Life isn't a crap game

I was gonna let this go, but....

        Saw a thread on FB with someone asserting, yet again, that killing the Affordable care Act (ACA)  won't hurt anyone with or without any alternative in place. The poor benighted soul who wrote the most emphatic defenses of the Trump proposal did so by citing a "1946(sic) law" requiring ERs to treat any person who presents. It was 1986, not 1946, but the error is minor compared to the rest of the screed.

        So where did he go wrong? To begin with, killing the ACA will immediately allow insurers to "dump" persons whose pre-existing conditions are costing them (the insurer) more than the policy's premium. At any rate, even if the insurer has some conscience, not a good bet, I fear, the rate can be raised by such an amount as to force the insured to voluntarily drop the policy. At that point the insurers will simply pull a Pontius Pilate, absolving themselves of either responsibility or accountability.

        So, some who are now covered will certainly lose coverage.  Additionally, it must be pointed out, although it's obvious to any thinking person, that preventive care at an office is far cheaper than ER treatment when the condition is critical. This is far too often the case with uninsured people. Three or four pre-natal visits, covered by insurance, are far less costly than even a two extra day hospital stay due to complications which were avoidable, but not addressed until an emergency delivery. Lest one think this is just one man's opinion, my wife, the  neonatal critical care nurse, has seen it far too often, rarely with good outcome for mother or child.

        Even more bizarre, is the apparent belief that it's OK to kill the ACA because " 'those people' will still have Medicaid." This misguided fiction  has monumental  flaws. First, Medicaid has some limits as to what care and/or how much might be spent on a given patient. The even bigger flaw is that those morons who don't think the government should help subsidize private insurance apparently don't understand that the same pot of money (the federal budget) pays for Medicare anyway. So if the money issue is a wash, what is the objection? Oh, yeah, the ACA was signed into law by the Black guy.    

        The real issue for the Paul Ryans, John Stossels and their ilk (I'd include Trump, but he's incapable of thinking this through, ergo just tweets his support as he's told), is that even though  The ACA is basically a gift to private insurance in the sense that it actually requires more Americans to use it,  It also costs the Government money  in a "right now/today" visible manner vice simply adding the same bucks to  Medicaid costs. The most rabid opponents of the ACA, led by Paul Ryan also would love to dismantle Medicare, and he has said as much, specifically. This constitutes a shameful willingness to sacrifice the access of tens of millions of Americans to decent health care on the altar of "free market" capitalism.

       Moving on; one might think with all the flak in the air re: the ACA that many, even a majority, of Americans like the National Health Care system (to use a grossly inadequate term) as it is and resent the changes posed by the ACA.

        Let's first examine the term "National Health Care System."  For those not on Medicare or Medicaid, the term is practically devoid of meaning, as they have no interface with the government other than a small Medicare contribution from their pay.

       Sadly, for those on Medicare or Medicaid, the situation is little better. Even though Medicare does cover some of a senior's health care cost, (which is generally inadequate as most must buy add-on supplemental plans or go broke) , it does not make appointments, insure quality of care, insure a national licensure quality control, and most tragically, it is forbidden to negotiate drug prices. What, you ask do I mean? I mean that Medicare, (note, not Medicaid) pays full price for any and all drugs, per the 2006 Medicare part D law, and cannot legally do otherwise.

        What does this mean? It means that a huge portion of the admittedly already huge Medicare budget goes to pay full retail for drugs for which no other entity pays full cost! While high drug costs are the lion's share of  the increase each year in overall healthcare costs, the case of Medicare is a national scandal. In order to get Part D (the Medicare drug plan) passed in 2006, the Bush administration  caved to overwhelming lobbying pressure from Big Pharma and  added to the Part D language the promise that Medicare would always pay full price for prescription drugs. The VA, which has no such restriction pays $170 or so for the EpiPen 2 pack. The same exact prescription for a Medicare patient is billed, and the manufacturer paid,  at the ludicrous $600+  level! Privately insured persons can use the manufacturer's generously supplied coupons to reduce  cost. The exact same prescription from the same doctor will be billed to Medicare at full price. The coupon may not be used if the recipient is a Medicare patient. Even Medicaid pays 23% less than Medicare.

        Still wanna kill the ACA? I believe your concerns should be directed elsewhere, at the drug industry, for a start. An industry with an industry wide  (roughly) 20% net profit margin (many individual Pharma firms are far higher, over 30%!) hardly needs to be allowed to soak the government and the Medicare patient when all private insurers negotiate substantially lower costs across the board.  

        Another ludicrous statement which appeared in  this thread was that observation that "If Norway can provide health care for all citizens why cannot the US do the same?" The simple answer is that Norway spends 4.9%  of GDP on defense, while the US spends 54% . Ya think that has an effect on the availability of money for health care? Having said that, Norway also spends a (slightly) lower percentage of GDP on healthcare, yet many Americans bristle at the mere mention of national single payer health care system. If this is the case, one might suppose that it's because most Americans are happy with the quality of their health care and resist any change.

        The unfortunate truth in the matter is that while the USA leads developed nations in per capita spending on health care, it is dead last in every single (yes every one) survey of overall user satisfaction regarding health care. The other end of the spectrum - "most satisfied"? the UK, with its national health care system. This has been the case for years, and is so even in an early 2017 survey. The figures are self explanatory.  The table below shows that in a recent compilation of surveys of more than 20,000 respondents, the UK has the highest health care consumer satisfaction rating and the USA the smallest.

Note specifically that in "timeliness of care," While the US ranks 5th, the UK is higher at 3rd. What is amazing is that the UK accomplishes this superior service at a much lower cost per patient than the USA. In fact, the UK spends less than half as much per patient to provide better service and make consumers happy. Now stay with me here. If the government spends under half as much as we currently pay per person to provide better care, isn't that a savings to the nation?

        How in the world can the UK accomplish it? To begin with, they believe that providing good universal health care is too important to be profit driven. Paul Ryan, John Stossel and Donald Trump do not.  Of course all the aforementioned can easily afford top tier health insurance, so why should they care?

       In Ryan's case, he should care because he was elected to (allegedly) "do the right thing for America," but this man, who received Social Security benefits after his father's death seems to have come to the conclusion that said benefits are/were evil. It's enough to make your head hurt.

        In Stossel's case, he's made his journalistic creds, such as they are, as the unabashed apostle of Free Market capitalism. As a credentialed historian, I would point out that there have been 9 major "panics" , recessions and depressions in the USA since 1815. The root causes of every single one of these can be directly attributed to the unregulated greed which Stossel has rebranded as Free Market capitalism. The speculators, would be monopolists and their ilk who caused the events which sparked these catastrophic economic crashes largely survived, a little poorer, perhaps, but never hungry. Banks crashed, but bankers survived;  depositors, not so much. Trusting private interests to do the right thing has resulted in a long history America of  innocent persons being hurt in various ways. 

       Some things are so important that, for better or worse, they merit government  regulation in the public good. Health care is very near the top of that list. Nestled close to it is supervision and regulation of financial markets. This isn't "Socialism." Medicare as it currently exists is socialism - same benefit regardless of contribution. Period. This is consumer protection and fiscal common sense. The profit driven crap game between Big Pharma and insurance profit with,  US health care and  quality of life as the ante, needs to end.     

     

Grossly Partisan, Grossly Incorrect

Just a quickie today (so far, lol)  Below is my letter in response to a letter on today's  op-ed page of the local newspaper, admittedly ultra conservative in editorial policy

A recent letter ( "Reader offers thoughts on Obama's time as President") establishes what might be  a  record for the most diametrically incorrect statements in one letter. See below:

"Ruined the Health Care System" No. In fact the ACA had zero impact on the Health Care System. Still the same everything. Did it ruin insurance? Not for those who already had it, but it did add 20 million to the list of insured.  Of course, the writer apparently  believes the ACA is "Socialism" which it isn't. It requires private insurance bought in the marketplace. Know what is "Socialism?"  Medicare. Everyone gets the same benefit regardless of what they paid. period.

"Demolished our Military!"  No, he didn't and the real, currently serving, military doesn't think so either.

"Encouraged Terrorism by Doing Nothing" Really? Tell that to the US troops helping fight ISIS, or in Afghanistan. Of course what he didn't do is suck up to the Saudis, one of the principal exporters and clandestine supporters of Militant ultra conservative Islam. Trump did that.

"Put Every Brake on the Economy" It was the removal of economic regulations which led to the Housing Bubble Collapse and the recession. In the writer's world, apparently any effort to protect consumers and savers is "brakes"? Isn't it amazing how the economy responded in spite of all Obama's  efforts? I'm certain the writer was equally offended by the stimulus package?

Last and most egregiously wrong: "Made us a Laughingstock Around the World."  Having been around a lot of the world in the five years prior to the last election, I know the writer's statement is a blatant lie. I have never  had more people inject respect for our President into a conversation unsolicited  than when Obama was President. Someone more recent has  made us a laughingstock, though.

You're Fired

The local rag has a front page article ballyhooing the recent Trump signing of a bill which is touted as being the means to revamping and improving the VA system. At first glance, I held a modicum of hope that this really implied substantive change which would directly effect the system and have a positive  impact on patient care. Boy was I foolish!

       What the bill actually does, and essentially all that it does, is make it easier to do what Trump has self promoted his own reality show image to reflect, that being to fire people. Understand, I fuly agree that whistleblowers who are sincerely concerned about real issues and not personal vendettas, should be protected. Now, ask yourself if Trump agrees with this philosophy with regard to his own cadre of sycophants. I think we know the answer to that, based on public events of the past months of Trump's agonistic demeanor and behavior.  By the way, the term "agonistic" is a recent construct to describe hostile and aggressive behaviour in animals, which fits the Cheetoh in Chief right down to the ground.

       Secondarily, and to me even more troubling, is that the law would essentially remove almost all due process in the removal of an employee deemed to merit dismissal. Again, as an experienced (12 years of NEA related union bargaining and contract committee duties) labor negitator with an advanced degree in Human Resource Management, I have issues with this. 

       Contrary to the opinion of some (usually management), most unions, especally professional ones, have no interest in protecting a truly deficient employee for the simple reason that "One bad apple.....!" In some cases, admittedly, organizations have agreed to conditions which make it difficult to remove a bad employee. This is as much the fault of upper management who agreed to said conditions as it is to the Union which said,"OK." We have seen similar issues with the American automobile industry, because in the flush of cash with a global market post WW II, the major auto makers caved to the UAW with ludicrous pay and benefits packages rather than embrace quality circles and labor /management collaboration. It's called "welfare capitalism" and it started with Henry Ford

        In a relatively short time from the late 1800s to 1936, labor went from being the "property" of the feudal lords such as Rockefeller, Morgan, Gould, et al (and much worse, especially in the garment industry), to being the "enemy" empowered by depression era labor legislation.   Don't wince, these men often spoke of "My workers" in the possessive, and meant it. In Pittsburgh and environs, it went so far as the establishment of a private, magnate hired and paid, militia, the Iron and Coal Police. 

       Here's a bit of history for ya: "Pennsylvania's Coal and Iron Police ruled small patch towns and industrial cities for their coal and iron company bosses from 1865 to 1931. Armed with a gun and badge and backed by state legislation, the members of the private police force were granted power in a practically unspecified jurisdiction. Set in Pennsylvania's anthracite and bituminous regions, including Luzerne, Schuylkill, Westmoreland, Beaver, Somerset, and Indiana Counties, at a time when labor disputes were deadly, the officers are the story behind American labor history's high-profile events and attention-grabbing headlines. Paid to protect company property, their duties varied but unfortunately often resulted in strikebreaking, intimidation, and violence.

      That said, as a negotiator/board member, I have been a party to a significant  number of employee/management related conflicts where the union directors simply refused to support an employee who was clearly in the wrong. However, in an equal or greater number of cases, the real issue was simply personality conflict and not competence or performance. Of course, management will fight to never admit that one of their Peter Principle promotees (is that a word?) was elevated to management in error. I know of several instances in which the School Board response was to simply laterally and downwardly transfer an administrator, because, apparently, no administrator can ever be fired. Ok, ok, violent crime would be a deal breaker, but not ever for simple  incompetence, that I know of. 

       But, back to Trump's recent "You're fired" signing. In many cases, the tragic truth is also that management just wants to be able to do it, apparently at will and have no responsibility for justifying it. Let me be clear; in some cases this amounts to ruining an individual's personal and financial life simply because one can. This is the condition under which Teachers in Orange County Florida work for the first three years of employment. A teacher can find themselves unemployed for the following year at the end of three years (or two, or one, or 90 days) with no discussion as to the reason why.  In one case, a good two year employee was let go (without any justification at all, as is allowed in the three year period) because a teacher at the principal's former school wanted to change schools. Out goes the good, new, teacher, in comes the friend. And we wonder why most new teachers don't last more than five years?  

        But, this was about the veterans' administration, so here goes. Quality of care apparently varies widely over the system and, to a degree, is dependent upon the facility's being adequately staffed for the patient load. As second consideration must be that not every complaint is justified.

        Assuming every veteran is always right is a dangerous assumption, indeed, as evidenced by the recent gun waving, (thankfully non-fatal) event in the local clinic, which is a star in the VA constellation. The problem was a  psychotic break, or similar event, having nothing to do with the VA and everything to do with the individual, who, by all acounts had been troubled for years and wanted someone to blame. That said, one or several such people are the stuf of dreams for those in the  print and broadcast media businesses. (listen to Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" for examples) 

     A more common problem is the sheer numbers of patients some hospitals are obliged to see. Obviously, this is magnified in areas of concentrations of veteran retirees. Again, a key point, I do not mean retired from the military as a career member, I mean no longer working. Sun City in Phoenix, AZ, is a representative case in point. They are also, unsurprisingly, one of the regions where complaints of long wait times are common. Interestingly enough, the uproar over "fudging" wait times and patient lists, was directly attributable to managemnment decisions, not hourly employees.  

        So, what might a real overhaul of the VA look like rather than just making it "easier to fire people?" To begin with, the VA now serves, or is supposed to serve, all veterans, all the time, for all medical conditions. It might be a good time to ask several questions about the mission, rather than fire the pilot.

       First: I will begin by admitting that I can find no data to support or negate the magnitude of the potential impact of the following proposal, but I am certain of this: Career military retirees have what is arguably the best health care insurance in the US - Tricare.

        Prior to age 65, but after military retirement, the veteran and dependents, upon completing  20 years (or more)  service has a top shelf contributory plan which is as good or better than the vast number of civilian health care plans, and  for less out of pocket cost.  Upon reaching 65, The retiree has Medicare as first provider and Tricare for Life , which covers essentially everything else. The cost? The retiree pays Medicare part B, period. Veteran retirees even have access to an optional low fee dental plan as well. 

       Tricare, unlike the VA allows the retiree to use essentially any doctor they choose, and covers everything that Medicare doesn't. It also provides access to a better drug plan than almost any other.  This represents, for the average military retiree and spouse, somewhere in the range of $12,000 to $15,000 annually worth of health care insurance and allows use of any facility or provider. In spite of this, I personally know at least one 30 year retiree who uses the VA clinic for routing physicals, medicine, medications, etc. and even travels farther to get there that a host of better specialist practices. Any retiree who uses the VA when they could use any doctor they choose is taking space that other, less fortunate vets may need.  Requiring military retiree veterans with non-service connected disabilities to use the civilian health care system would be a good start to reduce the load and open care avenues for others who don't have the "Cadillac coverage" of Tricare.

         A second and more controversial proposal is this: When a young man or woman completes a single tour of service and leaves the military with no service connected disability whatsoever,  but continues smoking for 50 years, should the government foot the bill for lung cancer treatment when they reach 70?  I'm not talking about any person with any disablilty, emotiona, physical or otherwise. I'm (again to use a reductio ad absurdum) speaking of the person who leaves after 4 years in top shape and good health, has no VA disability, and breaks their back base jumping. Why is this a VA issue? Should it be? Another example is the vet who, now at 75, needs hearing aids. The VA supplies about $4,000 worth free. even if the Vet was a Vietnam era draftee who left the service with perfect hearing.

          And in summary on this topic, while there is no "means test", as such, if one makes a good living and has a good retirement, it may take a while to get into the system. Unless, of course you are "lucky" enough to be considered disabled, in which case you get head of the line privileges. Again, an example: If you set foot in Vietnam during a certain period, you are considered disabled, because somewhere, at sometime during that period, Agent Orange was used. It could have been 150 miles away, and you are now 68 and asymptomatic, but, no sweat, you're disabled.

        My own bottom line, as a retiree with 26 years' service who does not use VA medical services, for reasons outlined above, although I'm classified 30% disabled is this: The Veterans Administration has, over time, morphed into an organization which has been tasked to serve a large number of patients which it probably should not be responsible for. Concenrate however on who should the VA serve? 

       First and foremost: the VA should provide lifetime medical care to any person who is disabled in the service of the nation in the military. Said care should be the best available, period, and should extend to prosthetics, housing modifications, etc. No disabled individual who has honorably served should ever want for top tier healthcare.

       Secondarily, no military retiree who has Tricare and zero disability should us the VA for exams or medical procedures. I would allow   exception for prescription drugs (since the VA, unlike Medicare, negotiates and gets lower drug costs than Medicare) Eyeglasses and Audiology should be optional to retirees, based on facility and availability, Eye exams are covered under Tricare, but the VA pays far less, ergo charges far less, for the glasses once the prescription is written by the civilian optometrist. 

       Finally, I must point out that this last has a family related contradiction, but I still believe the point is valid. If a member serves less than a career and is discharged in good health, with no  VA verified service connected disability whatsoever; then if, and only if, a subsequent medical problem can be shown to have been due to military service, the VA should open their doors to that patient. Having said that, My dear late brother died of cancer under VA care, which he unfailingly described in glowing terms. he did a 2 year stint in the Army in Korea and Thailand, was never under Agent Orange or fire. Nothing he experienced in the army had any bearing on the occurrence of tongue cancer at 64 years old. He was a self employed musician and was unable to afford the cost of the advanced procedures which the VA performed in efforts to heal him. Am I glad the VA was there for him? Of course. Do I think he should have had to use it (or be eligible, in truth)? I do not. Should any person who works in America, having served or not,  have to rely on such help because they can't afford decent health care? No they should not. You want to "fix" the VA? adopt single payer, national health care and let the VA do what it was intended to do.    

'Tis a Mystery (as Father Duffy would say)

    'Tis a Mystery (as Father Duffy would say)

I watched once more the video of the born again clod attempting to crash the love-in at Pulse the other day, holding a homophobic hate speech sign. He was gently, but forcibly removed and all the while he pewled something along the line of "Why aren't Christians allowed here?"

In the first place, there were Christians, Jews and others peacefully gathered there, some of whom are friends, but that's irrelevant. The question should be how anyone actually believing themself to be "Christian" in any rationally defined sense of the word, could be antagonistic toward the proceedings at Pulse in the first place.

There are many people who loudly and proudly proclaim their belief in God and many of those also claim that they believe Yeshua bar Josef ("Jesus" in Latin) was his actual offspring and what he (Jesus ) allegedly said and did while here in a corporeal sense, per the synoptic gospels, was directive in nature for his followers.

Now I'm relatively certain that this yahoo at Pulse would vigorously agree up to this point, as would several devout people with whom I had professional acquaintances at various times. One was searching for meaning following a too soon death in the family, the other dealing with the double whammy of questioning their own sexuality while trying to reconcile that to being a self proclaimed Evangelical. Tough, huh? One actually used to attempt to gloss over their internal contradictions by saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin" which is but one of many trite and irrelevant rote phrases which I presume they teach in Sunday School at First (your denomination here) Church.

So what exactly did Jesus imply regarding sexuality in what we can probably generally agree is all recognized translations of the New Testament? Nuthin'. But..... no, Nuthin! If one is actually attempting to be an observant Christian as defined by the guy in charge, then there are only two simple rules. From his own alleged quotes, all that other stuff is wiped away by the new covenant, so have some bacon with those pancakes! Love your God, Love your neighbor. Period. Note there is no mention beyond that of gender, race, sexual preference...!

Now I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that if Jesus as he is limned by the three synoptic writers were real, alive today and in Orlando, we can say with relative certainty which side of the line he'd have been on. In fact, the mean spirited, misogynistic, homophobic faux Christianity preached by the Pat Robertsons and their ilk stem from the apostle Paul, another conflicted soul who actually hijacked the Jesus version and made his version into quite another thing. In a real sense Paul created Christianity as his own brainchild, citing Jesus as the source but ignoring the inherent inclusive, "love one another", vibe. It was further institutionalized by several Church Councils which decided, among other things, that some writings were scripture, others not so much.

By 367, those scriptural writings in which the "princes of the Church" (men) consolidated male dominance, power, and dogma were the official Biblical canon. These writings excluded any writings, such as the gospel of Peter or the gospel of Mary Magdalen which proposed alternate concepts of who Jesus was, women's place in the Church, who was "The Apostle Jesus loved," etc, etc.

Power was good, in the 4th century (and far beyond), and if you couldn't arrange to get born into royalty, becoming a priest was a damned good alternative. Organized Christianity, as "The Church" soon became the hammer with which sovereigns controlled the masses, and priests benefitted immensely because of it. It was true among Hebrews before the supposed time of Jesus, and soon became as deeply imbedded in Christian nations afterward, even to the point of Bishops having automatic seats in the British Parliament and being executors of the Royal will in most of Western Europe. All were concerned primarily with power, control and preservation of privilege and precious little more beyond that,

Those who would invoke Old Testament teachings to scorn any lifestyle other than their own, are the worst kind of hypocrites, because they act exactly as did the Pharisees who are alleged to have cried for Jesus' death. If one desires to embrace Old Testament rules, then start by not ordering the ribs and shrimp combo at Sonny's. While you're at it stop trying to check out the server's butt. Only if you follow all of the more than 600 "laws " cited in the OT as ordained by the sky magus, then, and only then, can we at least acknowledge that you are objecting to non traditional relationships based on deeply held religious beliefs dictated by scriptural teaching instead of being what you really are, simply moronic, bigoted, homophobic assholes.

More short takes, (a bit longer this time)

More short takes (a bit longer, this one!)

     
        As we have just commemorated the Normandy Invasion and, through the year, Flag day, Memorial day, Pearl Harbor day, etc, it seems to me that one word is used to varying ends over and over, to the point that its meaning sometimes becomes so muddied that an English language learner might well wonder exactly what is meant by its use. That word is "Patriotism."

      I'm not in any way referring to responding to, or being prepared to respond to, acts of aggression against the nation by those with hostile intent. There was a real threat in World War II, which we waited too long to address in Europe but were forced to confront in the Pacific and then in Europe. That waiting was a result of American disgust over the 20 million death toll of World War. Nor am I minimizing the realities of threats that the Soviet union presented in the last half of the 20th century. I'm not even referring to missiles on Cuba. I am however referring to actions taken by politicians to garner public approval under the flag of "patriotism" when there is little of it in the legislators themselves, in many cases - or as someone famously said, "The fat old men sending the fine young ones out to die." 

         Admittedly, this is a word which is incredibly subjective in nature at best. That said, there is also, and more so now than any time since the McCarthy era, a huge partisan divide over that meaning.  In looking for a meaning I could live with, I went to history, since it's what I do. So here, in no particular order are a couple of definitions I consider reasonable and on point for "patriotism"

" My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth." - Abraham Lincoln.

          This, of course, from the first Republican President, who would be chagrined, I think, to see what has become of those who identify as  Republican. The "last best hope" to which Lincoln alludes is defined numerous places in his own words and  generally includes concepts such as rights for all citizens, adherence to the Bill of Rights, and excludes any mention of religion beyond a Deity.

What is interesting that "super patriots" such as Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum et al, frequently, in their self serving public orations, refer to "In God we Trust" as if it is a foundation stone of the Constitution and the nation. In truth it was adopted in 1956, replacing "E Pluribus Unum" ("From Many, One") in a move away from the Founder's discernable intent. It was a kneejerk reaction to what we were told was the threat of "global, Godless, Communism."

     The sad implication here is that apparently, although Socialism had existed as a political persuasion in the US since the early to mid  1800s, Some in power had so little faith in the better natures of Capitalism and its appeal to Americans, that it was necessary to invoke the Deity as an ally.     

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

         I recently noted an internet headed by the bold words "Power for Patriots!"  Who wouldn't be curious? It turns out it was an enterprising individual hawking his plans for homemade solar panels. What was interesting was his assertion that if the national power grid crashed that somehow only "patriots" who bought his information (by the way, readily available elsewhere on the "net" for free!) would  be able to have electricity. Really? I don't know what proof of "patriotism" one was required to submit to obtain the information, but I nonetheless marveled at the idea.

          Of course Washington, who tried so desperately to minimize any sense of "partisanship" (and failed, in the final analysis, although his farewell address warned of its negative aspects) was already beset by the pissing match between Adams/Hamilton and Jefferson, which resulted , among other things in Adams and Jefferson sulking and refusing to speak to one another for 8 years. Earlier, in 1793, Jefferson had resigned as SecState because of Hamilton's access to Washington's ear on matters related to finance and the "shape" of the new republic. Would anyone call any of those three "unpatriotic?" Some today undoubtedly would, more from ignorance than discernment.    

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about" and this gem, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

       Sam Clemens was an anti-imperialist and had "minimized" his Civil War involvement to several weeks, after which he went west. He later described the war as: “A blot on our history, but not as great a blot as the buying and selling of Negro souls.” Regardless of how he avoided the War, Clemens, writing as Mark Twain, staunchly reserved his approval of war for defense of the home and hearth. While McKinley was exhorting American jingoism and Patriotic zeal in the Philippines, Twain was holding up the actions of US Soldiers in the slaughter of women and children to the light of a free press.

Faced with the evidence of mass exterminations, he wrote: "General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been, 'Kill or capture those savages.' (those 'savages' were Filipinos who thought they should not be a colony of the US) Apparently our little army considered that the "or" left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it had been for eight years in our army out there--the taste of Christian butchers."

Subsequent investigation and the testimony of enlisted men involved would reveal water boarding and the mass shootings of women and children. My Lai, in Vietnam wasn't the first and neither was the Moro massacre Twain describes, since the US Army had honed it's genocidal skills at Wounded Knee 25 years earlier, and, in truth as early as 1637, fine upstanding Christian English from Plymouth and their Indian allies all but erased the Mashantucket Pequots as a tribal group in the Mystic Massacre. They, also, probably told themselves it was their "patriotic duty", but it was really just about controlling the wampum trade.

"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!" - Albert Einstein

         

       We are exposed, almost every day by those who express their worship of those who are "Fighting for our freedom." I am conflicted by that concept, since I unequivocally support the safety, welfare and safe return of any and all US servicemen. Having said that, we must examine the reality of the statement, so freely expressed and apparently rarely analyzed.

      Plainly stated, there are no Americans alive today who are more "free" than they would be if we had never sent any US troops to Iraq. In contrast, there are many families who mourn children killed under the guise of "fighting for our freedom." 

       This is not in any sense an indictment of strong national defense. My 26 years in the Submarine Force during the Cold war, and the continued efforts of those who keep us prepared to defend ourselves are categorically different from the expeditionary forces of volunteers ("mercenaries?") who excitedly go to hostile areas, antagonize persons of other faiths and nationalities and come home , themselves frequently damaged, both externally and in invisible ways. 

       The Middle East isn't the first such disaster, but we apparently failed to learn the lesson of Viet Nam. In that instance, we had a President, Harry Truman who, when begged by Ho Chi Minh not to let the French reestablish their "Indo-Chinese" colony, was unable to do so because of the perceived response to allowing a "communist" government in Southeast Asia. We were moving into the era of the "domino theory" and all Communists were seen as merely clones of Lenin, Stalin or Mao, neither of which description fit Ho to any degree. He was, first and foremost, a nationalist, who, disliked the Chinese as much or more than the US did at the time. 

       This political mistake cost millions of lives, 60,000 American and another 75,000 disabled veterans. For what? Today Vietnam is united under their version of Communism and they and the China we "feared" are major US trading partners.

     Finally, since I am sure some readers will take issue with my opinion take a moment to read these last two quotes from two of America's greatest generals, one a Republican President.

"The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living." - Omar Bradley

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

But all too often, and as we sometimes see it expressed by the current administration, and as Samuel Johnson famously pointed out:

“ patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Chomsky and Stossel, Both Extremists, Both Wrong

Stossel and Chomsky Both Extremists, Both Wrong.

        Never cared for Noam Chomsky. Trained as a linguist and wealthy because of his teaching and writing gigs, he preaches State Socialism, which he may believe in, but knows he'll never have to live under. He is a member of the "Blue Chambray Shirt" school, preaching a philosophy in the abstract which has never really worked in  application on a large scale. He dresses down because he can, not because he has to. It's sort of like a Catholic Priest counseling married persons. He never did it, but he'll be happy to tell you how it ought to be.

"The Tea Party people say they're angry about socialism, but maybe they're really angry about capitalism. If there's a sense of being looked down upon, it's that sense of failure that's built into a system that assures everyone they can make it to the top, but then reserves the top for only a tiny fraction of the strivers."

 Gail Collins

       At the other extreme is that unabashed apostle of free market capitalism, John Stossel.  Stossel's current op-ed piece is a follow on to one which skewered Chomsky and Socialism in general, using the example of Venezuela, where it has failed on a monumental scale. Stossel then cites Hong Kong and Dubai as "prosperity cities" where, as he sees it, life is wonderful because they reject all things socialist in favor of all things Capitalist. As is too often the case with Stossel, he fails miserably in his choice of examples.

        Dubai's labor force is about 88% imported. The capitalism is the part where agents recruit in places like Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan. promising good pay, but neglecting to mention that their cut ( about 50%) will come off the top. Additionally, worker passports are frequently confiscated for up to a year, insuring the slave laborer remains, unable to leave, too poor to object. Slave labor, ah the joys of Capitalism in Dubai, huh?-

       Hong Kong, on the other hand has the opposite problem, too many jobs, too few workers. The result is a well paid labor force, which would seem to prove the vision of Adam Smith in 1776.  Curiously, what Stossel won't tell you, probably because he writes first, researches later, (if at all), is that all the Emirates and Hong Kong, provide citizens with universal health care, that bane of the "anti-socialism" pundits.

        So, what's workable in the middle? Actually, it's pretty much what we currently call our system of government, but without  the trappings of an elite who are loathe to cede much semblance of fairness to those they consider their social inferiors, buttressed by a too large cadre of fools who are unaware that much of what they support in the name of "freedom" is antithetical to their own welfare.

        State socialism is a system whereby all means of production are controlled by the state, in extreme cases, private property would be non-existent. No sane person, except perhaps Chomsky would propose that it is better than a regulated market economy, with "regulated" however,  being the operative word. If 2008 showed us anything it was that removing regulations from bankers who play with others' money is dangerous. Sadly, we all paid some price for the ensuing recession, while many, spurred by  the same "de-regulators who allowed it to happen, blamed the Black guy in the White House. I have yet to see or hear of any Politician, Democrat, Libertarian or Republican, take any share of blame for allowing the massive erosion of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act, which allowed the disaster of the Big Short. But, remember this, if bankers, drug manufacturers and other industrialists always acted morally, or in our (society's) best interests we'd need no regulators, would we? Ask John Stossel, he thinks they're all righteous dudes, as Bill and Ted would say.

       We hear a lot of chatter by the Far Right, re: "excessive government regulation."  Most of those are parroting complaints, many from the POTUS,  regarding what they've been led to believe are the  things Government does which hold back "good paying US jobs." In truth, most of those who parrot such drivel fail to realize that those jobs don't and won't exist again, because what they're really longingly remembering is the post WWII US economy, based on plentiful domestic resources and little competition from other nations. An economy structured like that is not going to reoccur, but retrain? Hell no! they'd  rather blame the "Socialists" and the "Illegals" - you know, those hard working people who do the jobs many Americans consider "beneath them?"  

        As an example, the coal industry purveys a noxious product, and relatively few Americans really earn their living in the industry. An even smaller, actually microscopic, few make significant money from the sales of coal. They would like a totally unregulated usage of their poisonous commodity, so they could sell even more. In their wake lies Black Lung whose treatment responsibilities they have largely reneged upon for decades. As a statistical reality, those living within a 50 mile radius of a coal fired power plant are more than 300% more likely to suffer debilitating chronic lung diseases and some cancer types than those who live within the same radius from a Nuclear power plant.

       Acid raid once  devastated forests, now recovering a bit thanks to (wait for it) clean air "regulations." Soil acidity and toxin levels at 27 sites in the northeastern US and eastern Canada, all of which have experienced declining levels of acid rain over the past 8 to 24 years are steadily decreasing.  A recent study found that aluminum concentrations (a telltale sign of acid rain damage) have declined while pH has increased in the upper soil layers across nearly all sites.

        In plain speak,  forests are finally starting to recover from an environmental problem which scientists identified decades ago and took legislative action to fix. All this in spite of the Reagan Administration's staunch denial of acid rain's existence as well as opposition to and hatred of the EPA. If this sounds familiar, it should, because it proves irrevocably that man's machinations can effect and have changed the environment. It also proves that well thought out approaches to limit contaminants can effect remediation.

        The truth is that these regulations have an infinitesimally small cost impact on a per capita basis, but they do cut into corporate profit margins. If asked about clean air and water regulations in a straight forward, factual manner, essentially all Americans will freely acknowledge that yes, they want to have an assured access to clean air and water. Some of them, however, will also support candidates who scorn the EPA and such regulatory agencies, primarily because they've been told that they are the "bad government" trying to take away their liberty - another grossly misapplied term of the Far Right.

       When those same fear mongers address health care, it becomes the organized opposition to Socialized Medicine. The term Socialism has shades of application, but is thrown around by the Far right whenever it is desired to influence a target audience.  Sad reality is that while Big Pharma earns net profits far in excess of any other industry (as high as a whopping 30% + for the high earners) it also spends far, far more  on advertising than research and development. Although major pharmaceutical companies want you to regard them as your saviors, laboring at their own cost to bring you bigger and better cures for syndromes you didn't know you had, it's simply not true. Half of the scientifically innovative drugs approved in the U.S. from 1998 to 2007 resulted from research at universities and biotech firms, not big drug companies. And despite their rhetoric, drug companies spend 19 times more on marketing than on research and development.

       Complicating this is the fact that per the 2006 Medicare Part D law,  Medicare is forbidden to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers, so, while the privately insured patient buys an Epi-pen either with a coupon (supplied generously by the manufacturer, Mylan, because they can't be used by Medicare patients) or with a drug plan card for under $300, Medicare pays Mylan over $600 each. US Drug costs are a primary index of why some Socialized concepts, applied in the public interest are appropriate. This isn't "excessive" regulation, it's lack of it where appropriate!

       When Theodore Roosevelt became "his accidency" as President after McKinley's assassination, there were substances sold OTC for various purposes which were toxic and dangerous. In fact the drug industry as a whole was sometimes called "The Poison Trust. " The Meat packing Industry wasn't far behind as a purveyor of unregulated filth. A significant number of commodities prices were fixed by a relative handful of men, who while publically trumpeting the virtues of the free market, secretly conspired to insure it was anything but free by eliminating competition. Some of these conditions were tackled because TR believed that regulation in the interest of all of us trumped unrestricted greed as evidenced by the Rockefellers, Morgans, Goulds and their co-conspiratorial bought and paid for Congressmen.  

                                                                                                                       Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey

     Watching the excellent BBC series "Call the Midwife" will bring to memory, in the last several seasons, the story of thalidomide and the badly deformed children it caused. Most Americans have never seen such results of pregnancy because of those damned Government regulators, specifically FDA drug reviewer, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, who refused to knuckle under to what had become a significant pressure from drug companies to release the drug. Her insistence on further trials saved American mothers from the tragedy unfolding in Europe.  Frances Kelsey, born in Canada, was a real American hero, applying regulation and oversight in the public intyerest.    

Short Takes

Short Takes

        The local rag periodically publishes letters from readers and will on the odd occasion headline them with something along these lines "Retired Navy Captain says ..(Insert topic, usually Far Right here)..." The most recent was a screed essentially calling James Comey a worthless piece of shit and The Cheetoh in Chief a righteous dude.

        Unless the ex Captain in question was assigned to a staff position at the FBI (not) or is a personal friend of either man (retired long enough that he was gone well before the current kerfuffle), his opinion is about as valid as the old guy living in the refrigerator carton under the overpass. Where did we get the idea that all veterans are, as a result of being ex servicemen:

1: Wise in foreign relations regardless of what they did in the military...or, knowledgeable in all matters even peripherally related to military or related affairs no matter what their duties. One personal example is the lady who, at a pot luck dinner for my wife's singing group which happened the day after the Singapore Airlines plane was lost, earnestly said, "Mike you were in the Navy, what do you think happened to that plane?" It was hard to remain casual when I told her that my experience in Submarines really left me unprepared to comment on the subject. 

2: Heroes, regardless of their actual duties. JAG was a case in point here as TV shows go, along with the execrable NCIS. Having worked closer than I care to have had to with junior students at Nuclear power School with representatives of the Navy JAG and NIS/NCIS, I can assure you of two things:

        First: any show about Navy lawyers which doesn't involve golf a good part of the time is bullshit. (Don't get all worked up, it's an exaggeration, but the implication is accurate)

        Second: There are real people who deal with terrorists and murderers, but they aren't Mark Harmon and the 4 foot nine, 72 year old Linda Hunt. She is physically NPQ and beyond mandatory retirement age, not to mention that the show's premise is bullshit. Barracks theft, pot, and drunk and disorderly conduct at the EM club would be more in line with what NIS does.

        In my experience there are genuine heroes in all walks of life, and the military is certainly no exception. That said, neither is any military group the Justice League of America. I found the attitudes and attributes of the (literally) thousands of young men I trained and those  men I served with at sea with to generally reflect the ethical makeup of much of our society. The issue here is that doing one's job and exhibiting moral behavior aren't necessarily heroic even if somewhat rare.

Next point

        Mona Charen wrote a really good (and sobering) column the other day. She is a conservative op-ed writer, but also a critical thinker who simply has been unable to, in any sense whatsoever, support the current disaster in the White House. The gist of her column dealt with the disturbing number of younger Americans who self identify as having emotional problems. Without listing the stats, suffice it to say she makes her point with real data, not opinion. She doesn't necessarily draw any  specific conclusions as to reason or etiology, so I will offer a couple of what I feel might be at least related causative agents .

        Social media: In a society in which even those whose voices preach hate and bigotry, and can do it instantly with no filters of self censorship, the concept that words can wound has never been more concrete. Regardless of source, there is no editorial restraint in play for many who write and post without considering the consequences, or even worse, simply not caring. Being adolescent and on the receiving end of some of the worst of these has got to be dreadful for those who may already have delicate psyches. In days past, kids with self image or shaky emotional issues weren't subject to the bullying of an entire electronic media spectrum as they might be today.

        A spinoff of this is the national political circus in which civility and respect for all opinions have become societal road kill. Any adolescent today, watching what passes for an orderly governmental operation, might well despair when considering what looms ahead. For the past 16 years, even though the two POTUS figures were of differing political philosophies, they were civil to the media, the public and each other. This has changed for the disastrous over the past year. Any morally focused rational young person looking to the White House for a role model is doomed to be frightened and disappointed, not to mention depressed. As a corollary to the previous statement, any amoral,  disturbed, bigoted racist kid will certainly be encouraged by the antics and attitude of the pseudo-adult occupant of the Presidency. The current POTUS has personally used social media for shaming, bullying and, in doing so, has  generally shown that even the highest office in the land cannot turn a hog's ass into bacon.    

Off the Rails Again

        Poor Walter Williams. He says things which he wants his readers to believe and it's obvious that there are one of two scenarios at play. Either he doesn't know what he doesn't know, or chooses to ignore facts and generate his own reality.

          The most recent example is a June 8th column entitled, "Democrats' Hoodwinking Of Blacks" of which minority Walter Williams is a member. I would have said proud member, but his screed casts serious doubt on that assertion.

          To begin with, Williams points to the 1820 founding of the Democratic Party and correctly asserts that as a group, Democrats supported states' rights and the institution of slavery. Apparently he would like the reader to believe that nothing has changed over the ensuing 200 years. This is akin to going to Rome and asking, "What time will the Christians be sacrificed to the lions."

          There is no question that the South was solidly Democratic before and after the Civil War, in reaction to having the first Republican President (Lincoln) and several successors force Reconstruction upon a prostrate and still vilely racist South. As long as reconstruction continued with a military presence in the former Confederacy, Blacks were enabled to participate in the political process, to the tune of Black state legislators, and 22 members of Congress, all of which Williams points out.

          He omits, however, that in 1877, it all crashed when Rutherford B. Hayes was "elected" by a deal with the Devil. In exchange for the  electoral votes in the contested states of Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina, the Republicans won  the White House and the US military got out of the South, abandoning Black Americans and ending reconstruction. Why is this important? It matters because all that militarily enforced "hale good fellow well met"  in the South was replaced by the Klan, lynchings and massive Black disenfranchisement. Black Republicans were then ignored by a succession of republican administrationsas they lost civil rights and were subject to discrimination and harassment to suppress their voting. At the turn of the 20th century, most black people were effectively disenfranchised by state legislatures in every southern state, despite being a majority in some. Following the Republican abandonment of Reconstruction and Southern Blacks, neither party really was successful in obtaining representation for Blacks.

          Meanwhile, and this is where Williams goes off the rails, the Democratic party had become the party of two faces. While racism in America still limited opportunities for minorities, and women of all races, for that matter, the South had White citizen's councils which institutionalized it. Meanwhile in the north, as a result of the Great Migration of the 1910-1940 period, Blacks began making strides and the party began to split along sectional lines.

          This abyss among Democrats became even wider  in 1948, when Democrat Harry Truman, from Missouri, a pre-Civil War slave state, desegregated the US military and also insisted on a civil rights plank in the Democratic platform. Reaction to this in the South was immediate and reflexive. Southern Democrats as they now called themselves were, like Southern Baptists, a breed apart from the mainstream of the party. Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina bigot and Senator, formed the "Dixiecrat" party and ran for President in 1948, proving as he did that a third party usually fragments the party from which it splits. Thurmond and to much greater surprise, Republican Thomas E. Dewey both lost to Truman. In the South, this resulted in many southern racists abandoning  the Democratic party and becoming Republicans. By the end of Truman's term in 1952, there were still some hard line Southerners who clung to the "Democrat" label as much out of tradition as anything else,  but they were identified by their constituencies as the same old racists they'd always been.

          Williams believes he "calls out" the modern Democratic party by naming Orval Faubus, Bull Conners, and other redneck trash as representative of the  Democratic Party as it is today and apparently thinks we'll believe him.  He lauds Republican Dwight Eisenhower for sending troops to Little Rock in support of Brown V Board's desegregation initiative. He knows little and assumes a lot. First, by today's standards, Eisenhower would be a Liberal and almost assuredly a Democrat. He once  said, "I'm Conservative with money and Liberal when it comes to people." As for Williams' allusion to Ike's racial liberalism, we must consider that Eisenhower, a military man, took his oath seriously, unlike the current mess in the White House, and believed it was his duty to enforce the law, not necessarily to agree with it. A far better index of how Eisenhower really felt can be found in the quote immediately after hearing that Earl Warren had pushed the USSC to a unanimous reversal of Plessy v Ferguson, the case which had "legitimized" US apartheid for the previous 58 years. When told of the decision in Brown V. Board, and its implications, he said (of Warren) "If I had known he was going to do that, I'd never have appointed him." Walter Williams either doesn't know that or hopes you, the reader, don't.   

          He simply omits any reference to either Kennedy, especially Bobby's role as Attorney General in opposing violence aimed at Civil rights activists  in the Deep South. The  Kennedys, obviously representative of the Modern Democratic Party, were gone too soon, but JFK's Democratic successor, who Williams hasn't even the class to mention by name,  actually defined the party as it is today. Williams is quick to point out that there was Democratic opposition to Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964. He fails to mention that the opposition was by Southern Democrats or that the Bill was forced down those Southern Democrats' throats by a Democratic President. Lyndon B. Johnson would go on to sign the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (missing in Walter's  World) as well as creation of Medicare and Medicaid which, like them or hate them, are monuments to equal treatment under the law and are color blind.

          Williams then takes on Labor Unions as the enemy of people of color. Who does he cite as authorities? Who else but Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington, and WEB DuBoise, all dead, all accurate in their evaluations of Labor Unions ...(wait for it) when they were alive and all well before  the 1960s. It's about 50 years later, things are different and he Democratic Party is different, but Walter Williams hopes you don't know that. It is unnecessary to point out the partisan affiliation of the race baiters and haters in America at present. Walter Williams should be ashamed of himself, and in a deeply Freudian sense, I think he might be.

Things I Believe #3

Things I believe #3

          I believe we're becoming, nay, have become, a nation of vampires. I don't mean the nice Bram Stoker Dracula kind who just kill for food. They just suck out their victim's blood, but these modern day models feed on their victim's  emotions , as well.

         There's a great German word, so good that we have no single word English language analogy. The word is "Schadenfreude."  It translates as, "Pleasure derived by someone from another person's misfortune."  The immediacy of  24 hour news and social media have become, I believe, the vectors of this virus which infects so many. Like vampirism, it only works if someone else is damaged; but unlike vampirism, the damage doesn't confer immortality. Also unlike vampirism, the invention of medieval ignorance , refined by 19th century fiction, Schadenfreude is real and in front of us every day.

          Tiger Woods has an unexpected drug reaction, not driving, but found asleep in his car, the initial report reads "DUI." The haters immediately smile, gloat briefly and begin typing. The list of immediate allegations, assumptions, etc,  is long and vile. There is a palpable disappointment when his blood alcohol is revealed to have been .000 at the time.

         Frequently we rationalize our own schadenfreude as simply (insert misfortunate person here) "getting what's coming to them." To be sure,  there are individuals whose bad behavior makes them prime targets of such a  reaction, and it's difficult not to smile and mutter "karma is a bitch," but it becomes troublesome when we choose an entire class of persons, by race, nationality, religion, gender preference etc, and delight in any ill which befalls a member of said group. 

          A recent news article details the sad story of an Australian tourist in San Francisco who died after a fall on concrete steps as a result of a bar fight which started elsewhere, finished with his falling on the stairs. The spate of negativity directed toward, not the persons involved, but at the city itself was almost unbelievable, as the vampires drew energy from the death of a tourist and vented it toward that "hotbed of liberalism." Guns figure prominently, gangs, liberal laws, gays, etc, and the list went on. San Francisco was blasted as  liberal haven of all things evil.

           As it turns out the initial actual police report states that there were no weapons involved and whatever conflict  there had been had started earlier as both sides were drinking. Conspicuous by its absence in the Far right diatribes, was any mention of alcohol, or that the Aussie, who may have been drinking a bit (ya think) may well have been a willing participant and maybe at least partially to blame for the tragedy which ensued.    

         In the United States (and, I am sure elsewhere) this seems to be compounded by several crippling syndromes. The first is troubling because it is only effective at the extremes, This is either the willingness to believe anything derogatory without the least scintilla of corroborative fact, or its inverse, the refusal to believe data driven categorical truth if it's personally unpleasant or antithetical to one's political persuasion.

          Another thing I believe is that a person who has no ability to rationally evaluate all sides of any argument is incapable of expressing a relevant and/or considered opinion. Having said that, I support the recent firing of Kathy Griffin simply because what she did was in execrable taste, and if I were a media entity, I would have terminated our relationship for that reason. This isn't about free speech. Ms. Griffin, who lost her funny about five years ago, used her right to free speech and her employer responded, as was their right, in ending their relationship because they pay the bills and she had become a liability. Notice the glee from the Far Right which was,  unsurprisingly, not glee but outrage when Dock Dynasty's inbred clan was also terminated, albeit too briefly.

         Now, having established that, let's talk about the outrage expressed by persons of both sides of the political spectrum, but, more specifically the Far Right  who apparently wanted her arrested as well as fired. Where were these ultra conservatives when Ted Nugent spoke of shooting President Obama? where was the outrage when, over 8 years slurs abounded re: Michelle Obama, her husband and their daughters?  The silence from most on the  right was deafening. This one sided bias, I maintain is one critical difference between Social Liberals and Conservatives.

          It manifests in numerous ways. Most who believe that global warming is real and should be of concern, do so because they have considered that the opinions of more than 90% of the world's climatologists are more persuasive than the 10% or so who maintain that it isn't "real," but rather invented by China, as #45 opined during the 2016 campaign.  Critical thinking, if available,  applies here. Many have considered both sides and made up their own mind. This is too often not the case in the other extreme.

          The collapse of Delaware sized ice floes from the Ross shelf are apparently unpersuasive, but the natterings of persons who have only opinions, not facts, like Rick Santorum and others with interests in the energy industry are absolute truths. Religion also plays a significant role here, because most if not all evangelical Christians are also climate change deniers.   I believe this comes from some deep seated realization that if man can change his world, for the better or the worse, perhaps this whole "creation story" thing is really a "creation myth" which is how Christians, Muslims and Jews refer to all other religions' origin fables.

          The pathetic corollary here is that these "true believers" also tend to be ridiculously easy marks for charlatans selling God and themselves by the pound on TV. It is appalling to me that we are bombarded with news stories of persons who have been elected to the US Congress who pontificate  pronouncements that "God will ....(fill in miracle here)" which are really meant to be statements more on the order of "look at how reverent I am."

         A similar sentiment is that expressed when someone recovers from serious illness and thanks the sky magus as if the efforts of the medical personnel involved were of little consequence. These people apparently have never considered that if their God actually listened and interfered in human's lives and cared deeply about her most devout believers, there would be the descendents of about 6 million more Jewish people alive today.