Democratic Socialism, One Man's Opinion

       State Socialism and Democratic Socialism are not the same thing, a reality which most Republicans are fond of overlooking. I saw a recent post referring to “failed” socialist countries. As I reflected on that, I realized that ignorance, not stupidity, is in operation here, aided by intentional Far Right propaganda.

      Among those nation states which practice Democratic Socialism to varying degrees, Norway, Sweden and Finland, and to some extent, Denmark, come to mind. None are “failed” or “failing.”  On the other hand, In Venezuela, where State Socialism has been forced upon a population without their consent, it is failing, and has failed. Obviously, there is a difference and it needs exploration and explanation.

State Socialism is Communism, that is, state ownership of everything with essentially no private property. State socialism is operative in Cuba, China and North Korea, and currently Venezuela. It has failed in Venezuela and has resulted in serious economic poverty and food shortages in North Korea. Cubans, it can be argued, are better off under Communism than under the US sponsored dictatorship that preceded it. China, while maintaining a nominally Communist system, has moved closer to capitalist theory with regard to industry and technology.

        The formerly Communist Soviet Union, now broken up, has spun off various economic models. Some, the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, are market (capitalist) economies. Russia formerly under the control of the party leadership is now an oligarchy (Oligarchy def: “Oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious, political, or military control.”  For many Russians not “connected,” life is little better than under communism, which is the theoretical opposite of Oligarchy, simply because the rich and powerful still control government policy and the means of production.  

    Socialism as it was tried (briefly) in the UK flirted with national ownership of heavy industry, airlines, coal, Public utilities, auto companies, etc. while maintaining an entitled elite, a monarchy, and private property and small business. This is still the case to a degree, due to the relatively small area, in such instances as power plants, etc. It failed, however in the auto industry and was largely abandoned. British Airways was formed in 1974 when the UK's two government owned airlines, the British Oversea Airways Corporation and British European Airways were joined together. It is now one of the largest private companies in the United Kingdom.

        One exception, still working, however, is the UK National Health Service, which delivers health care more economically and, in many cases, now, faster than the US. Drug prices are lower and health care consumer satisfaction surveys of all OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and the USA constantly place the UK far higher than the US.  On a cost per capita basis, as of 2016, the UK National Health service delivered better care annually, (based on consumer surveys) for $4192 USD than the US did for $9892.  In fact, the next closest national cost per annum was Switzerland, at 20 percent less. Switzerland requires every citizen to purchase health care insurance (Gee just like “Obamacare”, huh?) In plain speak, the US spends 17.9% of GDP on health care (all sources, public, private, employer provided) with worse consumer outcomes than the UK does with 8.9% of GDP!

       Why lower costs?  Several reasons all related to Democratic Socialist concepts. First: There is one payer, eliminating the levels and multiple layers of billing. Second: since providers are paid the same for specific services, there is no layered fee schedule and no high end “traps” for the uninsured (since no one is). Third: The National Health Service negotiates drug costs with pharma companies. Currently, US Drug costs are 20% of Government Medicare spending. This means, as an easy example, that even after a Medicare patient with Part D drug coverage picks up their Epi-pen 2 pack, the cost billed (their co-pay, and Medicare) will be about $600. Meanwhile, the VA pays $182. In simple fact, Medicare, under current law, pays about three times as much as the drug manufacturer sells the exact same drug to the VA for and to insurance companies who negotiate much lower prices price. Back to the 20% of cost figure for drugs as Medicare spending. If all drug costs were negotiated down by the same amount as the Epi-pen “difference” ($178 vs $600) the reduction in Medicare spending would be about 13 percent! In 2017 that would have meant a $91 billion savings!  

        Would anyone even suggest that when Mitch McConnell blames “entitlements” (including Medicare and Medicaid) for the deficit, that making Big Pharma act even a little responsibly enters his mind? Single payer national health care would make a tremendous difference in the Government’s health care expenditures. It would also require Congress to get Big Pharma’s hands out of their pockets, while all it would do the drug industry is reduce their obscene (25-30% net) profits to those more like other US industries (5-8% net). We already have “socialized medicine” – Medicare/Medicaid. Allowing it to be extended to all, along with taking about half as much in taxes as the average family now pays out of pocket, would fund it.

Democratic Socialists don’t believe in and have never suggested “nationalizing” heavy industry, or even the power grid. No one has suggested that private property or business ownership should be done away with. No one has suggested that your own initiative should be stifled or that you shouldn’t be allowed to accomplish all of which you are capable.

        What democratic Socialists have said is that totally unregulated financial markets lead or have led to such events as the Great Depression, the 2008 Great recession, and, in fact the other US economic “panics” as they were called earlier, all triggered by unrestrained manipulation of financial products/services/commodities. Who suffers?  Why, it’s the same people who have allowed themselves to be conned into believing that what’s good for business is always good for America. Ask those who lost their homes in 2008-2011 due to “tranches” of high-risk mortgages being bundled as “real money” and sold to equally complicit financial managers who handled pension plans and retirement funds. And yet, and yet, three former Bear Stearns execs are now in positions of influence within the Trump administration.

        In like manner, consumer protection legislation and financial market oversight such as Dodd-Frank is being continually weakened in favor of those who can profit by “looser” restraints on their dealings. Sadly, many MAGA hat wearers are the prime subjects of such predatory credit and lending practices, enhanced by Trump sponsored deregulation.

        In what must be the most disconnected illogic of all time, many who support Trump become violent when they hear the word socialism, even though in the areas where Democratic Socialists have the most concerns, they would be the beneficiaries protected from encroaching oligarchy and lessening protection of their rights.

        So, what have we learned (hopefully)? (see below chart  as a reference)

Socialism as an absolute has many problems, and some just about as bad as unregulated free market Capitalism. At the extremes, the results are very similar, reduction of private property for most citizens, extreme concentration of power, either by Party control of the government or the influence of concentrated wealth (Oligarchy)accomplishing the same thing. Somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum is a balance of both systems which protects human rights while allowing the results of effort to improve the condition of those who produce it. While Democratic Socialism can’t and shouldn’t address all issues, there are specific areas like the general welfare and health of citizens and the right to adequate compensation for their labor that can and should be addressed in a truly free, representatively democratic society.    

Truly Deplorable

This just showed up on my news feed, and like watching a train wreck, I had to read it. Having done so, my muse compelled me to wax lyrical in contradiction. My comments begin  below the picture.

"This is simply pathetic. The act of saying bad things doesn't make them so. The statements about family are obviously just crap. as for the "kids" they were very real and well-behaved persons compared to, say, the Bush girls - drunk in public on false IDs. Remember when the President's children were "off limits?" I Didn't think so. Ask yourself what would have happened if the Obamas had a son like Barron Trump. Yeah, sad.

 As a very senior enlisted veteran, I violently disagree with the military comments. A closer look at military spending during the Obama years (something you are apparently incapable of, preferring to insult out of blind ignorance fueled by race hatred) shows the error of your statements. In fact, during the Obama years, which included a terrible recession thanks to the housing bubble collapse, defense spending as a percentage of GDP was actually higher than at any time during Bush 43's administration. Yeah, really! For most of the Obama years defense spending in constant dollars was higher than any time during Viet Nam and most of the Reagan years. Again, you are simply ignorant. It must be hard being you, going through life not knowing what you don't know.

As for foreign relations, we were absolutely the opposite of "a joke on the world stage" and I've really been to enough of "the world" to know that. I'm guessing you haven't, or you'd know better. In fact, unless by "the world" you mean Russia and perhaps the Saudi butchers, then our international relations are now at the worst they've ever been since WII, and that includes the Viet Nam era, when half the world wondered what the hell we were doing there. Obama is the first President I've had foreigners stop me in their country to speak of positively (at Normandy, in Vienna, the UK, even Morocco!). In discussing US politics with military and civilians from numerous (17) European countries I have never heard a negative impression of Barack Obama. Never. Not one! On the other hand, Donald Trump is the butt of jokes all over Europe today. His golf courses in the UK are failing because of it. I know you don't like hearing it but it is simple truth.

So, what "damage" is Trump repairing? Since it isn’t the Military, contrary to your misstatements, maybe it’s economic. Farm exports, especially soybeans to China, were down $1.9 billion last year (you know, like 40% of "the wall" cost?) and more farms are in foreclosure than any time during the recession, due to Trump's ill-advised tariffs. Many major manufacturers, like Ford, Black and Decker, Whirlpool, Cummins Diesel, and a whole bunch more, are reporting decreased profits, increased costs and even cutting jobs for the same reason.

 Meanwhile, as Trump thumps his chest about “his” booming economy and cuts taxes on his wealthy friends, we have had two years of the highest deficits ever. In fact, when Obama, digging out of the second worst economic collapse in recent history, had high deficits due to extended unemployment and reduced tax revenues you blamed him. You and your ilk also accused him of (this was a favorite) “giving away money to those who don’t deserve it.” Remember that? That was Republicans feeding your already stoked racial bias and making you believe that Obama had high deficits because he increased welfare payments. Never happened. Not once. Barack Obama never signed any bill increasing welfare benefits - to anyone. (and the “Obama phone” was really the “Bush phone” signed into law by Bush 43 in early 2008.)  Are you holding Trump accountable for even large deficits now in a far better economy? Of course, you aren’t.

While relatively few hard drugs come over the border at places other than checkpoints, and all Trump's own people are telling him more security there and at our ports is a better use of funds than a wall, he does what he so often does - ignores their advice and sits five hours a day listening to Fox News and getting his feelings hurt when Hannity and Coulter don't stroke his ego.

 He is a failed businessman (five times) who is a notorious cheater of working persons and knowing employer of undocumented workers who hasn't done what every previous President has done, which is to be open about his taxes and business connections.

He has had a revolving door of staff which, more than anything, speaks to his incompetence in judging people. In truth, nothing he has tried to do, except incite further racial divide has worked.

The saddest part is that he cares absolutely nothing about anyone who isn't rich and can't help him. If you think he cares about anything other than votes and Donald J. Trump you are beyond help, and, yes, for your blind hatred, sheer stupidity and willingness to bend over for him, you are deplorable.

Just Another Evangelical Phony

Just another Evangelical Phony!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/candidate-says-new-congressional-election-warranted-in-north-carolina/2019/02/21/acae4482-35e0-11e9-854a-7a14d7fec96a_story.html?utm_term=.2716f2d2f68b

       So, this piece of shit Evangelical pastor (is that redundant?) whose own son testified to his father’s prior knowledge of massive voter fraud, now admits it, yet NC wants to hold another election vice simply concede to the other candidate? Really?

        Testifying under oath, Rev. Mark Harris cited "sepsis and two strokes" as the reason he ignored his son's counsel regarding the crooked "operative" who conducted the scam. (Roger Stone, anyone?) The "operative,’ one Leslie McCrae Dowless who committed the fraud, paid for illegal and forged write in ballots, which constituted  more than the margin of victory in a close contest. His (Harris') health, apparently so bad that it rendered him incapable of moral; decisions, is good enough to be a Carolina legislator? Am I the only person who thinks this a bit odd?

       The elder Harris’ son, John, a federal prosecutor, apparently with the conscience his father seems to have misplaced, testified that his father was notified, by him, of his grave concerns over the hiring of Dowless and the questionable results of previous efforts by him to “procure” votes. “Dowless conducted an illegal and well-funded ballot-harvesting operation last year,” North Carolina's elections director said Monday. Dowless' workers in rural Bladen County testified at a special state elections board hearing that they were directed to “forge signatures, collect blank or incomplete ballots voters handed over, and fill in votes” for local candidates who hadn't earned them.

        In what I feel is reflective of a much more pervasive problem in American politics, , Dowless was a sub-contractor for a group known as “Red Dome.”  The name says it; the “Red” for Republican and the “Dome” for state and national capitols. Here’s their mission statement:

         "At Red Dome Group, we pride ourselves on personalized service for each of our clients and we always put the needs of our clients first. We’re hands on, we’re easily accessible, and we’re actively engaged every step of the way.

Red Dome Group will work directly with the client to develop and implement a unique strategy that is customized to fit their individual needs and focused on ensuring the client’s success.

We’ve been involved in politics at every level and we have over 75 years of combined experience in every aspect. We know what it takes to win.” 

        Apparently, Red Dome, insulated by intermediaries, will countenance  just about whatever it “takes to win,” legal or not.   

        John Harris said he first had suspicions in Bladen County when he analyzed the 2016 primary results and saw huge absentee voting numbers for candidate Todd Johnson. He said he sent an email with those questionable results to his father. That directly contradicts the several times Mark Harris said he had “no previous warning about Dowless.”

       Of course, "voter fraud", which Republicans trumpet against Democrats every time they wish to discredit and/or disadvantage a candidate, ethnic group or economic stratum, has yet to be shown as a complaint with any merit in any national contest. That said, this is in fact a rock solid prosecutable (not enough penalty, mind you) crime, committed by an operative hired by the "good reverend" who, naturally denies any knowledge of his rascality. It all sounds a bit Trumpish, doesn't it?

 
        What is truly hard to stomach, however is this comment, from the senior Harris’ attorney. Alexander Dale, with a straight face, said, “A new election would punish hundreds of thousands of voters whose choices weren't in doubt. The elections board should declare Mark Harris the winner and push prosecutors to act against those who broke laws protecting election integrity.” In this one statement he pled for the rights of the “hundreds of thousands” who supported his client, while simultaneously, by implication, figuratively spitting on rights of the hundreds of thousands (plus over a thousand more) who actually cast legal votes for his Democratic opponent.  Holding another election is simply one more desperate effort to elect a Republican instead of acknowledging what the recount and subsequent investigation shows - that the Democratic candidate had a sufficient number of legal votes to win the contest. Period! There simply is no national "epidemic" of voter fraud, as Republicans allege to promote voter suppression, but there are pockets of criminal manipulation backed by paid operatives in local dirty politics, and this is certainly one of them.

        In a quick check of all actual cases of verified voting irregularities in Florida, most (about ¾) are single individuals who failed to report previous felony convictions or used an improper address. However, when the voting fraud offense involved orchestrating multiple, or bundled, votes for either party, four of five convictions were of persons working for organizations like, but not, in these cases, Red Dome, in the employ of Republican candidates or in two cases the State Republican committee. Do we see a pattern here which flies in the face of Republican rhetoric?

        What is more interesting to me is that this data comes from the arch conservative Heritage Foundation, which clearly has little interest in slanting this data in Republicans’ favor. Their data shows, looking at a number of diverse states (because I have that kind of time), that contrary to Republican claims, while there are criminal convictions related to election law violations in every state, many are not actual ballot issues, but illegal registration issues, such as a candidate illegally registered, or a potential voter claiming an incorrect residence. Relatively few such incidents involve more than one vote in tens of thousands.      

        Likewise, while Donald Trump ranted in 2016, re: “massive voter fraud,” The commission he established at taxpayer expense found little or no evidence and was quickly disbanded when even his own chosen hit squad came up empty.

       On Nov. 18, 2017, Andrew Kossack — the executive director of the Trump mandated commission — circulated a draft “Staff Report” on the commission’s work. The report was a summary of the commission’s efforts, which Kossack had been compiling beginning in August. The draft report included a prewritten section called “Evidence of Election Integrity and Voter Fraud Issues.” The section, with few exceptions, wound up almost entirely blank. Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight, said the lack of material in the section set aside for evidence of fraud or other voting problems “shows that the White House knew, or at least should have known, that it was blatantly lying when they made those claims in January.” (Trump’s own claims of “massive voter fraud”)

        In any event, if Mark Harris, man of the cloth or simply lowlife shit-heel cheater is allowed to stand for election in North Carolina again…..now that’s a fraud!

A Good Start?

This started out to be a short response to a Facebook Post proclaiming that we need to immediately institute single payer healthcare. As usual, as I wrote, the scope widened.

        XXXX, I agree, but short of armed revolution, there is so much opposition at so many levels that gradual change is the only sane approach. Single payer is the real ultimate logical answer. Unfortunately, those who oppose it cite costs to the government without also citing the accompanying offset of savings to employers and individuals. A great place to start this process and immediately decrease Medicare/Medicad expenditures (which use all our tax dollars) as well as those of the insured majority of Americans, would be to address the real “Monster in the room”, Big Pharma.

        As long as the drug companies are free to raise prices at will and continue producing 25 to 30% net profits annually, (an average "good" year in most sectors is 5-8% net profit) the opposition and lobbying efforts will stall any shift. The best way to approach this, in my estimation is to publicly have a frank discussion about several things.

] 

        First, is the fact that drug companies typically raise prices over their 20 years of patent protection by far, far, in excess of the CPI increase. In some cases (Epi-Pen) the drug involved has been off patent for decades, but the patented $5.50 (yes, five dollars and fifty cents) delivery system and trademark were still proprietary. While the CPI was very low year to year, the drug pricing was arbitrarily increased by the new purchaser of the trademark, Mylan Pharma. Mylan purchased the rights to EpiPen in 2007 and gradually raised the list price from about $50 per auto-injector to slightly over $600 for a two-pack (a 1200% increase for the math challenged).

        If Mylan was competing in a market economy this probably wouldn't not have worked, but since Medicare cannot, by law, negotiate drug prices, all Medicare and Medicaid prescriptions are billed to us taxpayers at the high end price, while those with private insurance pay less and even get to use the "coupons" which Mylan issued after the shitstorm of public outrage over the initial increase.

        It is important to understand that we already have a single payer system - Medicare. It just doesn't cover everyone. Unfortunately, it has its hands tied by Part D legislation, which mandates that Medicare/Medicaid will never negotiate drug costs. Allowing Medicare to tell Pharma what they will pay for a drug rather than being Pharma's bitch would be a good start great beginning to reducing curbing health care costs borne by the public. Another would be to have a frank discussion with the company every time a new drug is approved and make the company show all cost data. Allow a reasonable profit on the drug and then disallow any price increases that exceed the CPI increase over the life of the patent. This would eliminate the "mysterious" 300- 400% price increases we see now, as drugs get close to end of patent.

       Remember, once upon a time drug companies justified high drug pricing by citing Research and Development costs. 30 years ago, R&D costs were the largest single line item in the balance sheet of most drug companies. As any TV watcher can tell you, that isn’t true anymore. There are three reasons.

        First, a lot of what used to be “in house” development of new drugs is done in separate research labs. The big Pharma company simply buys the patent and goes to market, not having spent money on the development.

        Second, while we are sometimes asked to “pay through the nose” for these new drugs, we have already, in many cases, paid for their development with tax dollars. Twenty percent plus of new drugs developed since 2005 have been developed by researchers using National Institute of Health (NIH) grants. In fact, more than 20 percent of NIH spending is spent on such grants. Of those 210 drugs, 84 were "first-in-class" drugs, meaning they treat disease through novel mechanisms or molecular targets. These breakthrough medications were paid for by, you guessed it - us! More than $64 billion in NIH funding was poured into research that ultimately contributed to the development of those drugs.

        A prime example of how twisted this can get is Harvoni, a potent Hep-C drug. The researcher at Emory University who developed it and did initial testing did so with our money in the form of an NIH grant. So, why doesn’t the NIH own the patent? Welcome to America, where private profit “Trumps” reason. (see what I did there?).

        The researcher was allowed, by law, to patent his discovery which he then sold to Gilead Pharma for $4 million. Not a bad payday for a professor, huh? Gilead then put Harvoni on the market, pricing the treatment initially at $1000 per pill, making the total cost of the treatment $84,000. Gilead then combined sofosbuvir (the originally patented compound) with a new drug, ledipasvir, to create the even more effective combination treatment, Harvoni. Harvoni's total initial "retail" treatment cost is $94,500 (!!) for a 12-week regimen.

         Remember, this price can be negotiated downward by insurers, but should a Medicare of Medicaid patient be prescribed Harvoni for Hepatitis C (a life-threatening disease) the Government is obligated to pay full price, (and the user a proportionately higher co-pay) no questions asked! There are an estimated 3.5 million US Hep C patients. Those with insurance are offered coupons and lower prices, but not Medicare or Medicaid!

       By comparison. Mexicans pay about 30% of US prices for the same branded drug, Canadians pay about 60%, and in India where an equally effective generic, made by Gilead, is available, the cost per pill is $4. Gilead’s US asking price is $1000! “Drug tourism” to India is on the rise!

        Finally, it is worth mentioning that only two nations in the world even allow “direct to customer” (DTC) drug advertising - New Zealand and the US. Creating demand is the goal of the ad business and Big Pharma has mastered it. Accordingly, R&D costs are no longer atop the line item list on balance sheets and haven’t been for decades. That spot has been, by a considerable margin, taken over by advertising expenditure, principally DTC on TV and in other media, but also by “incentivizing” (read “bribing”) health care providers to prescribe these “new and effective” (don’t read the small print side effects!) wonder drugs.  

       So, a great way to start the revolution in health care would be for legislators to get Big Pharma’s hands out of their (and our) pockets, stop listening to lobbyists, and pass reasonable legislation comparable to the pre-Trump Consumer Protection Act. It amazes me that, while Congress will act to protect “pay-day loan” borrowers, the rest of us are, apparently, fair game  

A wall of sheer ignorance

       A relative recently posted to social media a comment that "All the previous 'National Emergencies' declared had been to protect special groups." They then opined that the Trump Wall issue was different because it was issued “to protect Americans.”  Like many, the poster of this statement suffers from gross ignorance and the gullibility to believe anything Trump or Faux News proffers. Note I did not use the word "stupid" because an ignorant person can learn, stupid ones not so much.

       Where to start? First, consider that only twice before has a National Emergency declaration and subsequent action involved committing money not previously appropriated by Congress. Both involved military construction associated with wars:  one under President George Bush’s Persian Gulf war emergency declaration, the other under President George W. Bush’s emergency declaration after the Sept. 11 attacks. Neither funded projects that Congress had previously weighed and rejected.

       Trump declared a national emergency on February 15, 2019. This declaration was unprecedented in that no previous declaration involved circumventing Congress to spend money it had not authorized. So, yeah, it’s a first, in that it violates the Constitutional concept of the House having the power of the purse. For the illiterati, that means that all bills to spend public money are supposed to originate in the US House of Representatives. In truth, both Bush 9/11 and Iraq declarations, made on the heels of a real emergency were quickly approved even though both represented a shift in spending, not new (and specifically rejected,) funding. The poster apparently fails to see the post 9/11 emergency as effecting “Americans” even though 3000 of them died. Really!

       I did what the poster was apparently unable to do and “Googled” such declarations. The statement (or implication) that “All previous such actions were to protect certain groups, vice the body politic is blatantly false. Let me rephrase that, it’s a f****ing lie!

       I will limit the list to those post-Depression, since understanding most of the earlier ones requires more depth of history knowledge than I would expect the average person to have at hand.

FDR September 8, 1939  Proclaiming a National Emergency in Connection with the Observance, Safeguarding, and Enforcement of Neutrality and the Strengthening of the National Defense Within the Limits of Peace-Time Authorizations

FDR May 27, 1941  April 28, 1952         Proclaiming That an Unlimited National Emergency Confronts This Country, Which Requires That Its Military, Naval, Air and Civilian Defenses Be Put on the Basis of Readiness to Repel Any and All Acts or Threats of Aggression Directed Toward Any Part of the Western Hemisphere – President Franklin Roosevelt declared an unlimited national emergency under threat from Nazi Germany. Any implication that these weren’t to “protect Americans” is ludicrous.

Carter, 1979    Blocking Iranian Government Property – After the Iran hostage crisis, President Jimmy Carter issued an order freezing all Iranian assets in the U.S.

Reagan – 5 times, all related to trade with such nations as Nicaragua, Panama, Libya and Haiti

Clinton - 8 times generally related to export of potential WMD or trade with other aggressor nations (Yugoslavia, Haiti, Burma, Sudan) (the WMD declaration issue was specifically aimed at keeping materials which could be used for WMD out of the hands who wished America ill, again -to protect all Americans.

Bush (43) 13 times almost all related either to 9/11 or trade with “aggressor nations attempting to overthrow governments in Africa and the Mideast”  

Obama – 11 times, most similar to the Bush trade embargos, and several related to Organized Drug traffickers, Cyber terrorism (all Americans!), and Swine Flu epidemic (all Americans!)

Trump – 4 times, two related to insurgencies in Myanmar (Burma) and Nicaragua, one related to foreign election tampering (and he would know, wouldn’t he) and finally The Wall.

       In summary, Yes, Presidents have issued national Emergency proclamations (supported by Congress) aimed at protecting Americans. Obama twice, Clinton and Bush multiple times, FDR multiple times. The second and more insidious claim is that such an emergency exists and the resources Trump wants to use for a wall are best spent doing that.

       Trying to be brief, I’ll attempt using bullets instead of full prose. I’ll use the term “illegals” since it’s shorter that “undocumented aliens”

·      Illegals are, by every study done, less of a threat to Americans than natural born citizens. More citizens commit violent crimes than Illegals by percentage.

·

   
    All of this comes as no surprise to Art Acevedo, the police chief in Houston, which has one of largest undocumented populations in the nation. The chief has been publicly critical of the immigration crackdown. "There's no wave of crime being committed by the immigrant community," Acevedo said. "As a matter of fact, a lot of the violent crime that we're dealing with is being committed by people that are born and raised right here in the United States."

·       Far more drugs enter by means which avoid our Southern border

·       85% of all cocaine enters by land or Sea.

·       75% of all heroin comes by air from Burma, Laos and Thailand. The rest by human carriers, primarily by motorized vehicles.

·       Far more “hard” drugs enter the US at points of entry than the rest of the border combined

·       This includes Florida’s marine “borders”, where a wall would be useless and trafficking remains high.

·       Trump’s own advisors, as well as the (centrist) Brookings Institute have said, “those funds would be better spent elsewhere. The money is completely misallocated ... the wall is pointless, it’s a waste of money, it’s counterproductive, the far more urgent priority in terms of just law enforcement allocation … should be in ports of entry."

       And yet…..? So, we must ask, why the support? I feel a lot of it has to do with racism and gross ignorance, fueled by fake news, such as “These people come here and they get Social Security and welfare and Medicare, etc, etc.” The problem with the previous sentence? None of it is true. In fact, while there are no real “numbers,” numerous “illegals” work and have income tax and Social Security deducted from wages which they will never get back. The only benefit derives from the fact that a child born in the US can be eligible for food stamps – for the child!

        Similarly, if they present at an emergency room, they’ll be treated. Why? Because Ronald Reagan insisted on it in the 1980s. So before you get all pissed off about that, remember that the homeless wino who doesn’t work  gets free medical care, but you begrudge it to the hard working, although undocumented, immigrant many of whom do jobs you’re “too good” to do, who pays sales tax, pays into Social Security they probably will never get back and has income tax withheld (but will never get refunds for). If this doesn’t make you feel mean spirited as well as grotesquely ignorant, you are beyond help.  

Even More Ways People Don’t Use Language "Good"

                I have former colleagues who are English teachers, or as they are now known – “Language Arts” teachers.  Unfortunately, the “art” part seems to be shriveling on the vine.  They frequently hover somewhere between outrage, depression, resigned doldrum and despair, due to the horrific things being done to the English language these days. We seem to be bombarded from all quarters with perversions of the language. I reflected on some more of the things that drive them and me nuts and came up with this partial list of additional execrable things, in addition to those in a  recent rant, which I find annoying.

1.   No word in the language is made plural by the use of an apostrophe followed by an "s"! Not a one, none, zip, nada. period.  Yet we see TV ads and signboards paid for, I assume, by persons who want "consumer's" to appreciate their superior "product's." I wish I was making this up, but the other day I saw an advertisement for "donut's."  A misspelling wrapped in a mis-punctuation ...aargh, make it stop!

2. A point that is so obvious or so immutable that arguing it is pointless is "moot."  It isn't "mute", as about 60 % of Americans spell and pronounce it. Of course, if it were actually mute, there couldn't be an argument anyway.

3. There are three homophones (sometimes confused with the word homonym and having nothing to do with sexuality) that sound like "there."  Unfortunately, in Facebook Speak, a particularly virulent form of language abuse, they are used interchangeably: “there” (in that place), “their” (Facebook land), with no regard to their (plural possessive) totally different meaning, and “they're” (contraction for "they are") This is one of the more heinous examples of this genre, but is followed closely by the all too frequent bastardization of “you're” and “your”, as in, “You're (contraction of you are) clearly demonstrating  your (it belongs to you) syntactical illiteracy  by the entry on your Facebook page.”

4. Just as bad is the misuse of the word “board.” I've seen entries such as "I'm board (in fact, a piece of wood)."   The correct terminology, (unless proudly proclaiming “wood”), is, of course, “I'm bored,” as in “I need something to do” These could be self-correcting if you use some imagination.

5. We are frequently bombarded by commercials urging us to use a product or plan an event or order food "How you want it". This is really common and really incorrect. You can have it the way you want it, or as you want it; or if you're Shakespeare, "As You Like it." Them's the choices.

6. Very few things in the Universe are so homogeneous that the word "totally" is apt or appropriate five or six times in a sentence when describing it or them. Just stop it! Ok? Ok! 

7. I thought this discussion was laid to rest in a great episode of Murphy Brown, but it lives on around here.  What the hell does "alls I know" mean? (as in: "Well, alls I know is that he got a hernia.”) The only words that are even homophones for this non-word ("alls") are "awls" as in several leatherworking tools and a selection of what Paula Deen dresses salads with - "oils" -pronounced awls, as in "Awl and Vinegar dressin'")

8." Irregardless" isn't a real word, it is a distressingly more and more frequent irregular usage of "regardless."  If you doubt me, open up your word processor, type "irregardless" and spell check it. Guess what the proffered correction is? “Irregardless" isn't a real word, it is a distressingly more and more frequent irregular usage of "regardless." You guessed it - regardless. Microsoft Word said it, so be it.

9. “I know, right?” No, Luther, I don’t know – wrong! This doesn’t fit anywhere, except as in a “filler” phrase which is made relatively meaningless by adding a totally gratuitous “right.?” If you actually utter this nonsensical drivel, you have already agreed with another statement, so why ask them if they agree with what they’ve just said, “right?”

10. A definitive, uniquely designated thing is "specific." The Ocean west of the Americas is Pacific. I can't give you a "Pacific reason" for your linguistic shortcomings other than gross ignorance.

11. The last, and most convoluted of my list (to date) is two homonyms and a homophone, all of which I have seen thoroughly confused and misapplied.  “Through” (as in via), “through” (as in finished, used far more than it should be, when “finished,” “over” and/or “done” are better words.), and “threw”, (as in tossed) seem to be essentially interchangeable in the minds of many these days. An abused cousin of these three is “thorough” (as in complete, comprehensive), which is often inappropriately abridged in Ad speak to thoro.   On the bright side there is one application of these which everyone gets right/wrong.  If someone barfs, hurls, heaves, pukes, yawns in Technicolor, sells Buicks or upchucks, we all say they “threw up.” No one says "he through" up. On the other hand, "it" never stays "up", but always comes down, usually on someone's shoes, hair or back seat.

And I do believe that's all I have to say about that (for now).

Wine Snobbery

Did you know that 2 to 3 glasses of wine per day can reduce your risk of giving a shit? It doesn’t matter if the glass is half empty or half full. Clearly there is room for more wine.

        Good morning, children! Today's Daily Sun wine review of a $25, 2014 Loire Valley (That’s in France!!) Sauvignon Blanc starts off blandly enough, citing " Flavors of green apple, lemon zest, grapefruit," - all flavors most of us could identify, but then slides steadily downhill with "herbs, seashells, and small pebbles." Small pebbles? Really? For starters, wouldn't that depend upon the pebble? Do sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic pebbles taste the same? Are abalone and clam shells similar in flavor too? Or, as is more likely, is the reviewer paid by the word and the pretentious nature of their writing?  This snob finishes by noting that this wine would pair well with (you can't make this shit up) "Yogurt marinated authentic tandoori shrimp."  Yum. I assume that to amplify the "seashell flavor" in the wine, the shrimp are consumed with shells intact?

This renewed my belief that until the individual tastes it, there is little qualitative information to be gained by professional reviews that cannot be as easily determined by reading the customer reviews on a site like Total Wine’s. (an east coast merchant whose web site features reviews by actual customers.)

       What follows is an actual review, by an “expert.” The parenthetical comments are mine. “Deep purple color. Aromas of rich dark currants, nectarine skins, gushing blackberry, but lots of fragrant tobacco, rich soil (yuck), white flowers (lilies or mums?), smashed minerals (WTF?) and metal (lead, tin or antimony?). Medium-bodied and saucy (does it talk back?) but racy (naked grapes?) acidity stabilizes the wine nicely with the robust tannins. Deep red currants and ripe cherries, laden with mocha, loamy soil(!!), charred herbs, pencil shavings(!!), roasted hazelnut. Dense like characters that make it perfect for cellaring, however it is drinkable straight away once you expose it to the earth’s atmosphere (as opposed to what other planet's atmosphere?). This is a delicious Sonoma Cabernet!

       And now, here’s a customer review (same wine) “2014 Wonderful Value - Had the 2014 and candidly I'm a fan of XXXXXXX wines, having tried many of them. This Sonoma Cab is a wonderful value wine for under $15. I'd pick this over many $30-40 cabs from other wineries. This winemaker continues to impress me! Fruity, not too heavy, and very well balanced. Wonderful table red!”

       Note the absence of blather. Here’s another, same wine – “Black Cherry Explosion The title says it all... almost. I thought it was wonderfully balanced; with just a taste of oak with soft tannins. I paid $xx for this same wine at the XXXXXXX Winery in Sonoma, so this is a great deal.”

       OK, now to reality for a welcome change. Such hyperbole driven wine reviews are little more than a consensual hallucination and essentially unrelated to the life of 99.9 % of wine consumers. Unless you have precisely the same genetic make-up in terms of total taste bud count, the identical olfactory genes as the reviewer, the review is of relatively little value. A broadly qualitative review (“swill” or “nectar of the gods”) is useful in general, especially when one can read multiple reviews and glean a consensus.  Add to the dilemma, the impact of 10,000 hours of focused practice by reviewers to rewire their olfactory neurons to more easily discern wine aromas and you get even farther from the norm.

       Many humans are unable to discern the aroma of violets, some find cilantro smells like soap, some like a spice and others discern no aroma at all. Genetically based aroma specific anosmia (no discernable aroma) is common for a number of esters and scents. Wine descriptors are of northern European origin. It is difficult to explain “gooseberry” to most of us ordinary winos or, say, a person from China. Does it look like a goose, as big as a goose smell like a goose? Pompous? Not really. Reviewers are just talking to each other and a very small slice of consumers.

One imagines a scenario such as follows, perhaps:

       The hallowed and, apparently, divinely prescribed, rite of estimation begins as the sommelier pours the precious liquid into a glass. The wine snob holds it up to the light and swirls it around declaring it to have “good legs.” It must be swirled the connoisseur declares so the wine can breathe. Why “legs?” Beats me. The term for why the liquid holds to sides of the glass to a greater or lesser degree is actually “viscosity,” which is eschewed, I’m guessing, because it’s the same term used to classify motor oil. I have never taken a sip of a wine with “good legs” and, after swallowing, opined “Boy, that’s nice and thick!” In fact, as a general guideline, if you take a swallow and “thick” (or chunky) comes to mind get to the bathroom and make yourself throw up, because something is seriously amiss.

      Next the “bouquet” (that’s “smell” to the rest of us) must be sampled. There are ancient sacraments to be honored here, as well. The glass is not to be grabbed by the bowl as we among the great unwashed might do. The (properly shaped, mind you) goblet must be picked up by the base and held between the thumb and two forefingers. More theatrical aficionados of properly rotted (fermented) grape juice will waft the delicate scents towards the nostrils and announce something like “Ah, new-mown hay with a hint of almond. There may be something of a Bach fugue in the background.” For California wines that might be the Beach Boys; for Washington Cabs, Nirvana, one supposes.

       Then comes the really serious part. A sip is taken and the eyes close. The mouth and cheeks move in a chewing motion as the wine is sucked through the teeth. The assembled company hangs on the pronouncement (assuming that they, unlike me, haven’t already started serious drinking). This process incredibly, in some settings, seems to be based on the assumption that only one person in the room can evaluate the wine and no one else may either like or dislike it until permission is granted.  

“Very complex. I’m getting notes of gooseberry, Twix, lavender, caramel and Lucky Strike. The mid-palate is amused by the wine’s insouciance and there’s a slightly impertinent corrugated iron finish.”

Skeptics will excused for opining that they have just witnessed the setting of a new world long-distance record in pompous oenophilic bullshit.

Here are just a couple more examples:

       “The 2005 Brunello di Montalcino is a model of weightless finesse (tasting of) dark wild cherries, minerals, menthol, and spices.”  (is this like adding menthol to cigarettes?)

       It is like “… a girl of fifteen, with laughing blue eyes.” In which case, the hell with simply drinking it!. (Hypothetically, of course)

       Some years ago, the Broward Palm Beach New Times held a contest for over-the-top wine descriptions. And, the winner was: “Yo... did you check that Boones farm vintage Y2K? That was dope! It was big and bright with the complexity of Kool Aid! It was jammy like a PBJ without those earthy tannins! You hear what I’m saying?” Across the pond, The Economist offers some pithy commentary on the typical vocabulary of oenophiles: “… self-styled connoisseurs begin spouting attributes like ‘graphite’ (which does not smell or - if nibbling pencil ends is any guide - taste of anything), ‘zesty mineral’ (how it differs from plain mineral is anyone’s guess), ‘angular’ (huh?), or ‘dumb’ (indeed).”

       I am still waiting for a wine review which starts: “It was a dark and stormy vintage…” Perhaps the best indicator of why I get so taken by these flights of purple prose which would embarrass Micky Spillane is the fact that “professional” wine experts don’t usually submit to blind taste tests. 

Why, one asks, is that? Simple really; they are fully aware that they are trading in a rich line of malarkey and would rather keep the secret tightly held within the confines of the priesthood to which they belong. Secondarily, those at the top, some of whose reviews I do treat as close to gospel, - James Suckling, Robert Parker, for examples - are very well paid for what the rest of us do recreationally. It is also true that these two gentlemen rarely, if ever, engage in the worst of the adjective abuse that characterizes so many of their inferiors.   

        Between 2005 and 2013, California winemaker Robert Hodgson laid a snare for several of them (not Suckling or Parker) and caught a number of them out. He organized a series of tastings at the California State Fair. The Observer described the judges as a “Who’s who of the American wine industry from winemakers, sommeliers, critics and buyers to wine consultants and academics.” Well, you ask, “How did they do?” As it turns out, “He (Hodgson) has shown again and again that even trained, professional palates are terrible at judging wine.” 

       Moreover, and even more significantly, price doesn’t equal quality in more than a few cases. We don’t just have to take Robert Hodgson’s word for it. A group of academics (of all disciplines) at the University of Minnesota held more than 6,000 blind tastings. They found that “the correlation between price and overall rating is small and negative, suggesting that individuals on average enjoy more expensive wines slightly less.” Yep! That’s what they found. Perhaps pencil shavings and clay are overrated?  Summing up these 6000 blind taste surveys, they announced: “Our results indicate that both the prices of wines and wine recommendations by experts may be poor guides for non-expert wine consumers.” (which most of us are!) This hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of the dark arts of wine snobbery, huh? (A grad course at Hogwarts?)

  

       Elsewhere, Frédéric Brochet at the University of Bordeaux set up a test in 2001. He presented the exact same (vintage, blend) wine to 57 volunteers a week apart. In one test, the wine was labelled as basic table wine; in the second tasting, it was labeled as an expensive, superior vintage. The critics were fooled into describing the same wine positively when it came out of a high-end bottle and negatively when they thought it was a “vin ordinaire.” Even more significant and almost unbelievably, M. Brochet pranked another 54 French “experts” more dramatically. None of them were able to tell that the one red and one white they were tasting was, in fact, the same wine. The white had been colored by a flavorless and odorless dye! Think about that. Numerous other tests have turned up similar results; professionals and amateurs are equally bad at identifying and classifying wine.

So, what, if any,  is the real significance of all this? To me it means several things that I think are relevant to the average wine consumer. First, I believe there are some predictors (broadly and not specific) of the likelihood of a wine being pleasingly consumable.

      First: where is it made? If you want a good Pinot Noir, the chance you’ll find it in Oregon's Dundee Hills region is exponentially greater than if you buy it at a Virginia vineyard, even (especially) if it bears the Trump imprimatur. There are several US vinicultural regions which produce (as an average) superior varietals. The best American Barbera (usually an Italian varietal) seems to come from the Lodi Ca, region. Also, Washington State’s Yakima Valley Red Mountain region (a fairly small area) is producing spectacular Cabernet Sauvignon, but the prime conditions of terroir are relatively confined.  Likewise, Russian River valley California reds are predictably good, in general. If Bordeaux is your thing, France is your source. Malbecs – Argentina.

        

       Second: “So many labels, so little time.” The varieties and production of wines, like craft beers, have proliferated in the last 20 years to the point where experimentation may yield pleasant surprises. Don’t allow price to either persuade or dissuade a purchase – once!

        Third, as stated earlier, price maybe a general indicator of what you might expect of a wine, but I have consumed many a bottle of $12 per bottle 667 Pinot Noir (sometimes on sale even cheaper and with “fuel perks” at the local grocery), with enjoyment and have also poured a much pricier bottle of McMurray Estate Pinot down the sink after one sip. Vintage (year of production) matters and in some cases is the difference between pleasantly drinkable and really bad. Without detail, there are several labels which, even from one year to the next are very different in quality.

       Now, just for fun, if you, too wish to play the snooty (or snotty)  wine review game, there’s an app for that! Try the link below. There is a time and place for wine – in my hand and now. Remember, every box of raisins is a tragic story of grapes that could have been wine.

https://phrasegenerator.com/wine

Sex, Race, and ignorance.: Stupid things Far Rightists Say

“I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobe.”

       Only if you think it does, Waldo. Most gay folks I know (and I have a significant number of close gay friends) never make that association. It’s much like “The Gay Agenda,” (a term invented by some conservative schmuck) in that no gay person I’ve ever talked to has had the faintest clue what the hell the gay agenda is. The primary reason, I think, is that persons like you, (apparently) ascribe your own biases regarding personal liberties and behavior to others. Without going into the imagined details too far, I’ve heard homophobic men speak of “recruiting” as a goal of the gay community. Since I am aware, without any fear of being less that totally correct, that being gay isn’t learned or acquired behavior, this makes as much sense as the Celtics “recruiting” me, a fat pleasingly plump 6-foot 1inch, 75year old, to play center. Can’t do it. Not gonna try. 

       If there really was a gay agenda it would be indistinguishable from the “straight agenda,” which doesn’t exist because straight persons don’t need one. Fair and equitable treatment under the law is as close to an agenda as 99% 0f the LGBT community has ever had.

       So, my right-wing friend, if you think being straight makes you a homophobe, then you almost assuredly are. I assure you that if only you are aware of such feelings, no LGBT person will ever assume them, based simply on your sexual orientation.

        And, finally, as a classroom teacher for twenty years and a member of an NEA and AFT affiliated union bargaining and contract team for twelve of those years, I was party to situations where a teacher was accused of inappropriate activities with students. In none of these cases was a gay teacher involved. Not one. Likewise, I served almost 50 working years with teachers and Naval personnel whose sexual orientation never was an issue, gay or straight. So, maybe the problem is you?

“I used to think I was just a regular guy, but I was born white, which now, whether I like it or not, makes me a racist and responsible for slavery.”

      Aww, c’mon, you do like it, admit it. You’ll feel better. If you actually believe that pigment confers anything but skin color, you are far worse off than simply racist. You have a mental defect and are biologically illiterate. Attitudes, good or bad, regarding race are learned.  No rational person has ever suggested to you or anyone else that simply by being born Caucasian, anyone is a racist. Have some Caucasians treated persons of color badly, historically? Yep. Are you one of them? Therein lies the actuality of whether or not you’re a racist.

         Unfortunately, for you, the way you pose the statement answers my question. No living person of color has ever said the living white persons are responsible for slavery. They might, however, cite the attitude of racial superiority currently held by some highly placed members of the current administration, as continued proof that racial attitudes which led to America’s slavery disaster still exist.   Your statement comes from some ugly portion of your psyche which finds self-victimization to be a justification for the bias you apparently do hold. You use the phrase “whether I like it or not.” One who judges individuals as they are rather than as they look wouldn’t make such a statement, or even more to the point, wouldn’t feel the need to.

       The larger picture is that what you say is a stereotype with which you label the entirety of humanity who might not share your biases.  You justify being the angry white guy by transferring your unwarranted assumptions to others who you then feel justified in derogating.  If I have an instinctive dislike or irrational fear of cats, no person of sound mind would label all cats “evil” or “dangerous” even though that’s how I, phobic as I would have to be, regard them. Most rational folks would understand that the problem isn’t cats, it’s me. The distorted mental perspective is mine. That’s a pretty fair analogy regarding your attitude toward race. The mental issue is yours, and that of those like you. And to be factual, which of course, you haven’t been, there are those of color who also see the world through a similarly distorted lens of preconception and bias. Like you, their biases are products of acculturation, not birth. Both you and they are the anomalies. Both make life more trying for people of good will.

The Emperor is Still Naked!

       Could there possibly be a better index of Donald Trump's unbridled and unjustified ego than claiming that if he hadn't been elected "We'd be in a very bad war with North Korea?" (SOTU message) He just says things because: 1) he can, and 2) he knows that a certain percentage if the deplorables (and yes, if you still support this buffoon you are, indeed deplorable”) are eager to believe absolutely anything he says. His sycophants also brag about "100 months of rising employment."  Apparently, math isn't their strong suit, because, since they obviously think the economy is the result of presidential actions, which means 76 months of that is courtesy of Barack Obama.

       Likewise, he parades three old vets, dubbing them "heroes" without any idea of the nature of their WWII service, but basking in their reflected glory. This, from the man who got a last-minute miraculous diagnosis of bone spurs from a doctor who just happened to rent (up until then) an office in a building owned by Trump's daddy. What a coincidence, huh? I'm glad it doesn't bother his golf game, which involves a lot of walking! Trump has said he'd have been "Terrific in the military" since his military school gave him "More training than most of the guys in the armed forces."

       He also likened his sexual escapades, avoiding STDs while whoring around, to his "own personal Viet-Nam."  A friend, a Viet-Nam vet, says Trump would have been "fragged (killed by his own troops) in the first fire fight", and I find that easy to believe. This is what is so troublesome to the logical mind when we consider that a fair number of Military veterans support this lunatic without (apparently) considering how disastrous his "leadership" style would have been to any military command ever, anywhere.

        As an individual with a couple of decades of actual in-situ, major Sea and shore command-based leadership experienced, I can attest to the toxicity which Trump's personality would lend to any such situation. Those ex-military who support him do so, not because of his ability, but because he encourages and abets their attitudes on race. women and fear of "the other" (whatever their personal demon is). This is in spite of the fact that he has derogated their service by likening his avoidance of "the clap" to their being shot at. And yet, it never fazes them. Go figure.

       Another  large part of the Trump appeal to the deplorables would seem, at times, to be a sort of vicarious thrill derived from idolizing his "success" while bemoaning their own mediocrity and blaming it on Trump's opponents. For example, he says ‘You must go forth into the world, with passion, courage in your conviction, and most importantly be true to yourself. I did it!’ and they love it, failing to realize it was plagiarized from Elle Wood's grad speech in "Legally Blonde!"  Or, “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ass.”  And finally, “The New York Times don’t write good (sic). They have people over there, like Maggie Haberman and others, they don’t – they don’t write good. They don’t know how to write good.” This last grammatical train wreck from the man who touts his "genius" while apparently, semi-literate.

       A former executive officer on my first at sea command had a theory on writing performance evaluations which I adopted (and passed on) for the next 20 or so years. That is, once written, read the draft without the adjectives, to see what has actually been factually stated. Doing this to a Trump speech is revelatory. Take out the "great", "wonderful", "biggest”, "richest”, “smartest", etc., and as The Bard said, "It is a tale told by an idiot. full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." 

       Finally, Trump's (SOTU) comments re: "the investigation". While his henchmen fall like flies, admitting their wrongdoing or being indicted for lying about it, the deplorables, somehow, still rationalize that it's all a fraud, and Donald J. Trump is just a victim here. This may be the worst case of mass denial of reality since Rams supporters thought there was no game altering blatant uncalled pass interference a couple of weeks ago. Look at the Jumbo-Tron, deplorables. Trump is a fraud and a crook.

Anti-Vax Hysteria

Donald J. Trump ‏

 @realDonaldTrump

“If I were President, I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one-time massive shots that a small child cannot take - AUTISM.”

And there you have it. Just another example of gross ignorance in a list, huge and growing daily. Trump uses those superlatives like “massive” while having no real idea related to the subject. MMR isn’t massive. It isn’t even particularly big. Adding the word “Autism” at the end is the action of a medically illiterate person. Every clinical study done where actual data was simply taken and not “fudged” has shown absolutely zero correlation between the Measles (or any other for that matter) vaccine and any increased incidence of Autism spectrum in children. The initial study which suggested one was long ago discredited when some of his fellow junior researchers “blew the whistle “on the British doctor who published his finagled data. He was, furthermore, “struck off” (UK jargon for no longer allowed to practice”.   

        Unfortunately, most Americans won’t ever read the volumes of research showing no Autism-Vaccine link, because it’s dry and scientific. Additionally, they will vaccinate their children and their kids won’t get measles mumps, Whooping Cough etc. What they may read, however is any of a number of Celebrity screeds about the “dangers” of vaccination, with apparently Autism as their only concern, since no other possible ill effects are ever mentioned. One such (ex) celeb is Jenny McCarthy, who “believes” that her child was autistic due to vaccines. Why? She just does, that’s why. As it turns out, her son is now largely non-autistic, perhaps due to the regimen of various “natural” treatments to which he has been exposed.  These include treatment of “yeast overgrowth” in the gut, heavy metal “detox” (a murky” term if ever there was one) and other protocols. One writer plaintively whines, “Why shouldn’t Jenny McCarthy believe that Vaccines caused her son’s Autism?". Well, Bunky, because instead of exposing only her son to the plethora of childhood diseases, some potentially fatal (like measles), she has been so outspoken that there are many, even more ignorant, who  jump on the Anti-Vaxx bandwagon, probably with good intention, but in some cases, simply like any good conspiracy theorist, latching on to the “next big thing.”

 As an example of McCarthy and ex-hubby Jim Carrey’s efforts, they have produced an op-ed stating that there are “36 vaccines which doctors want to give your children.” This is Trumpish in its grandiose exaggeration. There only 16 even recognized by the CDC, and a number of these are for older children, such as HPV, Meningitis, Hep A and B, etc., which can be given at an early age but are not nearly as vital as the four most consider essential, polio, MMR, diphtheria/tetanus and, if desired or at risk, flu. Four isn’t 36! None of these are, “One-time massive shots.” Interestingly enough, no older normally developing child has ever been given a vaccine and “caught” autism. Never. Nope!

        Finally, do we think it’s possible that anyone with a child exhibiting Autism spectrum, and possibly, even though it’s not genetic (as far as anyone has determined), blaming themselves a bit, might jump on any alternate theory of the crime which seemed to absolve them? Just asking. Lastly, while data shows more children on the Autism spectrum than decades ago, let’s use Occam’s razor to explain it rather than blaming vaccines. (For you non-philosophers, that means that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one). Vaccines with far more potentially toxic bases (the media in which the vaccine is diluted) have been used for decades and modern ones are far less so. So, what’s really increasing? Is it the incidence of Autism spectrum disorders, or is it the more frequent diagnosis of them? 7 decades ago, no one had heard the word “Autism.” Until 1943, such patients were diagnosed as schizophrenic! Does that mean there were no persons alive with Autism Spectrum disorder? Of course not.

       As a 20-year teacher, I can attest to the fact that there is another parallel example which mirrors this. It’s the increased frequency of “learning disability” diagnosis. Are more children learning disabled than 40 years ago? Highly unlikely. Are parents (and others) more attuned to it today. Yep!  Unsurprisingly, the most aggressive parents in pursuing extra “accommodations" for their child, sometimes even lobbying to have their child declared “learning disabled,” are in some ways more realistic than those who blame vaccines. Rather than look for a place to focus blame, they deal with the present.  Some of these learning-disabled children are much like high performic autistic children. I’ve taught at least two, in honors and/or AP courses. Both went on to college, both are successful adults.

        The Jenny McCarthys of the world, using their celebrity status and talk show bully pulpits to spread anti-vax hysteria are doing potentially irreparable harm with no actual justification. Ask the sick kids out in Clark County Washington where there are currently over 40 cases of measles, a disease which was all but eradicated in the US.