Looking for Trouble

The Contraception War!

2012-03-02T14:19:00.001-05:00

If the recent "Contraception War" didn't alert young women that their rights are slowly being eroded by the Republican Party, then nothing will. I read that 100% of women in America use contraceptives, or have used contraceptives, at one time or another. I doubt the 100%, but for sure it has to be in the high 90's. It's mainly up to younger women now as those of us who fought in the 70's and 80's for equal rights no longer need contraceptives or jobs with equal pay. Most of us are retired and Social Security doesn't discriminate. So get off your duffs, stop with the superficialities (spiked heels on the picket line are painful), and recognize that you're at an impasse. Once your rights are gone, they're unlikely to come back any time soon. Any woman who votes Republican in the forthcoming elections, is a fool or a nun, or both.

Pigs!

2012-03-01T17:08:00.003-05:00

Now we know for sure, so if for any reason you think you have to be polite to Republicans (or open minded), you don't. Rush Limbaugh, the intellectual heft of the Republican Party, the man to whom all Republicans bow, said today that if women want insurers to pay for contraceptives, then Limbaugh wants something in return (and I assume he speaks for his Republican brethren--certainly none have condemned him), the right to watch these women have sex. Yes, that's correct.

Pigs!

And remember 98% of women, including religious women, use some type of birth control in their lifetimes.

Need I say it again--Pigs!

Catholic Hypocrisy!

2012-02-29T15:35:00.005-05:00

I'm no longer a believer but despite my non-belief I've always had a soft spot for the Catholic Church, which is unusual, as most fallen-away Catholics tend to be very critical of the church. But that soft spot is atrophying, rapidly. Today I heard of a lesbian who was publicly refused communion during the funeral mass for her mother. The priest told the woman, who had her hands outstretched waiting for the wafer, that she was living with another women, and he would not give her communion. Worse, if anything could be worse, he refused to conduct the internment ceremony at the cemetery. The daughter is now demanding that the priest be removed from parish duties. I wish her success, although I doubt this will happen.

This is the same church that for decades denied the sexual abuse of children by priests, to the extent that such priests were moved from parish to parish to abuse again, and again; the same church that accepted Newt Gingrich, a serial fornicator, as a communicant; the same church that permits people who believe in, and advocate for, the death penalty (including Newt Gingrich) to receive communion. Apparently, putting people to death trumps two women living together (and this despite the church's often stated view that the death penalty is intrinsically evil).

I am stimulated to question the church's humanity whenever I hear Rick Santorum spout his nonsense, all of which he attributes to Catholic teaching. (And since no Catholic bishops have publicly denied Santorum's declarations, they are guilty of compliance by their silence.) Santorum, with a BA, MFA, and JD, suggests that people like Obama who urge others to seek higher education, are snobs. Santorum's mother has a graduate degree--has he told her she's a snob? Is his wife a snob? Women with children should not work. (Will he support their families while they stay at home?) Children should be home schooled, unlike his own attendance at school while his mother worked. He compares gay sex to bestiality. When he first read JFK's speech on the separation of church and state Santorum says he wanted to vomit.

None of the above resembles the Catholic Church I knew when growing up or the lifelong practicing Catholics that I loved, like my late mother. She was horrified by the death penalty, always went to work even with small children at home (we needed the money), sent us to Catholic schools, and worshipped JFK. I don't remember her ever commenting on gays (she never spoke about sex of any kind), but I know she would have been sympathetic if any of her children or grandchildren were to announce they were gay.

It's time for the Church to stand up to men like Rick Santorum and to the priest that denied communion to a gay member of his congregation. Hatred has no place in the Church and so long as it doesn't stand up to the Santorums of this world, it merits the term "Catholic hypocrisy."

Health Care in U.S.--A joke!

2012-02-17T10:49:00.001-05:00

I'm scheduled for a colonoscopy, the third time this year. The reason it's the third time is because each time I was scheduled, the question of who would pay had not been answered. First, in early January, insurance coverages were being reviewed and the facility could not determine from my carrier if the procedure was covered; the second time I was told that I was not covered (the same carrier I've had for six years changed member numbers without informing me and the facility had my old number). This time I was informed that although the procedure was covered 100% I would have to pay a facility coverage deductible of $250.00. I cancelled the procedure and then did some investigation with my insurer. Apparently, if it's a screening colonoscopy I don't have to pay for the facility but if it's a diagnostic procedure I do. The difference, as explained to me is: if my doctor (whose fee is fully covered) discovers a polyp during the procedure, then I have to pay the fee; if my colon is clean, there is no fee. Why? Because the wire she uses to remove the polyp is owned by the facility.

After I cancelled the procedure, I received a return call from the facility and was informed that the facility would pick up the fee if I couldn't afford to pay, so I've agreed to have the procedure. What really infuriates me is that if I had not done my homework, I would have paid the $250 upfront (that's how they do it) and not been told that a fee was only due if a polyp was found. I doubt very much if the facility would have returned the $250.00 if no polyps were found. And since they're so exact, should they charge by the polyp--$50.00 per polyp. What if the polyp is benign--is it a lower cost?

Let me contrast the above with another story. When Miguel and I were living in Italy in 2003 (I had insurance but he did not), he had unusual bleeding which required a colonoscopy. He had the procedure performed at the hospital in Foligno, Umbria. When he was finished (no polyps were found), he asked what he owed. The doctor replied that Italians don't have to pay for the procedure and since Miguel liked Italy so much that he chose to live there he didn't have to pay either. The doctor said, joking, "it was a pleasure seeing your colon." As Miguel was leaving the hospital, he saw his doctor coming out of the parking lot riding a bike. Not even a fancy bike. No further comment.

An Addendum: My doctor, a lovely Russian, called me just now, not knowing that the facility had agree to absorb the fee, to see what she could do. We had a long discussion about American health care and we both agree that until insurance companies stop running this as a business, it will never get any better.

Santorum--Take a Bayer!

2012-02-16T15:16:00.006-05:00

When I reviewed the first Republican debate a few months ago, I discounted Santorum as a possible nominee, mainly because I found him so dislikable and, of course, I assumed everyone else would see what I saw--his overriding self-importance coupled with overriding ignorance. But then I discounted the overriding ignorance of the majority of Republican voters. So, we now have a Republican front runner who insists that contraception is harmful to women's health.

Am I the only person left who remembers that when JFK ran for president he had to promise that the Catholic Church would not dictate government policy? We've now walked so far backward in our view of separation of Church and State that in this election Republicans want the Catholic Church to dictate policy, or to be more specific policy on women's reproductive rights. For in no other way, does Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum, both self-selecting cafeteria Catholics, support any of the major tenets of the Catholic Church, to wit:

On the death penalty, from John Paul II’s “Evangelium Vitae” (1995):

[T]he nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Gingrich and Santorem support the death penalty, enthusiastically I should add!

On a living wage, from John XXIII’s “Mater et Magistra” (1961):

We therefore consider it Our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life and to fulfill their family obligations in a worthy manner.

Neither supports this concept!

On unions, from John Paul II’s “Laborem Exercens” (1981):

All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association [italics original], that is to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in the various professions. These associations are called labour or trade unions.

Both are anti-union!

On wealth redistribution, from Benedict XVI’s “Caritas in Veritatae”(2009):

Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution. [Italics original]

Both would accuse Benedict of conducting "class warfare"!

And on health care and the “safety net,” from John XXIII’s “Pacem in Terris” (1963):

But first We must speak of man's rights. Man has the right to live. He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of ill health; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.

So obvious, no need to comment! I should note that the papal quotes are from an article in The Washington Post.

If you're confused that two self-described Catholic men can ignore these very important Catholic tenets and focus instead on contraceptive and abortion, let me explain. It's nothing more than a desire to put women back in the box. Neither Santorum or Gingrich are Catholic beyond their desire to control women. Any woman who votes for either, and in particular, any Catholic woman, is a fool.

To add to the horror, Foster Friess, the 71 year old Wyoming multi-millionaire, who is now funding Santorum's super-pac, said in response to a question by Andrea Mitchell on Santorum's views on contraception:

“Back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives,” Friess said. “The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly.”

So ladies, keep your legs crossed unless you want to have a child. And if you're menopausal and can no longer reproduce, read a book, say the rosary, or watch reruns of the Bishop Sheen show. No more sex for you, my dear.

Are you disgusted by these men? I am!

Virginia legislators--Off with their heads!

2012-02-15T15:37:00.006-05:00

Someone asked me recently how I decide to write a particular blog, since I often skip writing on days that are hot with political news. The answer is when something moves me to great anger. This happened yesterday when I read that the Virginia legislature, both houses, voted to force women to have an intra-vaginal sonogram before they elect to have a legal abortion. (And it happened in a state named after a woman--how horrifically ironic.) As angry as I am at the men who bring these laws into being, I'm even angrier at the women who sit back and let it happen. I've had an intra-vaginal sonogram and hated it, although it was medically necessary. If such an examination is not medically necessary, it's the equivalent of rape:

This examination takes the standard sonogram examination one step further, by introducing a special probe that can be placed directly in the vagina. A developing fetus at six to eight weeks can be easily seen by the standard exam. Before six to eight weeks however the standard exam may not give the information needed. The Intravaginal Sonogram using the special probe, improves visibility due to its position inside the vagina. Under six to eight weeks of age, a fetus may not be seen by standard sonography. The ovaries also are small and difficult to see through the abdomen. Placing the Intravaginal Probe closer to the uterus and ovaries, improves the quality of the images.

A woman who has decided on an abortion does not need this examination--its sole purpose is to humiliate her for daring to make decisions concerning her own body. Perhaps, as some women suggest, the recent viral attempts to control women by passing laws that deny them contraceptives is the last pathetic mew of men (too many men, apparently) who regret the passing of the Victorian age where they did whatever they wished to women without repercussion--and I refer in particular to the Catholic clergy. If we don't fight back, and I mean fight back with whatever weapons are available--voting, writing, marching, denying, we'll lose our rights.

Younger women are the most culpable in their passivity. Get off your duffs and your cell phones, stop the manicures, the pedicures, and the hair straightening, and fight! It's your world now and it's your fight. I'm tired, and I no longer need contraceptives!

Steve Jobs and Us, Once Again!

2012-02-15T14:10:00.001-05:00

In many of my posts, after Steve Jobs died, I castigated him for his huge ego and complete lack of social conscience, but then after watching an interview of him and Bill Gates at a technology conference, I thought that perhaps I was too hard. Well, I'm back to my original view--he was a horror and despite his "i" products, which I like as much as the next child, he took far more from this world than he gave back. Yesterday, I watched an interview on MS-NBC of Mike Daisey, author of "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs," and one story still resonates. When Jobs was asked about the 100 hours each week that many of his Chinese laborers are forced to work to produce Apple "i" products and their very low pay (approximately $8 per product--iPads sell for $499) contrasted to the 40 hour work week of most American factory workers, Jobs' smug and uncaring reply was that he typically worked more than 40 hours a week. Many of these same laborers are permanently disabled from repetitive work, poisoned from the chemicals used to clean iPads, or are suicides as a result of horrific working conditions. Yes, Steve Jobs was a monster!

It's time to let go of Jobs though--he's dead and no loss, and to turn our attention to Apple executives, to Jobs' wife and children, and to consumers who purchase Apple products. Now that we know about these factory conditions, we are as culpable as Jobs in prolonging the suffering. Move manufacturing back to the United States--so what if an iPad costs $999. If you can't afford it, you don't need it. Stop participating in the horror--stop buying Apple products until Apple reforms--and for that matter, stop eating pork and chicken bred in cages. Most markets offer free-range chickens and cage-free eggs--try Whole Foods if you can't find them in your regular market. We can't pretend any more that we don't know about the suffering caused by our participation as consumers. Can we?

Barack Capitulation Obama!

2012-02-07T16:59:00.004-05:00

He does it every time. Whenever I come close to cutting some slack for Obama, he goes back to the same old-old. Now, he's capitulating on contraception and on Super Pac's. I suspect that in less than a week, we'll see Obama cancel the requirement that Catholic hospitals include contraception as a covered item in their health insurance package. The poll I quoted earlier indicated that a majority of Catholics, with an emphasis on women, approve of the requirement. In addition, those Catholics who supported Obama in the last election are the same ones who support the requirement. Yet, he's so afraid of losing a single vote that he gives up again, and again.

Further, although not as important, is that Obama is tone deaf. Did he and his campaign not realize that this would be a huge issue for the Catholic bishops and that the bishops would then enlist the aid of their parishioners? Now if Obama backs down, he'll lose those like me who dislike him for giving in, and he'll also lose Catholic voters who won't forget his original stance. He's in the same position as the Komen Foundation--damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Perhaps he needs new advisers. Give me a call!

More on Catholic Bishops and Komen!

2012-02-07T12:46:00.003-05:00

Perhaps I was overly concerned that Catholics might listen to their bishops who objected vehemently to Obama's recent requirement that Catholic hospitals provide insurance payments for those of its employees who use some type of contraceptive. (As an aside, and not at all trying for sarcasm, but when a priest breaks his celibacy vow, does he still follow the Catholic rule on contraception? Or does he only have sex with a woman during her non-fertile days? I ask because when I was in high school, of the four priests that administered to our parish, two had affairs with women and subsequently left the priesthood and married.)

Back to the bishops, a recent Public Religion Research Institute poll of Catholics found that a majority (55%) agree with Obama on this issue. In addition, women are more likely than men to agree that "employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception (62% vs. 47% respectively)." Particularly noteworthy is the statistic concerning women.

When will the Catholic church stop dictating to women in all things, and not just regarding reproductive rights? Never, so long as women are not admitted to the priesthood. But a more important question is when will Catholic women stop permitting men to dictate to them, not just Catholic men? The same answer: never, so long as they refuse to think for themselves.

Komen Again--Hot off the press.

Karen Handel, a senior vice president of public policy for Susan G. Komen for the Cure, resigned after the breast-cancer group decided to overturn a decision to end grants to Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Handel joined Dallas-based Komen after an unsuccessful run for governor in Georgia. During that race, Handel wrote in a blog that she would eliminate any state grants for organizations that supply abortions such as Planned Parenthood which, she wrote, “I do not support.”

The Komen organization’s decision to end about $680,000 in grants drew thousands of online protests and complaints and helped Planned Parenthood raise $3 million in reaction. Komen on Feb. 3 said it had changed its policies in a way that would allow New York-based Planned Parenthood to apply for grants.“Today I accepted the resignation of Karen Handel,” said Komen Chief Executive Officer Nancy Brinker, the group’s founder, in an e-mailed statement. “I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization’s lifelong mission.”

Handel’s blog posting during her 2010 gubernatorial race for the Republican nomination was in response to a campaign attack targeting a 2005 vote approving a grant for Planned Parenthood during the time she served as a country commissioner. She defended that vote in the blog, writing that it merely confirmed pass-through funding of state and federal dollars for breast and cervical cancer screening.

I suspect that Handel's resignation was not voluntary and that Komen is hoping to return to the status quo. That's not going to happen. Far too much attention has been focussed on Komen and its marketing practices and the huge salaries it pays to its executives. It may take another year or so but the pink campaign will come to a close. And when that finally happens and the focus is back on finding a cure for cancer, for all cancers, that's to the good.

In Name Only!

2012-02-07T11:45:00.003-05:00

I quote below from a comment I read on-line with respect to the Clint Eastwood commercial aired during the Superbowl:

The party (referring to Republicans) is off the reservation and I don't think they're coming back. They've spent the last three years seeing a Democrat do what they have made careers out of pretending they are good at doing. He's cited Jesus in policy discussions. He's sent out missions to kill terrorists and the occasional citizen. He's probably going to hit the world record on deportations and drug raids soon. And Republicans are losing their minds, because that guy is who they pretended to be all these years.

The worst part for Republicans has got to be that Corporate Americanism (Chrysler paid for the ad) has associated itself with a Democrat, and worse still, one who doesn't even have the decency to cheat on his wife and perjure himself in front of Congress.

Republicans are angry at Clint Eastwood, a life long Republican who, if we're to believe him (and I certainly do), has voted for Republicans since he cast his first presidential vote for Eisenhower. And why are they angry, because of the superbowl ad paid for by Chrysler and starring Clint Eastwood. The ad celebrates the turnaround in Detroit and suggests that better times are coming. As a number of analysts have pointed out, the ad is very similar to Reagan's "Morning in American," which Republicans love. The real horror of their reaction to the ad, is that they don't want better times to come if they come under a Democratic president, and far worse if they come under a black Democratic president. So, tell me again, Republican's hatred of Obama is because of his policies and not because he's African American. Really!

Pulling a Komen!

2012-02-04T12:04:00.004-05:00

Really, four Catholic bishops in Massachusetts are urging its parishioners to fight Obama's rule that requires church-affiliated employers to cover birth control, including the morning-after pill. It's still a shock for most non-Catholics when they learn that the Catholic church opposes the use of contraception, other than the rhythm method. Rhythm if you don't know is abstinence during a woman's fertile days and not at all reliable Works some times, some times not. The real story:

Reuters, April 13, 2011

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.
"In real-life America, contraceptive use and strong religious beliefs are highly compatible," said the report's lead author Rachel Jones.

She said most sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant practice contraception, and most use highly effective methods like sterilization, the pill, or the intrauterine device (IUD). "This is true for Evangelicals and Mainline Protestants, and it is true for Catholics, despite the Catholic hierarchy's strenuous opposition to contraception," Jones said. Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD, according to the Guttmacher Institute research.

The numbers are slightly higher among women who identify as Evangelicals or Mainline Protestants, research showed. The latest data is from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). The findings nearly match previous NSFG data from 2002, which showed that 97 percent of Catholic women were using birth control, and are consistent with a trend tracked over the last decade by Catholics for Choice.

At least in America, and certainly in the most Catholic countries in Europe, Italy, Ireland, and Spain, Catholic women regularly use contraceptives. In Ireland the morning after pill is available over-the-counter to those sixteen years and up, and at one-fifth our cost. The clergy knows this only too well so what is its purpose in condemning Obama and by implication, the Affordable Care Act?

If the Church really expects its members to follow its rules, challenging the Affordable Health Care bill is hardly the way to do it. It could excommunicate all those Catholics who don't practice natural methods of birth control (at least fifty percent of its congregation on any given Sunday) and welcome them back after menopause. Seems obvious to me that the Catholic Church is pulling a Komen, inserting politics into health care, and siding with Republicans. Now we know why Newt Gingrich feels so comfortable in the Catholic Church.

What worries me is that some Catholics, even those who use birth control (who doesn't?), will listen to the Church and vote Republican in November. It's rather daunting to consider the huge numbers of people who follow the Republican Golden Rule--"Do as I say not as I do!"

A Pink Haze: Komen revisited

2012-02-03T22:23:00.004-05:00

Running for Pink Ribbons, Inc. - Life - Macleans.ca

Click on the link above to read about the documentary, released today in Canada, on the Komen Foundation. The film expresses what I've felt for quite a while about the Susan G. Komen Foundation and its pink campaign. As a breast cancer survivor, I know from other survivors that many of us hate Komen pink (kitchen mixers, yoghurt containers, buckets of fried chicken), mainly because we believe that the vast sums of money raised by Komen changed very little in the breast cancer story. Only 25% of the money Komen collects goes to curing cancer and perhaps that's one of the reasons. It's time for women, particularly those of us who have been there, to say no to pink. Let's cure cancer, not decorate it with ribbons.

Totally Mad!

2012-02-03T12:39:00.002-05:00

And I'm not referring to Jared Loughner! The state of Arizona is still trying to bring Jared Loughner to trial for the shootings in Arizona by force feeding him anti-psychotic pills. Just yesterday, the Arizona state psychiatrist informed the courts that Loughner is still not ready to stand trial. The poor man is mad and was not responsible for his actions and never will be responsible no matter how many pills they feed him. Yes, it's horrible what he did, but he was sick. No doubt there's plenty of blame to go around, not least to those who knew Loughner had problems and didn't act. But the primary blame accrues to a society that promotes the ownership of guns. We will never learn!

In the Pink!

2012-02-03T12:20:00.002-05:00

The Susan G. Komen Foundation reversed its decision a short while ago to defund Planned Parenthood.

"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," the Komen foundation said in a statement.

All of us who wrote to Komen and donated to Planned Parenthood should cheer up--we do make a difference.

For the future, I suggest that all those who care about women's health issues donate their money to organizations other than Susan G. Komen. After paying its executives $400,000 a year and above, Komen donates half its funds to awareness (which is at least in part self promotion for Komen) and gives far too little to research for prevention and cure. So when you pass one of those pink-ribboned cans don't be tempted, give instead to National Breast Cancer for research or Planned Parenthood for screening. Do we really want to promote pink buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken?

You have to love them! Republicans, that is.

2012-02-02T15:25:00.001-05:00

Donald Trump, Newt's dear friend, just endorsed Romney for president. As noted in the article I just read, it's unlikely to bring Romney any more votes, fewer if anything. A recent Pew poll showed that 64% of GOP voters say a Trump endorsement would make no difference to them; 13% said it would, and 20% said it would make them less likely to vote for the person he endorsed. So take that Donald!

But what I find so delightful is that Trump has been suggesting for a while he'd run a third-party race if the Republican nominee were not someone he could back. Romney is considered the least conservative of those running (Ron Paul is just out there!), so the speculation was that Trump would endorse Newt and that if Romney won, Trump would go third-party. Of course, Trump never had any intention of running, so by endorsing Romney he's pulled himself out of the fire. How ironic if Newt wins in the end--but please no!

No More Komen Pink! Yeah.

2012-02-02T14:55:00.003-05:00

I've hated the whole October Pink thing for quite a while. It's mainly about making money for corporations and very little about curing breast cancer--pink vacuum cleaners, ugh! In fact, more than half the donations collected by the Susan G. Komen foundation go to breast cancer awareness, not to research that focuses on prevention or cure. If there's a single woman in this country not aware of the dangers of breast cancer, she must have been living with the Uni-bomber, and he's been in jail for years. We've all known about breast cancer, long before there was a Susan G. Komen Foundation to tell us, let alone with pink ribbons. And then there's the huge salaries that the Komen Foundation pays its executives--over $400,000, and the law suits it brings against other non-profits that use any of its terminology (race for the cure) or the color pink to raise awareness. Curing cancer is of less concern to Koman than protecting its brand. (How did Komen get restricted rights to pink ribbons anyway?)

I can only be glad that the right-leaning Komen Foundation may soon be history with the furor over its recent decision to no longer fund Planned Parenthood, on the specious argument that PP is currently under investigation, when it was solely because PP funds abortions. About 3% of PP's funds are used to fund abortions--the remainder go to support other health issues, including cancer screenings, and mainly for those who don't have insurance and can't afford private care. Let's hope that all those good-intentioned people who gave money to Komen won't stop but instead will give to organizations that actually focus on curing cancer, all cancers. I should add that more women die each year from lung cancer than from breast cancer.

I'm as disturbed about the Komen Foundation's "political" decision to defund Planned Parenthood as I was about the Obama decision not to allow the sale of the "day-after" pill over the counter. I wish Republicans and Democrats alike would keep health issues, particularly women's health issues, out of politics. If you agree and want to let the Komen Foundation know how you feel, google Susan G. Komen report improper conduct and you can express your disagreement with its improper conduct. Even better, send a donation to Planned Parenthood in the name of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Food Stamps, Catholicism, and Newt Gingrich!

2012-01-23T18:59:00.004-05:00

First, it's a blatant lie that more people are getting food stamps under Obama; more people applied for, and got, food stamps under the Bush presidency, about a half million more to be exact--documented by Bush's Secretary of Agriculture. And what if it had been true--and it's not! Don't food stamps (a program vigorously supported by Republicans when it came into existence because of the money it provided to farmers) exist so that people who don't have enough money to purchase food for themselves and their children don't starve. Do we want them to starve? What monsters these Republicans are! They call themselves Christians but have no belief in Christian principles.

Watched an "Upstairs Downstairs" episode the other night (set in 1904 England) where Sara, the under housemaid talks about how her father would take his children to the local hospital, where the porter would come out with a tray of scraps from the patients' dinner, and that's how her family fed itself, by pouring through the scraps--the scraps from diseased people. Is this what Republicans want to return to? Apparently, yes.

And something of an apology to the Catholic Church. I was outraged that no Catholic leaders pointed to Gingrich as the race baiter he is. Today, or yesterday, forty Catholic leaders accused Gingrich of race baiting. How about excommunication? That would be far more effective, and justifiable as well.

Finally, let's remember why more people are on food stamps and it's because of Republican policies. Democrats didn't bring this nation to its knees, Republicans did. But racists hate so much that it doesn't matter. Facts might interfere with their visceral hatreds!

Hypocrisy by no other name: Newt the Catholic!

2012-01-19T15:32:00.010-05:00

Forgiveness and redemption says Rick "The Christian" Perry as he endorses Newt Gingrich on the same day that an interview with Marianne Gingrich is aired, where she tells how Newt asked for an "open marriage" so he could continue sexting his mistress Callista in Marianne's bedroom, the same Callista of strong Catholic belief, who when she married Newt after a six-year affair did so with the approval of the Catholic church, the church which welcomed Newt with open arms, the church that has nothing to say about Newt's race baiting, too busy no doubt feeding little boys (and the occasional girl) to its sexting clergy.

Am I being hard on the Catholic Church?--I don't think so, but then I left it long ago shortly after complaining to Cardinal Spellman's office in 1963-1964 about distributing the racist publication "None Dare Call It Treason" in the back of a local church. Go away I was told! It's the same church where some of its bishops directed its clergy to refuse communion to John Kerry for supporting pro-choice laws, yet never refused communion to Catholic governors who supported and executed the death penalty. Hypocrisy--there are no bounds!

Now Newt's daughters from his first marriage are stating that it's categorically untrue that their father wanted an "open" marriage. How would or could they know this?--surely their father did not discuss his mistress with his daughters. (And isn't that what their father had, an open marriage, just without the consent of the wife, since he admits to having had a six-year affair with Callista while he was married to Marianne.) Could anyone, even Newt Gingrich, be so tacky as to discuss his sex life with his daughters; yet it's possible. His daughters certainly are tacky, one assumes by inheritance. They defend a man who asked their mother for a divorce while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer treatment. Is the prospect of sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom that enticing?

Speaking of tacky. There's the story of Gingrich, from his former campaign director, who saw Gingrich in his car, in his driveway, having Clintonian sex with the wife of a colleague. This gentleman was walking by Newt's car, accompanied by Newt's two young daughters, bringing them back to their house for milk and cookies. Luckily, he says, the girls were too short to see what was happening (and I sincerely hope too young to understand the significance of the woman's bobbing head). It boggles my mind that Gingrich supporters are so racist that they prefer to abide with a man like this in the White House than a black man--because he's black, who is faithful to his family and his country. Christians, really!

How Quickly It Changes!

2012-01-18T19:47:00.002-05:00

I was thinking today about the tragedy of the Costa Concordia and the personal tragedy of Francesco Schettino, its captain. No doubt any one reading here will challenge my use of the word tragedy with respect to Schettino, changing it to "cowardice" or "incompetence." But it's a tragedy as well and it says so much about life itself. I imagine that shortly before the Costa Concordia went down with massive loss of life and property that Schettino was on top of the world. Deferred to by everyone in the small city he commanded--the women flirtatious and the men envious, he's now despised by the world. He'll never recover his job or his reputation, and most likely he'll go to prison, perhaps for as long as 12 years. And all because he had to show off, going off course to signal friends on the island of Giglio. I'm not sure if there's a lesson to be learned from this other than to enjoy one's good fortune while you may. It disappears so quickly!

Republican Racism!

2012-01-18T18:46:00.001-05:00

Today I am totally disheartened by the racist ugliness that permeates this country. Words usually flow from me but commenting on Newt Gingrich's racism has been very difficult. It made me physically sick to hear Gingrich call Obama the food stamp president, as he does over and over again. And he's not the only Republican candidate race baiting--they all are. I don't like Obama, but not because he's a leftist, but because he's not. He's a moderate and if this were the 1970's he'd be a Rockefeller Republican. It's apparent that the hatred Republicans feel for Obama has nothing to do with leftist politics and everything to do with his race. They can't stand the thought that a black man with a black family (and mind you Obama is culturally more white than black) occupies the White House. The Republican nominees play to this racist hatred every way they can. It's horrifying. Anyone who continues to call himself or herself a Republican is a racist, plain and simple. The fiscal Republicans of the 1960's disappeared decades ago, replaced by nasty, ignorant, uneducated, small minded, ugly racists. Let's have the courage to say so to their faces.

Why I dislike Republicans!

2012-01-11T13:29:00.005-05:00

I was listening to a Republican (not sure what faction he belonged to) a few days ago talk about what's wrong with this country and why Obama has to go, and why Democrats and liberals are bad people. It helped me clarify to myself why I so dislike Republicans. It's not philosophical differences or ethical differences or even the difference in what we believe works or doesn't work in a modern society. It's that they're such mean, selfish people.

Essentially what this gentleman was saying was that the Democrats are taking us to a European model of socialism and he said it with such horror and hatred in his demeanor that I had to ask, so what's wrong with that. I've lived in Europe, in both Italy and Spain, and I admire their model of socialism. They provide good health care to the majority of their populations no matter their income levels as well as decent housing and many other social benefits that are not available to the citizens in the United States. Socialism is good! His response was outrage, very bluntly stating that he worked hard for his money and he didn't want anyone else taking it from him. And outrageously, he claimed that it was his money, earned in the United States, that was providing social benefits to Europeans. At that point, I couldn't listen any longer to his ridiculous views and tuned him out.

What I came away with after listening to this man, this Republican, is the essential meanness in the views of those on the right. It comes down to this. Whatever it is they have, whether earned or inherited, it's theirs and no one else should get any. They're like those children that we all dislike (and most parents are ashamed of) who refuse to share their candy or their toys with other children. If they're lucky enough to have a bag of chocolates or toy cars and others don't, tough. Get your own!

In the end, that's what it's all about. I listened to the speeches of Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Santorum last night after the New Hampshire results were in, and even in their differences (and there are many), essentially what they all said was "we're the greatest people in the world and we're going to keep it that way." If I were to reframe it to "we have more marbles than the other children in the playground and we're going to make sure it stays that way," it doesn't sound so noble, does it?

If any Republicans read this blog, I would ask you to think honestly about who you are and why you believe what you believe. Does it really give you satisfaction to have more stuff than everyone else? If the answer is yes, you should reflect on what this says about you and acknowledge that it's an ugly trait, certainly not one to display proudly on a bumper sticker. None of us are perfect, certainly not Democrats, and we're all selfish in our own ways, but unlike Republicans we still believe in and try to practice the values we were taught as children by our parents and our teachers. If you have candy or ice cream and the other children don't, you share. That's what it's all about, really!

Back to Obamacare: An Addendum

2012-01-02T14:43:00.000-05:00

As some of my readers have pointed out, the change in my Oxford AARP Advantage plan with respect to colonoscopies (and other benefits as well), was the insurance company's decision, not the Democrats. Yes, that's true but only to a point. The Democrats changed the way Advantage plans are reimbursed, cutting back considerably on the moneys they receive; and, of course, the private insurance companies who run the Advantage plans then cut back on benefits. As someone on the left, I agree that unless every Medicare recipient has an equal shot at good benefits, we should not be funding private insurance companies to the disadvantage of those who can't join an Advantage plan. Approximately 25% of Medicare recipients are in these plans; unfortunately those who live in rural or underserved areas are stuck with plain vanilla Medicare. However, let me also point out that the Democrats knowingly lied to seniors when they were planning on defunding Advantage plans, stating that only the insurance companies would be affected. They knew this was not true (I certainly did) and I wrote Obama and other Democrats many times (called as well) requesting that they stop making false claims about such changes. The Democrats have been very dishonest with respect to the changes they initiated in medical coverage for seniors and they deserve to be called on it. As I did, and do.

Kitchen Sink: December 30, 2011

2011-12-30T16:03:00.006-05:00

Obamacare: For those of you who don't know, Obama and the Democrats did make a difference in health care for seniors. I was scheduled for a colonoscopy on January 4 (it's been six years and my doctor recommended I get one every three years since they found polyps the last time around). In reviewing the changes in my Advantage Medicare plan, I find that colonoscopies which were previously authorized once a year are, effective January 1, 2012, now authorized once every ten years (yes, you read that correctly--once every 120 months). At least now if you get colon cancer within the ten year period you can't blame yourself for not being vigilant--I know how much we all love those colonoscopies. I had to cancel my procedure as the insurance company won't review benefits for 2012 until 2012. This one was a Democratic initiative. Thanks Democrats!

Out Damn Spot (or in this case, Maureen Dowd). For reasons unfathomable to me Maureen Dowd, who writes for the New York Times, is viewed by many as a leftist columnist. Not! And her tendency to lean right, more each year, is never more apparent than when she gives her column to her brother Kevin to spew forth his right-wing opinions, none of which are ever supported by fact. This year, before presenting Kevin's comments, we had to endure Dowd's excessive praise of the doctors at Sloan-Kettering who treated Kevin for kidney cancer, apparently with success. Most people with kidney cancer (or any other type of cancer) are not eligible for treatment at Sloan, which does not treat those insured by Medicare or Medicaid. I know this, as it refused to treat my late husband for pancreatic cancer in 2008. Kevin rode to survival on the coattails of his sister Maureen (the 1%) for his treatment. But that's okay--it happens often enough in this country and we're used to it. Those with money get better treatment and survive; those without money or power (or relatives with power) too often die. What I've not grown used to is the New York Times giving Maureen's coattails to Kevin once a year to spout his badly-written and always mean-spirited lies. "All the news that's fit to print" went west when the Times unabashedly supported the war against Iraq, also by publishing lies. It continues in that fine tradition by publishing Kevin Dowd's once-a-year diatribe against the Democrats.

Back to Maureen. She lost her edge as a political writer quite a while ago, when the "Shrub" left office. And who couldn't be funny writing about George Bush, Jr. We now get the occasional column on the life of Charles Dickens or a review of a Clint Eastwood movie (he also leans right). It's over Maureen. You're no longer relevant as a political writer, and you're certainly not a writer of the left. You've been supplanted by Gail Collins, who thankfully is without brothers or at least has the sense to keep them in their place.

A Pyrrhic Victory

Finally an acknowledgment that the supposed political victory of Obama and the Democrats in extending the Social Security cut was not a victory at all and may in the end be a disaster to those of us who vigorously support Social Security. I suspect that FDR is turning in his grave. As Drew Westen writes in today's Times:

[R] eplacing lost Social Security funding from the payroll tax cut with general revenues is playing with fire, for two reasons.
First, an extended cut in payroll taxes could readily become a permanent cut and a threat to the solvency of what is supposed to be a trust fund. Second, paying for Social Security with general revenues, while repeatedly referring to Social Security and Medicare as “entitlements”— a term voters associate with people demanding something they don’t deserve — links an insurance plan for which people spend their lives paying premiums (Social Security) with welfare, making it easier to cut Social Security in the future. And a two-month extension means we will be watching this bad movie again very soon.

And to extend this further, if the Democrats do win back the Congress and keep the presidency, they will be blamed for increasing taxes when the cut is reinstated. The general public, not very knowledgable at the best of times, will view it as a tax increase. Further, it's not those who are employed who need help, it's those who are without jobs and they don't pay taxes or social security since they don't have an income. It's distressing to admit but Obama and the Democrats play politics as much as the Republicans; they're just not as good at it most days. This one they won; let's hope it's not a pyrrhic victory.

Run Hilliary Run! Please . . . .

2011-12-19T13:43:00.000-05:00

There is a serious movement afoot to draft Hillary to run against Obama in the Democratic primaries, with the first in New Hampshire just two weeks away. If we don't want to face four years of Mitt Romney, or even worse, Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, we need to do something now. Obama himself has no integrity, as shown many times in the last three years, so he won't voluntarily leave. Obama is all about Obama! But if a sufficient number of Democrats (and independents) are loudly vocal in demanding that he step aside, he might actually do it (as LBJ did--and LBJ was a far better president than Obama.) If you want Hillary to run, go to the following website and sign the petition:

runhillary2012.net

Get Off Your Cell Phone!

2011-12-13T22:49:00.001-05:00

"According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration more than 3,000 people lost their lives last year in distraction-related accidents," or to be more direct while they were using their cell phones to talk or text. But that's just the deaths they can count since many of those who cause accidents deny being on their phones and the others are dead--as in dead, gone, kaput, in the grave, lost forever. Three Thousand plus lives, more than the number of people who lost their lives on 9/11, and we went to war over that, killing well over 100,000 people in the process. If you use your cell phone while driving, whether to initiate or answer calls, whether it's a hand-held phone or a voice activated phone, you are putting not only your own life at risk but the lives of others on the road. You're as selfish and immature and irresponsible as the man or woman who takes the wheel after drinking too much. What's more, research indicates that you're even more likely to cause an accident than the drunk driver. So why do you do it? Is talking to your boss, your spouse, your child, your friend so important that you're willing to kill someone else's spouse, child, or friend. Be a mensch, get off your cell phone when driving. And stay off. The life you save may be mine.

I had a dream!

2011-12-09T12:10:00.000-05:00

My fantasies have taken over! I was at the Democratic convention and a rumor started making the rounds of the state delegations. New York State was planning to introduce Hilliary Clinton as its choice for president. As the whispers got louder and louder the delegates became more agitated, and then excited. New Jersey decided that if New York went for Hilliary, it would too. And then Connecticut fell in line, and Massachusetts, and then the two big ones, Ohio and Pennsylvania. California not to be last, jumped in. Florida also said yes, and it was over, Hillary was the Democratic candidate. Do dreams come true? Some times.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

2011-12-08T14:55:00.003-05:00

And now Obama says he didn't interfere in the Plan B decision. But he agrees with the decision--doesn't want Plan B sold alongside bubble gum! How does he live with himself? How do we live with him? All you men who voted for Obama, claiming it was because Hilliary was too militaristic, aren't you ashamed of yourselves? You know it was really because she's a woman. Just for once, dig deep into your conscience and fess up. Don't be an Obama!

N.B. Two months after taking office Obama wrote "Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions."

Obama, we hardly knew ye!

2011-12-07T15:11:00.180-05:00

Anyone who reads my posts knows that I did not support Obama in 2008. Since then, I've often asked myself if I were wrong to conclude that he lacks principles. I really wanted to respect him, really! On a few occasions--very few--I've come close to changing my mind. But the news yesterday that his administration has again raised political expediency over principle, refusing to allow Plan B (the morning-after pill) to be sold over the counter, has closed my mind (nailed it shut, in fact) to ever believing that Barack Obama is a good and decent man. He's not.

It's particularly disturbing that Obama has two daughters of an age where they might need to use Plan B. In the past he's always been willing to cite his daughters where it might grab him a few votes, but in this case he's willing to condemn girls not so different from his own daughters to unwanted pregnancies and the inevitable consequences of such pregnancies, including abortions, dropping out of school, emotional stress, and all else that the use of a morning-after pill might preclude.

The reason for this decision: Kathleen Sebelius, his health secretary, claims that the drug company that makes Plan B did "not conclusively establish that Plan B should be made available over the counter for girls of reproductive age," noting that 10 percent of 11 year-old girls can bear children, so they need to be studied as well. This is the first time ever that that the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, making it clear that this is a political decision, not a medical one. Is Sebelius suggesting that it's better for this hypothetical eleven year old to have the child? And how ridiculous is the notion that a sexually active eleven year old would know of Plan B and its uses or that she would have the $49.99 (Walgreen's price) to buy the pill. Imagine the panic that ensued at Health and Human Services when the word came down from Obama to override the FDA. How they must have scrambled and searched, document after document, looking for something, anything that wouldn't smack of a political decision. Well the tin-eared bureaucrats failed, mightily!

In agreeing to be Obama's political mouthpiece, Sebelius has lost all credibility as health secretary, and I hope any future chance to rise within the Democratic Party. A distinct contrast to Sebelius is Dr. Susan Wood, who resigned her post in 2005 as assistant commissioner of the FDA, to protest the Bush administration's handling of Plan B. Wood points out that there are many drugs available over the counter that have not been studied in pre-adolescents and that are far more dangerous (cheaper too, I might add), citing acetaminophen which can be fatal. There not a single recorded death of anyone who used Plan B, and certainly none of eleven year old girls. The scientific evidence is overwhelming that taking Plan B (it prevents 50% of probable pregnancies if taken within 24 hours of intercourse) is far safer for young girls than an unplanned pregnancy, but safety is not Obama's concern. He's calculated that his decision will lose him fewer votes from independents in November (I doubt it will get him votes) and that it will placate the Catholic church. To be boringly redundant, this is the same church that ignored (solely for political reasons) the sexual abuse of children, girls and boys, for decades. Obama has lost any chance at my vote (and I suspect many other votes as well). If there's a third-party candidate of any credibility, I'll be out there canvassing for him (hopefully, for her). Obama, we hardly knew ye!

Oops! Revisiting Steve Jobs by way of Newt!

2011-12-06T16:11:00.003-05:00

That's not the forgetful "oops" of a Rick Perry but more of an apology for what I had intended to post and did post previously on Steve Jobs. For the past two days I've been writing a post on the similarities between Steve Jobs and Newt Gingrich where I focus on their similarities in personality--much too snidely I admit. I was ready to publish my post but needed some information on Jobs and in a Google search, I happened upon a joint interview of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs at a technology conference in 2007. I'm still of the view that there's been far too much adulation of Jobs as a product designer and far too little review of his character. He had some serious character flaws, personal and professional, not the least of which was building on the genius of others without assigning proper credit.

But I would be ridiculous if I did even a superficial comparison of Jobs to Gingrich, thus the "oops." I was very impressed by Jobs review of the computer industry, where it was and where it's going, and also by his interaction with Bill Gates. They're both remarkable men, just not Gods (or gods if you prefer). Jobs was charmingly modest in the interview; Gates was sincerely modest, and both radiated substance, consistency, and passion for their work, qualities which are completely lacking in the egomanic Newt Gingrich.

So, I've decided to give way on bashing Jobs and to recognize that his contribution to technology is more than a few frivolous apps or high-priced iToys He had an intuitive understanding of what the average user wants from a computer, and he used this understanding (his "magical taste" to quote Gates) to tweak the designs of others to near perfection. The keypad on my MacBook is one example--I'm a touch typist and I love the soft (almost noiseless) keypad--it's like typing in soft butter. Typing on a Dell is like pounding on cement blocks. More important though, Jobs helped to change the perception of what constitutes good computer hardware and software design. His was the gold standard for user friendly. So rest in peace Steve Jobs. You deserve it.

I sincerely wish I could say the same to Newt. If only he would go away. Republican conservatives are out in droves since Gingrich came back to life vilifying him far better than I can do, or at least more effectively since they want a Republican to succeed. George Wills writes that he "embodies the vanity and rapacity that makes modern Washington repulsive;" Joe Scarborough says that Gingrich "is not fit to be President of the United States," and Tom Coburn, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma, that "he's the type of leader that has one standard for everyone else and a separate one for himself." Of course, the left is not shutting up either. From Maureen Dowd, Newt is "a serial adulterer while trying to impeach another serial adulterer, a lobbyist for Freddie Mac while attacking Freddie Mac." Perhaps the best comment on Newt's vulgarity and grandiose ego can be found in his own words. His excuse for cheating on his second wife had nothing to do with sex. It was "passion for his country." Last, certainly not least, is his new found friendship with Donald Trump. Remember the adage, "Tell me what company you keep, and I'll tell you what you are."

As Bette Davis's character said in "All About Eve," "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night."

Donald and Newt!

2011-12-05T09:57:00.000-05:00

If you've just had your breakfast spare yourself and don't read this post. The news can wait until your stomach has settled. Newt Gingrich is planning to visit Donald Trump today to get his blessing on his candidacy! Think about it--this is where America is today. The thought of anyone wanting Donald Trump's blessing on anything is beyond comprehension. When did this country embrace vulgarity to the extent it does today? And why? I need to get my head around the latter question, so I'll address it in a different post. But whatever the when's and why's, we are vulgar, and I'm embarrassed.

Socrates RIP, from Miguel

2011-12-04T14:43:00.000-05:00

Miguel loved Brazilian soccer, even more I think than he loved Uruguayan soccer, and Socrates was one of his heroes, for his politics as well as his play. I'm posting this for Miguel:

By GABRIELE MARCOTTI

Sunday morning marked the passing of Socrates Brasileiro Sampaio de Souza Vieira de Oliveira, better known simply as Socrates. The Brazilian midfielder was 57. He is survived by his wife and six sons. Sometimes greatness is measured through intangibles like leadership and personality, sometimes it is gauged through empirical achievement, like statistics and championships. Sometimes it's a combination of all those things. But Socrates stood on an even higher plane: Soccer will probably never again produce anyone like him.

European Pressphoto Agency

Brazilian midfielder Socrates, seen during the 1982 World Cup.

The 1982 Brazilian team that he captained was perhaps the greatest never to win the World Cup (along with Hungary in 1954 and Holland in 1974). It was also one of the last Brazil teams to fully embody the romantic stereotype that comes to mind when we think of the green-and-gold. Sublime touches, languid pace, creativity ... the sheer joy of what they call "jogo bonito," or the beautiful game. Zico was probably the best player on that Brazil side, but Socrates was its philosophy made flesh.

At 6-foot-4 and rail-thin, he strolled through the midfield sporting his trademark beard and headband. He could have been Bill Walton's long lost Brazilian cousin. On the ball though, he was more Magic Johnson, thanks to his signature move, the no-look backheel pass. It's one of those things that isn't particularly hard to do, but is frightfully difficult to do well, mainly because you have to weight and execute a pass to a point on the pitch you can't actually see. Plus, rather than kicking the ball with your foot, where you at least have some level of sensitivity, you strike it with the bony part of your heel. When you see it these days, it's often a hit-and-hope move of last resort. For Socrates it was his bread and butter, something he nonchalantly pulled off in congested midfields, surprising not just his opponents, but often his teammates too, who would suddenly receive assists in mid-stride.

The backheel is not something any youth coach teaches. Nor is it something any pro coach particularly wants to encourage, precisely because it is so unpredictable. But in the carefree world of 1970s Brazilian soccer it had its place, especially when used as effectively as Socrates used it.

His résumé is actually surprisingly bare. A few regional titles in Brazil, just one season in a major European league (with Italy's Fiorentina), 60 appearances and 22 goals for an outstanding Brazil team, albeit one that failed to win the World Cup. Yet that only tells part of the story.

Even as a professional, Socrates was a throwback to the amateur era, one where athletes were not defined solely by the sport they played. You want to talk student-athlete? For the first chunk of his career he was playing full-time for Botafogo while going to medical school at the University of Sao Paulo's campus in Ribeirao Preto. He didn't actually practice medicine until after his retirement, but when he tucked away this rocket against the Soviet Union in Brazil's opening match of the 1982 World Cup, he became the first (and probably last) M.D. to notch a goal on the game's biggest stage.

He was also an activist who, while at Corinthians in the late 1970s, founded a movement opposing the country's military regime. A self-described Maoist and pacifist, his heroes – unsurprisingly – were Che Guevara and John Lennon, making him an instant legend among the radical chic Euro-left. After retirement in 1989, he went back to university, eventually earning a Ph.D. in philosophy.

The talent and erudition, the political views and beard-and-bandanna look, all of it meshed with his avowed taste for tobacco and alcohol to make him a romantic outsized figure: part rebel, part intellectual, part Latin hunk, part superstar. You can't definitively rule out the possibility that one day someone may match or even surpass his achievements on and off the pitch, though it may take a long while for the next doctor/political activist/World Cup legend to roll on the scene. They may even do it with a beard, shaggy hair and a bandanna.

But what is certain is that nobody will do it with the style, panache and overall "cool" of Socrates. And they certainly won't be spraying no-look backheels all over the pitch when they do.

Gabriele Marcotti is the world soccer columnist for The Times of London and a regular broadcaster for the BBC. His column appears on Sundays.

Plan B

2011-12-03T13:51:00.000-05:00

Cain has dropped out and is now on to Plan B, which includes promoting his $9.99 pizza. I watched his wife Gloria standing by his side and felt sick, mainly for her but also for all those women who think they have to stand by the side of their cheating husbands. So sad, but thank goodness we won't have to listen to this windbag again.

More About Newt!

2011-12-03T13:26:00.002-05:00

In my last post, I wrote "Be careful what you wish for; you just may get it!" Here I was dreading the thought of Newt Gingrich as the Republican nominee on the off chance he might actually win. He could be our next president! Consider that thought and wince.

I gather from reading various journalists today that the DNC and Obama are hoping that Gingrich will be the nominee, on the belief that he'll be easier to defeat in a general election than someone like Mitt Romney. I call that amazingly selfish. We can never predict what may happen in politics, and to even contemplate Newt Gingrich as president is hugely painful to me and should be equally painful to those who are democrats in principle, and not just in name.

Who will run as a third-party candidate in 2012? Just hope I'll have someone to vote for besides a retreated Ralph Nader--Nadar is starting to resemble Newt in his grandiose views of himself.

Help!!!!!!

2011-12-01T21:33:00.112-05:00

Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it! When Michele Bachmann was rising in the polls, I was sure I couldn't live with her as president. I did so want to see a woman in the White House, just not Michele. Along came Rick Perry. Not another Texas governor--and even dimmer than George. We couldn't be so unlucky. A deep thankful sigh when he said "Oops." And then, there was Herman, with the $9.99 pizza. Thank goodness for the Cain ladies, 6 so far but soon to approach 999.

Had I known that in wishing away Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, I might get Newt, I would have bitten my tongue. Nowadays Michele appears almost presidential. Who cares if she doesn't know that the U.S. closed its Embassy doors in 1980--did you know? Perry is rather endearing (if you forget how many execution writs he's signed), and he has better hair than Romney. Cain can be amusing, particularly on foreign policy, although it's doubtful he'll get any votes from Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

Please not Newt! The thought of seeing Newt on TV every day for four years, lecturing me on civility and responsibility, freezes my blood. Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Michele, Rick (either one), Giuliani (definitely not Giuliani--worse even than Newt--do I have a story to tell about him but that's for another day). Sarah Palin, yes even Sarah Palin!

Oh please, let it be Mitt! A dispassionate Republican running against a dispassionate Democrat, neither with a principle he wouldn't sell for a vote. An even match, I think. As much as I dislike Obama and his wishy-washy centrist ways, I'll campaign my heart out for him if Newt is the Republican nominee. I love my country far too much to deliver it into the hands of Newt and Callista Gingrich.

What did I do to deserve this! Can't ask for the rest of you. You'll have to examine your own consciences.

Newt Gingrich: Serial Hypocrisy

www.youtube.com

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

A Minute of Silence!

2011-11-29T11:44:00.002-05:00

At the end of the Jim Lehrer show on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, during a minute of silence, Lehrer displayed the pictures of five soldiers who had died in Afghanistan. None of the men were more than 23, most were younger. I've watched Lehrer often enough to have seen other pictures, of other men, who also died in Afghanistan, without having had the same extreme reaction of sadness and anger. I wondered why I cried after this particular broadcast, then realized it was because of a report that day from my doctor that my CT scan was negative for cancer. It was a huge relief knowing I would not die any time soon.

I've lived a full life, was happily married for close to 30 years, travelled and lived in Europe, taught at the City University, worked in business with success, have had two novels published, and lost my beloved husband three years ago to cancer. So, shouldn't I be ready to die, to acknowledge that I've had my time in the sun, to give over to a younger generation? But I'm not ready, nor are most people my age. In the end, life is all we have, and we want to grab hold of every last minute. I still rail against the universe that took my beautiful Miguel at 57, when he had so much talent, and so much left to do. So, how do the families of these five very young soldiers deal with the horror of their deaths? What sense does it make, what rhyme or reason?

None! Absolutely none! Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes thinking about war and the reasons we go to war, knows full well that these five young men died for no reason, for no cause, and that their deaths serve no purpose. We know this, yet we get on with our lives, every day, shopping, eating, drinking, making love, raising families, working jobs, celebrating birthdays and anniversaries, as though it were perfectly natural that so many are dying around the world to feed our war machine. And when we do think about it, we comfort ourselves by concluding that we're not responsible for their deaths, that we didn't vote for the man who could have brought them home--and didn't, and we certainly didn't vote for the man who started it in the first place.

We are to blame, all of us, whatever our political views and affiliations. If we're not actively involved every day in trying to end the madness of war, if we don't gasp in pain every time we're told of another death, if we accept the view that war is inevitable and there's nothing we can do to stop it, then we are to blame. I write this blog to remind myself that demonstrating against war once or twice a year is just an excuse to pat myself on the back, to tell myself that I'm a good person, that they are responsible, not me. Perhaps I should get a CT scan every week, to remind myself how much I value life, mine and theirs. We are to blame, all of us.

Occupy Walmarts vs. Occupy Wall St.

2011-11-25T12:01:00.008-05:00

Let's see if all those Republicans who called the Zuccotti Park occupiers "pigs" have a similar reaction to American capitalists at their best--rioting in Walmarts trying to get the best bargains for themselves. Reports are arriving from all parts of our country of attacks, mainly in Walmarts or at malls, during Black Thursday/Black Friday madness. And the day has just begun. Here is one report from the Los Angeles Times:

"In Porter Ranch, a woman pepper sprayed customers at a Wal-Mart in what authorities say was a deliberate attempt to get more "door buster" merchandise. In San Leandro, a Wal-Mart shopper walking to his car was shot and wounded in a suspected robbery early Friday.

Another shooting was reported at a parking lot next to a Wal-Mart in South Carolina, also a suspected robbery attempt. Officials told WMBF-TV they believe the robbery was tied to Black Friday.
At Porter Ranch, 20 customers, including children, were hurt in the 10:10 p.m. incident, officials said. Shoppers complained of minor skin and eye irritation and sore throats.
"This was customer-versus-customer 'shopping rage,'" said Los Angeles Police Lt. Abel Parga.
The woman used the spray in more than one area of the Wal-Mart "to gain preferred access to a variety of locations in the store," said Los Angeles Fire Capt. James Carson.
"She was competitive shopping," he said.
Police are searching for the woman but said they've had trouble getting a clear description of her.
Black Friday sales began at the Wal-Mart at 10 p.m. and featured sales on toys, including $5 Bratz dolls, $10 Wii video games and $29 tricycles.
Witness Matthew Lopez described a chaotic scene in the San Fernando Valley store among shoppers looking for video games soon after the sale began.
"I heard screaming and I heard yelling," said Lopez, 18. "Moments later, my throat stung. I was coughing really bad and watering up."
Lopez said customers were already in the store when a whistle signaled the start of the Black Friday sale at 10 p.m., sending shoppers hurtling in search of deeply discounted items.
Lopez said that by the time he arrived at the video games, the display had been torn down. Employees attempted to hold back the scrum of shoppers and pick up merchandise even as customers trampled the video games and DVDs strewn on the floor.
"It was absolutely crazy," he said.
The right (and left) media keep insisting that the Occupy Wall St. movement needs to stand for something. It does. Courtesy, inclusion, and non-violence are three of the old-fashioned virtues the occupiers demonstrated while living in Zuccotti Park. How about demanding this of all Americans, that we be trained (or retrained) in the simple virtues of courtesy, humility, and humanity. And before we enter the classroom, let's check our guns, pepper spray, and vulgarity at the door. Egyptians and Syrians fight, and die, for human rights. Americans fight for video games, TVs, and DVDs. Egypt has Tahrir Square. We have Walmarts. American exceptionalism!

The Debate: Couldn't Do It!

2011-11-22T22:02:00.006-05:00

Tonight was another Republican debate, this one on foreign policy. I spent 30 minutes debating with myself as to whether I could, or would, watch it. Instead I watched MS-NBC, Rachel Maddow et al. Couldn't do it! The lack of knowledge and nuance displayed by most of the candidates, Jon Huntsman excepted, is too painful to watch. And what chance is there that Huntsman will be the Republican nominee? If we consider my last post on Fox News viewers (a/k/a Republicans), Huntsman should go home. He knows far too much to be their nominee.

"No news better than Fox News when it comes to information."

2011-11-22T21:24:00.006-05:00

Fox News does not make people dumb. Dumb people watch Fox News. E. Mulqueen

"Were Egyptian protesters successful in their bid to overthrow longtime president Hosni Mubarak earlier this year?

According to a new poll (PDF) from Fairleigh Dickinson University, if you watch Fox News you are significantly less likely to know the correct answer to that question than if you mostly avoid news shows and newspapers all together.

After controlling for factors like partisanship, education, and other demographic factors, the pollsters found that Fox New viewers were 18 points less likely to know that the revolt was successful than their non-active news consuming counterparts. Fox News viewers were also 6 points less likely to know that the Syrian uprising has yet to succeed.

"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a Fairleigh Dickinson political science professor who took part in the analysis of the PublicMind data. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don’t watch any news at all."

The poll surveyed 612 adult residents of New Jersey (insert Snooki joke here), asking them where they got their news from in the previous week and then a handful of questions about current events. (The survey was taken last month, so the current Egyptian protests that broke out in recent days could not have added to the confusion). Respondents were given 12 possible news options: NPR, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a Sunday morning political news show, a national newspaper like the New York Times or USA Today, a political blog or news website, a national news broadcast, CNN, MSNBC, a talk radio show, a local newspaper, a local television news broadcast and Fox News.

For comparison, other media sources appeared to boost respondents' knowledge. From the PublicMind report:

[P]eople who report reading a national newspaper like The New York Times or USA Today are 12-points more likely to know that Egyptians have overthrown their government than those who have not looked at any news source. And those who listen to the non-profit NPR radio network are 11-points more likely to know the outcome of the revolt against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. However, the best informed respondents are those that watched Sunday morning news programs: leading to a 16- point increase in the likelihood of knowing what happened in Egypt and an 8-point increase in the likelihood of knowing what happened in Syria.

One more interesting conclusion from the report (conducted Oct. 17 through Oct. 23 before Newt Gingrich's recent rise):

Only 55% of New Jerseyans are able to name correctly either Mitt Romney or Herman Cain as the Republican candidates most recently leading in the polls, with 37% saying that Romney is ahead, and 18% saying that Cain is. Watching Fox News didn't help or hurt respondents on this question. MSNBC, however, helped: Watching MSNBC was associated with a 10-point increase in identifying Romney as the leader, and a 5-point drop in the likelihood of identifying Cain compared to those who got no exposure to news at all.

"Given the amount of time and effort the media spent covering these candidates, the fact that only about half of the public can name one of the front-runners is embarrassing," Cassino said. "The fact that Fox News, the preferred media outlet for many of the candidates, doesn't do better in informing viewers is very surprising."

Fox News, however, wasn't the only cable news network to confuse some of its viewers. Watching MSNBC, for instance, was associated with a 10-point increase in the likelihood of misidentifying the Occupy Wall Street protesters as predominantly Republican.

From "Slate," By Josh Voorhees

Black Thursday, a Harbinger?

2011-11-22T17:29:00.009-05:00

The economy is tanking (or has already tanked for those of us trying to sell houses or standing in the unemployment line), yet Americans have a prodigious need to shop for more stuff, so prodigious that stores are planning to open Thursday evening so shoppers can get a head start on Black Friday. (Toys-R-Us will open its doors at 9:00 p.m). Mind you, we're not speaking of any Thursday, but Thanksgiving, one of the most (if not the most) important holidays in this country, the day we're supposed to give thanks for our blessings. Perhaps those who can't wait to finish their turkey and pumpkin pie to get in line at Walmart's should reflect on the history of Black Thursday, the name retailers now give to Thanksgiving. It has a long undistinguished history as a day of infamy:

Thursday, September 18, 1873, during the Panic of 1873 when the U.S. bank Jay Cooke & Company declared bankruptcy, triggering a series of bank failures.
Thursday, October 24, 1929, the start of the Wall Street Crash of 1929
Thursday, May 6, 2010, when the Dow Jones briefly lost more than 900 points

Let's declare a ban on the greedy mega retailers who open their doors on Thanksgiving, and not shop there on Black Friday, or any day for that matter. I've reached the age of curmudgeonry no doubt, but the notion that Americans must shop until they drop to buy more gadgets that they don't need, won't miss, and in an economy where so many are without jobs, is obscene. The "right to shop" was not what Abraham Lincoln had in mind when he proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday. Really!

Shop Small this Saturday!

Metaphor and the One Percent!

2011-11-21T21:00:00.015-05:00

In Il Postino, a film made in 1994, Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet and communist, is exiled to a small island in Italy for political reasons where he meets Mario Ruoppolo, the local postman, a man of little education who is influenced by Neruda's poetry. Mario asks Neruda to help him woe Beatrice, the woman he loves, through poetry. In the film, Neruda teaches Mario about metaphor and its use in poetry. The funnest scene in the film is when Beatrice's aunt tells Neruda that she's very disturbed by Mario's poetry, and when he asks why, she accuses Mario of using "metaphora." The aunt thinks metaphors are dangerous, a black hole of evil that will destroy Beatrice.

I'm reminded of Beatrice's aunt when I read news articles, mainly from the Republican press, questioning the legitimacy of millionaires and billionaires who support Occupy Wall St. Anne Hathaway (worth 58 million) who marched with the occupiers across the Brooklyn Bridge is one such example. It's not difficult to understand why Beatrice's aunt, a woman of no education, might have a problem with understanding the concept of metaphor, but questions from our supposedly educated media is a puzzlement. To make it perfectly clear to those who cut class on the day metaphor and simile were taught, One Percent is a metaphor for Wall St. greed and corporate malfeasance, for a system of laws created to protect (and then bail out) a small, non-productive segment of our society--those who make money through credit default swaps, place bets against their own clients, devise shelters to shield corporations from paying their share of taxes, peddle greed and self-interest as a way of life--to remind us that poverty, hunger, and ignorance are on the rise in the richest country in the world. To paraphrase James Carville on the economy--it's a metaphor, stupid.

Speaking of metaphors, I've seen descriptions of those who occupied Zuccotti Park as "pigs," a one-dimensional use of the word "pig" to suggest people who are untidy in their habits. But "pig" as metaphor means so much more. A more literary use suggests those who are greedy--a large pink animal pushing others away from the feeding trough so it can consume more than its fair share, the ideal metaphor for those millionaires and billionaires who take from society and give nothing back. Visualize Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, or Karl Rove, although from the pig's point of view that's a rather unfair comparison. I suspect that the pig, noble, smart, and clean, would prefer the comparison to the occupiers in Zuccotti Park.

They will be back!

Kitchen Sink: Nov 17

2011-11-17T11:11:00.004-05:00

Busy today with stuff other than politics, even too busy to attend Occupy demos. A few things to think about until tomorrow.

Newt who was the Washington insider (until he was run out of town) has now replaced Herman Cain, the Washington outsider, in the polls. We thought they (you know who they are) loved Cain because he knew nothing of Washington or anything else for that matter (see Cain's comments on Libya and the mountains in Iran). Hmm!

Occupy Wall St. was evicted by Brookfield Properties, with the assistance of Bloomberg and hundreds of riot police, all with their faces hidden (New York's Finest at intimidation). Did you also know that Brookfield, the owner of Zuccotti Park, is subsidized by the tax payers (the occupiers) to the tune of $174.5 million. It's ok if we subsidize billionaires but when we challenge them, we're denied our rights and our research libraries are destroyed. For those who love historians (think Newt), in what year did the Nazis burn books?

Congress. if any of you are wondering what our representatives do for their $174,000 a year salaries, you'll be happy to hear that yesterday they were particularly busy endorsing a bill that labels pizza a vegetable on the school lunch program. The agriculture lobbyists were out in mega numbers to insure that some of the changes Obama wanted in school lunches to reduce the obesity rate went down to defeat. Question: Are Republicans in general fatter than Democrats? Newt and Cain are a bit chubby but Mitt is trim and so is Michelle. Weight in on this one if you have any evidence to provide, besides hearsay. Send pictures.

Penn State. McQueary, the assistant coach who witnessed Sandusky abusing a ten year old boy in the Penn State showers, is now claiming he stopped the abuse and reported it to the police. The police, at least in two branches, deny this. Is this a deliberate move on McQueary's part to muddle the picture so Sandusky walks away from the molestation charges? I doubt it, but suspect that McQueary is just trying to get some of the heat off himself for walking away from the rape of a child (initial reports say he did nothing other than report it the following day to JoePa), but he may have handed the defense an out, based on his credibility or lack thereof. If so, and Sandusky is acquitted because of McQueary, he's now doubly guilty of helping a child abuser to continue the abuse.

Obama. He's visiting Australia and instead of bringing a bottle of wine or some chocolates he delivered a contingent of marines. The man who claimed to be the peace candidate four years ago never met a war, now or in the future, he didn't like. All you men who claim you voted for Obama and against Hillary because she's too militaristic, fess up. It was really because she's a woman! In your heart of hearts, you know it's true.

More Occupy. A 4-foot 10-inch 84-year-old-woman with ties to activism going back decades was the victim of pepper-spray by overzealous Seattle police (when are the police not overzealous with the 99%?). She was helped after the incident by an Iraq war veteran. The police response, "pepper spray is no more dangerous to someone who is 10 or someone who is 80." I believe he then sprayed a ten year old to prove his point. Oops, I stand corrected, it was a pregnant woman!

Go Occupiers!

And then there's Callista!

2011-11-16T23:50:00.005-05:00

Ok, I admit it. The thought of Callista Gingrich as our first lady is scary. Nancy Reagan appears almost lifelike in comparison. If nothing else moves you in the Republican primaries, think of your children, and your children's children! And how smart can Newt be?--it took him three tries to arrive here!

Hypocrisy by no other name: Newt!

2011-11-16T19:09:00.005-05:00

Romney has been labelled by Tea Party-ers as a hypocrite, citing his changes in position: on health care, abortion, gun rights, gay rights, and just about any issue that's been around for more than ten years, but honestly, even Romney can't compete with Gingrich.

Whenever he can, Newt attacks Barney Frank for his connection to Fanny and Freddie. It now comes out that after Newt left Congress (admonished by it for lying), he became a lobbyist (oops, consultant), offering his services to Franny and Freddie to build bridges of love between it and the Republican Congress. His job, to write a proposal to bring conservatives into the fold of F&F. The pay--close to $1,800,000. In the last debate, he said he received the fee for giving advice as an historian. Wow--he should borrow Rick Perry's boots--he's really in it. Hope Perry has a pair of hip waders.

Pathological!

Occupy and the Declaration of Independence!

2011-11-16T11:27:00.001-05:00

I expressed my concern to a friend about the many criticisms of Occupy Wall St., in particular from those who vote Republican. Republicans, in case you've forgotten, are rabid supporters of the Constitution (with Clarence Thomas a good example), except of course when they want to amend the Constitution, which happens about every other week, particularly concerning bedroom issues, or who can marry whom. She kindly sent me the following from the Declaration of Independence--an excellent reminder of our inherent right to alter or abolish bad government.

We hold these rights to be self-evident, That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Thanks, Barbara.

Can a Republican have a good idea?

2011-11-16T00:18:00.006-05:00

I should respond 'no way' to the above question, but Rick Perry, of "Commerce, Education, and Oops," has put forth not one good idea but a few. Friends and family, if I'm finally losing it, be kind, don't tell me.

Perry demanded Congress be turned into a part-time operation and slash lawmakers pay in half.
Other major initiatives to limit the government include banning the Transportation Security Administration, which harasses "law-abiding travelers" and replacing the organization with private companies, axing the Internal Revenue Service, changing the life-long terms of U.S. Supreme Court justices to 18 years, and criminalizing insider trading by members of Congress.
"I do not believe Washington needs a new coat of paint, it needs a complete overhaul. We need to uproot, tear down and rebuild Washington D.C. and our federal institutions," he told a crowd in Bettendorf, Iowa.
The governor says in addition to cutting legislators' $174,000 pay in half, he wants to "repeal the rules that prevent members of Congress from holding real jobs in their home states and communities."
"And if they do not submit a budget that balances by 2020, as my plan calls for, we should cut their pay in half again," he added.
I don't agree with all his proposals, but if 18 years is the cut-off for Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas is gone. For that alone, I'd consider voting for Perry. Slash Congressional salaries and criminalize "insider trading"--sure, but why stop there. Let's take away their health benefits and pensions at least until the rest of us have something comparable. Of course, we don't need Perry to institute these changes--perhaps a Democrat, one who actually supports "change we can believe in."

We are the 99%. We are everywhere.

2011-11-15T15:27:00.009-05:00

In the fall of 2000 I was visiting my mother in Bayonne Hospital (she had congestive heart failure) while waiting in great anxiety for the Supreme Court ruling on the Florida recount. When the court ruled that the recount should be stopped, I started to cry. My mother, very concerned, said “Don’t cry, it’s only an election.” I responded that it was far more than an election, that the world as we knew it was changed forever. That may have sounded dramatic back then, but what subsequently ensued after Bush and the Supreme Court stole the presidency from Al Gore has shown my words to be prophetic: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with hundreds of thousands of deaths, mainly of innocents, the loss of homes and homelands of millions of other innocents, the appointment of even more right-wing judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, the use of rendition and torture by the American government, the imprisonment without trial of hundreds at Guantanamo Bay. On and on, the evils proliferated.

My late husband Miguel and I left in 2001 for Italy, as we said we would if Bush were elected (although he wasn’t “elected,” at least not by the people), and returned briefly in 2004 to help in Kerry’s campaign, leaving again for Italy, totally disheartened. In the years since, I gave up caring, at least about politics. Americans, particularly younger Americans, appeared to have no interests beyond Lindsay Lohan, the Kardashians, and acquiring the latest iPhone or iPad --the Steve Jobs “i” generation. Nothing after that stirred my former interest in politics, not even the election of Obama "Yes, we can" (slogan without substance). Wall Street was, and still is, his major source of political contributions.

Two months ago today it came back, a belief that there is life after the Tea Party, that Americans, at least a subset of Americans, care about others, not just themselves, and are willing to do something about it. It was Occupy Wall St. That’s when I began my political blog, and also when I tried to get others in New York to offer up their homes for one or two nights a week, to give the occupiers a warm place to sleep, a hot shower, and a good meal before they return to Zuccotti Park to freeze their butts off on our behalf. (On our behalf if you're part of the 99%. If you're part of the 1% and reading here, I hope you're Warren Buffet, or at least agree with him, that you should pay a higher percentage of taxes than those who have much less.) Winter without central heating in New York is not fun, and those who think the occupiers are just cranky college kids with nothing better to do than annoy Mayor Bloomberg should stop watching Fox TV.

This morning a good friend called to let me know the occupiers had been thrown out of Zuccotti Park, and my initial reaction was the same as it had been eleven years ago: I cried. I stopped quickly though, knowing instinctively that it's different this time. The occupiers are not going away. They’ll return in even greater numbers, if not to Zuccotti Park, than to demonstrations in New York, Washington, Oakland, Portland, Albany, as well as in Madrid, Paris, London, Brussels, Rome, against greed, against wars, against the inhumanity of poverty and hunger. My friend suggested we camp out in his backyard in Staten Island so we can build up our immune systems for the days ahead. I hope he was kidding but his point is valid. If I want Occupy to succeed I have to be willing, as I was in the days of Vietnam, to show my face. Writing about Occupy is important but being there, at the demonstrations, holding a placard, is in the end the only way to let the 1% know we’ve had enough. I hope those of you who agree will join me.

"You cannot evict an idea whose time has come. We are the 99%. We are everywhere."

Bloomberg, the Police and Occupy!

2011-11-15T15:24:00.000-05:00

From what I read today, Bloomberg plotted secretly at City Hall around midnight to remove the protestors in Zuccotti Park. This is Bloomberg's democracy! Apparently, the only news group he and the NYPD felt obligated to notify was FOX News Channel:

The NYPD issued a statement to FOX News Channel saying they were not making any arrests and "police are stationed at the park every night."

To quote a friend. The police were created and exist to protect the 1%. The 99% are an after thought. If distraught parents living in Trump Tower were to call the police because a child of theirs was dangerous, it's highly unlikely that the child would wind up in the morgue. If the parents lived in Harlem, would the child have an equal (or any chance) of staying alive? I'd be glad to provide case histories if anyone thinks I exaggerate.

Republic foreign policy debate.

2011-11-12T22:49:00.008-05:00

Five to six basic areas were covered by the moderators in the hour that the debate was broadcast on CBS:

Keeping nuclear weapons out of Iran
Bringing troops home from Afghanistan
Working with Pakistan in war on terror
Using torture to obtain information
Killing American citizens without going through courts
Dealing with China on issue of stealing intellectual property via cyber space

Finally, some stark disagreements among the candidates. In the past there were slight differences in position among all the candidates but not tonight. Unfairly I thought, but the candidates were not all given an equal opportunity to answer all the questions. Romney, Cain, Perry, and Gingrich received the most attention. Bachmann and Santorum were up next. Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman were too often ignored.

Cain, Romney, and Newt answered about the same on Iran and nuclear weapons, suggesting that they would do everything possible to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran but were willing to go to war if none of their solutions (funding political opposition, covert action, economic sanctions) achieved their purpose. The problem is that their solutions have already been tried, including economic sanctions, and have not worked. Ron Paul was in absolute disagreement. He pointed out, clearly, that we went to war with Iraq on the premise that it had nuclear weapons--it didn't, with tragic results. He also pointed out that declaring war is a function of Congress, not the President. Republicans love to evoke the Constitution when it's convenient and ignore it when it's not. Paul's answer was superior to the others but that hardly counts with Republican voters.

On Afghanistan, Perry, Bachmann, and Romney all disagreed in various ways with Obama's decision to bring home the troops. Bachmann has a habit of throwing out numbers to show that she's done her homework but doesn't really say anything you can pin down. Romney, as usual, disagreed with Obama's decision yet kept his options open for the general election and independent voters. He would bring the troops home in December, not in September as proposed by Obama. Apparently, four additional months is a crucial difference. Please!

For me Huntsman hit it out of the court on this one. He would keep a small core of troops and advisers in Afghanistan but would bring the general troops home (a good bit of applause so some in the audience agreed). As he pointed out, we should stop nation building overseas and start nation building in our own country. I suspect that even Republicans are tired of foreign wars, so we shall see if this position finally gets him into the top tier, probably not considering his later nuanced and moral answer on the use of torture. Why do Republicans love to hurt people? Is their DNA different from Democrats? Or is it learned?

On Pakistan, Bachmann was at her best and so was Santorum. Their answers were more nuanced than usual, particularly Bachmann's. Cain, Perry, and Gingrich were challenging Pakistan as our friend. Bachmann and Santorum acknowledged that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and, as such, we need to keep it as a friend.

On torture, Cain, Bachmann (and I believe Gingrich) advocated water boarding. Monsters! Huntsman and Paul pointed out vigorously that we must adhere to the law and also pointed out the immorality of torture and its likelihood of diminishing American's reputation abroad. How about at home?

Gingrich and Romney agreed with Obama (without using Obama's name) in his decision to kill an American citizen abroad who is alleged to have worked with terrorists. I disagree with all of them, Obama included.

On China and its cyber stealing and currency manipulation, Perry and Romney were ridiculously simplistic, as they were in the last debate--Perry, in particular, stating that China will wind up in the dustheap of history, using an old Reagan line about Russia. Is there something toxic in Texas water that destroys brain cells? China is a major trading partner of the U.S. and also the largest holder of U.S. debt. Their answers pander to the audience but defy reality. Huntsman took the reasonable approach (he was the U.S. ambassador to China) and also made Romney look foolish by correcting one of Romney's statements on currency manipulation. Why is Huntsman not moving up in the polls? Why do Republicans generally dislike intelligent candidates who have studied the issues? I really do want to know.

On the abstract question of how some candidates would make decisions, or if they would ever disagree with their advisers, Cain did badly, talking around the issue instead of answering it directly. He does this a lot, using sound bites to respond.

(Perry did rather well joking about his lapse at the last debate--he was funny and the audience was sympathic. Me too.)

Summary:

Romney--slick, always trying to find a way to answer questions that please the audience without saying anything to impede his electability in the general election. Would love to know if he has any values that are not malleable depending on the audience.

Cain--not at all knowledgable about the issues. Panders to the audience with Tea Party sound bites.

Gingrich--often avoids answering directly if he thinks it will get him in trouble but has a difficult time keeping his ego and mouth in line. He's so pompous that I find it difficult to believe that Republicans would accept him as their nominee.

Bachmann--throws out facts and figures but she doesn't answer the question. It's as if she memorized a bunch of stuff and is determined to use it wherever she can fit it in. Will not be the nominee.

Santorum--not worth discussing. He's not going anywhere.

Paul--has integrity, and I admire integrity. Not going anywhere.

Huntsman--great resume, integrity, good looking, solid debater, obviously intelligent. Republicans, you have a candidate that has a serious chance of beating Obama. Are you really going to nominate Romney or Gingrich?

Perry--not coming back. Did better tonight but so what. Horrible debater.

Gail on Newt!

2011-11-12T07:56:00.000-05:00

Just can't complete with Gail Collins. Here she is on Newt in today's column:

Newt, on the other hand, is always good in debates if you like extremely pompous people who appear to be practically levitating with their own sense of personal wonderfulness. During the last outing, Gingrich’s most fascinating moment came when he explained why the mortgage lender Freddie Mac paid him $300,000 in 2006. First of all, it had nothing whatsoever to do with lobbying, or attempting to influence the Republicans who happened to control Congress at a time when there was talk of clamping down on the way Freddie operated. Just put that out of your mind.
No, Gingrich explained very clearly that Freddie gave him the three-hundred grand for his “advice as a historian.”

Ban football, really!

2011-11-12T07:05:00.012-05:00

The other day I wrote a piece on the Penn State scandal entitled "Ban Football." Later I changed the title to JoePa (Joseph Paterno, the Penn State football coach) as I decided that the original title was a bit extreme, throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak. I just finished reading an article in today's New York Times which suggests that my first title was appropriate. Not just Penn State but colleges all over the country routinely cover up sex crimes that involve football players and their coaches. Playing football does not, as we have been led to believe, build character--just the opposite. I won't present the evidence here as you can read the article for yourself: On Campus, a Law Enforcement System to Itself Or for a different but equally damning slant on college football, read Joe Nocera's column: Nocera: At Penn State, the Institutional Pass

As a sport what exactly does football do for those who participate? For the watchers, it provides entertainment much like the Colosseum provided entertainment for the early Romans (if the end result is not as brutal, the psychology is still the same). And for the players? The purpose of football is to move the ball over the goal line of the opposing team more times than the opposing team moves the ball over your line. This is a pretty good description of most contact sports, including international football (soccer as we call it in the United States). But soccer is poetry in motion (if you don't agree you haven't seen the great Pele score a goal with his head). The players are always moving and the excitement of watching the ball move rapidly from one player to the next by intricate footwork can arouse even a sports' idiot like myself to scream "goal." American football, on the other hand, is deadly slow. It stops and starts and stops again and is completely lacking in the elegance and beauty of soccer. Worse, stopping the ball from getting to its destination involves a bunch of overweight, overly muscular men piling on top of the guy with the ball. The lasting damage done to those who play American football (brain injuries, in particular) has been much written about. Soccer players occasionally break a bone, usually when a player from the other side gets vicious and sticks out a leg, but permanent injuries are almost unheard of. So, if American football does not build character but instead encourages those who participate to see themselves as above the law, and it does not improve the health or fitness of the players (are men with huge necks and overly developed muscles fit?), what's its purpose.

So, I return to my original thought when I first read about the Penn State scandal. Ban football altogether. The damage done to the boys sexually abused by Jerry Sandusky is not the price we should be willing to pay for a day at the Colosseum.

Occupy Political Declaration

2011-11-11T14:48:00.002-05:00

In case you didn't read it elsewhere--put out by OWS General Assembly yesterday:

Occupy Wall Street is a people’s movement. It is party-less, leaderless, by the people and for the people. It is not a business, a political party, an advertising campaign or a brand. It is not for sale.
We welcome all, who, in good faith, petition for a redress of grievances through non-violence. We provide a forum for peaceful assembly of individuals to engage in participatory as opposed to partisan debate and democracy. We welcome dissent.
Any statement or declaration not released through the General Assembly and made public online at www.nycga.net should be considered independent of Occupy Wall Street.
We wish to clarify that Occupy Wall Street is not and never has been affiliated with any established political party, candidate or organization. Our only affiliation is with the people.
The people who are working together to create this movement are its sole and mutual caretakers. If you have chosen to devote resources to building this movement, especially your time and labor, then it is yours.
Any organization is welcome to support us with the knowledge that doing so will mean questioning your own institutional frameworks of work and hierarchy and integrating our principles into your modes of action.
SPEAK WITH US, NOT FOR US.
Occupy Wall Street values collective resources, dignity, integrity and autonomy above money. We have not made endorsements. All donations are accepted anonymously and are transparently allocated via consensus by the General Assembly or the Operational Spokes Council.
We acknowledge the existence of professional activists who work to make our world a better place. If you are representing, or being compensated by an independent source while participating in our process, please disclose your affiliation at the outset. Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street.
We stand in solidarity. We are Occupy Wall Street.

Kitchen Sink!

2011-11-11T12:28:00.004-05:00

On the downside:

Newt Gingrich is making a come back. Hard to believe--he's pompous, nasty, and the gold standard in hypocrisy. I'm speaking from the left, of course, but it's difficult to believe that the religious right would vote for a candidate now in his third marriage. The first ended while he was having an affair with his second wife. The story is, he presented his first wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from surgery for ovarian cancer. He ended his second marriage shortly after his wife was diagnosed with MS, and while he was having an affair with his third, a congressional aid. And this affair was progressing at the same time that Newt was calling for Clinton's impeachment because of his affair with Monica. Wow!

As an aside, how is it possible that the Catholic church could sanction the marriage of Newt, twice divorced. I remember my theology (I attended Catholic grammar school and high school). A previous marriage with another baptized Christian, even if the person was baptized in another church, is valid and can't be dissolved by divorce. Apparently, if you know someone high enough up in the Catholic church the rules don't apply. The Kennedy's hold the world's record for annulments.

But in other ways Gingrich's come back is easy to understand. Republicans are desperate.

Herman Cain was never in serious consideration and with the harassment charges (more coming I read), he'd never go down with women; recent polling indicates that women on the right are leaving him much faster than men.
Perry has had so many bad debates that it's hard to imagine him coming back. If he can't remember the three governmental agencies he's planning to get rid of as president (the essence of his platform), how would he survive in debates against Obama.
Bachmann has two things against her--she's a flake and a woman. (Please note that her flakiness has nothing to do with her gender.)
Santorum is just not likable and doesn't have the organization or money to make it to the end of the primaries.
Ron Paul is too far out there, even for Republicans. Imagine a Republican that doesn't want us involved in foreign wars.
And then there's Romney. He has the best organization, the most money, strong political experience, and he can hold his own in a debate. He's just not likable. But that aside, his Achilles heel is his lack of consistency (the exception, as he reminded us on Wednesday, his 42 year marriage to the same woman). He's never meet a principle he wasn't willing to forego to get elected. He was for abortion before he was against, for government-run health care before he was against, and on and on and on. Obama, I should note, has similar problems in this department so in a general election Romney's lack of principle might not be held against him.

My prediction (my hope) is that Jon Huntsman will start soon to resonate with Republican voters. I don't, of course, want a Republican as our next president but with the possibility looking greater each month, I want one with intelligence and some principles. What are the odds?

Also on the downside:

I heard from someone familiar with Occupy Wall St. that the homeless have been encouraged to live in Zuccotti Park by the mayor and others in power. If true, the reasons are obvious. Many homeless in New York City have mental and addiction issues, and they're likely to act out in ways that will permit Bloomberg to crack down on the occupancy. This is a Catch 22 for the occupiers. If they get rid of the homeless they become hypocrites--the homeless are the other 1%. It's a conundrum! Any ideas on what the occupiers can do, please post them.

On the upside:

Billy Crystal has agreed to host this year's Academy Awards. I wish they'd make Crystal the permanent host. It's the only award show I watch every year, and I can't think of a single host who's been any good aside from Crystal. He's always funny. Speaking of the Awards, what chance they'll drop the dances, the songs, and all the other lame entertainment that we sit through every year and just focus on the awards and the dresses. For me, it's all about the dresses.

JoePa!

2011-11-09T23:26:00.009-05:00

If more than 1,000 students can rally against the firing of Joe Paterno of Penn State, then it's apparent that football has taken over our intelligence and our morality. Paterno learned in 2002 of the rape of a ten--year old boy by his former assistant coach and, beyond telling the head of sports at Penn State, did nothing else about it. Many boys were raped after that.

And why didn't the assistant coach who witnessed the assault and who subsequently reported it to Paterno (a day later), stop the assault in progress and call the police? And why does this type of group protective mentality happened so much in American sports? This man watched the rape of a child and walked away. Fire him as well. Fire everyone, and anyone, who knew of it.

The more I think about this, the more unimaginable it becomes, and although it deals with boys it is so reminiscent of what has happened to women in the past, and still happens. If you have power, you can do whatever you like and most of the time get away with it. This case is not just limited to Penn State, and I believe we, as Americans, have to think seriously about why it happens so often in this country, and why so often in sports like football and basketball.

When I first wrote this I wasn't aware of Paterno's nickname, JoePa. For some reason, this makes it all so much worse. Apparently, he was viewed as some type of universal father, and since he encouraged people to use this name, he obviously thought of himself in the same way. So why wasn't he the father of those abused boys--the pain of confronting one of his own, the pain of possibly losing his prestige and damaging the football team and the university, the pain of subjugating his ego to do the right thing. Not totally sure why this story has me so outraged, but it does.

The Debate!

2011-11-09T22:31:00.010-05:00

I not only listened carefully to the Republican economy debate but took verbatim notes on each question and answer (I'm a fast typist!). But I'll comment generally on the candidates and the debate rather than particularly on each candidate's answers.

General comment--The moderators were more aggressive than in previous debates, not letting the candidates get away with not answering questions, or in Cain's case, giving the same answer--999--to every question. Cain at the beginning got a very tough question on the issue of sexual harassment, which was not followed up as it might have been, probably because the audience indicated by its moans that it didn't want to go there. I thought it unfair of the moderator to push it on to Romney, asking him to comment on Cain's troubles. Romney did well in his response, which was to send it back to Cain and refuse to answer.

My overall winner is Jon Huntsman, but then I'm a reasonably rational person. Would Republicans vote for a reasonably rational candidate. Doubt it!

All of the candidates came up with simplistic solutions--reduce taxes, get rid of regulation, blab, blab, blab. And many of their responses were contradictory--they all sounded as though they hate banks, bankers, lobbyists, when it's Republicans who created these monsters. Too big to fail was their favorite evil, even more than Obama. Hey, Republicans, you gutted the regulations that fostered "too big to fail." Hypocrites.

They were ridiculous in their answers on Italy and Greece. One would think they know nothing about our global economy and how drastically we will be affected (adversely, of course) if Italy goes down. Come on, even I know this stuff. And I've never invested a dime in the stock or bond market.

Bachmann showed courage in disagreeing with the others on the current reduction in the payroll tax, which is putting a big hole in Social Security. Of course, I'm getting Social Security so that may be my bias speaking. I also liked Paul's recognition of what the Fed has done to people like me who depend almost solely on interest on savings to survive (0.5% these days), and all for the greater glory and profitability of those banks who are "too big to fail." I hate the Fed almost as much as Ron Paul, and that's saying something.

Cain is an absolute sleaze, with a few memorized answers (and canned put-downs) that he throws in repeatedly. If Republicans actually think he's presidential material then they are, if possible, more handicapped in the intelligence department than I could have imagined. At the end of the debate, the moderator from Mad Money (Jim whatever, the man who screams) told Cain specifically that the next question did not lend itself to a "999" response. And, that's exactly what we got, although Cain managed not to say "999." He's toast because of the sexual harassment scandal but he should be toast because he's incompetent. As an aside, his comment about "Princess Nancy" (particularly in light of his problem with women) was ugly. I just listened to a Republican operative state that he was brilliant. OMG!

Perry embarrassed himself horribly and I suspect everyone on the stage and in the audience. All I could think of was how awful for his wife and children. In one of his answers, he said he was planning to get rid of three government agencies and then couldn't remember the third. He stumbled on many other answers as well. Definitely not a debater. Against someone like Obama in the national debates he would fail miserably.

Romney is slick, and still not likable. He had a few questions that he avoided, but he answered most, with many answers that I disagree with, but at least he speaks with some authority. He said many things to pander to the audience, particularly his answer on China and how to deal with China and its currency issues. Impose tariffs. And will China respond, "Okay, U.S. Treasury, you impose tariffs we're cashing in." Did those in the audience even realize that China holds most of our debt. We needed a more nuanced answer but I do agree with Gingrich that 30 seconds does not permit for a serious answer. So why did Gingrich, and the others, agree to the debate terms.

Huntsman is my favorite. He comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere. He made some good points on how he had governed his own state, introducing improved health care and a flat tax. And he went after Romney on China. Easy answers are not available as Huntsman pointed out, and he suggested that Romney was pandering. He was! I hope if we must wind up with a Republican president, it's Huntsman. Intelligence counts, although I suspect not with Republicans.

Santorum is so dislikable, at least to me. He pounded on his chest too many times, insisting that he, unlike the others. has the answer, apparently to everything. I agree with him that we need to bring back our manufacturing base--don't we all agree, but how does he plan to do that in an economy that's gone global. We needed some backup, some facts, something more than blanket assertions.

Bachmann was a bit better than in the last debate, but she so rarely answers the question. She comes to the debates with bits and pieces on every subject and then throws out those bits and pieces even if they don't actually relate to the question. She's won't bounce back, so I won't spend too much time on her, but good for her on her response to the payroll tax.

Paul always delights me. He has principles and refuses to pander although he was terrible on some questions--student loans in particular. We can't pretend what's there isn't there. Gingrich flopped on that one as well. Who cares at this point how student loans got started (LBJ is dead)--the problem is, how do we fix the enormous debt that students currently face. I agree with some of Paul's positions, a very few, and disagree with most. But he's too extreme, even for the Republicans, so I doubt he'll be the candidate--highly doubt it.

Gingrich is incredibly pompous and he definitely annoyed the female moderator (don't know her name), so she pushed him hard on some questions that he refused to answer. I hope he doesn't bounce back--he's the gold standard in Republican hypocrisy (having had an affair with a Congressional aid when he was condemning Clinton over Monica), but with Republicans one never knows. All of the candidates were fixated on Fanny and Freddy, including Gingrich. One of the moderators pointed out that Gingrich walked away with $300,000 in consulting fees from Fanny, and Gingrich didn't flinch. Did I mention the "gold standard"?

On Cain, with honesty!

2011-11-09T12:32:00.000-05:00

The following is, in my view, the best article on Cain that's appeared in any newspaper to date. The writer is bluntly direct on why Cain would never win the Republican nomination, a truth most of us know but are hesitant to say out loud:

Commentary: It's time to ignore Herman Cain

Dennis Jett

Special to McClatchy Newspapers

There are plenty of reasons not to take Herman Cain seriously as a presidential candidate. There is one, however, that is rarely mentioned. And it is more important than the ones the media are talking about.

The ones getting all the attention from the commentators are not without merit. The most recent reason it is said Cain may be unelectable is the sexual harassment charges from his time running the National Restaurant Association. His mishandling of the story, contradictory comments and failure to come clean make Bill Clinton’s remarks about Ms. Lewinsky look like a case study in candor.

Lacking any real defense, he and his supporters have gone on the offensive by charging the media and his critics with racism and conducting another "high tech lynching." That worked for Clarence Thomas — a man who makes little attempt to appear awake while in court and has not asked a question there in the last five years.

It is interesting that race is being used to attack those who think Cain should be honest about his past. Another reason not to take him seriously is that he will never get the nomination from the party of choice for racists. No, not all Republicans are racists, nor are all racists Republicans. But Lyndon Johnson was an optimist when he turned to Bill Moyers as he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and said that Democrats had lost the south for a generation.

The hysteria on the right over immigration would not exist if the illegal immigrants were white. And the fact that building ten-foot fences on the border would only create a market for eleven-foot ladders shows Republicans like to ignore real solutions and love to play the race card. They have written off the Hispanic vote to pander to their racist base. So while they may find him entertaining, Cain is not going to be the nominee of Republicans.

Another reason not to take Cain seriously is his pandering to another core constituency of the Republicans: the rich.

In the interest of appearing objective, the media often try to consider seriously ideas that range from the ridiculous to the absurd. Take Cain’s plan to tax everything at nine percent. This is coupled with his desire to abolish two other taxes — the capital gains tax and the inheritance tax — paid almost exclusively by the wealthy. The result of his 9-9-9 plan would be a massive shift of the tax burden from the richest Americans to the poorest and the middle class.

Cain’s assertion that his plan would be fair and neutral shows the degree of his dementia or his dishonesty. Only under the most wildly optimistic assumptions and by using supply-side, voodoo economics does his plan generate the same amount of revenue as the existing complicated tax structure.

One definition of a fair tax is one that someone else pays. For Cain, that someone is anyone not bringing home an upper six-figure income. His plan would result in a more perfect plutocracy and should dispel any doubts about the Republican Party being a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of Koch industries. If he were the candidate, however, the electorate would begin to start paying attention, do the math on and figure out they would bear the burden of his take on tax reform.

But there is another reason that should matter more than any of above. Yet it does not seem to enter much into the debate. Never before in this nation’s entire history from the founding fathers to the current occupant of the White House has a man become president without having had been elected to some other office first or having had significant military or other government experience. Cain may have been able to build a better pizza and he did lobby to keep smoking in restaurants, but there is nothing in his resume that would lead to the conclusion that he is qualified to be president.

There are those, like the tea party and other political nihilists, who are so disgusted with the way Washington serves the rich and no one else, that they would welcome this. In their opinion, having no experience is the best experience for the next person to run our government. That is like saying that, because medical care has become so expensive, the best surgeon is one that did not go to medical school.

So let’s all forget Herman Cain and let the Republicans resume their search for a candidate who is not a Mormon.

ABOUT THE WRITER

Dennis Jett, a former U.S. ambassador to Mozambique and Peru, is a professor of international affairs at Penn State's School of International Affairs.

Pound Salt!

2011-11-09T10:43:00.000-05:00

The following article is for all those people, past and present, who have commented on my use of salt--love the stuff. I'm not surprised by the following article as there have been previous research articles that have shown similar results. So to those who want me to stop salting, my answer is "go pound salt."

New Research Calls Salt Guidelines Into Question

Study Suggests Reducing Sodium May Increase Unhealthy Blood Fats; Critics Say Study Is Flawed

By Brenda Goodman, MA
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

Nov. 9, 2011 -- Everyone knows that too much salt is bad for you, right? Well, according to new research, not everyone is convinced.

Reducing dietary sodium (salt) helps lower blood pressure a little, but it also may increase levels of some hormones and unhealthy blood fats, a new review of studies shows.

Researchers say that means cutting back on sodium may not have a substantial health benefit.

But critics say the review draws faulty conclusions because it relies on too many small, short-term studies. They say the weight of research evidence shows clear health benefits when people cut back on sodium.

The review is an analysis of data from more than 167 studies of people with normal or high blood pressure who were randomly assigned to eat either high- or low-sodium diets.

It found that eating less than 2,800 milligrams of sodium a day helped lower blood pressure. But the reductions were small -- an average of 1% for people who had normal blood pressure to begin with and 3.5% for people with high blood pressure.

But cutting back on salt appeared to have other effects, too.

People on lower-sodium diets had an average 2.5% increase in cholesterol and a 7% increase in bad blood fats called triglycerides compared to people who were eating more than 3,450 milligrams of sodium -- an amount that's close to what the CDC says the average American eats every day.

Higher cholesterol and triglyceride levels are thought to be associated with an increased risk of heart disease, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes.

Researchers say it's not clear why cutting back on sodium may affect blood fats.

Lower-sodium diets also boosted levels of the hormones renin and aldosterone, which can raise blood pressure. Researchers say that may be one reason that slashing salt from the diet has only modest effects on blood pressure.

"The theory that you can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by reducing salt intake and thereby blood pressure is tempting. But our study shows that the effect of reduced salt intake on blood pressure in healthy persons is only 1%," says study researcher Niels A. Graudal, MD, DrMedSci, in an email to WebMD.

"Furthermore, reduced salt intake leads to an increase in lipids [blood fats], which is bigger than the reducing effect on blood pressure. Therefore it is likely that reduced salt intake does not have a beneficial effect. On the contrary the net effect may be harmful," says Graudal, who is a senior consultant in the departments of rheumatology and internal medicine at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark.

The study is published in the American Journal of Hypertension.

Elections!

2011-11-08T23:12:00.000-05:00

A night of good cheer! Mississippi personhood bill went down. Democratic candidate for governor in Kentucky won by a huge percentage. Bill to stop collective bargaining in Ohio overturned by large margin. Maine rejected bill to prevent same day registration. Congratulations to all. You worked hard and won.

Fundamental rights are taking hold. I hope Occupy Wall St. helped. So a very lovely good night!

Winning!

2011-11-08T22:35:00.000-05:00

Associated Press just called it. Personhood bill in Mississippi went down. And Mississippi is the most conservative state in the union. Good for Mississippi!

Herman, listen up!

2011-11-08T22:03:00.002-05:00

There's no one the Democrats would prefer to you to run as the Republican candidate. Honest!
If you run, Obama is a guaranteed winner. Your problems are your own!

As Maine goes!

2011-11-08T21:42:00.003-05:00

Really good news. Republicans tried to get rid of "Same Day Registration" for voters in Maine--a law which has permitted same day registration for forty years (a total of 2 incidents of voter fraud in 40 years). Republicans hate universal suffrage, in case you didn't know. Their reason for repealing the law--gays are using it to take over the state. The bill lost. Perhaps the nation is coming back. Let's hope that as Maine goes, so also goes the nation! Still waiting on Mississippi and the personhood vote. It's losing at the moment or as Charley Sheen would say, "we're winning."

Issue 2 (repeal of collective bargaining) in Ohio is defeated!

2011-11-08T21:22:00.000-05:00

Hooray--Issue 2 has been defeated in Ohio. Ohio's Republican governor tried to repeat what happened in Wisconsin--denying collective bargaining rights to public employees, and today his efforts are defeated. Good for Ohio and, I hope, good for the country. Wish I had some champagne to open!

Oh dear, Herman!

2011-11-08T20:50:00.000-05:00

Now, Herman Cain is blaming the Democrats--apparently, it didn't work blaming Perry for his issues with women.

So . . . why Cain? Of the myriad of candidates out there, why Cain? Mitt is the one that Obama has to beat, Perry is a close second, so if all of this is false, why couldn't/wouldn't the Democrats focus on Mitt, or Perry, or any of the other hundreds of Republicans (on the bad days it seems like hundreds) trying for the presidency. Simple answer: Cain harassed these women. Does anyone, Republicans included, doubt it? The Brooklyn Bridge is still for sale, and in this economy at a very reasonable price.

She's back, and I don't mean Sarah Palin!

2011-11-08T13:32:00.001-05:00

"Our blacks are so much better than their blacks," Coulter told Fox News. "To become a black Republican, you don't just roll into it. You're not going with the flow. You have fought against probably your family members, probably your neighbors, you have thought everything out and that's why we have very impressive blacks in our party."

I don't watch Fox News so my assumption that Ann Coulter had disappeared from the face of the earth was, as it turns out, wishful thinking.

If the Republicans believe that by nominating Herman Cain as their presidential candidate they can wipe out Obama's huge majority with black voters, I'd suggest they kidnap Coulter and hide her in a closet for the remainder of the primaries (or perhaps stick her on the plantation where they store "their" blacks). Didn't realize that anyone, even Republicans, still thought that African Americans belonged to anyone.

An interesting day!

2011-11-08T13:00:00.003-05:00

Three events caught my attention today, all significant.

Sarkozy called Bibi (Benjamin Netanyahu) a liar while talking to Obama on an open microphone at the G20 conference. Obama replied (I paraphrase): "What are you complaining about. I have to deal with the guy every day." (Isn't Bibi, the liar, the same guy the Republicans invited to address our lying Congress (I use "lying" in every sense of the word). As an aside, what else do these guys (and gals) do at these economic summits beside eat, drink, and stare into each others eyes--I'm remembering the love affair between Bush Jr. and Putin.

Berlusconi lost his majority in Parliament. I so look forward to not hearing his name again, but I'm not betting against his staying power. Whenever I despair at the types we elect to office in this country, I remember the Italians and Berlusconi and rejoice that we haven't hit rock bottom, yet. Any economic gurus out there?--would I be crazy to invest my savings (now getting about 1/2% in interest) in Italian bonds--pulling close to 7%. And an amendment. Berlusconi now says he will resign! Yea.

Hermain Cain is fighting back but does anyone (including his wife) not believe he's a groper. I'm glad Sharon Bialke put Anita Hill out of mind when she decided to tell her story. Let's hope the two ladies that actually complained (and got settlements) have the courage to tell their stories as well. Hotels keep records and it should be easy enough to determine if Bialke stayed in the suite she describes, and if Cain paid for the upgrade. Let's count them, five (5) women with similar stories: the two who filed complaints with the NRA, the additional one who never filed suit but talked about the abuse after the fact, a fourth woman identified by a male Republican pollster (he says with many witnesses to the abuse), and the fifth, Sharon Bialke. And since Cain appears to be a serial groper, I suspect lots more to come. The Christian right love politicians who espouse its values. Espouse seems to be the operative word since the same politicians rarely adhere to them, and Newt is their gold standard.

More about Newt later. Some say he's making a come back. Can you even imagine Calista as our first lady!

Mississippi is still burning!

2011-11-07T16:48:00.003-05:00

(CNN) -- Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour offered his support Friday for an amendment to the state constitution that would define life as beginning at the moment of conception, saying he cast his absentee ballot for the measure despite struggling with its implications.

That one can vote to define the beginning of life reminds me of the time I was doing consulting work for AT&T. Our less than brilliant AT&T team leader held a two hour meeting to decide if we should use round or square bullet points in our documents and, as a bonus, insisted we also vote to decide if a gerund is a noun or a verb. With one exception (guess who) the almighty verb won. As I remember, her politics were definitely Tea Party-ish in tone, even before the Tea Party came into existence. Perhaps soon, the Tea Party will submit a constitutional amendment defining the earth as flat. Considering how poorly Americans fare in international tests in science and mathematics, I predict that the amendment would pass.

Galileo are you turning in your grave?

Comments!

2011-11-06T11:46:00.002-05:00

Some of my readers have noted that they have been unable to comment on my posts. I believe I've fixed the problem, but if not, please let me know. Thanks.

Not quite politics!

2011-11-05T17:02:00.001-04:00

For those of you still reading, thought you might enjoy the following article from "Slate." Good advice based on my own experience. I'll explain after you finish reading:

Drink Cheap Wine

I mean, really cheap.

By Brian Palmer|Posted Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011, at 6:54 AM ET

Red wine

Photograph by iStockphoto/Thinkstock.

Try this experiment: Walk into the nearest wine shop and ask for an “everyday wine” recommendation. Refuse to give a price range, and see what the merchant suggests. My guess is you’re out 15 bucks. Critics seem to be pushing this price point as an appropriate range for “everyday wine”—Slate is as guilty as any publication—even though the phrase can’t possibly be taken literally. If you and your significant other were to drink five bottles of wine a week, at $15 per bottle, your annual wine outlay would approach $4,000. That’s more than the average family spends on groceries.

Granted, few Americans actually drink that much wine—annual consumption is around one bottle per month (PDF) per capita—but perhaps they would if the industry hadn’t taught them that truly affordable wine isn’t worth drinking. The evidence is right across the Atlantic: In Europe, consumption is 3-to-6 times higher than in the United States. But only the most affluent would spend 11 euros to drink a bottle of wine at home on a Wednesday night. Europeans seem perfectly comfortable cracking open a 1-euro tetra-pak of wine for guests. Germans, for example, pay just $1.79 on average for a bottle of wine.

Not long ago, American wine-buying habits were very similar to the Germans’. In 1995, 59 percent of the wine purchased in the United States sold for less than $3 per bottle. By 2006, controlling for inflation, that share had dropped to 29 percent. Wines over $14 per bottle more than quadrupled their share of the market during the same period. Looking at raw consumption rather than market share, sales of over-$14 wine increased sevenfold. Sales of wines that cost less than $3 per bottle actually declined 28 percent, during a period when overall wine consumption was rapidly increasing.

There are plenty of reasons to go back to our 1990s habits, and to start using 15 bucks to buy four or five bottles instead of just one. Ernest Gallo, who, along with his brother Julio, popularized wine among the American masses, understood the psychology of wine better than anyone. He used to pour two glasses of wine for potential buyers, telling them that one sold for 5 cents, and the other for 10. According to Gallo, his guinea pigs invariably chose the more expensive option. What they didn’t know was that the two wines were exactly the same. Researchers have recently reproduced Gallo’s results, proving that our appreciation of a wine depends on how much we think it costs. If you can break yourself of this psychological quirk—or have your spouse lie to you about the cost of your wine—you’ll save a small fortune.

You’re also likely aware of the piles of studies showing that you can’t reliably pick out expensive wines in a blind taste test. Many studies show that laymen actually prefer cheaper wines (PDF). Professional wine critics are quick to point out that they, unlike you and I, can distinguish between high- and low-cost bottles in blinded experiments. Here’s the question they can’t answer for you: So what? The only thing these “successes” prove is that a small group of people have gotten very good at sniffing out the traits that the wine industry thinks entitle them to more money.

If hints of cassis, subtle earthiness, and jammy notes don’t interest you, you are not a lesser person. Wine is not art. There’s no reason to believe that aligning your tastes with those of a self-appointed elite will enrich your life, or make you more insightful or sensitive. If wine critics want to spend lavishly on the wine they like, that’s great. Leave them to their fun. Be grateful that you can gain just as much pleasure, if not more, without bankrupting yourself.

I’m not without sympathy for the American winemakers who keep wine prices high. Real estate is pricey in California, and some vintners claim they have to charge $20 or more per bottle just to break even. That’s a shame, but wine-buying isn’t an act of philanthropy. If you can’t tell the difference between an expensive wine from a small family vineyard and their cheaper competitors—or you think the cheap stuff is superior—save your money. You are under no obligation to keep vineyards afloat. A little consolidation might be a good thing. Do we really need tiny winemaking estates up and down the West Coast, not to mention Long Island,Michigan, Virginia, and Missouri?

There’s also an enormous range in the retail price of a single bottle of wine, which means the $15 bottle you bought at one store might be a $6 bottle elsewhere. A recent study found that a wine selling for $695 in California went for $2,000 in Illinois. The Yellowtail Merlot offered for $4.99 in Buffalo cost more than twice that much in Jersey City. Such discrepancies are due not only to taxes and varying distribution schemes but to individual store owners trying to wring a few more dollars out of clueless consumers. Again, the key here is that higher prices do not reliably reflect quality.

Finally, rest assured that cheap wine in the United States is good, to the extent that the term has any objective meaning. Falling market share over the last 15 years has forced discount vintners to compete with upmarket brands, and modern technology has enabled them to crank out consistent wines, case after case. So, if you win your $3 gamble on the first bottle, you know you’ll like the next. And, in a sense, we have an advantage over Europe, since our discount offerings are usually a notch better. European bargain wines can be hit or miss, because they’re made by cooperatives that sometimes have outdated equipment, poor inventory management, and even substandard sanitation practices. Charles Shaw and the best American box wines rarely have such problems.

You’re probably hoping for some recommendations. You don’t need them. Reviews and recommendations are great for cars or televisions or overpriced wines, because bad decisions are expensive. If you hate your cheap bottle of wine, just uncork another.

Back to Me:

I have a favorite French restaurant, Cafe Centro, located in the Met Life Building above Grand Central. Love the food although the wine by the glass is a bit pricy. I always get the lowest priced glass of white, a Santa Marina Pinot Grigio for $9.00. My wine store, on Madison Avenue, sells the same bottle of wine for $5.99. Considering the store's location I suspect its bottle price is a bit higher than the price in a discount wine store in New Jersey. And for sure, Cafe Centro buys in bulk and gets it for even less. Until I discovered that the wine I always drink in my favorite restaurant costs $5.99 a bottle I would never have purchased anything for less than $13-15. The writer is correct--if you hate your cheap bottle of wine, uncork another. It won't take too long before you find something you actually like--save your money for Dom Perignon. In champagnes, there really is a difference. Honest!

She's Back!

2011-11-04T08:39:00.001-04:00

And here I thought we'd heard the last from Sarah Palin.

Sarah, who cares what you think about Occupy Wall St. or anything else for that matter. You've had your fifteen minutes, now go away!

S is for Sarah,
A rabid chimera
All shiny and fair
And full of hot air!

Is anyone reading?

2011-11-03T09:29:00.005-04:00

Just in case I still have an audience--I've fallen down on the job lately, I thought I'd post the last sentence of Gail Collins column today (N.Y. Times). I needed a laugh and she provided it:

A Herman Cain presidency is much less likely than the chances you’ll be thunked by an armor-plated piece of chili meat while shopping for dinner. So, really, I think I’m done.

Read the full column if you also need a laugh. But whether she's a good prognosticator is questionable considering the types of people we elect in this country. Herman Cain seems like the perfect successor to Bill Clinton in the category of "I didn't have sex with that woman" or to George W. Bush on foreign affairs. "I don't need to know the names of foreign leaders. I'm from Texas." I don't think Bush actually said the latter but it sure felt that way at the time. Sadly, the only name Bush did know was that of Saddam Hussein and look what that got us. So perhaps we should be happy that Cain doesn't have a daddy he wants to avenge.

Thanks for the laugh Gail, and I hope you're right!

Obama is the 1%

2011-10-28T10:43:00.001-04:00

"The New York Times identified at least 15 major fund-raisers for the Obama campaign who have been involved in different aspects of the lobbying and influence industry, representing a range of corporate interests from telecommunications and high-tech software to Wall Street finance, international commerce and pharmaceuticals."

Obama promised during his last campaign (if any of you remember that far back) not to take money from lobbyists and not to hire any lobbyist to work in his administration. Of course, the latter promise was quickly broken when he asked for exemptions for some of his appointees. For any of you who think that because this blog is primarily, and negatively, focussed on Republicans and their Teabag affiliates, that, by elimination or otherwise, it supports Obama and his administration, you're wrong. Obama is certainly no worse than the Republicans, and probably a bit better. But certainly we deserve better than "a bit."

I'm waiting and hoping, not blindly I hope, for a third-party candidate to announce himself or herself (and I prefer herself--it's time we joined the rest of the modern world and had a woman president) as a candidate in the forthcoming election. If you're tired of Frick and Frack dominating the political scene, than join me in reviewing Americans Elect, an organization that proposes to nominate a third-party candidate online, one it claims won't be affiliated with either the Democrats or Republicans.

Do I believe that? Not really--but I've lost a great deal of my optimism after the "Yes we can" candidate added "for corporations only." For those who go back as far as I do, Obama is about where the Republicans were in the 1970's, more actually to the right of a Jacob Javits or even, God forbid, the devil himself, Richard Nixon. I'm too old--and tired--to occupy Wall St. but I have sufficient energy to get excited and work for any candidate who believes we deserve better than what the Democrats and Republicans have wrought in Washington. Make your own judgment:

http://www.americanselect2012.org

Limerick for Silvio!

2011-10-25T20:59:00.000-04:00

That dirty old man Berlusconi

Overindulged in curved rigatoni

His wife found out

Gave forth a loud shout

Now Silvio's fried baloney!

Hooray for Uruguay!

2011-10-25T20:09:00.002-04:00

Uruguay Senate Votes to Revoke Amnesty Law

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 25, 2011 at 7:59 PM ET

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay (AP) — Uruguay's senate has voted to revoke an amnesty law protecting scores of officials in the country's 1973-1985 dictatorship from human rights prosecutions.

Backed by the governing Broad Front coalition, the vote has squeaked through by a 16-15 margin and will be voted on by the Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies on Wednesday.

The move would meet an Inter-American Human Rights court demand that the South American country lift impediments to prosecuting dictatorship-era crimes.

Sen. Eduardo Lorier saiid Tuesday that the senate's decision establishes that dictatorship-era crimes are crimes against humanity and not subject to amnesty. The Supreme Court has ruled they are common crimes.

Occupy Wall St--It's Not Going Away!

2011-10-25T11:16:00.004-04:00

Occupy Wall Street Knows Not What It Does Hurting Local Jobs

Did you hear the one about the boy tried for murdering his parents who asked mercy from the Court because he was an orphan?

"Occupy Wall St. hurting local jobs" is a headline today in Bloomberg News. The article begins by stating that Occupy is taking away jobs in the Wall Street area because some local businesses have less foot traffic because of police barricades. Although it later states that the reporters who wrote the story contacted the police, without a response, for information about the barricades, the crux of the article is that Occupy is acting hypocritically by . . . well . . . by occupying. For the record, the movement is peaceful and doesn't require police barricades.

Only later in the article do we learn that other merchants in the area have increased their business. The local Pret A Manger has increased its sales by $1,000 a day, attributable I assume to the increased tourism in the area. Or perhaps the occupiers like Pret's croissants--the best in the City. Let's hope the Mayor after hearing this good news doesn't set up a barricade in front of Pret. The article is totally biased, which is not surprising since our One Percent Mayor is completely against the movement and has tried in various ways to thwart the protestors, fortunately so far without success.

The bias is revealed, again, further down by the following paragraph:

Demonstrators initially struggled to build momentum, drawing a fraction of the 20,000 participants that organizers such as Adbusters, a group promoting the movement, aimed to lure to lower Manhattan last month. Prior to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Adbusters gained attention for what critics called an anti-semitic essay published in 2004.

What has Adbusters or anti-semitism to do with the point of the article, that jobs are being lost because of police barricades. There are a number of wild inconsistencies in the article but my blood pressure is on the rise so I'll leave them for now. But one last comment. The City has been building the Second Avenue Subway since before I was born, finally getting somewhat serious about it a few years ago. Legions of merchants are losing their businesses along Second Avenue because of the construction, and in this instance these businesses will never recover. Many have already closed their stores and don't expect to reopen them when the subway is completed--mainly because the opening date moves further and further out each year. Let the Mayor concentrate his energies on getting the subway finished, soon, so no more job are lost.

My concern is that anyone breezing by news stories on Google, which is where I found this one, will read the headline and perhaps the first few paragraphs and no further. It's not the protestors who are responsible for declining business, but the police. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but the protestors are not going away. And if you're unable to rig the election laws this time around, you are. Bye!

If you agree that Occupy protestors have the right to organize in a public space for things that matter to those us in the 99%, please sign the petition below addressed to the Mayor asking him to permit tents in Zuccotti Park. Winter is coming!

http://action.workingfamiliesparty.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4853

The Kitchen Sink--on Racism.

2011-10-24T15:33:00.011-04:00

Baby Lisa, Madeline McCann, Caylee Anthony, Jhessye Shockley. The first three names you probably recognize--little girls, blondes mainly, blue eyes, who went missing. But who is Jhessye Shockley? Jhessye Shockley is also missing, about the same length of time that we've been inundated with news of Baby Lisa Irwin. The difference is that Jhessye is black, an African-American, and Baby Lisa, Madeline McCann, and Caylee Anthony are white. Madeline McCann, the oldest of the three girls is not even American. She's British and disappeared in Portugal some years back while her family was on vacation, yet most Americans know more about Madeline than Jhessye. Why else?

Yet there's been some insistence lately, regrettably helped by Herman Cain, a favorite of the Tea Party, that racism is on the wan, if it exists at all. Cain, a black man who grew up in the segregated south, said recently of the jobless hundreds occupying Zuccotti Park:

"Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself. It is not someone's fault if they succeeded, it is someone's fault if they failed," the ex-Godfather's Pizza CEO declared.

Cain said this in the same week that CBS was reporting unemployment levels for African Americans at Depression-era levels: 16.2 overall, 17.5 percent for black males, close to 41 percent for black teens. Unemployment for the general population is about 9.1 percent. When we read about the hard scrabble life of Herman Cain, we learn that his father held three jobs, janitor, barber, and chauffeur, to help feed, cloth, and educate his children. Three jobs--Cain's father was fortunate, and so was Herman Cain, raised in a two-parent family, both holding jobs.

Apples and oranges, Cain might say, but the emphasis on the missing white children in contrast to the almost non-existent reporting of missing black children--Jhessye is just one example, is a clear record of the racism that exists in this country. Racism and its inevitable fallout in educational opportunities drives the huge disparity between white and black employment numbers and high school and college graduation levels, and is at least one reason for the large number of black youths rotting in our over crowded jails. Racism may be less virulent than when Cain was a young man growing up in the segregated south but it still exists. Good for Herman Cain that he's a successful business man, but one good chapter does not finish the story. We have a long way to go, and I hope Herman Cain is not the one who will lead us there.

Since I called this the Kitchen Sink, let me throw in another reminder of how racism permeates our society and its media coverage. Most of us probably remember the Central Park Jogger case but how many of us know that the five boys who were convicted and served years in prison had their sentences vacated by the New York Supreme Court. The man who raped and beat the jogger confessed thirteen years later while serving consecutive sentences in a New York prison for rape. The only semen ever collected at the scene was his, and his alone. Yet until today none of the police who extracted confessions from the five boys, or the prosecutor, have been charged with a crime or been reprimanded.

The media coverage on this case provides a sharp contrast to the coverage in this country of the Amanda Knox case. Knox, a grown-up blonde with blue eyes, was exonerated of the crime of murder after serving nearly four years in an Italian prison. The media coverage in this country was unrelenting in its disparagement of the Italian justice system, with Americans of all political views celebrating our justice system as superior. Most of the coverage focussed on the inexcusably lax collection of DNA evidence by the Italian police; much less attention was given to Knox's confession and even less to her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, a black man and her former employer, of the crime. (Luckily Lumumba had an air-tight alibi and was released after three weeks in prison.) No doubt Knox made her confession under extreme duress after hours of interrogation, a similar duress experienced by the five black youths in the jogger case. But in the Knox case, the U.S. media assumed her innocence; in the jogger case, it assumed their guilt.

As one of the boy's supporters, the Rev. Calvin Butts of Harlem, told the New York times, "The first thing you do in the United States of America when a white woman is raped is round up a bunch of black youths . . . ."

Steve Jobs--the devil is in the details!

2011-10-22T09:22:00.003-04:00

“I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank [at the time ... this has grown massively since], to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

And I suspect he would have, considering the size of Steve Jobs' ego. The notion of Steve Jobs accusing anyone else of stealing is amusing--at best. He got his start by selling Blue Boxes in the early 70s, gadgets designed to make free long-distance phone calls by producing the beeps that the telephone system used for switching, which by the way was designed by the other Steve. Jobs was the marketing guy. And then there was the Macintosh graphical user interface, based on Xerox's "STARS" system, which was designed to allow easy merging of text and graphics in an editing system. And let's not forget Unix, the basis of Apple's operating systems, or the C programming language, both from Dennis Richie, and others, of Bell Labs.

Steve Jobs was a petty, jealous man, who wanted the whole pie (Apple) for himself. Unlike the original designers of the internet who wanted to share their ideas freely, Jobs was willing to accept and use the ideas of others but reluctant to see anyone else use his ideas or, to be more exact, the ideas generated by the engineers at Apple. He was a designer, not an engineer, and without those who came before and after, doing the hard work and the late nights in their labs, there would be no Steve Jobs.

I'm not denigrating design. When I worked in the early 80's at Bell Labs for the group developing the Unix PC, one of my jobs was to evaluate, by both price and design, our competition, including the Apple Lisa and the IBM PC. I was the only woman on our team, and the only one who preferred the Lisa, mainly for its color--as I remember a soft lavender. And I loved the documentation, also in matching color. I also preferred Calvin Klein jeans to those of "little Gloria." I own a MacBook, and I prefer it to my Windows-based Think Pad, again for its design. It's white and has a great key pad (the most important feature to me when buying a note book). The touch is like typing in soft butter--smooth and noiseless. I don't own an iPod (I'm tone deaf), an iPad (prefer paper when I read), or an iPhone (too expensive), but I'm sure they're wonderful products and wonderfully designed, but hardly the stuff to confer sainthood. I can only be grateful that Jobs was not Catholic, or there'd be suggestions of canonization.

And then, of course, there were his political positions (and politics is what this blog is about). Jobs tried to influence Obama to loosen American regulations, which he insisted make it more difficult for Apple to build its products cheaply in the United States. He preferred to manufacture his products in China, where Chinese health and safety standards are more lax than in the U.S., permitting 13 year olds to work 13 hour days. So enjoy your "i" products, as I enjoy my MacBook, but remember where it was made, and by whom, and ask yourself whether a few extra apps or a really great key pad are the stuff of heroes.

Let's celebrate instead Elizabeth Warren, still a coming attraction.

On Tweets!

2011-10-21T20:28:00.001-04:00

A canary I know in perdition

Disdains any resolution

Instead he cries out in rebellious shrieks

“I refuse to tweet with internet geeks

"And in particular with Sarah Palin!"

Coming attraction: All about Elizabeth (Warren, in case you didn't guess)

2011-10-20T12:42:00.003-04:00

Limerick for the Day

2011-10-20T01:12:00.003-04:00

There's a lady in Manhattan
Who likes to tweet in shiny satin
One day, alas, her dress was torn
So she tweeted in a Jerusalem thorn
Ouch!

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

2011-10-20T01:10:00.006-04:00

Today is a short blogging day as I'm rather busy with other stuff, but I do have to comment on the horrific goings-on in Ohio. More than fifty exotic animals dead because we don't have federal wildlife laws to protect animals that belong only in the wild or in carefully-designed habitats that emulate the animals' natural environment. What's particularly sad is that some of the animals were endangered species, among them eighteen rare Bengal tigers.

To quote from an article in AFP:

Conservationists have for years demanded strict wildlife ownership laws in the United States, especially in Alabama, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wisconsin, where rules are utterly non-existent.
"All eight states that don't have regulations should immediately have an executive order by the governor banning the keeping or sale of these animals."

If you have time, please write to or call the governor of Ohio, John Kasich, and ask that he listen to the Humane Society of the United States and the public and immediately enact restrictions on the ownership of exotic animals.

Governor John Kasich
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, Oh 43215-6117
Phone: (614) 466-3555

And if you still have time, also call or write Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the leading animal rights advocate in the U.S. Congress, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. We need laws at the federal level to stop the unethical treatment of animals.

2445 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515

Phone (202)225-5871
Fax (202)225-5745

Thanks.

Latest:

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio signed an executive order on Friday that he said might have prevented the man accused of releasing dozens of tigers, lions and other animals from his reserve in Zanesville this week from being allowed to keep the animals because of his history of animal cruelty and neglect.

Obama-care at the Debate!

2011-10-19T13:05:00.002-04:00

Do Republican voters live in a different dimension? I'm not in the least happy with the Affordable Health Care bill that passed Congress, but not because it's "socialized medicine." It's not, far from it. It didn't go far enough and it didn't address the real problem--running health care as a profit-making industry, which we do here, and which is why the quality of our health care is rated 37th in the world, and dropping each year.

But when Michele Bachmann said that Obama-care had ruined our economy and the audience cheered and everyone on stage nodded their heads "yes," I almost choked on my tea (well, actually, my wine). Republicans, please read a book once in a while or your skill might atrophy. Stop watching those reality TV shows!

Obama-care, as it's called by Republicans, won't be implemented until the year 2014, so it's a three year stretch to say it ruined our economy. And for the record, the policies that broke our economy (the seeds were planted during the Reagan administration) were those instituted by the Bush administration or vigorously supported by his administration. Please try to remember, Republicans (back to that reading thing again), that when Bill Clinton left office we had a balanced budget. So, not Obama-care but the following:

the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan
the Bush tax cuts
the sub-prime mortgages which made millions for Wall St

And lots and lots of other stuff, and none of it--none!--has any relation to Obama-care.

And for the record, many Democrats were complicit in what happened to our economy but they were secondary players. Too many of them after 9/11 lacked the courage to vote against the made-to-pander wars.

And a word for Ron Paul--my philosophical view of government's purpose and his are very different, but he was the only Republican on stage who refused to pander. He corrected Cain at one point, who called the prisoners in Guantanamo terrorists. They're "suspects, not terrorists" he said. Good for him.

The Debate!

2011-10-18T23:44:00.005-04:00

Why did I decide to start a political blog the day of the Republican debate, also the night of "Rosemary and Thyme?" But I did, so I watched the debate instead. Actually, it was fun at times and certainly not dull. Overall impressions from worst to best, if there is a best.

Rick Santorum: I knew very little about him before the debate and want to know less now. A pit bull in disguise with no redeeming virtues. Apologies to any pit bull owners out there. His refusal to let Romney respond, as agreed under the rules, was more than rude; it was vulgar. Go away Rick, and he probably will. Anderson Cooper pointed out that in a recent poll of Republicans asking who could best beat Obama, Romney was the highest with 41% and Santorum, the lowest with 1%. Must have been his mother--probably not even his wife would vote for him.

Michele Bachmann: I can't remember one question that she answered directly--well one, but only when Anderson Cooper persisted. She had prepared answers and that's what we got no matter what the question. No nuance whatsoever. She won't last. If you get a chance view her response to the question regarding foreclosures and see her tear up over moms losing their nests (no academy award in her future), and you'll wonder how she got elected to Congress in the first place. And no, she didn't answer the question, not even close. And then there's that vacant stare!

Newt Gingrich: Made some telling points but it was almost as though he were there as a moderator not as one of the candidates. He did point out at the end that the bickering that dominated most of the debate won't get a Republican into the White House. Hope he's right.

Herman Cain: His 9-9-9 plan was attacked by everyone on the stage. His response was always the same. You don't understand! Or "you're talking apples and oranges." Big into fruit! Far too many conservative economists have shredded his plan for him to make it on his tax platform alone, but the audience liked him. And he didn't get into any fights with the white guys. Both Ricks went at it hot and heavy with Mitt Romney. They were all very polite to Cain even when trashing his plan. Did that have anything to do with his race? Cain doesn't have a chance to get the Latino vote, not when he wants to fry them on his fence. So who will vote for him? "Brain-washed" blacks as Cain labels them--highly doubtful; progressives--no; independents, not many considering his absolutist positions on gay rights and abortion; and he can't win with just tea party votes. My prediction: he'll disappear after New Hampshire.

Ron Paul: I confess, if I had to live with a Republican in the White House, and someone put a gun to my head to vote for one, he's it. He's the only candidate who actually says what he believes, rather than playing to the crowd. I particularly liked his answer concerning "Occupy Wall St" in response to Cain's view that the protestors are whiners. "Don't blame the victims," he said. But Ron Paul is the equivalent of the Democratic Dennis Kucinich, the bookends of cut and spend. He doesn't stand a chance--probably been around too long and his stand on the defense budget and foreign aid to Israel, cut, cut, cut, will never fly with Republicans.

Rick Perry: I didn't see the previous debates, but did hear lots of sound bites concerning how badly he did. Perry probably did better in tonight's debate although his bickering with Romney was ugly, and he stumbled badly when the issue of church and faith came up. In the end he gave something of an apology to Romney. At a previous event, Perry's pastor claimed that Mormons were not Christians. (Speaking of, can you call anyone a Christian who wants to electrocute Mexicans for seeking a decent life for their families? Yes, I mean you Herman.) I have no problem with illegals coming from Mexico--aren't we all the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren of illegals. Did native Americans issue visas? Perry, who deals with the illegal problem in Texas daily made a lot more sense with his proposal of more "boots on the ground" than did Bachmann, who wants to build a fence to seal our borders, or Cain, who wants his fence electrified. No doubt Perry, unlike the other two, realizes that Latinos vote. Are those two for real?

Mitt Romney: He did fairly well, actually better I think than any of the others. I don't like him, but he's the best debater, and he managed to stay cool during some very vicious attacks from the two Ricks. (Is Rick a Republican name, or were their parents Bogart fans?) The attacks in some cases were nasty and personal and he handled them well. A punch or two would have been in order. Romney did manage to avoid some tricky questions, in particular when he was asked if children born here to illegal parents should be denied citizenship. Bachmann calls them anchor babies, and Romney did a Bachmann on the question. He didn't answer it, wisely I think. Romney will probably be the Republican nominee.

The winner for me was Jon Huntsman, a no show and the only Republican with moderate views. And that's why he can't win. The No Nothings are in charge. The bickering was ugly and off-putting. No more debates for another two months. Whew!

Republicans Repossessed!

2011-10-18T15:58:00.001-04:00

And here's one for the Republicans:

The little sense they once possessed
From all accounts is repossessed
The GOP of emancipation
Is now the party of exploitation.

Remember I only had 120 characters at my disposal!

Wall St Remittance Man!

2011-10-18T13:51:00.003-04:00

One of my favorite tweets, and yes, I am writing about Obama:

He shouted 'Yes we can'
I’m no ordinary political man
This before he won the vote
Now it's all a misquote
Our Wall St remittance man

And I don't refer to "Occupy Wall St"!

Steve Jobs again!

2011-10-18T13:36:00.004-04:00

Interesting review in the Times today of a play about Steve Jobs and Apple products and how and where they're made. Question of the day: is the suffering of 13 year old children in China worth having more apps and the latest iPhone. Does your 13 year old have a cell phone put together by someone else's child who worked 13 hours to make it?

An addendum

I don't know where Microsoft does it manufacturing or if it offends as much as Apple but in one respect at least Bill Gates is heads above Steve Jobs, a man who never met a charity he liked--until he got cancer.

After more than 30 years of work, researchers have for the first time succeeded in creating a vaccine against malaria, a deadly disease that kills nearly 800,000 a year, most of them children. And the Gates Foundation was a major contributor towards the development of the vaccine. At the moment, the vaccine works in only 50% of those receiving it, but even 50% means saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of children.

9 Questions for Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan - The Atlantic

2011-10-18T13:19:00.000-04:00

9 Questions for Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan - The Atlantic

The Kitchen Sink

2011-10-18T11:34:00.001-04:00

Main editorial in today's Times focusses on the Republican candidates' views on foreign policy--don't read if you want to keep hope alive. On Rick Perry, for example:

"[I]n August, Mr. Perry called for “taking the fight to the enemy, wherever they are, before they strike at home.” He also rejected “military adventurism.” So when exactly would he use military force? No one knows.

And this brings me to David Brooks, the Times only conservative columnist. He appears to be as mixed up as Mr. Perry or less politely stated, speaking from both sides of his mouth. For example, in speaking of the majority of Americans, he says:

"[T]hey are paying less attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement than any other major story — less than Afghanistan, Amanda Knox, the 2012 election, the death of Steve Jobs and far, far less than news about the economy.

"While the cameras surround the flamboyant fringes, the rest of the country is on a different mission. Quietly and untelegenically, Americans are trying to repair their economic values."

He finishes with the following:

These majorities are focused on the fundamentals. They say that repairing the economic moral fabric is the essential national task right now. They are suspicious of government action in general, saying that government often undermines this fabric. But they support specific federal policies that nurture industriousness, responsibility and delayed gratification, like spending on infrastructure, education and research. They distinguish between the deserving and undeserving rich.

In other words, he suggests at the beginning of his article that the protestors in the Occupy Wall Street movement are a lunatic fringe with no relevance to the economic problems that most Americans are concerned with. Let me state emphatically that the concerns of the Occupy Wall St. protestors are the same as those Brooks is writing about, "repairing the economic moral fabric." Perhaps the difference is that the protestors in Zuccoti Park are actively trying to do something to repair the moral fabric while those that Brooks writes about, and celebrates, are too busy following the salacious details of the Amanda Knox case to do anything but whine about their fate.

The Times spends a good bit of its editorial ink pointing to the contradictions in the positions of Republican candidates (great) but it might try reading some of David Brooks columns and commenting on his contradictions. They happen often enough. Hey Gail Collins--how about it!

Thanks again, you guys in Occupy. I'm getting too old to sleep outside but I'm glad someone is willing to do it.

Single Sex Classrooms: Do They Work?

2011-10-18T10:33:00.000-04:00

In Today's Times, there's an article on single sex schools/classrooms focussing on the educational aspects of these schools. The main article leads with recent research that suggests such schools are bad for both girls and boys and then some five or six educators/lawyers weigh in on the issue. Most of the writers support the view that single sex schools don't produce better students, supporting the premise, at least tacitly, that boys in single sex schools tend to more aggression and girls in single sex schools act more girly (the article doesn't define "girly" or why that's necessarily bad). Only one writer was strongly for single sex schools, an administrator from Bryn Mawr who points out that BM graduates more girls with majors in science and math than do technology schools like MIT.

I have no research to have an opinion beyond what's anecdotal. I went to an all-girls high school (Holy Family Academy) located down the street from an all-boys school (Marist High) and for the most part enjoyed the experience, particularly not having to worry about what the boys thought of my looks or actions. I suspect I matured more slowly (sexually, that is) than if I had attended a co-ed school but in my view that was all to the good. How great it was not to worry if I had a "bad hair day" or a new spot on my nose. I was something of a cut-up in class, which I doubt would have been the case if boys were in the classroom.

Those who support co-ed may be correct but I think a bit more research is needed before we throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the meantime, I'm glad there was a Holy Family Academy and that I have wonderful memories of acting like a goof without worrying about how the boys would react. Anyone want to weight in on this? Feel free.

Battle of the titans: Collins vs. Dowd

2011-10-18T00:42:00.000-04:00

Perhaps it's unfair to suggest that Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd are in competition. The competition is more between me and a friend. About twice a month we get into a discussion as to who is the better columnist--both as you know write for the "New York Times." He prefers Dowd, but then whenever he refers to her, he calls her "hot." I prefer Collins. Both are Irish Catholic and both attended Catholic schools, yet I find their styles very different. Dowd almost never ceases to irritate me. I still can't understand why she's viewed as a political columnist when so much of what she writes has little to do with policy and everything to do with personality. Collins, to quote Emily Naussbaum, "favors, amid her satirical digs, a midwestern mildness: respect for one’s opponent, and apologies when called for (including the New York Times’ position on the Iraq War). In her online dialogues with David Brooks, Collins occasionally admits to something readers may identify with: “door-pounding, head-banging rage” on topics like the perfidy of Joe Lieberman. But what’s so singular about Gail Collins is that this rage rarely distorts her thinking. Instead, she models a useful idea—that it is possible to be outraged without being paralyzed. As for the troubles of her own profession, she recommends to journalism students a similar healthy pragmatism. “I tell them they’re heirs to the most exciting time. And they should marry someone with health insurance.”

Collins on the upside of sex scandals: “What would any of us know about how impeachment works if it hadn’t been for Monica Lewinsky?” On Cash for Clunkers: “Believe it or not, it turns out that Americans will buy a lot more cars if you pay them a bunch of money to do it.” On health care: “The Republicans seem bent on making sure that every single 40-year-old woman in America gets a free mammogram even if she never sees a doctor for anything else for the rest of her life.”

If Romney wins the Republican nomination he won't have Collins to thank. Is there anyone who reads Gail Collins who doesn't know that Romney drove to Canada with his dog, in kennel, tied to his rooftop. So what does this have to do with politics. Not much, just wanted to say publicly, "thanks Gail, I love your columns."

9-9-9 doesn't even buy you a decent pizza!

2011-10-17T22:13:00.001-04:00

Most of us I suspect would like to see changes to the current tax code, except of course the hedge fund managers who love their 15% rate, courtesy of the U.S. Congress. As an aside, we can't just blame Republicans for that. Charles Schumer, New York's democratic senator, was a firm supporter of this tax rate, no doubt because he's been a major recipient of Wall Street money. But the swooning over Herman Cain's 9-9-9 proposal appears to come from those who don't read beyond headlines. Critics of his plan cross the political spectrum, including liberals and conservatives. For those who are interested, the following article, courtesy of Bloomberg press, provides some perspective as to what this plan might actually look like.

Article is below:

Bad Math Hurts Herman Cain’s Good Tax Intentions: Ramesh Ponnuru

October 17, 2011, 8:23 PM EDT

MORE FROM BUSINESSWEEK

By Ramesh Ponnuru

Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- If you think taxes are complicated now, wait until Herman Cain simplifies them. The former chief executive officer of Godfather’s Pizza Inc., now running for the Republican presidential nomination and selling a book, has been rising in the polls partly because of the appeal of his “9-9-9” plan to reform taxes. At the Bloomberg/Washington Post debate at Dartmouth College last week, he argued that a great virtue of the plan is that it is “simple” and “transparent.”

In truth, the complexity of Cain’s proposal would impress Rube Goldberg. It has three stages. In the first, Congress would reduce the top tax rate for individuals and corporations to 25 percent, allow companies to pay favorable rates on any overseas profits they bring home, and end the capital-gains tax.

Stage Two is where 9-9-9 comes in. Cain would abolish the payroll tax and replace it with three taxes. One would be a new version of the income tax with a 9 percent rate and no personal exemption, standard deduction, mortgage deduction, earned-income tax credit or child credit. There would also be a 9 percent retail-sales tax. Companies would pay what Cain calls a corporate income tax, though it would be much closer to a European-style value-added tax. You already know the rate.

Then comes Stage Three, when Cain would throw away the new income tax and the value added tax he created and institute the Fair Tax. That’s a proposal for a retail sales tax of 30 percent that some conservatives have been promoting for years.

Poor People Lose

At last week’s debate, Cain claimed that poor people would come out ahead under his plan (Stage Two of it, that is) because they would pay a 9 percent income tax, but the standard 15.3 percent payroll levy would be eliminated. On this point he is deeply mistaken. The earned-income tax credit currently offsets some of that 15.3 percent, and he would abolish that credit. Poor people would also pay the 9 percent sales tax every time they buy groceries or get a medical bill.

And that’s not all. Cain is counting the employer share of the payroll tax in his 15.3 percent on the theory that employers pass that on to workers by cutting their wages. He is right to do so. But a good chunk of his VAT would also be passed on to workers. Today’s corporate income tax allows companies to deduct wages. The VAT doesn’t: It is designed to be, at least partly, a tax on wages -- just one that is collected from companies rather than earners. A portion of the VAT would also be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

So in addition to paying new taxes on their purchases and losing the personal exemption and earned-income tax credit, people at the low end of the income scale would see their wages drop. The reduction in payroll taxes wouldn’t come close to making up for these hits. And there might be additional ones, as state and local governments raise taxes to pay for the sales taxes they would have to transfer to the federal government for their purchases. (On “Meet the Press” on Oct. 16, Cain hedged slightly. “Some people will pay more” under the plan, he admitted, “but most people will pay less.”)

Prices, Wages, Inflation

Cain claims that neither the sales tax nor the VAT will cause prices to increase. His argument is that the cost of the taxes that he would reduce or eliminate is “embedded” in the prices of goods: Reducing that cost and piling on sales taxes would be a wash. It sounds too good to be true, and it is. If taxes are embedded in the prices of goods, they are embedded in the price of labor, too. That means wages would have to fall. And if wages don’t fall, firms will fire people to avoid paying wages above the new market level.

The Federal Reserve could prevent mass unemployment by accelerating inflation to aid the transition to the 9-9-9 system, and then inflating again, even more, for the switch to the 30 percent sales tax. But Cain, who has been complaining about the Fed’s “printing money out of thin air” in recent years, may not support these steps.

Enforcement Regime

He says the plan would “end the IRS as we know it.” But even after the last stage, the federal government would still have to know people’s wages to figure out how large their Social Security checks should eventually be. And since benefits could no longer be tied to payroll taxes paid -- Cain would have abolished those taxes -- people would, for the first time, have an incentive to fool the federal government into thinking they had earned more than they actually did. Over-reporting income would get you higher Social Security benefits, without raising your tax liabilities. Cain wants to introduce personal accounts as part of a long-term change to Social Security, but during the decades of transition those accounts will be on top of some amount of traditional benefits. An enforcement regime of some kind would be needed.

The chief problem with the final stage of Cain’s plan, meanwhile, is that there’s no reason to believe it would work. Enforcing a 30 percent sales tax would be a nightmare, which is why no advanced economy relies on sales taxes to such an extent.

An Impossible Plan

Not to worry: There’s also no reason to think the federal government would ever enact Cain’s plan. Even if, per impossibile, Cain were elected president, Congress isn’t going to tell senior citizens that, after having paid taxes on income all their lives, they will now incur extra sales taxes when they spend the money. It’s not going to raise taxes on millions of poor and middle-class people.

Cain is actually right to want to move toward taxing consumption. But we could do that simply by taxing income and exempting the returns on savings -- thus avoiding many of the problems that Cain’s plan raises. Wouldn’t that be, well, simpler?

(Ramesh Ponnuru is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review. The opinions expressed are his own.)

--Editors: Timothy Lavin, David Henry