I don’t get writings from my beloved brother Rev. Jim Norton very often. When I do, I read them very closely because whether I agree with Jim or not, he has a gift for speaking forcefully yet kindly and always logically.
I got an e-mail today which he sent to his voluminous e-mail list. It had a letter to him from “our” Congressional Representative, David McKinley, and Jim’s thoughtful reply.
The subject: The Affordable Care Act. I will not call it JonesCare, SmithCare, or even YouKnowWhoCare. Let’s show a little dignity for a change.
Rep. McKinley’s letter starts out:
“Thank you for contacting me about the Affordable Care Act, also known as *****care. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.”
Fortunately, we can be fairly confident that the Representative never saw the letter and has never heard of Jim. I also sincerely hope that the Representative had little or no part in writing the policy statements in the letter. It doesn’t bother me what he was saying, since he’s a Republican and toes the party line. It’s just it was so damn dull.
Well, Norton is a regular reader of these Dispatches and perhaps he will choose to tag them with his text. It is not for me to quote him and besides I’m heading off on a slightly different tangent.
The Affordable Care Act is a massive tax scheme which no Representative actually read before voting on it. The ACA was a dream come true for lobbyists, the insurance industry, consultants, lawyers, accountants, actuaries and lots of other people who make their way in the world in the non-care aspects of the medical industry. I hardly blame the consultants, accountants, actuaries or most of the lawyers – They have been handed an impossible mess with instructions to make it work.
No system of healthcare will work until we can answer the following questions. If we cannot answer these questions, we do not have a system of healthcare. We have a system of commercial transactions where some people happen to get medical care.
The questions are:
1 - Who gets care?
2 - What care does what patient get?
3 - Who pays for that care?
4 - How much does the provider of the care get paid for the care?
Until you can answer those questions, this is a meaningless discussion. Moreover, these questions are apolitical. You can design a system that is very “conservative,” or very “liberal,” or even very innovative.
(Incidentally, the terms “conservative” and “liberal” historically are economic categories that have now been made into cartoons.)
So let’s look at some scenarios:
A - Grandma is 85. She has had a stroke and is in an ICU. She is on a vent. She has some minimal response to external stimuli such as following things with her eyes and feebly squeezing on command with one hand. Every physician who has looked at her believes that she has about a month to live, but will never come off the vent. The current sticker price for an ICU bed is about $3000 a day. With the negotiating power of some sort of huge payors, let’s dial that back to $2,000. Grandma has left no advance directives.
Does she get the $60,000 worth of care?
B - John is an undocumented visitor/illegal alien from North Elbonia. He has been in the United States for 20 years working under the table. He has no savings and no health insurance. He shows up at emergency department with symptoms that are typical of a heart attack. The cost of hospital care is all over the map, but $15,000 is a reasonable price for a modest little hospital.
Decide. Is John in or out? It’s no longer a political question, it’s a guy.
C - Edna has cancer of the funny bone. It’s a real bad thing to have and statistically 5 in 100 patients survive more than one year. Wegottumgooddrug Labs develops the Supercalifragelistic injection. One injection increases the one-year survival rate to 10 in 100 patients. It cost $250,000. Edna is 75. Does she get it?
Okay, Edna is 60. What now?
40?
20?
Oh my God, rationing healthcare!
Oopsie, we’ve been doing that since the first Medicine Woman found the first medicinal root. Why do you think Dick Cheney is about the only 70-year-old who have gotten a heart transplant in the last decade? (I like Dick Cheney, by the way.)
D - Mary is a really great specialized surgeon. Unionburg General Hospital wants to hire her. In her field, the “market” price is $600,000 per year. Because she is exceptional, the hospital wants to pay her a cool million. Then, they will use that to justify a rate increase request that somebody has to pay for. UGH is a not-for-profit hospital with a self-perpetuating Board of Directors.
Does “Government” interfere with the hiring decision by holding back the money?
I have opinions about these things. For today’s discussion, they are not relevant.
What is relevant is that we need to find the courage to have the discussion.
14 October 2013
05 October 2013
Stream of Consciousness, Sissies in Congress and Other Ruminations
I will say that it is my normal policy to write things which I think are to the point, to the extent that I ever get to the point. And I write things with some forethought. OK, I try.
On occasion, I just sit back and let my mind talk through my typing fingers, without much clue where I’m going. These occasions occur often after some hiatus in my writing.
This is such an occasion.
Now and then, I get wry comments about the little sting of things I say or about the fact that some of my thoughts and approaches are unconventional. And that’s okay with me. I know that young people, especially young lawyers, generally are careful about what they put into a public record. How many times do we see in the news that some unguarded comment has come back and bitten the person who made it?
Mostly, this is more a weakness of those making the objections than those making the comments. If the Marketplace of Ideas is to have any validity at all, it has to be honest.
Some years ago, I just quit caring very much about who might agree or disagree with my opinions. That was a remarkable liberation. That was a remarkable release. Then, I could edit myself for grammar, readability and logic without worrying whether the honesty annoyed anyone. Maybe that has a downside to others, but I enjoy it.
There came a time I was seeking an open judicial seat. Part of the application process was to attach all of my public writings. Honestly, I got a kick out of that. With this blog and its predecessor, and with several newspaper or magazine columns and articles running back 30 years, such a package would have been several hundred pages long. So I attached the hard-to-find stuff, attached some of my blog posts which were more relevant, and invited the appointing authority to stroll through my other writings however it wanted. As I looked back upon them, I found comments on blogs about lots and lots of social issues and about the illogic of of lots of social processes, including that of selecting judges.
By the way, I don’t believe that had anything to do with the fact that somebody else was selected for the judgeship. The guy selected was eminently qualified and came from a field of other eminently qualified contenders.
So when I look for turns of phrase or “the right word,” I’m really not worried about having the right opinion or the popular opinion.
By the way, that makes being a blindly loyal adherent to either political party quite impossible. That too is okay with me.
Political Parties:
We might as well start there this evening. The bottom line is this: A pox on both their houses. The national leadership of both major political parties have shown judgment which is inflexible, doctrinaire, personally aggrandizing and separated from the reality of citizens’ lives. The current government shutdown is not the apex of that, rather it is just another of the continuing symptoms.
I was a Republican until the mid-1980s. Like Lyndon Johnson, “I always split my ticket.” While I had a great deal of respect for President Reagan and Pres. Bush I, nevertheless the policies of the Republicans became more and more irrational. So I switched.
It was not a bad time to become a Democrat. There we were heading into the Bill Clinton years. He was the recipient of some of the growing skill of political sappers, but he continued to chart a very centrist course against attacks from several sides.
Yes, I know: Blow jobs, blue dress, “I didn’t [whatever] that woman.”
On the whole, however, it was a positive and productive time. Let’s remember balanced budgets, debt reduction, prosperity and relative peace in the world. (I never considered the Balkan incursion or the Somalia retreat to be very solid foreign policy moves.)
Now, conservative political sappers who have quite a bit less skill than those who assaulted Clinton have taken off on Obama. That is been one major cause of the growing political extremism in America.
Incidentally, the fact that Obama is the target of constant political hack jobs has absolutely nothing to do with whether the course he has charted makes one damn bit of sense.
Now, I’m finding my current political party becoming an uncomfortable place for me. Locally and regionally, I’m mostly okay with it but I’m largely okay with at least some of the local and regional Republican efforts. It seems that not very many people around here are self-righteous morons.
But the fundamental assumptions of the national political parties are equally obnoxious, if for different reasons.
Let me start with the Democrats: The Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine is in its ascendancy. The fundamental assumptions driving that machine are that there is a “they” who are passive and unable to make decisions in their own interests and an “us” who are smart enough and kind enough and moral enough to make wise decisions for “them.”
This fundamental belief system has driven an insane cycle of “free money” and freedom from responsibility.
This belief system has driven the Democratic side of the gun debate. Incidentally, I disagree vehemently with the national Democratic position about the responsibility of citizens with firearms.
But that extends to lots of other measures by which people can take responsibility and do things for themselves and their neighbors. Take the issue of keeping all those nasty, sharp blades out of aircraft. Never mind “Man the Toolmaker.” Never mind the current near-impossibility of someone with a blade taking over a commercial aircraft. It is positively demeaning to think that I can’t fly without handing over anything sharp.
I read something about the crash not so long ago at San Francisco International Airport. Apparently, one of the big inflatable slides around one of the hatches inflated inside the aircraft, creating an obstacle. The crew was looking in vain for something – like a knife – to deflate it. So Congress has a case of the willies and the power of the people is diminished.
Something else bothers me about the current Democratic national leadership is the focus on social tokenism. After George shot Trayvon, nobody appeared to care about anybody else being maimed, mugged, shot, stabbed, beaten or abused. Trayvon became the convenient – and unknowing – poster boy for politicians who themselves are afraid to walk through any part of town.
But the thought of returning to the Republican fold in some ways makes me ill at ease and in lots of ways makes me downright nauseous.
I bet that John Boehner has children and grandchildren, and friends and neighbors, and with them his face softens into something other than that of pre-ghosts Ebenezer Scrooge. But we don’t see it. I bet that Sen. Cruz is a nice and affable fellow who thinks straight and logically and who doesn’t get carried away in his normal life doing really stupid shit like arguing against something he’s going to vote for for 20+ continuous hours.
When you get right down to it, the Republican representation of support for individual responsibility is a falsehood. The party still pushes a burdensome tax structure, only one will have their base pay less. They still support burdensome regulations, just different burdensome regulations.
Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act which is positively an abomination. (Incidentally, tagging it as “Obamacare” was fairly decent conservative politics, and accepting and using that tag by the Administration is a political gaffe of great size.) The ACA is full of opportunities and perks for the well-connected and fails to address the fundamental issues of healthcare such as “just who will get what care?” The Republican response? Screw it, do nothing.
Oh, I understand that this is a rambling polemic. Was there some part of Stream-of-consciousness that was confusing?
Sissies in Congress
Oh, for that matter, there are sissies damn near everywhere. The color pink which has long been associated with sissies has been appropriated for a far more noble and useful purpose of late. So I will have to contend content myself with calling for a lot more frills and lace to be handed out to all the poor little incapable schmucks who purport to do the public business.
Here, I’m thinking of the mentally ill woman who was shot by the Capitol police as she was running into various barricades around the Capitol. By the way, I’m not qualified to have an informed opinion on the propriety of the use of deadly force. I wasn’t there. I do know that her little family sedan was not actually going to penetrate any of the vehicle barriers at the White House or the Capitol building. Had that been all she was trying to do, police agencies could have sat back smiling until she disabled her vehicle on the immovable barricades.
But when this one-woman-with-family-sedan “attack” was going on, somebody hit the metaphorical (or maybe actual) red panic button and locked down the Capitol, and advised the occupants of the Capitol to “shelter in place.” The pathetic thing is that not a one of them noted that was idiotic and insulting and poked their political noses outside perhaps to demonstrate that they had a pair.
Walking into a conflict can be stupid. But hiding two blocks away from conflict is cowardly and demeaning.
That reminds me of a little story. We (our rescue company) were called to assist a state trooper with a mentally ill armed guy who refused to come out of a barn. The trooper, by the way, was Greg Coram, who later obtained a doctorate in psychology and has become a leading national criminal justice expert. As he was talking to the gentleman to calm him down, he told him that “The paramedics and I just want to come in and help you.)” One of the guys I was with snidely asked Greg, “What is this ‘we’ shit?”
The Good Guys
I continue a casual association with various participants in the Great American Medical Machine. (For reasons which are irrelevant.) And I continue to note the genuine caring of those who deliver medical care. Indeed, there is some positive correlation between the amount of blood or shit a caregiver gets on his or her hands and them being genuinely nice people.
I confess that I do have a little bit of fun with these people at times. Some weeks ago, a nurse asked me “Do you use oxygen at home?” My answer: “Of course I do.” Her follow-up: “How much?” My reply: “The 21% which is in our atmosphere.”
I think these caregivers do seem to appreciate patients who are not whining all the time. Smartasses may not be as fully appreciated.
More Good Guys:
The Monongah Fire Department Facebook page had a photograph on it very recently. The family of a little girl which the fire department and rescue squad saved from some medical event was there, and the family was kind enough to come to the firehouse to thank the responders.
People in our church know of my concern for our responders. When in service we are discussing those for whom our particular prayers should be lifted, often I will mention someone who’s died in the line of duty or been injured or just the dedication of those folks generally.
EMS people work hours you would not want to work and see things that definitely you would not want to see.
Owing to hostile publicity and inaccurate media, police are largely perceived negatively now even though there are about two police line of duty deaths every week in America.
And firefighters? Picture this: They are asleep in a nice warm bed. An alarm comes in. They get up, step into their boots and night pants, and in about 45 seconds are driving out of the garage into subzero temperatures. They arrive at a fire and need to enter a house where the temperature near the ceiling is several hundred degrees. (That’s why they stay on the floor.) How close does your job get that kind of stress?
More Than A Peeve:
I’m disturbed by all of the efforts to make exceptions to the First Amendment because the opinions will be unpopular or someone’s feelings will be hurt. And I’m more disturbed at the fact that this does not motivate Americans to stand up, speak up and take back our country from all the extremists. Normal people have lost their voices - hopefully, temporarily.
On occasion, I just sit back and let my mind talk through my typing fingers, without much clue where I’m going. These occasions occur often after some hiatus in my writing.
This is such an occasion.
Now and then, I get wry comments about the little sting of things I say or about the fact that some of my thoughts and approaches are unconventional. And that’s okay with me. I know that young people, especially young lawyers, generally are careful about what they put into a public record. How many times do we see in the news that some unguarded comment has come back and bitten the person who made it?
Mostly, this is more a weakness of those making the objections than those making the comments. If the Marketplace of Ideas is to have any validity at all, it has to be honest.
Some years ago, I just quit caring very much about who might agree or disagree with my opinions. That was a remarkable liberation. That was a remarkable release. Then, I could edit myself for grammar, readability and logic without worrying whether the honesty annoyed anyone. Maybe that has a downside to others, but I enjoy it.
There came a time I was seeking an open judicial seat. Part of the application process was to attach all of my public writings. Honestly, I got a kick out of that. With this blog and its predecessor, and with several newspaper or magazine columns and articles running back 30 years, such a package would have been several hundred pages long. So I attached the hard-to-find stuff, attached some of my blog posts which were more relevant, and invited the appointing authority to stroll through my other writings however it wanted. As I looked back upon them, I found comments on blogs about lots and lots of social issues and about the illogic of of lots of social processes, including that of selecting judges.
By the way, I don’t believe that had anything to do with the fact that somebody else was selected for the judgeship. The guy selected was eminently qualified and came from a field of other eminently qualified contenders.
So when I look for turns of phrase or “the right word,” I’m really not worried about having the right opinion or the popular opinion.
By the way, that makes being a blindly loyal adherent to either political party quite impossible. That too is okay with me.
Political Parties:
We might as well start there this evening. The bottom line is this: A pox on both their houses. The national leadership of both major political parties have shown judgment which is inflexible, doctrinaire, personally aggrandizing and separated from the reality of citizens’ lives. The current government shutdown is not the apex of that, rather it is just another of the continuing symptoms.
I was a Republican until the mid-1980s. Like Lyndon Johnson, “I always split my ticket.” While I had a great deal of respect for President Reagan and Pres. Bush I, nevertheless the policies of the Republicans became more and more irrational. So I switched.
It was not a bad time to become a Democrat. There we were heading into the Bill Clinton years. He was the recipient of some of the growing skill of political sappers, but he continued to chart a very centrist course against attacks from several sides.
Yes, I know: Blow jobs, blue dress, “I didn’t [whatever] that woman.”
On the whole, however, it was a positive and productive time. Let’s remember balanced budgets, debt reduction, prosperity and relative peace in the world. (I never considered the Balkan incursion or the Somalia retreat to be very solid foreign policy moves.)
Now, conservative political sappers who have quite a bit less skill than those who assaulted Clinton have taken off on Obama. That is been one major cause of the growing political extremism in America.
Incidentally, the fact that Obama is the target of constant political hack jobs has absolutely nothing to do with whether the course he has charted makes one damn bit of sense.
Now, I’m finding my current political party becoming an uncomfortable place for me. Locally and regionally, I’m mostly okay with it but I’m largely okay with at least some of the local and regional Republican efforts. It seems that not very many people around here are self-righteous morons.
But the fundamental assumptions of the national political parties are equally obnoxious, if for different reasons.
Let me start with the Democrats: The Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine is in its ascendancy. The fundamental assumptions driving that machine are that there is a “they” who are passive and unable to make decisions in their own interests and an “us” who are smart enough and kind enough and moral enough to make wise decisions for “them.”
This fundamental belief system has driven an insane cycle of “free money” and freedom from responsibility.
This belief system has driven the Democratic side of the gun debate. Incidentally, I disagree vehemently with the national Democratic position about the responsibility of citizens with firearms.
But that extends to lots of other measures by which people can take responsibility and do things for themselves and their neighbors. Take the issue of keeping all those nasty, sharp blades out of aircraft. Never mind “Man the Toolmaker.” Never mind the current near-impossibility of someone with a blade taking over a commercial aircraft. It is positively demeaning to think that I can’t fly without handing over anything sharp.
I read something about the crash not so long ago at San Francisco International Airport. Apparently, one of the big inflatable slides around one of the hatches inflated inside the aircraft, creating an obstacle. The crew was looking in vain for something – like a knife – to deflate it. So Congress has a case of the willies and the power of the people is diminished.
Something else bothers me about the current Democratic national leadership is the focus on social tokenism. After George shot Trayvon, nobody appeared to care about anybody else being maimed, mugged, shot, stabbed, beaten or abused. Trayvon became the convenient – and unknowing – poster boy for politicians who themselves are afraid to walk through any part of town.
But the thought of returning to the Republican fold in some ways makes me ill at ease and in lots of ways makes me downright nauseous.
I bet that John Boehner has children and grandchildren, and friends and neighbors, and with them his face softens into something other than that of pre-ghosts Ebenezer Scrooge. But we don’t see it. I bet that Sen. Cruz is a nice and affable fellow who thinks straight and logically and who doesn’t get carried away in his normal life doing really stupid shit like arguing against something he’s going to vote for for 20+ continuous hours.
When you get right down to it, the Republican representation of support for individual responsibility is a falsehood. The party still pushes a burdensome tax structure, only one will have their base pay less. They still support burdensome regulations, just different burdensome regulations.
Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act which is positively an abomination. (Incidentally, tagging it as “Obamacare” was fairly decent conservative politics, and accepting and using that tag by the Administration is a political gaffe of great size.) The ACA is full of opportunities and perks for the well-connected and fails to address the fundamental issues of healthcare such as “just who will get what care?” The Republican response? Screw it, do nothing.
Oh, I understand that this is a rambling polemic. Was there some part of Stream-of-consciousness that was confusing?
Sissies in Congress
Oh, for that matter, there are sissies damn near everywhere. The color pink which has long been associated with sissies has been appropriated for a far more noble and useful purpose of late. So I will have to contend content myself with calling for a lot more frills and lace to be handed out to all the poor little incapable schmucks who purport to do the public business.
Here, I’m thinking of the mentally ill woman who was shot by the Capitol police as she was running into various barricades around the Capitol. By the way, I’m not qualified to have an informed opinion on the propriety of the use of deadly force. I wasn’t there. I do know that her little family sedan was not actually going to penetrate any of the vehicle barriers at the White House or the Capitol building. Had that been all she was trying to do, police agencies could have sat back smiling until she disabled her vehicle on the immovable barricades.
But when this one-woman-with-family-sedan “attack” was going on, somebody hit the metaphorical (or maybe actual) red panic button and locked down the Capitol, and advised the occupants of the Capitol to “shelter in place.” The pathetic thing is that not a one of them noted that was idiotic and insulting and poked their political noses outside perhaps to demonstrate that they had a pair.
Walking into a conflict can be stupid. But hiding two blocks away from conflict is cowardly and demeaning.
That reminds me of a little story. We (our rescue company) were called to assist a state trooper with a mentally ill armed guy who refused to come out of a barn. The trooper, by the way, was Greg Coram, who later obtained a doctorate in psychology and has become a leading national criminal justice expert. As he was talking to the gentleman to calm him down, he told him that “The paramedics and I just want to come in and help you.)” One of the guys I was with snidely asked Greg, “What is this ‘we’ shit?”
The Good Guys
I continue a casual association with various participants in the Great American Medical Machine. (For reasons which are irrelevant.) And I continue to note the genuine caring of those who deliver medical care. Indeed, there is some positive correlation between the amount of blood or shit a caregiver gets on his or her hands and them being genuinely nice people.
I confess that I do have a little bit of fun with these people at times. Some weeks ago, a nurse asked me “Do you use oxygen at home?” My answer: “Of course I do.” Her follow-up: “How much?” My reply: “The 21% which is in our atmosphere.”
I think these caregivers do seem to appreciate patients who are not whining all the time. Smartasses may not be as fully appreciated.
More Good Guys:
The Monongah Fire Department Facebook page had a photograph on it very recently. The family of a little girl which the fire department and rescue squad saved from some medical event was there, and the family was kind enough to come to the firehouse to thank the responders.
People in our church know of my concern for our responders. When in service we are discussing those for whom our particular prayers should be lifted, often I will mention someone who’s died in the line of duty or been injured or just the dedication of those folks generally.
EMS people work hours you would not want to work and see things that definitely you would not want to see.
Owing to hostile publicity and inaccurate media, police are largely perceived negatively now even though there are about two police line of duty deaths every week in America.
And firefighters? Picture this: They are asleep in a nice warm bed. An alarm comes in. They get up, step into their boots and night pants, and in about 45 seconds are driving out of the garage into subzero temperatures. They arrive at a fire and need to enter a house where the temperature near the ceiling is several hundred degrees. (That’s why they stay on the floor.) How close does your job get that kind of stress?
More Than A Peeve:
I’m disturbed by all of the efforts to make exceptions to the First Amendment because the opinions will be unpopular or someone’s feelings will be hurt. And I’m more disturbed at the fact that this does not motivate Americans to stand up, speak up and take back our country from all the extremists. Normal people have lost their voices - hopefully, temporarily.
06 September 2013
The Case for Bombing Mexico Rather Than Syria; Real Proof of American Power
The Government of Syria turned nerve gas loose on it’s own citizens. The death toll is supposed to be 2000 or so. Nerve gas has been banned by the international laws of war for 100 years because it is cruel and inhumane.
Bombs, bullets, flamethrowers, and nukes are fine, by the way.
And before someone emphasizes the horrific manner of death by nerve gas, permit me to remind them that some not-uncommon pulmonary medical conditions lead to deaths which are more than comparable and much more drawn out.
The President wants to attack Syria. The matter is currently before Congress.
Since allegiances in the Middle East are shifting sands as much as any desert there, it’s hard to figure out who would benefit from the attack and who would suffer (other than the people standing under the bombs.)
The Administration makes two very broad claims. First, using nerve gas is so bad and such an affront to humanity, this constitutes ample justification for military action. Second, attacking Syria would promote some sort of American interests, including demonstrating that the United States won’t back down from a fight.
We can understand the first point fairly well. Gas was used in the First World War, and was perceived by front-line soldiers as particularly gruesome. Gas (particularly pulmonary agents such as chlorine) also caused grievous permanent disability to those it did not kill outright.
On the other hand, the international laws of war don’t say anything about certain equivalents to these “weapons of mass destruction.” Military inventories are chock full of fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs and nuclear warheads. Not to mention lots of bullets. Efficiently employed, these can cause death on a scale that would make the Syrians green with envy. So the difference escapes me.
How bombing Syria promotes American interests is a political question. There are some religious overtones centered on the continued health of the State of Israel. Some Christians believe that prophecy requires that the State of Israel be hale and hearty when Jesus Christ returns in glory. The justification there escapes me, too. Saying that we can thwart the the plans of Almighty God by a silly little war seems a bit of a stretch and maybe even a touch blasphemous.
My friends who just chortled about me condemning blasphemy need to stifle their mirth.
The best argument that bombing Syria is in the interests of the United States is that if we don’t follow through on our moral outrage over the gas attacks in Syria, then we’re a paper tiger and a bunch of pansies. We will show weakness and lack of resolve and everybody knows that if the United States shows lack of resolve, the Bad Nations will not fear us as much. That would disrupt the Pax Americana. I’ll leave it for another day to discuss if America has been awfully successful in the “Pax” thing in the last 50 years.
If we do assume that maintaining American power and influence requires that United States forces intervene in foreign atrocities, then we must conclude that the United States hasn’t done a real good job of that.
The ongoing war in Darfur, Sudan, has seen 200,000 deaths, but the Red, White & Blue is conspicuously absent. In addition to rape and pillage, starvation is used as a weapon of war there, which seems fairly inhumane to me. When the bombers fly to Damascus, are we going to let a few make a detour to kick some Sudanese ass?
In the first seven years of this millennium, fighting in the Congo killed 60,000 people. Why did we miss that?
30,000 died in the 2011 Libyan revolt.
In 100 days in 1994, 800,000 people in Rwanda were killed, mostly by being beaten, hacked to death or raped brutally. The U.S. gave the wrongdoers a really stern talking-to.
Heck, the Associated Press says that since the Syrian uprising began in 2011, there have been 93,000 killings there. Why are we giving that first 93,000 a pass? Did they die happy or commit suicide?
There are some reasons to support the Syrian intervention. After all, it’s the military people who get the shit end of the stick and who are taking all the chances. Since you and I personally won’t be at risk, sounding all John Wayne-ish has a certain panache, don’t you think?
And it will only be pilots at risk. The Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense promise “no boots on the ground,” no introduction of American troops into Syria. And that promise/prediction has worked so well in the past. OK, with exceptions, but somebody had to try to do in Afghanistan what the British and the Russians failed to do. And Vietnam? Nah, that’s too easy.
But in this time of budget shortfalls, I think we can get the best bang for the buck by attacking somebody other than Syria. Let’s face it, if we need to kick ass to keep the peace, does it really matter whose ass? And in picking another target, we can better protect American interests.
I think we will agree that preventing the smuggling and distribution of dangerous drugs, together with all of the brutality that goes with the drug trade, is strongly in the American national interest.
We have so many bombs ready to go and so many aircraft gassed up, we might as well aim them at those directly causing harm right here within the borders of the United States. There are several good candidates, but the country that stands head-and-shoulders above the others as offensive to American National Interests is our target:
Mexico.
[I’m greatly disappointed with the state of education in America and with the quality of political discourse. There will be somebody reading this who is dumb enough to take the “bomb Mexico” suggestion seriously. For those, I’d say go read Dilbert or something, but I doubt if they’d understand that, either. For the record, this poor scribe is using a bit of irony with a touch of reductio ad absurdum to make his own political point.]
The Mexican Government is nowhere near as corrupt as is commonly believed. On the other hand, the Mexican drug cartels are every bit as violent and brutal as depicted. The butcher’s bill for the drug wars in Mexico for the last five years is 47,500. The cartels kill victims in inventive ways and leave decapitated bodies scattered around.
There are identifiable drug cartel strongholds in Mexico. They are a lot closer to American vengeance than Syria is from carriers in the Mediterranean or Red Sea. Moreover, even “boots on the ground” wouldn’t be nearly as risky, since Northern Mexico is so close to Texas. Every flapping gum in the Great Marble Whorehouse on Capital Hill says that the border is very porous. It has to be porous both ways.
So, in sum, if we are going to violate someone’s sovereignty, shouldn’t we get some direct benefits out of the deal?
But we don’t.
We (taxpayers) subsidize unevenly and unilaterally enforcing international morality. And we aren’t very good at it. And the American citizens most harmed are the military people who have to implement presidential and congressional directives. This is not “waving the bloody shirt.” If you have ever been up close and personal with overwhelming traumatic injuries, you might think twice before taking a political action that will guarantee that we see more of them.
Targeting Mexico rather than Syria is so obvious that I wonder why it’s not on the table.
Oh, you know me, I do have a hypothesis. It’s impossible to prove objectively because we cannot “measure” motivation and intent.
If we take the “Big Stick” and go to thumping Syria, the Americans personally endangered are the military people and, hey, they signed up for it. It’s not like Syria can invade the United States. So by just spending money, you and I can be all courageous and self-righteous - and SAFE - by urging attacks on Syria.
On the other hand, Mexico is close to home. If we start dropping cluster bombs on deserving criminals, their survivors will take a fierce revenge. All gloves will come off, and the terror will be brought into the United States. It’s fine to be courageous, but not if it’s going to hurt us.
Bravery is OK, but let's not get all dangerous about it.
Bombs, bullets, flamethrowers, and nukes are fine, by the way.
And before someone emphasizes the horrific manner of death by nerve gas, permit me to remind them that some not-uncommon pulmonary medical conditions lead to deaths which are more than comparable and much more drawn out.
The President wants to attack Syria. The matter is currently before Congress.
Since allegiances in the Middle East are shifting sands as much as any desert there, it’s hard to figure out who would benefit from the attack and who would suffer (other than the people standing under the bombs.)
The Administration makes two very broad claims. First, using nerve gas is so bad and such an affront to humanity, this constitutes ample justification for military action. Second, attacking Syria would promote some sort of American interests, including demonstrating that the United States won’t back down from a fight.
We can understand the first point fairly well. Gas was used in the First World War, and was perceived by front-line soldiers as particularly gruesome. Gas (particularly pulmonary agents such as chlorine) also caused grievous permanent disability to those it did not kill outright.
On the other hand, the international laws of war don’t say anything about certain equivalents to these “weapons of mass destruction.” Military inventories are chock full of fuel-air explosives, cluster bombs and nuclear warheads. Not to mention lots of bullets. Efficiently employed, these can cause death on a scale that would make the Syrians green with envy. So the difference escapes me.
How bombing Syria promotes American interests is a political question. There are some religious overtones centered on the continued health of the State of Israel. Some Christians believe that prophecy requires that the State of Israel be hale and hearty when Jesus Christ returns in glory. The justification there escapes me, too. Saying that we can thwart the the plans of Almighty God by a silly little war seems a bit of a stretch and maybe even a touch blasphemous.
My friends who just chortled about me condemning blasphemy need to stifle their mirth.
The best argument that bombing Syria is in the interests of the United States is that if we don’t follow through on our moral outrage over the gas attacks in Syria, then we’re a paper tiger and a bunch of pansies. We will show weakness and lack of resolve and everybody knows that if the United States shows lack of resolve, the Bad Nations will not fear us as much. That would disrupt the Pax Americana. I’ll leave it for another day to discuss if America has been awfully successful in the “Pax” thing in the last 50 years.
If we do assume that maintaining American power and influence requires that United States forces intervene in foreign atrocities, then we must conclude that the United States hasn’t done a real good job of that.
The ongoing war in Darfur, Sudan, has seen 200,000 deaths, but the Red, White & Blue is conspicuously absent. In addition to rape and pillage, starvation is used as a weapon of war there, which seems fairly inhumane to me. When the bombers fly to Damascus, are we going to let a few make a detour to kick some Sudanese ass?
In the first seven years of this millennium, fighting in the Congo killed 60,000 people. Why did we miss that?
30,000 died in the 2011 Libyan revolt.
In 100 days in 1994, 800,000 people in Rwanda were killed, mostly by being beaten, hacked to death or raped brutally. The U.S. gave the wrongdoers a really stern talking-to.
Heck, the Associated Press says that since the Syrian uprising began in 2011, there have been 93,000 killings there. Why are we giving that first 93,000 a pass? Did they die happy or commit suicide?
There are some reasons to support the Syrian intervention. After all, it’s the military people who get the shit end of the stick and who are taking all the chances. Since you and I personally won’t be at risk, sounding all John Wayne-ish has a certain panache, don’t you think?
And it will only be pilots at risk. The Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense promise “no boots on the ground,” no introduction of American troops into Syria. And that promise/prediction has worked so well in the past. OK, with exceptions, but somebody had to try to do in Afghanistan what the British and the Russians failed to do. And Vietnam? Nah, that’s too easy.
But in this time of budget shortfalls, I think we can get the best bang for the buck by attacking somebody other than Syria. Let’s face it, if we need to kick ass to keep the peace, does it really matter whose ass? And in picking another target, we can better protect American interests.
I think we will agree that preventing the smuggling and distribution of dangerous drugs, together with all of the brutality that goes with the drug trade, is strongly in the American national interest.
We have so many bombs ready to go and so many aircraft gassed up, we might as well aim them at those directly causing harm right here within the borders of the United States. There are several good candidates, but the country that stands head-and-shoulders above the others as offensive to American National Interests is our target:
Mexico.
[I’m greatly disappointed with the state of education in America and with the quality of political discourse. There will be somebody reading this who is dumb enough to take the “bomb Mexico” suggestion seriously. For those, I’d say go read Dilbert or something, but I doubt if they’d understand that, either. For the record, this poor scribe is using a bit of irony with a touch of reductio ad absurdum to make his own political point.]
The Mexican Government is nowhere near as corrupt as is commonly believed. On the other hand, the Mexican drug cartels are every bit as violent and brutal as depicted. The butcher’s bill for the drug wars in Mexico for the last five years is 47,500. The cartels kill victims in inventive ways and leave decapitated bodies scattered around.
There are identifiable drug cartel strongholds in Mexico. They are a lot closer to American vengeance than Syria is from carriers in the Mediterranean or Red Sea. Moreover, even “boots on the ground” wouldn’t be nearly as risky, since Northern Mexico is so close to Texas. Every flapping gum in the Great Marble Whorehouse on Capital Hill says that the border is very porous. It has to be porous both ways.
So, in sum, if we are going to violate someone’s sovereignty, shouldn’t we get some direct benefits out of the deal?
But we don’t.
We (taxpayers) subsidize unevenly and unilaterally enforcing international morality. And we aren’t very good at it. And the American citizens most harmed are the military people who have to implement presidential and congressional directives. This is not “waving the bloody shirt.” If you have ever been up close and personal with overwhelming traumatic injuries, you might think twice before taking a political action that will guarantee that we see more of them.
Targeting Mexico rather than Syria is so obvious that I wonder why it’s not on the table.
Oh, you know me, I do have a hypothesis. It’s impossible to prove objectively because we cannot “measure” motivation and intent.
If we take the “Big Stick” and go to thumping Syria, the Americans personally endangered are the military people and, hey, they signed up for it. It’s not like Syria can invade the United States. So by just spending money, you and I can be all courageous and self-righteous - and SAFE - by urging attacks on Syria.
On the other hand, Mexico is close to home. If we start dropping cluster bombs on deserving criminals, their survivors will take a fierce revenge. All gloves will come off, and the terror will be brought into the United States. It’s fine to be courageous, but not if it’s going to hurt us.
Bravery is OK, but let's not get all dangerous about it.
29 August 2013
The People Who Do The Real Work
A little stay at the local hospital this week gave me a chance to meet some of the people who do the real work.
Oh, I’m not much at all for the “woe is me” thing. For a minimal description, see a note at the end.
A hospital may be a healthcare delivery system, but the healthcare still has to be delivered by people. Just as the point of the spear has to be sharp, the shaft of the spear has to be sturdy. I met lots of folks from both parts.
Two physicians I dealt with are interesting guys.
One is a primary care doc who put himself through medical school by working as a coal miner. To me, that says so very much about character and work ethic. The other is a specialist who served a hitch as an enlisted sailor in the U.S. Navy. He credits that experience with a lot of his own success in life.
Wow, there is a lesson from those guys. So many people see themselves as “too good” for this or that kind of work. But there is dignity and honor in any job done well. There are opportunities to learn beating at your door all the time. All you have to be willing to do is answer the door. True, it takes a little effort. Tell me something worthwhile that doesn’t.
This hospital has a “transport staff,” people whose job it is to wheel patients from here to there for medical testing and so forth. Well, I suppose that sounds like an easy job on its face. It is anything but. Pushing a wheeled carriage of some sort with a patient, let alone a “man-sized” patient, is a workout. Add to that the financial realities which keep staffing in all businesses below optimal levels. So the very pleasant lady who transported me constantly answered her portable phone to keep a running tab on the next three or four patients who had to be taken from here to there. In the meantime, she kept up a positive and upbeat demeanor.
Late at night, into the room came a guy while I was sleeping. When I stirred, he identified himself as “just a housekeeper.” Well, that always provokes a reaction from me when someone identifies himself as “just” anything. As he was disinfecting the place, he talked with me a little bit about his job and his understanding of it. And this guy takes his job very seriously. A hospital is a dirty place both because of the high traffic and constant presence of disease organisms. These “just housekeepers” have to stay on top of both the visible and the invisible debris and dirt. And of course the market does not bear a very high wage for that work. I wonder – who reading these Dispatches would be willing to do that work at all? Years ago, I read an amusing essay by a an institutional housekeeper about the four kinds of shit stains. Amusing though it may be, one of the facts of life is that humans make shit stains which somebody has to clean up. They are the ones with true dignity.
And have you ever noticed that healthcare people these days exclusively wear athletic shoes? That’s because they spend so little time other than up walking or running around. And yet it seems that some of the public expects them to act like personal valets. That has to be difficult for these professionals. I really doubt if they are doing these jobs for the money. I heard them involved in what were obviously some sorts of medical crises. Then they would come and apologize for not having attended some minor need. Well, if it’s me in the big crisis, or somebody in my family, I’d like to think that the other system users are going to chill a bit while these healthcare people triage what needs done first.
It’s also interesting to observe the spectrum of experience levels. A couple of people I encountered were old friends from Marion County Rescue Squad who now do healthcare jobs for a living, guys with lots of grey hair. (OK, Paul and Jerry, you’re also downright ugly at times.) Sometimes, grey hair just makes people self-righteous. Not these guys. To them - and I hope to me – the grey gives one a relaxed and wry perspective.
One of the experienced people I ran into was a nurse-manager, someone in charge of an entire unit. Because everyone else was busy, she came in to reinsert an IV line. We had a nice chat about the need for managers of professional workers to show constantly top-level hands-on professional skills. It sounds a little bit counterintuitive. After someone has been in a profession for 30 years and is supervising others, it’s a different skill set that is invoked. They’re just not going to be called upon nearly as often to do that hands-on care. But the reality is that when they supervise the young, aggressive people who get into these lines of work, they will be much more effective supervisors if the younger people know that the boss has top-notch hands-on skills. I have always found that applies to every profession. Nurse-managers have to be able to start IVs better than anyone else in the place. Police chiefs have to be able to perform difficult arrests as well as the fittest patrol officer. Old, supervising lawyers have to be able to stand up on their hind legs in Court with every bit as much ginger as any young Turk in the house.
Well, I don’t have any strong political or social points to make this evening. You just run into opportunities to learn and make friends everywhere you go.
Note: My stay was occasioned by a little cardiac arrhythmia. But as we all know, arrhythmia is better than no rhythmia.
Oh, I’m not much at all for the “woe is me” thing. For a minimal description, see a note at the end.
A hospital may be a healthcare delivery system, but the healthcare still has to be delivered by people. Just as the point of the spear has to be sharp, the shaft of the spear has to be sturdy. I met lots of folks from both parts.
Two physicians I dealt with are interesting guys.
One is a primary care doc who put himself through medical school by working as a coal miner. To me, that says so very much about character and work ethic. The other is a specialist who served a hitch as an enlisted sailor in the U.S. Navy. He credits that experience with a lot of his own success in life.
Wow, there is a lesson from those guys. So many people see themselves as “too good” for this or that kind of work. But there is dignity and honor in any job done well. There are opportunities to learn beating at your door all the time. All you have to be willing to do is answer the door. True, it takes a little effort. Tell me something worthwhile that doesn’t.
This hospital has a “transport staff,” people whose job it is to wheel patients from here to there for medical testing and so forth. Well, I suppose that sounds like an easy job on its face. It is anything but. Pushing a wheeled carriage of some sort with a patient, let alone a “man-sized” patient, is a workout. Add to that the financial realities which keep staffing in all businesses below optimal levels. So the very pleasant lady who transported me constantly answered her portable phone to keep a running tab on the next three or four patients who had to be taken from here to there. In the meantime, she kept up a positive and upbeat demeanor.
Late at night, into the room came a guy while I was sleeping. When I stirred, he identified himself as “just a housekeeper.” Well, that always provokes a reaction from me when someone identifies himself as “just” anything. As he was disinfecting the place, he talked with me a little bit about his job and his understanding of it. And this guy takes his job very seriously. A hospital is a dirty place both because of the high traffic and constant presence of disease organisms. These “just housekeepers” have to stay on top of both the visible and the invisible debris and dirt. And of course the market does not bear a very high wage for that work. I wonder – who reading these Dispatches would be willing to do that work at all? Years ago, I read an amusing essay by a an institutional housekeeper about the four kinds of shit stains. Amusing though it may be, one of the facts of life is that humans make shit stains which somebody has to clean up. They are the ones with true dignity.
And have you ever noticed that healthcare people these days exclusively wear athletic shoes? That’s because they spend so little time other than up walking or running around. And yet it seems that some of the public expects them to act like personal valets. That has to be difficult for these professionals. I really doubt if they are doing these jobs for the money. I heard them involved in what were obviously some sorts of medical crises. Then they would come and apologize for not having attended some minor need. Well, if it’s me in the big crisis, or somebody in my family, I’d like to think that the other system users are going to chill a bit while these healthcare people triage what needs done first.
It’s also interesting to observe the spectrum of experience levels. A couple of people I encountered were old friends from Marion County Rescue Squad who now do healthcare jobs for a living, guys with lots of grey hair. (OK, Paul and Jerry, you’re also downright ugly at times.) Sometimes, grey hair just makes people self-righteous. Not these guys. To them - and I hope to me – the grey gives one a relaxed and wry perspective.
One of the experienced people I ran into was a nurse-manager, someone in charge of an entire unit. Because everyone else was busy, she came in to reinsert an IV line. We had a nice chat about the need for managers of professional workers to show constantly top-level hands-on professional skills. It sounds a little bit counterintuitive. After someone has been in a profession for 30 years and is supervising others, it’s a different skill set that is invoked. They’re just not going to be called upon nearly as often to do that hands-on care. But the reality is that when they supervise the young, aggressive people who get into these lines of work, they will be much more effective supervisors if the younger people know that the boss has top-notch hands-on skills. I have always found that applies to every profession. Nurse-managers have to be able to start IVs better than anyone else in the place. Police chiefs have to be able to perform difficult arrests as well as the fittest patrol officer. Old, supervising lawyers have to be able to stand up on their hind legs in Court with every bit as much ginger as any young Turk in the house.
Well, I don’t have any strong political or social points to make this evening. You just run into opportunities to learn and make friends everywhere you go.
Note: My stay was occasioned by a little cardiac arrhythmia. But as we all know, arrhythmia is better than no rhythmia.
14 August 2013
Missing the Point; Oprah and the Handbag
This week, Oprah Winfrey recounted an experience on a shopping trip in Switzerland. She asked a clerk in some ritzy boutique to show her an ultra-designer handbag with a $38,000 price tag. The clerk suggested that she might want to look instead at something less pricey. The moral of the story, I believe, was that the store clerk automatically thought that a “woman of color” could not afford the $38,000 purse.
Wrong assumption, of course – needless to say, Oprah is über wealthy.
There has been a lot of “Isn’t this awful?” reaction. Oprah herself has downplayed it, saying that she was making the point, not portraying herself as some sort of victim.
By the way, I don’t think anybody can legitimately pick on Oprah. She started out with intelligence and talent, added hard work, got a couple of breaks, and has ascended on her merit.
And I suppose the racial assumption is a legitimate point and one that we need to recognize.
There’s another point, however. It seems rather more basic and itself considerably important: A $38,000 handbag? And we’re taking that seriously?
People with the means to do so can buy whatever they want, whenever they can afford. That doesn’t mean that these purchases are rational nor that they add favorably to an economy.
Thorstein Veblen coined the term “conspicuous consumption” for the process of spending money to impress. I think he meant “to embarrass favorably,” although for my part I am really impressed all to hell about a $38,000 handbag. I’m impressed that it is a belly laugh absurdity and I am impressed that anybody would look at such a thing with $38,000 worth of admiration. Mind you, I bet the leather and other materials are absolutely top-notch and that the craftsmanship and stitching are things of beauty. But $38 grand?
Rolex and Philippe Patek watches and such like also are things of beauty and marvelous miniature machinery, as well as being useless and rather ridiculous given what is available with timepieces these days. Quartz crystals made mainsprings a touch passe. You really want to impress somebody that you had $50,000 for a watch? Why not impress somebody that you bought a really good watch accurate to a second per century for 500 bucks and then funded some charitable organization with the other $49,500.
Or buy 1000 watches at $50 each and give them to a high school. Teaching youth the value of punctuality locally sounds to me like a better investment than funding European watchmakers.
This is not to denigrate quality goods. It is indeed a better idea to buy something well-made than something shoddy. But if a $38 handbag it’s okay and a $380 handbag is outstanding, that doesn’t make $38,000 handbag magnificent.
Somewhere around 500 bucks, the logic goes on a lunch break.
Who knows, maybe this whole polemic is because I’m not rolling in riches. Maybe if I gather together $100 million in my pocket, I would start buying ridiculous stuff, too.
I just hope not.
Wrong assumption, of course – needless to say, Oprah is über wealthy.
There has been a lot of “Isn’t this awful?” reaction. Oprah herself has downplayed it, saying that she was making the point, not portraying herself as some sort of victim.
By the way, I don’t think anybody can legitimately pick on Oprah. She started out with intelligence and talent, added hard work, got a couple of breaks, and has ascended on her merit.
And I suppose the racial assumption is a legitimate point and one that we need to recognize.
There’s another point, however. It seems rather more basic and itself considerably important: A $38,000 handbag? And we’re taking that seriously?
People with the means to do so can buy whatever they want, whenever they can afford. That doesn’t mean that these purchases are rational nor that they add favorably to an economy.
Thorstein Veblen coined the term “conspicuous consumption” for the process of spending money to impress. I think he meant “to embarrass favorably,” although for my part I am really impressed all to hell about a $38,000 handbag. I’m impressed that it is a belly laugh absurdity and I am impressed that anybody would look at such a thing with $38,000 worth of admiration. Mind you, I bet the leather and other materials are absolutely top-notch and that the craftsmanship and stitching are things of beauty. But $38 grand?
Rolex and Philippe Patek watches and such like also are things of beauty and marvelous miniature machinery, as well as being useless and rather ridiculous given what is available with timepieces these days. Quartz crystals made mainsprings a touch passe. You really want to impress somebody that you had $50,000 for a watch? Why not impress somebody that you bought a really good watch accurate to a second per century for 500 bucks and then funded some charitable organization with the other $49,500.
Or buy 1000 watches at $50 each and give them to a high school. Teaching youth the value of punctuality locally sounds to me like a better investment than funding European watchmakers.
This is not to denigrate quality goods. It is indeed a better idea to buy something well-made than something shoddy. But if a $38 handbag it’s okay and a $380 handbag is outstanding, that doesn’t make $38,000 handbag magnificent.
Somewhere around 500 bucks, the logic goes on a lunch break.
Who knows, maybe this whole polemic is because I’m not rolling in riches. Maybe if I gather together $100 million in my pocket, I would start buying ridiculous stuff, too.
I just hope not.
21 July 2013
"George Zimmerman & Trayvon Martin" Rides Again: Looking for My Fair Share of the Sympathy & Grief; And How to Talk So Loud It Looks Like I’m Useful
Good God Almighty, the American press is shaking the Zimmerman/Martin story like a puppy shaking a stuffed animal that lost its stuffing.
Consider this an addendum to the post of 19 July 2013. If you haven’t read it yet, scroll down. I don’t mind waiting.
Okay, are we good go?
The Confuse-igentsia continues to pelt us with sincere yet utterly silly shit.
For the first entrant in the Head-Scratcher-of-the-Day, I ran into this in Bill O'Reilly’s weekly Sunday newspaper column:
“I can’t tell you how many times I have wanted to confront somebody who was doing something wrong in my presence. But I simply can’t. There are legions of sleazy lawyers lined up to attack the affluent in court.”
Okay, hell, Bill, take a few shots at lawyers, this is a free country and I revere that ‘ol First Amendment. But I certainly hope that the fear of getting sued is not what controls your impulse to avoid confrontations with people.
Confrontations, by their nature, are dangerous. Sometimes they’re only a little tiny bit dangerous. Sometimes they are big, bad and hairy dangerous. This is not to say that you should never get into a confrontation. Sometimes, it is necessary, and a moral imperative. But there are far more confrontations in the society than there are necessary confrontations and the real trick is telling the difference.
What marks the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation as unnecessary was the fact that one of the participants (Zimmerman) identified a potential danger several minutes in advance of the confrontation, was carrying the means to make that confrontation lethal (a pistol) and yet continued to seek out the confrontation.
The result? A dead kid.
There have been confrontations with 17-year-olds that ended in their death which were unavoidable. This wasn’t one of them.
O’Reilly’s attitude that he’s not willing to confront anyone because he’s afraid of getting sued is just a variation on the same theme which disconnects citizens from any responsibility for the state of our society. To paraphrase my friend Justice Richard Neely, people are too lazy, too scared and too stupid to confront crime and violence.
Incidentally, from reading lots of other stuff written by O’Reilly, I doubt that this quote in his column today was more than a little popping off. I sincerely doubt that it represents an absence of los huevos for entering into the fray.
In the wave of massive rallies held on Saturday (and I’m not sure if that is irony or sarcasm) one common theme was the demand to the United States Department of Justice that they bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman. The mouth-in-gear-before-brain-engages voice of my current political party, the Rev. Al Sharpton, made the high-minded plea:
“We are trying to change laws so that this never, ever happens again,” Sharpton said.
What a load of bullshit.
Rev. Al, if you think changing the law is going to make sure “that this never, ever happens again,” you’re out of your ecclesiastical mind. For approximately the entire history of Homo sapiens, the members of this species have been beating, clubbing, stabbing and shooting one another with various projectiles. Various informal and formal legal codes have been in effect for at least the last 2000 years and, if anything, the beating, clubbing, etc., has picked up.
But I think I do understand there is an underlying message we're getting from the Rev. and from lots of other folks – we don’t have the intelligence, the time or a long enough attention span to look at why there is so much violence around the world and why the methods of violence and levels of violence differ. So we declare that something is The Truth, try to change a law to comport with The Truth, and then go home secure in the little fantasy world that we’ve done something useful. There we will stay for a couple of weeks until we have a new epiphany about some New Truth.
Al, Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not to be stupid about it.
And a third class of indulgence being fed by the Zimmerman/Martin frenzy is a desire for a piece of the rock, wanting to feel that the pain and grief of a deceased's family is somehow personable to me, me, me, and I’ve personally been hurt and I personally deserve some sort of compensation or sympathy or attention, attention, attention because it’s personal to ME and now my opinions are worth more.
There are lots of examples of that. One is Rapper MC Lyte. At one of the rallies, he remarked:
“When the verdict was read, I felt like we lost Trayvon Martin again.”
What is this “we” shit? Did you know the guy before you read about him on the news? (Sorry, heard about him on the news.) Don’t you think there’s a little secondary gain going on if you are spreading your sincere sadness into a microphone?
Oh, we all like to invest in grief. It pays dividends a lot sooner than Bank of America. How often do you see on Facebook a post that goes something like “My best friend Joe’s mother died, and I’m just so upset about it.” To which replies roll in, “Oh, you poor dear, we are so sorry for your loss!”
How’s that again? In the overall sense, maybe Joe’s mom should be at the top of our concern list. If you’re looking strictly corporeally, let’s see what we can do for Joe. Why am I reminded of people who think they can get relief by telephone from the California Psychic Hotline?
I do not appreciate rap music. Nor do I understand it. There is an almost unvarying formula that when you react to something a rapper says, you go find his/her lyrics and point out that they are full of lots and lots of violent and antisocial stuff. And they make liberal use of “the F Word.”
Oh, no they don’t, they just say “fuck” a lot.
Okay, I looked up MC Lyte, and he certainly provides a lot of snorting soundbites. On the whole, however, if I’m reading the free verse correctly, his stuff is way on the mild side so I’m not going to cherry pick the really bad stuff to try to make him out to be some sort of bad person.
He’s just another illogical person rolling in a very common human indulgence.
So what to do?
I have long been a friend and supporter of Sen. Manchin. (No, I don’t plan to attend any functions hosted by Mayor Bloomberg for the Senator. I’m sure the Mayor's family loves him, that’s about all I’m going to say about the guy.)
At least six months ago, Sen. Manchin proposed responding to the concerns of gun violence with a no-holds-barred examination of violence in America, a “National Commission on Violence.” He reasoned, correctly, that looking at only the instruments of some violence won’t do a whole lot of good. That proposal seems to have dropped into the black hole of Washington, possibly because it lacks whine-potential and sex, and the results may not be consistent with all of our dearly held preconceptions.
So let me say that it’s time to move off of Zimmerman/Martin. The case is over. Continuing that particular discussion is waving the bloody shirt and crass political opportunism. It is time to move to an honest discussion of everything that seems to be causing violence in America.
I would start with the only obvious conclusion: We could be doing a better job for each other.
Consider this an addendum to the post of 19 July 2013. If you haven’t read it yet, scroll down. I don’t mind waiting.
Okay, are we good go?
The Confuse-igentsia continues to pelt us with sincere yet utterly silly shit.
For the first entrant in the Head-Scratcher-of-the-Day, I ran into this in Bill O'Reilly’s weekly Sunday newspaper column:
“I can’t tell you how many times I have wanted to confront somebody who was doing something wrong in my presence. But I simply can’t. There are legions of sleazy lawyers lined up to attack the affluent in court.”
Okay, hell, Bill, take a few shots at lawyers, this is a free country and I revere that ‘ol First Amendment. But I certainly hope that the fear of getting sued is not what controls your impulse to avoid confrontations with people.
Confrontations, by their nature, are dangerous. Sometimes they’re only a little tiny bit dangerous. Sometimes they are big, bad and hairy dangerous. This is not to say that you should never get into a confrontation. Sometimes, it is necessary, and a moral imperative. But there are far more confrontations in the society than there are necessary confrontations and the real trick is telling the difference.
What marks the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation as unnecessary was the fact that one of the participants (Zimmerman) identified a potential danger several minutes in advance of the confrontation, was carrying the means to make that confrontation lethal (a pistol) and yet continued to seek out the confrontation.
The result? A dead kid.
There have been confrontations with 17-year-olds that ended in their death which were unavoidable. This wasn’t one of them.
O’Reilly’s attitude that he’s not willing to confront anyone because he’s afraid of getting sued is just a variation on the same theme which disconnects citizens from any responsibility for the state of our society. To paraphrase my friend Justice Richard Neely, people are too lazy, too scared and too stupid to confront crime and violence.
Incidentally, from reading lots of other stuff written by O’Reilly, I doubt that this quote in his column today was more than a little popping off. I sincerely doubt that it represents an absence of los huevos for entering into the fray.
In the wave of massive rallies held on Saturday (and I’m not sure if that is irony or sarcasm) one common theme was the demand to the United States Department of Justice that they bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman. The mouth-in-gear-before-brain-engages voice of my current political party, the Rev. Al Sharpton, made the high-minded plea:
“We are trying to change laws so that this never, ever happens again,” Sharpton said.
What a load of bullshit.
Rev. Al, if you think changing the law is going to make sure “that this never, ever happens again,” you’re out of your ecclesiastical mind. For approximately the entire history of Homo sapiens, the members of this species have been beating, clubbing, stabbing and shooting one another with various projectiles. Various informal and formal legal codes have been in effect for at least the last 2000 years and, if anything, the beating, clubbing, etc., has picked up.
But I think I do understand there is an underlying message we're getting from the Rev. and from lots of other folks – we don’t have the intelligence, the time or a long enough attention span to look at why there is so much violence around the world and why the methods of violence and levels of violence differ. So we declare that something is The Truth, try to change a law to comport with The Truth, and then go home secure in the little fantasy world that we’ve done something useful. There we will stay for a couple of weeks until we have a new epiphany about some New Truth.
Al, Jesus said to turn the other cheek, not to be stupid about it.
And a third class of indulgence being fed by the Zimmerman/Martin frenzy is a desire for a piece of the rock, wanting to feel that the pain and grief of a deceased's family is somehow personable to me, me, me, and I’ve personally been hurt and I personally deserve some sort of compensation or sympathy or attention, attention, attention because it’s personal to ME and now my opinions are worth more.
There are lots of examples of that. One is Rapper MC Lyte. At one of the rallies, he remarked:
“When the verdict was read, I felt like we lost Trayvon Martin again.”
What is this “we” shit? Did you know the guy before you read about him on the news? (Sorry, heard about him on the news.) Don’t you think there’s a little secondary gain going on if you are spreading your sincere sadness into a microphone?
Oh, we all like to invest in grief. It pays dividends a lot sooner than Bank of America. How often do you see on Facebook a post that goes something like “My best friend Joe’s mother died, and I’m just so upset about it.” To which replies roll in, “Oh, you poor dear, we are so sorry for your loss!”
How’s that again? In the overall sense, maybe Joe’s mom should be at the top of our concern list. If you’re looking strictly corporeally, let’s see what we can do for Joe. Why am I reminded of people who think they can get relief by telephone from the California Psychic Hotline?
I do not appreciate rap music. Nor do I understand it. There is an almost unvarying formula that when you react to something a rapper says, you go find his/her lyrics and point out that they are full of lots and lots of violent and antisocial stuff. And they make liberal use of “the F Word.”
Oh, no they don’t, they just say “fuck” a lot.
Okay, I looked up MC Lyte, and he certainly provides a lot of snorting soundbites. On the whole, however, if I’m reading the free verse correctly, his stuff is way on the mild side so I’m not going to cherry pick the really bad stuff to try to make him out to be some sort of bad person.
He’s just another illogical person rolling in a very common human indulgence.
So what to do?
I have long been a friend and supporter of Sen. Manchin. (No, I don’t plan to attend any functions hosted by Mayor Bloomberg for the Senator. I’m sure the Mayor's family loves him, that’s about all I’m going to say about the guy.)
At least six months ago, Sen. Manchin proposed responding to the concerns of gun violence with a no-holds-barred examination of violence in America, a “National Commission on Violence.” He reasoned, correctly, that looking at only the instruments of some violence won’t do a whole lot of good. That proposal seems to have dropped into the black hole of Washington, possibly because it lacks whine-potential and sex, and the results may not be consistent with all of our dearly held preconceptions.
So let me say that it’s time to move off of Zimmerman/Martin. The case is over. Continuing that particular discussion is waving the bloody shirt and crass political opportunism. It is time to move to an honest discussion of everything that seems to be causing violence in America.
I would start with the only obvious conclusion: We could be doing a better job for each other.
19 July 2013
George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, and All the Lonely People Looking for Some Lady Named “Justice”
There are a few lessons to be drawn from the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case in Florida, but not nearly so many as every wandering mind in America seems to think.
“Hard cases make bad law” is a legal maxim which dates back to 1842. It is as true today as it was then. Cases with a great deal of publicity, strident opinion, and generous misrepresentation of facts give people with no stake in the case a vehicle to push irrelevant social or political agendas. They do it by warping the law so that the next poor bastard who has an ordinary case gets the shaft.
So to every person who says that the not guilty verdict in Florida proves that:
(a) There is Justice in America, and I knew all along that he was innocent,
OR
(b) There is No Justice in America and everybody knows that he is guilty, guilty, guilty,
I have an epiphany for you.
Just for you.
Are you ready?
Here it is:
You are the product of the bad educational system, you are overly suggestible or you are just damn dumb.
This shooting is one entry on the ledger, one piece of violence among lots and lots and lots of pieces of violence which we have ignored while we have been looking down a tunnel at this one.
In this particular case, a jury heard all the legal evidence in a case which was well-controlled by a judge who was not hunting headlines. The jury applied the law to facts. They were the only people who had the power to determine the facts. I have no idea how I would have voted had I been on that jury. I wasn’t there. I didn’t hear the evidence.
A couple of people who I pray perceive my epiphany (see above) are Al Sharpton and Michael Moore. Mind you, I really like Michael Moore. The last political rally I attended was one of his, and it was really kickin’.
They are sponsoring “Justice for Trayvon” rallies all across America. One goal is to urge the United States Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for a civil rights violation and thereby get, well, “justice for Trayvon.”
Sorry, guys, you’re not going to get “justice for Trayvon.” Since Cain whacked Abel, no homicide victim has ever received justice. They are dead. Maybe their family will get something in the way of restitution or compensation, but don’t count on it, and if they do, even that is not “justice.” The deceased is still deceased. In my belief system, they get eternal justice no matter what, but you, me, the Department of Justice, Al Sharpton and Walt Disney have nothing to do with it.
Here’s another bit of news: Dealing with people charged or convicted of crimes is a very pragmatic affair. Seldom do police or prosecutors become wounded by the lack of justice and now seek to restore the cosmic balance. Rather, we want to undo the harm to the extent we can, provide a negative consequence to deter people from committing crimes in the future and put the really bad people somewhere that the population upon which they can commit crimes is limited to other really bad people.
But justice? Nobody knows how.
So rally on! The First Amendment, sacred in my heart, says that you can. But don’t be dumb about it. Rally for “We need to do XYZ differently.” Don’t pretend you’re doing justice.
Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” statute was not invoked in this case. It was tried as a straight self-defense case. I’m sure that there are four people down in Florida are bothered all to hell that Stevie Wonder won’t appear there until they change their statute.
Well, I won’t go to New York until they change a whole bunch of theirs. So there.
Does anybody care? Didn’t think so.
Why, you may wonder, is the Second Amendment community NOT praising Zimmerman for successfully “defending himself.” That one is easy to answer: It’s because gun people know that Zimmerman is an idiot. He was a desperado wannabe, the kind of pistolero who who gets a stiffie when he watches Tombstone.
This doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the self-defense, but it does have a lot to do with the responsibility which goes hand-in-hand with the right of a citizen to carry arms. Just as the Second Amendment recognizes a pre-existing right to self-defense and right to arm oneself for self-defense, so does it incorporate the solemn responsibility to avoid unnecessary conflict. And any conflict which you can avoid with a net reduction in harm to people should be avoided.
Several minutes before the shooting, Zimmerman called 911 and reported Martin as a possibly dangerous person worthy of attention by the police. Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, that doesn’t matter for what he did next. Oh, it also doesn’t matter that the dispatcher told him to stay away. If a person carries a firearm, they should not have to be told to avoid a confrontation.
Zimmerman had perceived Martin as a threat. Therefore, there was a potential for conflict. As long as Zimmerman had a firearm, any conflict in which he engaged could be a lethal event. Absent an unavoidable threat to life, permitting that conflict to occur was reprehensible and inexcusable. It may not have been illegal, but it still was WRONG.
Simply put, Zimmerman is not a person who can be trusted with a firearm. He has proved that he is a dangerous idiot.
This nation keeps breaking Rule Number One: “Keep your eye on the ball.”
“The Ball” here is the amount of violence in society. It is the ever-increasing prison population and the influence of drugs. And it is the cowardice and laziness which keep citizens from dealing with any of that. It is so much easier to watch MSNBC or CNN or FoxNews and enjoy your flavor of indignation. Then, you can pretend that you’re doing something useful without ever leaving home.
No, prancing around singing songs and slinging signs are not “useful.”
Wow, we are gullible.
“Hard cases make bad law” is a legal maxim which dates back to 1842. It is as true today as it was then. Cases with a great deal of publicity, strident opinion, and generous misrepresentation of facts give people with no stake in the case a vehicle to push irrelevant social or political agendas. They do it by warping the law so that the next poor bastard who has an ordinary case gets the shaft.
So to every person who says that the not guilty verdict in Florida proves that:
(a) There is Justice in America, and I knew all along that he was innocent,
OR
(b) There is No Justice in America and everybody knows that he is guilty, guilty, guilty,
I have an epiphany for you.
Just for you.
Are you ready?
Here it is:
You are the product of the bad educational system, you are overly suggestible or you are just damn dumb.
This shooting is one entry on the ledger, one piece of violence among lots and lots and lots of pieces of violence which we have ignored while we have been looking down a tunnel at this one.
In this particular case, a jury heard all the legal evidence in a case which was well-controlled by a judge who was not hunting headlines. The jury applied the law to facts. They were the only people who had the power to determine the facts. I have no idea how I would have voted had I been on that jury. I wasn’t there. I didn’t hear the evidence.
A couple of people who I pray perceive my epiphany (see above) are Al Sharpton and Michael Moore. Mind you, I really like Michael Moore. The last political rally I attended was one of his, and it was really kickin’.
They are sponsoring “Justice for Trayvon” rallies all across America. One goal is to urge the United States Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for a civil rights violation and thereby get, well, “justice for Trayvon.”
Sorry, guys, you’re not going to get “justice for Trayvon.” Since Cain whacked Abel, no homicide victim has ever received justice. They are dead. Maybe their family will get something in the way of restitution or compensation, but don’t count on it, and if they do, even that is not “justice.” The deceased is still deceased. In my belief system, they get eternal justice no matter what, but you, me, the Department of Justice, Al Sharpton and Walt Disney have nothing to do with it.
Here’s another bit of news: Dealing with people charged or convicted of crimes is a very pragmatic affair. Seldom do police or prosecutors become wounded by the lack of justice and now seek to restore the cosmic balance. Rather, we want to undo the harm to the extent we can, provide a negative consequence to deter people from committing crimes in the future and put the really bad people somewhere that the population upon which they can commit crimes is limited to other really bad people.
But justice? Nobody knows how.
So rally on! The First Amendment, sacred in my heart, says that you can. But don’t be dumb about it. Rally for “We need to do XYZ differently.” Don’t pretend you’re doing justice.
Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” statute was not invoked in this case. It was tried as a straight self-defense case. I’m sure that there are four people down in Florida are bothered all to hell that Stevie Wonder won’t appear there until they change their statute.
Well, I won’t go to New York until they change a whole bunch of theirs. So there.
Does anybody care? Didn’t think so.
Why, you may wonder, is the Second Amendment community NOT praising Zimmerman for successfully “defending himself.” That one is easy to answer: It’s because gun people know that Zimmerman is an idiot. He was a desperado wannabe, the kind of pistolero who who gets a stiffie when he watches Tombstone.
This doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the self-defense, but it does have a lot to do with the responsibility which goes hand-in-hand with the right of a citizen to carry arms. Just as the Second Amendment recognizes a pre-existing right to self-defense and right to arm oneself for self-defense, so does it incorporate the solemn responsibility to avoid unnecessary conflict. And any conflict which you can avoid with a net reduction in harm to people should be avoided.
Several minutes before the shooting, Zimmerman called 911 and reported Martin as a possibly dangerous person worthy of attention by the police. Maybe he was right and maybe he was wrong, that doesn’t matter for what he did next. Oh, it also doesn’t matter that the dispatcher told him to stay away. If a person carries a firearm, they should not have to be told to avoid a confrontation.
Zimmerman had perceived Martin as a threat. Therefore, there was a potential for conflict. As long as Zimmerman had a firearm, any conflict in which he engaged could be a lethal event. Absent an unavoidable threat to life, permitting that conflict to occur was reprehensible and inexcusable. It may not have been illegal, but it still was WRONG.
Simply put, Zimmerman is not a person who can be trusted with a firearm. He has proved that he is a dangerous idiot.
This nation keeps breaking Rule Number One: “Keep your eye on the ball.”
“The Ball” here is the amount of violence in society. It is the ever-increasing prison population and the influence of drugs. And it is the cowardice and laziness which keep citizens from dealing with any of that. It is so much easier to watch MSNBC or CNN or FoxNews and enjoy your flavor of indignation. Then, you can pretend that you’re doing something useful without ever leaving home.
No, prancing around singing songs and slinging signs are not “useful.”
Wow, we are gullible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
