with the fact that O'Reilly, who, fortunately  has a fine  ghost writer  in Martin Dugard, continues to refer to himself as a History teacher. In truth, he, an English teacher,  only taught one semester out of field in that discipline (high school history) before deciding the job was too hard. Of course the Faux historian's name looms large  on the book covers, and Dugard's is just sort of lurking in the shadow of the great one's imprimatur.  Start with a phony, give him an op-ed screed but call it "news" and there's small wonder there are so many ill informed. lickspittle, viewers who fawn at his TV image and purchase his books,

        So, rejecting the "ears" complain as simply childish, what else do we have? :

        "Tax dollars and free stuff to the undeserving."  Start by defining "undeserving" as "Those who aren't as white or fortunate as we are."  Continue by claiming that President Obama has in some way personally changed welfare legislation to add "those kind of people" to welfare rolls, then add the phrase "Obama Phone" for good measure. In fact, the sole interface of Barack Obama  and welfare rolls has been to make one modification to the 1996 "workfare" reform bill. That came at the specific request of several governors, among them the very Republican governor of Utah (whose own state Senator, Orrin Hatch professed outrage over the action!). Contrary to right wing babble, The President's executive order simply gave state governors what they asked him for - more flexibility in how they, at the state level administer the work requirements for the 1996 welfare reform act. Period. Oh, and that Obama Phone thingy? Never happened. George W. Bush signed the law in mid 2008, and 
it was a build on legislation signed by Reagan!

        "Too many Executive Orders" and "Too many Vacations" with the implication that Obama has racked up  record numbers in each category.  They sort of go together for one simple reason - both are blatant lies.  As to Executive orders - one has to go all the way back to 1889 - and Grover Cleveland's second administration to find a President who issued  fewer per year in office than Barack Obama has in almost twice the amount of time. Let me repeat that: No modern President has issued fewer executive orders per year in office than Obama! As to vacations, President Obama has taken less than 1/3of  the number of days of  vacation that his immediate predecessor or Reagan had taken at the same point in his second term.

        "Too much of our money spent on (vacations, the family, etc)"   It's true that the Federal government spends a lot on transportation, security and other issues for a President and his family. The problem here is that, while hard right media scream about the (roughly) $70 million spent in around 7 years of the Obama administration to date, they are strangely silent about the facts related to the Bush administration's spending and mislabeling of "expenditures."  When the Obamas  "vacation" at Martha's Vineyard, or Hawaii, some  media (guess which ones) report it as if the POTUS was off the clock. It is called "vacation" even though there is really no such concept for a seated president. By contrast, the $20 million spent by the Bushes just in flying  to their Crawford, Texas ranch were mysteriously called "Working trips." 

       The Obamas' overseas trips are  also criticized even though they are almost always to perform duties as head of state.  During Bush’s second term alone, Laura Bush made five “goodwill” trips to Africa. President Bush made the trip twice during his presidency. None of these was expensed as vacation, but collectively they dwarf the cost of the Obama's Africa trip (he actually went, unlike George W. who usually didn't). While the snipers of the right bitch about a ski trip to Aspen for the FLOTUS and her girls, and cavil that it cost an "outrageous" $84,000, the Bushes took 77 flights round trip to Crawford at    $226,07 per trip! Where's the outrage? And oh, yeah, an afterthought while editing  - if Trump maintains a residence in NYC for his wife and son, the bills will eclipse the combined Bush and Obama totals in less than two years! 

        "Violating the Constitution" - Most of these complaints were from those who believed the  Obama Administration was violating the POTUS constitutional duty to enforce laws (more specifically, one law) passed by Congress. And to that extent in that case, they are correct. What was less well publicized is that he had precedent from his predecessors.  While some critics claim that President Obama’s refusal to defend the ill conceived and mean spirited "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was an unwarranted extension of executive power, the Obama administration is far from the first to refuse to defend a law for constitutional reasons. In fact, there are a number of  historical precedents  for the executive branch to take such action.

        More recently, over the last 60 years, both Republican and Democratic Presidents have refused to defend various laws that they believed to be unconstitutional. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Truman all refused to defend separate-but-equal laws in schools and hospitals. The Clinton administration did not defend a federal law requiring HIV-positive military personnel to be dismissed from duty. And interestingly enough, even  George H.W. Bush did not defend a case regarding affirmative action at broadcast news stations, based on the recommendation made by his Acting Solicitor General who was none other than current Chief Justice John Roberts!

           Additionally, and even more interesting in light of the USSC overturning  DOMA, history shows us that an administration’s refusal to defend a law does not necessarily reflect the outcome of a particular Supreme Court ruling. President Ford refused to defend a campaign finance law that was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. President Reagan did not defend an independent counsel law that later won by an overwhelming 7-1 margin in the Supreme Court!  Even the 1990 affirmative action law, deemed unconstitutional by then-Solicitor General John Roberts, was eventually upheld by a slim 5-4 margin.

        The interesting (to me) footnote is that many of the people of  North Carolina, and Tennessee,  those bastions of redneck Christian conservatism, probably have forgotten that it was another President, Andrew Jackson, who refused to enforce a law which HAD been decided by the USSC, and forcibly moved Indians off tribal  lands so that their white ancestors could claim them. Again, where's the outrage?  Of course, Obama was right, and DOMA was overturned.

        "The Affordable care Act ("Obamacare") is socialized medicine."  No it's not. Period. Socialized medicine as most less informed folks visualize it is the UK model in which everyone is insured by the government and every doctor in the National Health Service is paid by the government. Know what's closer to "socialized medicine? - Medicare. What? Heresy, you say! Nay nay, my friend, you pay into Medicare while you work and even while you draw Social Security (another "Socialism" style program, by the way) and the doctor or facility is , at least partially, compensated  by the government. "But Mike! I paid into Medicare."  Yep, just like folks in the UK pay into the NHS via taxes. Of course their system is more efficient as there is a single payer.

         Not to go too far afield here, but wait times for appointments in specialties like cardiology, derm, and others,  are now shorter in the UK than most big American cities!  Likewise, if you are Hep C positive, the new miracle drug, Harvoni -  (developed with a government grant, at Emory University) will cost you and/or your insurance company $94,000 for the standard 12 week round of treatment. In the UK, the identical therapy is about $12,500. Damn that socialized medicine! I know, but you don't get to choose your doctor ! Guess what, Sparky? Neither do the 92.3 million Americans in HMOs.

        Of course the ACA is none of that. It is a simple system that says "rather than having all of us pay for uninsured persons when they go to the ER in bad shape and usually cost far more to treat, let's require them to take some, if not all, of the responsibility for getting PRIVATE medical insurance." It is practically a gift to the health insurance business, who, by recent count have gained about 16 million clients. Is that perfect? Of course it isn't, but then one must remember that it was also fought tooth and nail and extensively modified and gutted by an obstructionist Congress.  

        As a general afterthought the hater frequently   throw in some vague "leadership/foreign policy" generality with which to ice the shit cake they're about to hurl. What these naifs don't understand is that this President has had to deal with  an economic and  geopolitical situation of a nature which no other Chief Executive  has ever faced and add to that the fact that the issue with which he has been most frequently flogged - ISIS - is the creation of the critically flawed foreign policy of his predecessor, whose party now delights in blaming it on Obama. This monumental leap of illogic makes my head hurt.        

       

        So these then are just some of the things cited by the Obama haters who are too gutless, spineless and two faced to say what's  really on their minds: they are bigots , for whom a Black President could never be satisfactory. That any sane, rational comparison between Bush 43 and Obama could be favorable to Bush is almost beyond comprehension. That that comparison extended to Trump could be different is even more ludicrous and the buffoon isn't even in office yet. Rarely has any American politician demonstrated the grace under fire of  President Obama and, by extension, his family.

        I have never, in 60 years of political awareness seen the  totally unwarranted vile language and characterizations which have been leveled against this man and his family aimed at any President.  

       But then, I was too young to really understand the total evil that was Joseph McCarthy, so I guess I'll have to settle for Ann Coulter or Ted Cruz.  

Remembering Ike

        While remembering Pearl Harbor Day, as we should, my thoughts turn  to a man who was nowhere near the Pacific Theater, but was one of America's outstanding leaders during and after WWII.

        Major Eisenhower , was one of several mid-grade  officers assigned by General Douglas MacArthur to drive depression era "bonus marchers"  from their Anacostia flats shanty town in July, 1932. Almost exclusively WWI veterans and their families, they had been promised bonuses for their wartime service to be paid ten years later. The Great Depression had resulted in so many in dire financial straits that they (about 20,000) came to Washington, DC to ask Congress to pay the much needed bonuses in their hour of need. In spite of orders from the President not to pursue the Bonus Marchers to the other side of the Anacostia River,  MacArthur  said he was "too busy" and  "did not want to be bothered by people coming down and pretending to bring orders," then sent the Army across the bridge anyway. It made  a profoundly unpleasant  impression on Eisenhower  and gave him a sense of empathy for the poor and a genuine humanity that we miss badly today.

       General  Eisenhower wrote a letter on the eve of D-Day, taking full responsibility for the failure of the Allied invasion of Normandy, should such failure occur. 

We sorely miss such willingness to be held accountable in more recent  leaders. Watergate, Iran Contra, are exemplary. Later ,on receiving accounts of the horrors uncovered at Auschwitz and elsewhere, Eisenhower  had the prescience to believe that in later years, there would be those who would attempt to deny that such human evils had ever happened.  He ordered Army photographers to exhaustively document these examples of man's inhumanity to man, forever proving the lie to those who deny the Holocaust.

       President Dwight D. Eisenhower said,  "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history."  Paul Ryan, take note.

                Dwight Eisenhower said, "I am liberal when it comes to people and conservative when it comes to money." This from a guy whose idea of a big night was to go to the White House roof and grill steaks, play poker and drink whiskey with old Army friends. Contrast this to the current President elect from ostensibly the same political party.   The modern Republican Party has , indeed, strayed far afield, and many current adherents have forgotten their roots.   

Malkin Off The Rails Again

        Michelle Malkin has the dubious distinction of  being, in one fell swoop,  female, ethnic minority (Filipina), an anchor baby, and a close second to Ann Coulter for the person who, if they ran in front of my car, would most likely  be road kill. She ranks fifth, in the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute's list of influential Conservative woman writers.   Interestingly enough, ahead of Ms. Malkin are the names Palin, Bachmann, Schlafly and Coulter, which is indicative of the company she keeps. This is especially meaningful since Palin is barely literate and Bachmann is just bat shit insane.

         Like all of them she is a darling of the Far Right, actually alt.right,  crowd for her diatribes against essentially anything not politically hard right. What actual philosophical tenets she espouses are reminiscent of Ayn Rand, tempered with  liberal doses of Margaret Thatcher and Joe Arpaio. She has no use for feminists, concern for minorities, or any government which is not rigidly capitalist. Much of her screed is vicious and laden with harshly critical and hurtful  blasts against whatever or whomever the day's foe might be. Based on her background, perhaps the biggest riddle is how she became so vindictive and bitter towards immigrants and minorities.  

        What triggered this response is a recent op-ed in which she felt compelled (for some obscure reason) to chastise Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for remarks he made in regard to Fidel Castro's recent demise. For the record, I never thought much of Fidel, never cared for Communism, but then it wasn't my country, was it?  Had we (the USA) not buttressed up the dictatorial regime of Fulgencio  Batista, corrupt friend of the mafia and usurper of control in Cuba, it might well have been that the name of Fidel Castro would be just the heading of the obituary of a mediocre minor league pitcher and his cross dressing  brother.  As in other places, such as Vietnam, the very same sort of  rabid anti-communist fervor led us to support some extremely bad people in Cuba, and both Cuba and the US paid the price. Along the way (Bay of Pigs, Missile Crisis) we came very close to paying an even more exorbitant price. 

         A significant number of Americans and even more others have died because as a matter of national policy we (the USA) regarded all Communists as identical and that identity was as clones of Josef Stalin. For the record we have tourism, normalized political relations and burgeoning trade with Vietnam today. The fact that they retain a Communist government seems to matter much less now than 45 years ago, no? North Korea and Vietnam could hardly be more different. Not all Communists are the same and they don't all want to kill us. Period.

        Malkin's op-ed is so badly written in some aspects that it is a little laugh provoking. It is also, however, indicative of just how far off the rails some Americans have fallen in their sense of realpolitik and  their understanding of real world realities. First off, Malkin is a BA holder from Oberlin College, which institution she has later lambasted as "Ultra-liberal." Her degree is in English, which eases one's struggle to understand her lack of nuance in geo-political understanding, but makes one gasp at some of her more heinous efforts at writing. The fact that she is a best- selling author simply means that there are more that think like her than we might care to acknowledge.

        The Trudeau hatchet job begins with analogizing two Canadian  Justins -  Trudeau and  Beiber, with the Beeb declared the victor because he's "eye candy" (Malkin's words, not mine.) She characterizes Trudeau as "the twinkly- eyed boy toy who makes informed adults want to hurl."  And I thought that was Beiber!  She them reflects on Trudeaus "drool stained global press coverage", but declares him instead to be simply a "baby faced commie apologist, and a naked twit" The mind reels at such sophisticated prose. Along the way one is reminded that it's been a while since we saw "Commie" used as an adjective. How long? Well, how about the McCarthy era? Or perhaps a 1950's  Mike Hammer novel - ol' Mike was always fighting "dirty Commie heels."

        Apparently the terrible comment made by Trudeau that triggered this splenetic outpouring was his characterization of Castro as  "A larger than life leader" and that he "served his people for almost half a century"  Wow! That pinko bastard! She then, simply because a day without an Obama slur is for Ms. Malkin a day without sunshine, says "Our neighbors to the north are discovering what disillusioned Obama  worshippers realized too late.........same old decrepit culture of corruption." I haven't seen that old Obama corruption, but his probable successor, on the other hand? Just watch the news any day, any time.

        She says a lot of other drivel as well, but she ends up with a masterpiece of purple prose unrivaled even by Sarah Palin: "The self aggrandizing commie fan-boy apple doesn't fall far from his Marxist tree". For this alone, she should be awarded the Joseph McCarthy chair at the Mickey Spillane School of Journalism and Shoe Repair. Whatever  will she do when Herr Trump makes nice with Putin? If there's a God, her head will explode.

Time to pack it in!

        A recent national op-ed column by Dr. Thomas Sowell shows just how sophistic even brilliant persons can be when it comes to misreading cause and effect. Dr. Sowell laments the decline of Dunbar High School in Washington, DC, from the prep school it was created to be, (by the white Presbyterian Church in 1870) servicing black elites and their children, to the public school it has become. Fair enough, but in a staggering leap of illogic, he then proceeds to blame this decline in academic standing on , of all things,  the 1954 USSC decision in  Brown vs Board of Education.

        Along the way he omits a lot of factors unrelated to race. Start with the fact that Dunbar then and Dunbar now  are almost identical, racially. Originally an all black school, today it is still 98% African American. Today, however, 46% of students are on the free or reduced price lunch program. Today,  Dunbar serves the community in which it is located, vice a hand- picked Black elite, many of whose government employee families now live in suburbs of  DC and attend race neutral private prep schools.

       Blaming Brown v Board for this change and lamenting it, makes little or no sense. In fact, Sowell himself, by any standard brilliant but now, at 86, a rigid doctrinarian, had to move to Harlem at age 9 just to find a decent school which he was able to attend.  Living in Frederick Md, a scant 40 miles from DC, in 1958, 4 years after Brown,  I  played various sports with several Black friends who were forced to attend segregated Lincoln High school. Lincoln got everything related to academics after it was no longer used by the (still, in 1958)  all white Frederick High school. This included texts, lab equipment and even desks. Lincoln got about 60% per student of the funding at our white school. This was the reality of public schools "pre-Brown."  For a person of color in America to blame the Brown decision for simple demographic shifts is ludicrous and lamentable. 

       Dr. Sowell, like some current entertainers, embarrasses himself because he doesn't  know when to quit.