A Sweet Deal if You Can Get One

Abuse of Trust

Do you really believe that if Officer Steve Molen had been a regular person instead of a police officer he would have gotten the sweet deal his attorneys were able to negotiate? I sure don't and there are some costs to be weighed with this deal. Already the Eastern District Federal Judge that was to hear the charges in his district has weighed in with his criticism. The cases that were to be heard in his court were plea bargained away for Officer Molen's guilty plea to one count of violating a person's civil rights. He will serve 6 mon6hs of home incarceration and eight years of parole rather than the ten years possible on each count. The Federal Prosecutors said that their goal was to get Molen out of the police force and prevent him from working as a law enforcement officer and that was accomplished. That is a specious and farcical statement the principles of which would never be available to a person not well connected.

The appearance of a miscarriage of justice can often be just as far reaching as actual miscarriage. While it appears that an actual miscarriage occurred here it does meet legal requirements but only due to the often symbiotic relationship of prosecutors, police and judges. It is no secret that all too often the different agencies work together to assure either conviction or prosecution. That is often not a miscarriage but sometimes that relationship can have the appearance of favoritism and that is deadly to the faith in our exercise of what should be blind justice. That is why the use of plea bargaining must be transparent and not be misconstrued by tongue in cheek justifications by those who are charged with the unprejudiced application of the law.

In theory and in practice Officer Molen was innocent until proven guilty of the charges brought against him and that is what we must believe. However, the preponderance of evidence can weigh heavily enough that one must act cautiously in the observance of that benefit of doubt. Officer Molen was kept on the Sheriff Department's payroll as an active officer from the time the accusations came to light until his resignation. At the very least Officer Molen should have been removed from active duty and suspended with pay. An internal investigation should have been conducted and executive departmental action taken. Since his accusers included some other police officers the veracity of those allegations should have carried more weight.

I presume the Sheriff's office has protocol to deal with situations like this and if that is so then either it was not followed or it should be reevaluated. The appearance is that a good old boy network exists and police officers must not be bothered with a little thing like trampling on one's civil rights in the pursuit of exacting vengeance against an offender. The mantra of law enforcement is “to protect and to serve” but allowing those entrusted with that charge to escape the results of failure to strictly adhere to legal requirements causes citizens to lose trust. That trust is a gift given by citizens to people who are allowed to use extraordinary force to protect the rest of us from harm. If it is perceived that the citizenry is at risk by giving that trust then that trust is withdrawn and the job of law enforcement loses its most valuable tool. It then becomes just a paramilitary organization that forces obedience rather than a civilian police force that can engender compliance and foster trust. I fear that many officers see themselves as the former rather than the latter.

It is a noble thing that we here in the United States have in our voluntary submission to legal authority. It is necessary to the existence of a free and democratic society. Many countries around the world do not enjoy that presumption that the police are our protectors and are seen largely as enforcers and they are feared. We should never be in unreasonable fear of our duly appointed officers because they should be seen and should see themselves as servants to the people. If that lack of fear and the trust is abused then the job of law enforcement falls on a slippery slope to tyranny.

It appears that the trust of the people in our law enforcement and judicial system has been weakened. It must not be so. I do believe that mercy is a key component of our judicial system but it must be seen as mercy and not favoritism. It must also be that law enforcement officers be held accountable to at least as strict a standard as the general public and one could argue a higher standard since they are placed in a position to cause more harm if that trust is abused.

In many parts of our state it is just accepted that certain individuals and officers will be treated differently than the general public. We have seen entire county governments shot through with corruption and illegality. The openness of it can only be construed as favoritism and injustice. Locally we are fortunate that we haven't seen a lot of such behavior but it is not hard to find a person whose civil rights have been trampled on by powers that be. That must not be so. Those enumerated rights are the most significant thing that sets our legal system apart from much of the rest of the world.

My take is this. Police officers should not act in a way to demonstrate disdain for the people they serve. If accused of such behavior they should be dealt with as swiftly and surely as the people they regulate. An enforcement officer, prosecutor or judge should always act without prejudice and with temperance and must always be subject to action if found to not be doing so. We must sincerely appreciate their actions on our behalf but abuse of that trust is deep and long lasting.

Wisdom and the Humanities

Malcolm Gladwell

A statement I heard from Malcolm Gladwell resonated with my because I have often lamented the lack of understanding of the political theory that influenced the formation of our country.  One has to have a working knowledge of the great philosophers to make sense of what the people who wrote our legal framework were thinking.  Gladwell's statement went like this:  "we are a society that is information rich and theory poor."

We are flooded with so much information and we often mistake it for wisdom which it is not.  Wisdom involves understanding knowledge and, for political theorists, it involve how that knowledge can act as good or evil for societies.  It seems that with the advent of the internet that a tipping point was reached at which point knowledge and information overwhelmed wisdom and theory.  Theory is even a disparaged word by those who lack the wisdom to understand the difference.

Think of this.  In the world of our founders a good education consisted of being well read in classical literature and the great philosophers.  The grounding in Aristotle and Socrates led to the reading of more current philosophers such as Hume, Descartes, Locke and Paine.  The condition of mankind is the prime focus of most philosophy and that naturally leads to the conduct of societies.  These people (Jefferson, Adams, Hancock, Franklin. Gerry, Jay just to name a few) were all classically trained.  Franklin maybe less than most.

Now everyone has access to information and knowledge but few have access to the theory with which to bind the knowledge into a useful amalgam.  In some ways it is more like the theory of natural man in which self interest drives everything.  I think this is why we see such selfishness and lack of consideration in our current society and our politicians are, in a large part, natural men and women at their best, driven by self interest and lacking any compunction to lead toward a greater vision.

This is the point.  Without the study of the humanities we lose an essential part of our humanity which is typified by our joining in societies.  Most societies are joined by external forces but our society is more driven by internal forces such as cooperation and compassion.  That is in danger.  People bemoan the loss of math and science skills and that is important in a competitive world but without the humanities to bind us we are at risk of becoming a self-serving technocratic society, bound together only by financial constraints.  Society as we know it deteriorates until it dissipates into oligarchy, plutocracy or totalitarianism.

What am I saying?  GET A GRIP!!  We need our theorists and philosophers to speak out more loudly and to command a presence with their visions.  The essential part of humanity is not our ability to make stuff but our ability to expand the human race in ways that we have not yet found.  The unwise may shout louder but the philosophers must speak more firmly.  The philosophers and theorists must use wisdom to educate and to lead.

I am going to recount to you a story I heard first hand from the person to whom this happened.  I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this account of his.

The other evening I was working on a heat pump and the resident there was not in very good health.  After I left he was taken to Lake Cumberland Regional Medical Center having seizures and was kept there for about two days.  Then LCRMC discharged him and because there was no one there to take him home (where there was no heat) they were kind enough to send him home in a cab.  He got out of the car and fell in the yard and could not get up.  The cabbie was nice enough to get him up and put him on the porch and some relatives who lived nearby came and took him home with them.  When I saw him yesterday they said he was just beginning to take solid food.  Who on earth would dump a person with seizures in the yard with no one at home?  Question answered.

It is difficult for me to imagine that a hospital would treat a person like this but if you can't pay the bill or if you can't pay enough they have no use for you and only want to get you out to make room for paying customers.

One hospital I heard of in Eastern Kentucky gave notice they are not going to take patients through Emergency unless it is a true emergency.  To them a real emergency is something life threatening.  The next nearest hospital is 30 miles away.  Now, this is the way emergency rooms should be used but many are aware that the ER is the primary care facility for many.  For this one, no longer.

The detractors of the ACA claim that no one goes without care.  To this I say, "really."  Have you kept your head under a tub or what?  At last millions are actually going to have access to a primary care physician and will not have to rely on the ER for minor ailments.  Everyone should remember that a minor ailment is only minor as long as it is happening to someone else.

And you're ticked off because your insurance company no longer wants to provide you with the policy you have.  Try a mile in this guy's shoes.

Are We the Patsy?

Self-Destructive Disparity

Let's talk about Israel for a minute. Recent news is that a famous movie director has been responsible for procuring the materials that were necessary for Israel to successfully build a nuclear weapon. This is the same thing that we are all up in arms over Iran doing. Both are from the same part of the world but Israel is never castigated for its nuclear arsenal (which it refutes) while Iran is driven to economic disaster while it attempts to develop nuclear energy for (it says) peaceful purposes. I have to tell you that I don't believe Israel when it says it does not have nuclear weapons and I don't believe that Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons. That really doesn't bear on my point. My point is the great disparity in the way we treat the two countries that, for some reason, people find hard to discern.

I wonder what it is that requires the United States to support Israel in the way that we do. Our support for that country is such that it often seems that Israel is the only country in the world that is able to write our foreign policy. It is widely recognized that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the root source of a large percentage of our difficulty with entities in the Middle East. If the United States could influence Israel to come to some sort of arrangement with the Palestinians most of our problems would disappear. When that happens we would be able to promulgate a foreign policy that would be driven by the needs of our country and one that would be more equitable in its treatment of the rest of the world. It would relieve us of many of our military assignations and allow us to focus on more peaceful pursuits and economic redevelopment. It would also strengthen our voice when we hold ourselves up as an example of democracy in action.

Israel is in a dangerous location. The circumstances that led to the creation of the Israeli nation out of what was Palestinian territory could hardly have been expected to foster amity between the two populations. But then Israel set out upon several wars of expansion which seem to be a part of the goal of expanding Israel all the way to the Jordan River. Many believe that since God gave this land to Israel some 3000 years ago that they are justified in seeking to reclaim it and we are justified in helping. That is a precept that is set in stone for some and therefore not open to debate. Not everyone feels that way and we can argue the theology of that at some other time. Suffice it to be said that Israel has faced an existential threat ever since its current incarnation and still does. There are no shortage of foes who have tried to extinguish Israel from the map and some that still do. It is right that the United States consider Israel as a strategic ally and cover it with our mantle of protection. On the other hand we should be able to expect Israel to do some things that would make it a little easier for us but Israel has hearts of stone when it comes to the needs of the United States. Israel wisely allows for dual citizenship which allows people to be citizens of that country while at the same time being citizens of another. That allows those in other countries to be influential in matters that benefit Israel and the American Israeli Political Action Committee is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington D.C. For instance, on the occasion of the negotiated loosening of sanctions on Iran and the vociferous complaints from Israel the Democratic Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, goes on record as being opposed. Senator Schumer is on almost every issue a firm supporter of the administration but New York has a large Jewish population.

It is without doubt in the interests of the United States to avoid becoming entangled in another war in the Middle East. Our previous ill conceived adventures have cost us trillions in treasure and many thousands of deaths both of our own and others. No, we would prefer that Iran not develop nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, most of us earnestly desire that no one had such weapons but the United States, Israel, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and India all have such weapons and the fear of them has kept us from using them. The assured destruction that would follow largely make them a weapon of self destruction. We could probably expect the same to apply to Iran. While they may seem incomprehensible to us they are not insane. Indications are that they would really prefer larger integration into western society. We would do much better by adopting the method used with China which was active engagement. Mold that society through the use of our economic strengths.

Iran has proven astonishingly resourceful in developing its nuclear program in the face of adversity and it is unlikely we can prevent them from developing nuclear energy to whatever level they choose. Short of a devastating war that is and that would likely do us in too. There are those who would be ecstatic to see the United States develop into a military state on a constant war footing which is about where we are now. We desperately need to turn from that path and focus our energy and talents to efforts that would benefit the American people and the rest of the world. Peace in the Middle East is the key. Some will say that it is impossible since they have already been fighting for thousands of years. My answer is that almost everyone desires peace. It is nations that desire war.

My take is that Israel should be more agreeable considering our sacrifices for that nation. Those countries in that area (Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain and some others) want to manipulate the United States into providing military might while they feast off our dollars. It's a good deal if you can get it.

Reasoning for the Level Head

Obamacare website off to a rocky start on crucial deadline day


These are some really strange events and somewhat unanticipated by almost everyone.  It smacks somewhat of "sour grapes" for some of those who were against the ACA in the first place.  The rollout of "Obamacare" has been rockier than it should have been but there are reasons that has happened in addition to poor software development.  I will interject at this point that Medicare and Social Security were both initiated without access to an internet.  The rollout of both of those took months to accomplish and some even went for a few years.  The great hubbub about this enrolment period is due to intense criticism by political and ideological opponents.

The states that have established exchanges of their own as was envisioned by the authors of this legislation have seen their state run exchanges be very successful in enrolling people with many examples of joy by people being insured for the first time in many years, some in ever.  Those states that did not accept the responsibility of state run exchanges have, by default, allowed the federal government to operate the health exchanges.  Ironically, this has resulted in a favorite prescription used by conservatives to allow insurance companies to operate across state lines.  The down side is that it places undue strain on an enrollment system that was not anticipated to handle so much national load.  It will get better.

A large part of the discontent with the insurance itself results from insurance companies having to provide policies with basic coverages.  That has resulted in cancellation of inadequate policies that were the darlings of the young, invincible population.  The lobbying effort to keep the insurance companies in business and to prevent the competition of a public option have made these policies unattractive to insurers hence the cancellations.  However, in many cases subsidies will make up the difference.

Another part that is causing cancellations is the excise tax that is due to take effect in 2018.  Insurance companies and employers are already changing policies to avoid this 40% tax on "cadillac" policies.  Those policies will be available at market rates.  This was done to encourage greater responsibility by consumers for health care choices.  Also a conservative tenet.

This is a big change.  It will not be without pain.  Real change is always upsetting to the status quo.  I am including a link to some information about the New Zealand medical insurance system which is pretty much what ours will end up being if people can resist tearing the ACA apart.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/8308330/Expat-guide-to-New-Zealand-health-care.html

Goodbye-please.

File - Afghan President Hamid Karzai pictured on June 18, 2013.

Hand this guy his hat and show him the door.

What You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal : The Two-Way : NPR

What You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal : The Two-Way : NPR


It was always unrealistic to presume that the world could keep Iran from attaining nuclear status without all out war.  They had proven remarkably resistant to other efforts to curtail their nuclear program.  It is useful to look at history for comparisons and there is one in the US/Japan relationship prior to WWII.  The US cut off Japanese access to far eastern oil which threatened to strangle Japanese economic plans.  Their alternative was to strike our bases to remove the sanctions.  Iran was very likely to succeed in developing nuclear capability within five to ten years and could not afford to relinquish that probability.

If you are not of a mind to initiate another elective war then the best bet is to get them talking and that is what the Obama administration did.  One must keep in mind that the largest detractors of such a policy are Iran's middle eastern neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Israel who are now teamed in an unlikely alliance.  To them it is a war of hegemony over that part of the globe.  To the US it is about being able to remove our gaze from war and put it on economic development largely on the Pacific Rim.

It is always better to talk.  Comparisons to Hitler and Munich are irresponsibly used as a comparison but one that has no points of similarity.  The main objection is the Israeli response and the Israeli lobby in the US is a very powerful one that crosses party lines but it is time to disavow blind allegiance to that lobby and seek a path that will serve the interests of the United States.  It is ridiculous that our foreign policy can be dictated by Israel.  We would not allow any other country, not even Britain, to do so.

Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, presumably supplied by the United States.  They never acknowledge that but it is widely known.  It has not resulted in a nuclear arms race or nuclear war and it is unlikely that Iran possessing nuclear technology would do so either.

This agreement is a test and one we should feel lucky to get considering the antagonistic relationship of our two countries.

Read them and Weep

The Happiest Countries in the World - 24/7 Wall St.

AND, here for you are the countries in which the citizens are most satisfied with their lives.  Notice that the USA is not among them.  Also note that most of them have a very secure safety net and liberal benefits for health and unemployment.  Their income equality is very good compared with ours which is one of the worst in the world.  How DO they do it?  However they do it they do it without huge armies, navies and air forces.  Hmmmm.

Read them and weep and then ask yourself the hard questions.  MEXICO made the top 10 for crying out loud.

What's the difference

Dan Rather will offer his own memories of the JFK assassination on “My Days in Dallas: A Remembrance With Dan Rather.”

I first became aware of Dan Rather at this time. Over the years I came to consider him one of the best, if not the best, reporters of his time. The way he has been treated by CBS is despicable and is in stark contrast to the way Lara Logan was treated for her inaccurate reporting on 60 minutes. I have to ask myself why the difference. The thing that leaps out is that Rather was reporting on Bush and Logan was reporting on the Benghazi affair that many are trying to lay at the feet of Obama. I would like more answers.

Individualism or Selfishness?

I think that the notion of individualism is more developed in the United States than anywhere else in the world. It was a powerful tenet of our foundational document and a necessary characteristic of those who initially sailed the seas to establish colonies here. All men are created equal, the pursuit of happiness, the expectation of being as worthy as the next person are all manifestations of our individualism. And it is an important part of our heritage but we ignore at our own peril our history of cooperative effort and the willingness of individuals to put the greater good above their own.

The very early colonies were essentially communes and that was necessary to make possible the likelihood of survival. Native American societies lived in such a lifestyle going so far as to not even consider the private ownership of land. European nations seem to be much more cooperative in their populations and that is evidenced in their reliance on social programs that eliminate much of the risk of living.

$143 million

Our sanctification of the individual has had great benefits to our nation because it has allowed us to concentrate our wealth and energy in the areas that brought advantages to the United States even though we left many fallen behind us. That has long been considered OK since it was also long thought that even that person had equal opportunity to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and be successful. That dream of possibility was often enough to satisfy one's yearning for the good life.

Times change and so does opportunity. We have to consider that our desire for self-satisfaction and self-gratification also leads to plain old selfishness. Sometimes our desire to aggregate wealth and advantage leads us inexorably to the deprivation others may suffer. There is just no escaping that fact.

The times are gone when one could just move further west in search of land or fortune. Or when an Irish lad could weather the storms of the North Atlantic for a chance at a life in which there was enough to eat. Our economic model based on ever growing markets and consumerism has reached the saturation point within our own borders and now the great corporations have to seek greater wealth by expanding consumer bases beyond our borders leaving much of the domestic public to pick up the scraps that fall from the table. Those mega-giants have little concern for people rather than profits.

Oh, don't think me to be crying in my beer. The United States is still the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet and maybe the wealthiest that has ever been. It is just that future opportunity for those who do not enjoy the advantages of wealth is dimmed and is growing dimmer. A degree from the University of Kentucky may get you a job managing a Chick-fil-et but a degree from Harvard or Yale opens the doors of some of the wealthiest corporations in the United States. Is it because the education one receives there is so much better? Well, sometimes but the real advantage comes from the network of alumni of those institutions. Such access is simply not available to the average student aspiring to attain a part of the American Dream. Now we find that education at even the state universities is being priced out of the reach of many Americans. That is not the American Dream.

Our parents and grandparents grew up in the time of the Robber Barons, The Great Depression and then World War II. The oldest of them had seen the want of the great public while the Robber Barons consolidated wealth among the elite finally leading to the collapse of the financial system. Out of the ruins of that power and prestige came the Populist movements and the election of FDR who promptly set about establishing Social Security along with a host of other agencies that would protect people from those who had no concern for the health of the common man.

We still have robber barons, we just don't call them that. These days they are hedge fund managers. Those people who are expert at taking money from other wealthy people and doing whatever it takes to turn a hefty profit for those shareholders. They have enough heft to be able to pour millions into buying favorable legislation that has resulted in them having to pay a fraction of the tax rate the common man pays. If you think that is the American Dream you've been led down the garden path. It is no secret, the game is rigged and it is not those of the great unwashed who are on the receiving end. Instead it is those who are not just individualists but also those who wash their selfishness in the water of free enterprise in order to call it clean. It is not clean. It is what scripture calls lucre in the admonition against love of money. Is a person free who is enslaved to a system whose institutions foster inequality? There are more chains than those that make shackles.

The great example is that our nation has from time to time thrown off the mantle of individualism and selfishness and pulled together equally for the common good. The restrictions that we place on ourselves in order that the entire people can enjoy the fruits of this great experiment are significant temperings of selfishness. We are at a time when those who would emphasize the collective good are ideologically opposed to those who shout the virtues of individualism. Mankind is at a point in history when the individual, while able to accomplish much, will not be able to bring equality of opportunity. It must be the associations of people that will bring the next great leaps for humanity.

Some of great wealth have already planned to give away the vast portion of their wealth and that is commendable but it faintly smells of what Daniel Moynahan called benevolent despotism. While we should never condemn people who gain wealth through honest endeavor we must be aggressive in our understanding of what constitutes honest endeavor.

That's my take on individualism and selfishness. On dealing a fair game or dealing from the bottom of the deck. What's yours?

Benghazi--another lie refuted

‘60 Minutes’ retracts, apologizes for Benghazi report; CBS says it was misled by source - The Washington Post


I watched this report by Lara Logan and thought, "this is going to stir up that hornet's nest again."  There are those who are deadly anxious to lay this at the President's feet.  In a real sense every thing that occurs on his watch is his responsibility but those attackers want to find proof that the President refused assistance directly which just never happened.

The report by Ms. Logan was false and relied on false eyewitnesses.  It is strange that Ms. Logan is not held to the same standard that Dan Rather was in a similar incident concerning President Bush's early years.  That mistake cost him his job and reputation which was intended to demonstrate the vigilance of CBS in its reporting.  It that one no one died, in this one lives were lost.

I have to wonder what the motivation could have been for the British security agent who recounted an imaginary account.  Was it a desire for acclaim or a desire to paint the administration in a bad light regardless of the truth.

In retrospect, everyone wishes security had been stronger but it bears mentioning that this was not an embassy but ,rather, a consulate.  There can't be military detachments at every outpost the United States maintains sufficient to repel a determined force.  We must rely on the host country's protection.

The Invective of Loss

Few things amaze me more than the willingness of the reactionary right to use guttersnipe tactics to voice displeasure when the tide of public opinion turns to moderation. The column printed in this space a few days ago was quite vitriolic and used a lot of unsupported statements disguised as logic to make its point. I have noted that since President Obama was reelected that the reactionary right has become even more rabid in its use of adjectives to describe its disgust for him very few of which actually have any bearing on his political performance. My conjecture is that since it is apparent that the voters don't agree with them they are just plain ticked off and refuse to consider that they are just out sync with the majority of the American public.

I don't think you will find too many who are satisfied with the performance of our Congress over the past few years. During the first administration of our President the opposition was content to just block any and all attempts at governing by the majority. They misused parliamentary gimmicks to create an environment that required a supermajority to pass any kind of legislation just to deny the President's party any kind of success being certain that the American people would awaken and refuse to reelect the imposter in the White House. They were wrong. They misjudged the mood of the public and didn't listen to anyone other than people who felt the same way they did. A sure recipe for electoral disaster. Now the American public has reinforced its desire to govern from the middle and the certainties of those who spew hate have been rejected.

One would surmise that would have writ the final word on the matter and reasonable people could get on with the business of governing but one would be wrong. Since the matter could not be settled to the satisfaction of the reactionary right through the electoral process it seems that it must suffice to stir the flames of bigotry and invective. To accuse the President and his advisors of being “power hungry” while trying to undo the attempt to use military might to enforce American “exceptionalism” on the world is laughable. When the Neocons marched us into Iraq to create a democratic bastion as a shining example in the Middle East that may indeed have approached the hubris afforded to another example.

I have long wondered how anyone who sees the desirability of Medicare, Social Security and Veteran's benefits can rail so vociferously against the Affordable Care Act and claim it is a craven attempt by the President to create iron fisted control over the federal government. Without going into the rationale of the ACA is it not enough that the President campaigned on universal health care, was elected, the people's representative's enacted it, it survived a Supreme Court challenge and then the President was reelected? How can anything be more indicative of and subservient to the will of the American people?

Yet, this man who will voluntarily relinquish his office in three years is out to use his cronies and zeal to demolish the United States rather than do his best to make it a more equitable society under the law. Just unfathomable. But what would such rantings from the reactionary right be without the condescending and pejorative adjectives used to describe the individual at the top of our government. Take out the “Hitlers, Himmlers, victim mentality, pencil-necked, Nazi and Gestapos” and what is left to use as a rationale for condemnation? To compare the leadership of the Congressional Democratic party with some of the most despised of war criminals who were responsible for millions of deaths is at the very least irresponsible. It is hopefully the beginning of a dying gasp from a reactionary right that has driven our politics for perhaps a dozen years now supported by the millions of dollars from insanely wealthy people who strive in secret to enforce their vision of a Malthusian state that endows the wealthy with privilege and power while the remnants of the Middle Class work their once proud hands to nubbins just to try and exist in a world that is rigged against them. Into this world came the Affordable Care Act that attempts to allow the people to have access to a glimmer of the health care that is available to the wealthy. An attempt to create iron fisted control over the economy? Oh no! It is one of the very few victories felt by the Middle Class in the past thirty years and it strengthens the concept of the Social Contract that binds the American people in an indivisible union.

Many of us who have tried to stay above the name calling and have tolerated racist and bigoted comments are reaching the limits of tolerance and are beginning to complain when confronted with such negative and demeaning remarks and this further incenses the reactionary right which is used to being able to shout down anyone who attempts an effort at reasonable discourse. For instance, the accusations of having the shutdown in the planning for months drawn from the availability of having signs posted is ludicrous.

My take is this. Take into account the results of the past two general elections. Consider the mood of the country after this last Congressional debacle and witness the disarray of the Republican party and think about what the next general election will bring. It had been contemplated that the House would increase the Republican majority but there is now some talk of the Democratic party regaining the House though that would be unlikely considering the gerrymandering and number of seats up for grabs. The GOP once gloated openly of seizing the majority in the Senate but that is quite unlikely now. And in the Presidential race, if the national polls are to be believed, the GOP is likely to be rejected again. The reactionary right needs to reconsider its tactics and goals and find a membership that can create a national narrative and toss out the bomb throwers. The American people do not need them.

Avoiding Responsibility

Saudis Reject Security Council Seat, Citing 'Double Standards' : The Two-Way : NPR

Seems the Arab countries that could make a difference are reluctant to be in a position to challenge other Arab countries on a potentially confrontational front.  They prefer to work through proxies such as the United States in order to avoid direct conflict.

Blight

At my church we have a ministry that is called Celebrate Recovery. We started it a few years ago and it has been quite successful. So much so that the dire need is becoming more widely recognized and a couple of other churches in the area have their own programs. It is designed to help those who are addicted to drugs or any other destructive behavior and we have seen quite a few lives changed and people brought back from the brink to lead useful and purposeful lives. Families have been reunited and strengthened. The CR program, as we call it, is sometimes used as a diversion for people facing jail time for violations of the law.

This is one of the major reasons that I began attending this church because it is my strongly held belief that churches must be relevant to the world in which they exist. There is a saying that goes something like this: The church is so holy it is of no earthly good.” I believe we must avoid this.

But even the court system can see that we can't imprison our way out of the epidemic of drug abuse that we are experiencing. Some people think we can just keep building prisons to house these people when we already imprison people at a higher rate than any other country in the world. We have turned prisons into a growth industry for private enterprise whose objective is to keep the beds filled and who have no interest in curbing incarceration. How much sense does that make? We have poured billions into the War on Drugs with no discernible effect. Can it be that there may be a better way to use the taxpayer's dollars to curb this blight? I believe there is.

We, as a nation, have fallen victim to the yearning for an easy answer, one that is just filled with “common sense” and plain for all to see. Everywhere I go, if I engage in conversation with a person, it is rare to find a family that has not been touched and scarred by the illegal use of drugs. It doesn't matter if they are prescription or non-prescription, the result to the user is addiction, downward mobility and, eventually, either death or incarceration. Once the downward trend begins that person ceases to be an asset to society and becomes a drain on the resources of that society. Other than the personal tragedy that is what we as a nation must be concerned with. How can we be concerned in a way that will make that person once again productive and no longer a burden?

The epidemic of drug use defies the usual prescription of deterrence through harsh sentencing. That approach only leads to increased money to useless enforcement and imprisonment. An addict cares not one whit about consequences. He is not going to say “I'm not gonna shoot that smack 'cause it will land me in prison.” He's going to say “where can I get it and how soon.” People who have never seen the deadly progression of this disease find it almost impossible to understand but more and more of us are becoming intimately acquainted with it.

Recently our state passed a new drug law that made it more difficult for illegal users to gain access to prescription drugs. It has been effective but has not resulted in fewer people using narcotics but, instead, has led to an increased use of heroin. Heroin is a street drug that is sold in varying degrees of purity and thus is more likely to be overdosed on than a prescription drug for which the purity is known. Overdose deaths from heroin are on a record pace and promise to eclipse the overdose deaths from prescription drugs. The law of unintended consequences at work. Now it is more expensive and difficult for legal users of drugs to access them and cheaper and more dangerous for the illegal user. Could it be that our whole approach to the drug problem is wrong? Could it be that, like many things, the solution is one that requires “uncommon sense” to discern?

Of course it is. We are really fond of the ten second sound byte, the meme, the short but sweet dangling of simple solutions in our faces. Get this. If if were simple it would be done by now. Even the judicial establishment is beginning to see the fallacy of ponderous imprisonment and turning to whatever other alternatives may be available. It is time for the law enforcement establishment to do the same thing. It is time for the legislative establishment to do the same thing.

It is a well known and proven fact that drug abuse goes hand in hand with poverty and lack of economic opportunity. It is far more rare for a person who has a bright future ahead of him (or her) to succumb to the siren call. Preparation for an addiction free life must begin very early in life. Parenting is critical and all too often, lacking. Education opens a world that is much more attractive than the world of addiction. Social structures in school, church or communities that provide companionship and compassion keep the person from becoming isolated and turning to drugs to ease the hurt of the loneliness. Effective social programs that take people who need help and nurture them back to productivity are a priority but one that has suffered under the vast budget cuts to social programs. If we would use the vast sums squandered on imprisonment and law enforcement we would find those social programs to be far more economically desirable.

The solutions are well known but will deprive us of our holier than thou attitude and force on us the need to peer beneath the surface. They will demand that we examine policy and not fall prey to the shiny face with the neat answer. They will require a better us. We can't continue to slough this task off to prisons and law enforcement.

My Take is that people don't like complicated solutions. They would rather live in the dream world of trite aphorisms and neat answers. Sorry.

Conspiracy and Theft on Wall Street and in Congress.

Citizens protest pension reform in Detroit, Michigan.


Promises made to workers who built their lives around them to claim their part of the American Dream are victimized by the enormous hedge funds who  pay reduced taxes and hide their profits.  They deprive the American citizen of the value of their labor and the communal benefit of living in a prosperous society.

Down and Dirty

Some fifteen years ago I purchased a Blue Cross/Blue Shield single policy for $134 per month which I thought was fairly reasonable. Each year after that the premium went up $100 or so per month until it hit some $600 per month at which point I bailed out. I have been without insurance since then until my last birthday at which I became eligible for Medicare. Obama or Obamacare had nothing to do with those price increases. They were due to exploding medical costs, advancing age and the profit motive. The same is still true today but now the anti-Obama crowd places the blame on Obamacare because that is what many health care providers and insurers are telling them in order to pressure them to lock in a private insurance plan that is not subject to the same restrictions on cost that the public plans will be. Most of those claims are deceptive at best and downright dishonest at the worst.

In just a few days the Affordable Care Act, euphemistically referred to as Obamacare, will begin to operate the insurance exchanges allowing people without insurance to become insured. Insurance companies and health care agencies, along with a myriad of other groups, are using scare and pressure tactics to misrepresent what is going to happen and it is just aggravating to try to tell people that those crying wolf are being either malicious or just uninformed. I know it is of little consequence to many folks but I would like to try to address a few of the crazy things that are being said.

• You are not going to be forced into Obamacare if you have your own insurance. You are exempt. There is a requirement that everyone be insured with some exceptions. You will be penalized if you don't pick up coverage and are not exempt. Why should the general public be required to pay for your health care if you don't have insurance? That is what happens when insurance and treatment rates are increased to cover those losses. I don't like this part but that is what happens when you have to keep the insurance companies happy so they will let their Congressmen vote.

• Costs to you may go up in some circumstances. If you have a gold plated policy that gives you bumper to bumper coverage you may see some increases. The Affordable Care Act is designed to discourage unnecessary procedures that are often done just to make more money. If you insist on having those unnecessary tests it will cost you. Everyone agrees there is too much of this except those making money from it. If you have basic coverage there will be options available for more bells and whistles but at a higher cost. For most, insurance and medical costs should begin to trend down.

• If you do not have insurance there are several affordable options. If even those are out of financial reach there will be subsidies to help you pay for insurance premiums. Below a certain income you may be exempt from the requirement for coverage. That is not a good thing. The ACA was designed at the outset to insure practically everyone but the Supreme Court decision that prevented the Federal Government from using the money provided to the states for Medicaid as leverage made that impossible. Blame your state government.

• The Feds will be paying for practically every dime of increased costs to the state. If you live in a state that is crazy enough to turn down this deal because of Obama then things are not going to be so easy for you. Fortunately Kentucky is not one of those states. Check out www.kynect.ky.gov. In those other states the Feds will operate insurance exchanges through which one may purchase insurance.

• Some doctors and medical providers are not going to like this because it is going to restrict the exorbitant prices they can charge for procedures. The Feds, who will be paying for this, will be able to negotiate prices that they will reimburse insurers for in the same way that Medicare and Medicaid now do. How is that not good? Why should you pay 1/3 more for a colonoscopy in Somerset than you would in Lexington? Family Practitioners will be more important while specialists will be reigned in a bit.

• It is going to cost us jobs and drive up costs to the employer. Maybe. Some companies are lowering staffs to get below the 50 person employer mandated insurance quota. That won't last. Then those people who are uninsured now will be able to pick up insurance just like other people and the company will have to kick in. It will give companies a way to level off their health care costs and project costs for the future. Many companies have been wanting to unload health care costs and will take advantage of this all the while bad mouthing Obamacare.

There is a lot more. This is a big deal and it will not be implemented without people being upset and there being humps and bumps in the road. But it will be a good deal and people will like it. I know many don't believe it but give it a little while and you won't be able to tear it away from people with both hands.

That is my take on the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. But you already knew that. Nothing I can say will change the minds of the detractors, only time.

Flame Burned Bright.

The Definition of Insanity

Uneven economic recovery hurts Utah mid- and low-income families


And still this extremely
conservative state continues to vote against it's own self interests.  Just crazy.

Legend

People still line up and pay money to get an autograph from Pete Rose even though he has been banned from baseball for years. The memory of how he played the game so exquisitely has endeared him to many a fan and his membership in the Big Red Machine still lines them up wherever he goes. Muhammed Ali can hardly even speak now and walks with a shuffle instead of dancing with the Ali Shuffle. Those fantastic, legendary bouts with Joe Frazier make him “The Greatest” in the minds of many boxing aficionados. In light of these instances can we agree that people just don't go see Willie Nelson just to hear him sing.

Willie is some eighty years old now and his voice, like many of ours, has just taken a trip along the river of time and is not quite what it used to be. In all honesty, he was never a great singer anyway. He was, however, a great songwriter and performer. The tales of his exploits and encounters with the law are legendary. People still pay the bucks to line up and press the stage for his concerts.

At our own Master Musician's Festival this year Willie Nelson was the headline star. Rumor has it that he was paid far more than any other performer we have ever had. It was a bid to drive attendance up and, from all accounts, it was a successful one. From a musical standpoint it left a little to be desired. Willie spoke most of the lines, breaking into tune only sporadically. There were a lot of people present who were there to enjoy hearing the legend sing his classics. We wondered would he sing Red Headed Stranger? Or Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain? Or maybe Angel Flying Too Close to the Ground.

After shooting some photos up close I made my way back through the crowd that was pressing at the retainer fence to a spot in the clear a little farther back where I could see the panorama and, to be truthful, enjoy the music a bit more. A not so well known fact is that the sound is not the best up near the stage. One does not get the full benefit of the sound engineers and the pounding of those big speakers and the monitors drown out the nuances. While I was at the back I noticed quite a few of the older set leaving. From my conversations with them it seems they actually expected to hear Willie sing and were somewhat disappointed that his vocal performance was not up to their expectations. My opinion is that they expected too much from an outdoor open air concert format. You just aren't going to get a studio sound in that environment but you are going to make up for that with the excitement and participation generated. Let's just face it. A lot of times as we age excitement and participation are not exactly first on our list of priorities. However, I am delighted to say that there were many of my generation still digging on the vibe of the performer's interaction with the crowd. In a performance such as this the crowd is a distinct part of the whole thing.

As for Willie's vocals, I have heard some reference his age but I don't know about that. From time to time when he broke into song he seemed quite capable of hitting the notes. Perhaps he couldn't sustain it or perhaps he just didn't want to. At this stage of his life and career I suppose he can do whatever he wants to do. But, as for the goal of increasing excitement and attendance I have to say this year's festival was a rousing success that validates the axiom that you must spend money to make money.

Other circumstances helped to make this year's festival a successful one. Chris Knight was likely at the best I have ever heard him. He reminded me of some of the more legendary singers of his type of music. Robert Earl Keen came to mind. One person remarked that he sounded somewhat like a weird version of John Mellencamp. I could see that. His ability to tell a story with his music is formidable and getting better all the time. I don't know if a person could say enough about how good The David Mayfield Parade is. He tries his best to obscure his musicality with hilarious antics but he is very good. I got some good photos but the one I have seen with the blonde girl up on the doghouse is poster material. I think we should just put him on retainer for future festivals.

This was the first year for beer sales at the festival and that was a big hit judging from the length of the lines. Festival goers were not allowed to bring any adult beverages into the festival and so were limited to what was on sale there. People who attend these things are remarkably creative when it comes to smuggling so I am certain that some amount was sneaked past the vigilant eyes of those responsible but it wasn't a lot. I remarked to a friend that the crowd was much better behaved than usual to which she replied, “compared to what?” Well, compared to past festivals. For the most part it was a civil and mannerly crowd.

Legions of men and women in military uniform were visible and the Somerset City Police force was there on the Somerset Police Force golf carts and Segways. I wondered what would happen if they needed to give chase since the terrain would not be that favorable to going fast in a golf cart but I did notice that the Segways had the off road tires. A few years back the police force did crowd control on bicycles and that seemed to be more appropriate but what would be better still is for the officers to be on foot, using the opportunity to relate to the festival goers and to foster good will. It is difficult for me to take Segways seriously as a law enforcement tool. I keep thinking of the guy that owned the company that manufactures them plunging to his death off a cliff on one of the devices.

Well, I had promised my readers there was another festival column coming and here it is. From my viewpoint it appears that the festival was a huge success and lays the groundwork for more success in the future. It looked back to the humble beginnings of our festival and brought it forward to the present. The occasions that it gives unknown talent a stage on which to perform are what I would call one of the best aspects of the festival.

My take on the festival is that I am already looking forward to next year. Put it on your calendar.

Monday Roundup: New Yorker’s Blind Spot

Monday Roundup: New Yorker’s Blind Spot


Not just the tree huggers opposing this project.  Also those farmers who get their water from the aquifer the pipeline would cross
.

Let's Hear That Again

I am often left nearly (but not completely) speechless at comments I run across that castigate President Obama. From the wide spectrum of comments I can only conclude that people really don't have a clue about what is really going on in our country. Facebook is alive with posts that do more than border on ignorance of public affairs. I am under no illusion that those people read this column but I am going to address just a few. I am going to try to do it without using the profanity of the posts.

Recently there was a group of motorcyclists that went to DC to parade in protest against something. Take your pick. They had a permit to parade on such a date but just to poke their fingers in President Obama's eye they weren't going to do it that day. They were going to exercise their right of assembly and do it on another day. A group calling itself “Breaking Obama's ----s” posted on Facebook and the number of likes is in the thousands. Now, do these people think that the President rules DC the way Putin does Russia or what? Is there really someone who thinks that President Obama sits around all way thinking of ways to diss the nut jobs? Guess there is.

Locally the taxpayer just spent abut $10 million to tear up bypass 80 and then put it back. This after using last year to tear the intersections out and redo them. Obama did that. I remarked that the money would have been better used to finish another leg of our beltline but I found out that Obama is responsible for that too. I suggested that Congressman Rogers, who chairs the Appropriations (that's money) Committee may be too timid to fund that since the Tea Party is showing what it can do to Republicans that are too profligate. Just ask Mitch. I also reminded this person that if the President had his way we would be building roads, bridges and just about anything that could qualify as a public work but the Party of No just said no.

The people who say that our national budget is just like your checkbook are screaming that we just can't afford to feed people who have fallen on hard times. They point out that they really don't mind those that REALLY need it to get it but those people who just waste the money because they are spending all their money on drugs need to be tested. That'll weed them out. Where testing has been implemented the results are in. Less than 2% of those tested are using non-prescribed drugs. The cost of the testing far outweighs any money saved by cutting those people off.

I have never seen an issue weld the left and right together they way the prospect of attacking Syria has. It is plain that the American people have had enough of war. But I hear that Obama keeps trying to take us to another war in the Middle East. I would have been ecstatic if that reaction had been around when we blundered into Iraq. But Obama wants to help the radical Muslims who are defying the Assad government. Now, let me get this straight. Is this the same President who has spent the past year resisting calls from the Neocons including Senators McCain and Graham who take vacations to Syria to see what the rebels are up to? Are they talking about the guy who stuck his foot in his mouth with the “red line” thing and has been looking for a way out ever since? The same guy who decided that “hey, let's ask the American people?” Now, exactly what is he doing wrong? And what can we say about those stalwarts of the GOP, McCain and Graham? Are they trying to help the radical Muslims also?

Bumper stickers excite me. They are so creative. I saw one that read “if Obama is the answer, how stupid was the question?” Either the creators of that sticker didn't think that through or they just knew that the people that would put that on their cars wouldn't either. Maybe the question was, “what should we do if the people we elected keep getting us in places we don't like?” My guess is that would make Obama the smart answer. Doing the same thing wouldn't be too bright.

And now for the closer. Obamacare begins to enter the markets next month. An ad claimed by the Conservative Senate Republicans are all over Mitch over not doing enough to defund Obamacare. Positive aspects of the Affordable Care Act are already in effect and benefiting Americans across the country. I personally know people who will be able to afford insurance they lost when the corporate banks took down Wall Street and threw Middle Class America into the ditch. I can understand what some businesses are wailing about but it befuddles me as to why what used to be Middle Class America is whining about. It is nothing but good for them. I sometimes wonder if it would be different if it were called RomneyCare or BushCare. After all, Romney installed it in Massachusetts and Bush gave us Medicare D. Attach Obama to the name and it is a whole different thing.

I don't mind disagreement on issues. As a matter of fact I welcome it because that is a sign that people are paying attention. It is just that it is so rare to find someone who understands the issues enough to discuss them without resorting to pejoratives.

What is my take on this irrational behavior? It is irrational, I just don't get it. Understand the issues and let's talk.

The Real Deal

So, here's the real deal that no one is really talking about yet.  The thing to strike or not strike Syria over its use of chemical weapons is not really about Syria.  Sure, that was a really nasty thing to do and something that the nations of the world agreed to never do again.  I'm not really sure what those nations were prepared to do about it if someone did.  Apparently nothing.

But the real deal is about Iran.  Iran sits on Syria's border and is providing arms and soldiers to assist the Assad regime in remaining in power.  Iran doesn't want any kind of government on their border that could either compete with or against them.  In additon, Iran wants to develop nuclear power and the United States and its protectorate, Israel, don't want that to happen.  The US has spent the last ten years trying to use sanctions and diplomacy to persuade the Iranians to forgo development at the risk of attack to neutralize that threat.  If the United States and the rest of the world do not stop Syria here then why should Iran think they will be stopped either instantly rendering the sanctions and threats moot.

The President has followed a path I strongly endorse in his treatment of Iran and Syria.  His reluctance to provide arms to the Syrial rebels is motivated by what has happened when we provided arems to rebels in Libya and in Afghanistan when the Soviets were there.   They ended up using them against us.  It is far better to let the occupants of countries fight their own civil wars.

We could be far more effective in using the model we have used with the Chinese of engagement and cooperation in order to influence behavior.  Even though the Chinese are a formidable economic rival we are not contemplating hostilities.  Perhaps we should just try to use that model with other countries.

But now the whole metric is changed with the Syrians violating international law and the Iranians threatening to upset the balance of power in the Middle East.  Were it not for Israel our choices would be much simpler.

So you see, it is what is not happening that is what is important.  The President wisely threw the ball into the hands of Congress which never expected to have to do anything really important and have largely forgotten how.  The American people have had enough of war and just don't want to do it.  It is up to the President to make his case.  Tell the people the real deal.  Don't just show rows of dead children, it isn't going to work.  The American people want some attention paid to the problems at home and recognize that the past decade of war has not been kind.

There is a case to be made.  For example, in the late 1930s everyone who saw events internationally knew that the US had to enter the war, President Roosevelt knew it and even circumvented Congress with his lend/lease program.  Even the attacks on Britain and Poland didn't do it and it took a Japanese attack on US assets at Pearl Harbor to start the war frenzy.  This is pretty much where the people are now.  The President needs to make his case and state his goals to get the people to go.

I have been opposed not as a matter of thinking it doesn't concern us but as a matter of going it alone.  We have done much too much of that.  It is time for some others, notably the Arab League, to lead the charge.  We have the luxury of time and the Atlantic Ocean.  The European countries have almost eliminated their military budgets because they know we will do it.  If NATO decides to jump then I will go along with them, as a participant, not the one to carry the mail.

Someone needs to do the deed to keep the Iranians in check a while longer.  The new leadership seems to be not quite so antagonistic.  But, make no mistake, the US is not planning just a few cruise missiles and smart bombs.  We are looking to change the regime.

Why should we be the ones?

Best of the Web Today - WSJ.com

A pretty good op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, a paper I seldom agree with and this instance is no exception.  However, they do a passable job of laying out an argument in favor of the air strikes on Syria.  My objections are several.  Firstly, why should the US undertake this action when much of of the Western World will not join us?  Why should we act in the absence of international agreement?  Secondly, why should we do this when the America people are so doubtful? Thirdly, and mainly, to me.  Why is the Arab League not leading this charge?  Why is it not Saudi, Jordanian or Egyptian planes in the air?  This is their neighbor and they have the most to lose.  Why should we be in the forefront of an action that is assured to foment more hatred of the US?

Just ask the right questions, for crying out loud.  We know we CAN do it.  We know Assad is despicable.  We say we know he is the one that did it.  Just, why us?

Political Cover is not forthcoming

NATO Shunning Military Role in Syria Highlights Divisions - Businessweek

Can we suppose that the day when the US could command NATO action is past?

The Odd Alliance

Debate begins on question of a strike on Syria - Chicago Sun-Times


A very odd alliance of liberal left and reactionary right is poised to challenge the President's choice to intervene in Syria in response to the chemical attacks on the Syrian population.  So, who are those who promote these attacks as well as further action to assist the rebels with regime change?  Well, many are the same who believe the United States should impose its will on the Middle East through force even though that policy has brought us to the brink of ruination in Iraq.

The GOP is struggling for a way to make this seem to be a failure of the administration while many of their members are of a different mind.  It is almost comical to see the parsing of words to try to find a way to disagree with the President while agreeing.  The GOP hawks want a more significant intervention and will try to force the President's hand.


There are no good options and the choice is between doing nothing and assisting the Assad regime or attacking and helping rebel groups such as Al Qaeda assume power.  Truth be told, as far as National Security goes we and Israel were much better off with Assad in power but his willingness to maintain an inoffensive position may now be lost.  Assad has not helped his case in Congress with his taunting of the United States since quite a few may be swayed just to put him in his place and demonstrate decisiveness with a few cruise missiles.

The use of chemical weapons is horriffic but tens of thousands have already been killed by conventional means that have not distinguished combatant from non-combatant.  Perhaps in another time the United States could afford the consequences of striking but this is not the time.  The President is seeking cover from Congress and well he should.  While he must be able to quickly authorize military force Congress should not be as willing as it has in the past to abdicate responsibility for committing the nation to such action that is indistinguishable from war.

Major Hasan and Sgt. Bales

This past week two widely publicized military trials came to a close. In one Sgt. Bales was accused of leaving his base under cover of night and going to a nearby Afghan village and murdering 16 Afghanis in cold blood. In the other Major Hasan was charged with the murder of 13 of his brothers in arms in an attack on a base in Texas. Sgt. Bales plead guilty and was granted a reprieve from the death penalty which caused great consternation among the Afghanis whose culture called for an equivalent punishment. Major Hasan did not plead guilty but offered no defense while serving as his own counsel. He was found guilty and sentenced to death.

We can ask ourselves why was the sentence different for very similar crimes? Of course, one could argue that in one it was an American soldier killing native Muslims. In the other it was an American soldier who was a Muslim killing other Americans. We would like to believe that justice was weighed blindly and just sentences were meted out. There is much more to these incidents than the simplicity of a murder trial but that burden very likely falls on the American people and their leaders.

What were the circumstances that led to these tragedies? Why would these two men who had taken an oath to protect our Constitution veer off on such a tangential path? Sgt. Bales was on his fourth deployment. He had suffered at least one concussion as a result of his involvement in a vehicle rollover.. He was diagnosed with PTSD and had drug and alcohol problems. A good case could be made that a soldier with this kind of condition should not be sent into combat but instead should be receiving intensive treatment for his battle wounds. Just because his flesh wasn't torn does not mean he was not wounded. If this is the case then a defense of diminished capacity could have been considered.

In the case of Major Hasan, a military psychiatrist, we have a man who is asked to betray his faith and his god. For a person of faith it is an unimaginable conflict that can be resolved in very few ways. Once the decision was made to follow his faith it was a short step to desire martyrdom. Why was he placed in such an untenable position? It seems likely he joined the military in order to get his education payed for and did not contemplate actually being shipped to a war zone. It further seems that Major Hasan had been in contact with a known Al Qaeda leader for some time before the attack.

These arguments are no effort to excuse these two soldiers from responsibility for their actions. If we excuse such attacks by reason of stress, belief or other reasons then we would lose the basis for regulation of society by making it possible for anything to be excused. However, this does not mean that we should not take note of these rampages and seek to understand how to avoid them in the future.

What were the actions that led to the circumstances that befell these two men? Why would they think it was okay to express themselves by the murders of innocent people? Perhaps the warning signs of the increasing stress and irrationality by Major Hasan should have been picked up on earlier. For crying out loud, he was a psychiatrist and a Major and must have done something right before going so long. Did no one see that. As for Sgt Bales, four deployments into combat, exposure to actions known to cause problems for soldiers and substance abuse should have been warning signs. The simple truth is that during our involvement in two wars we have been pushing the edges to keep soldiers on the battle lines.

The larger question must be an examination of how and why we ended up involved in two wars against people of a Muslim faith and what did we expect to gain from the grinding sacrifice of so few asked to do so much for so many who sacrificed nothing. Even now, as we prepare for disengagement in Afghanistan, we have no clear idea of what we will leave behind to make the whole thing worth it. Very likely we will end up with the same kind of result we left in Iraq which is now in a spiral towards civil war. And as we reel from a lack of favorable strategic results we consider another foray into a morass where there is no clear tactical or strategic purpose. Without clear goals that will define the time when we achieve our objective it is impossible to wage war. We can fight and die but we will not wage any kind of war for any reasonable purpose and our military leaders know it. War must aspire to achieve political victory otherwise it is just fighting.

Is This The Best We Can Do

What does the National Rifle Association, Coal Keeps the Lights On, the US Army and Jesus all have in common? It's a trick question. They are all stickers I saw on the back glass of a pickup at Wal-Mart. When I think of Jesus I most often think of him teaching on the Mount of Olives as mentioned in the beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12. Most often 5:9 which reads, “blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called Children of God.” It is difficult for me to harmonize that teaching with gun violence, war and poor stewardship of the Earth.

I'm probably going to catch some flak over this but my difficulty is in understanding how people come to the rationale that there is no problem with selfishness, violence and war. I have stated before that I do believe that the second amendment establishes the right to keep arms but I don't see it as an absolute right since it is predicated upon the need for a ready militia. An archaic notion at best. And coal has kept the lights on for a century but at a terrible cost. Coal powered the industrial revolution that propelled our country into world leadership but at the cost of massive destruction to the earth and ongoing damage to the air we breath. Our continued use of it threatens to bring hardship on large numbers of the people globally. The Army is almost sacrosanct. But our country spends more on military affairs than the next 13 countries COMBINED. Isn't there something just a little bit insane about that?

I have written extensively on this topic, maybe more than is interesting to many. I have quoted many people, even a Republican president, on the dangers of allowing too much money and influence fall into the hands of the military-industrial-congressional complex but it is happening at a staggering pace right before our eyes. Recently Governor Beshear proudly announced one of the major defense contractors was going to be locating in the former Bluegrass Army Depot and our Congressman Hal Rogers announced that Northrup-Grumman, who used to just build things that fly, is planning to locate a facility in London. Not to build equipment but to staff an intelligence gathering hub. Why on earth are we allowing our government to use our dollars to spy on its own people? But one has to admit that it seems to be a growth industry with unlimited financing.

The National Rifle Association is a thinly disguised front for its member arms manufacturers and receives the bulk of its financing from those businesses. It reminds me of the pharmaceuticals who churn out tons of Oxycontin knowing that there can't be that much legitimate use for the product. Who do the NRA and its financiers think is buying all those guns? Do they suppose that we just keep buying them and stashing them in the closet or are they aware that a large number are being funneled into illegitimate activities? Is this the reason why they won't even entertain sensible regulations that they proposed themselves just a few years ago?

The extraction of coal has become a difficult process. All of the easy stuff has already been mined and now mountains must be moved to get at the thin seams. The industry cries about the “War On Coal” when what is happening is simple capitalism. Supply and Demand. Cost efficiency. We may yet find that the extraction of natural gas by fracking does far more damage than we currently suppose but it still burns much cleaner than coal. The Oklahoma oilman, Boone Pickens, had it right. It is a useful transitional fuel as we move to a sustainable energy future. The time will come when we stop tearing up the planet to get fuel but it is a while down the road. We need to try to keep a place to live long enough to get there and therein lies the need for good stewardship of our only home. Make no mistake, the earth will survive but it does not need people for that to happen.

It is hard to fuss too much about the Army. The problem is not with the Army, it is with those who want to use it for nefarious purposes. The Army responds to civilian direction and sometimes the civilian direction has motives other than national security in mind. I think the point is that when one maintains a massive military there is the natural tendency to do something with it. If you don't then someone may get the idea we don't need such a war machine standing ready to fight wars anywhere on the globe two at a time. Right now I can't think of a single place that we have our armed forces fighting that we really need to be there. Quit the fighting, come home and let's rebuild our country. We can use the money here but Boeing and Northrup-Grumman may have to find something else to do. What do you bet they don't have enough pull in Congress to keep the gravy train running?

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, gave a stern assessment of any military intervention in Syria but as I write this it is all but certain that the trigger is pulled and only the firing is delayed. Just as we wind down a war another is created in order to fuel the enormous gluttony of our military-industrial-congressional complex.

My take, if anyone is interested, is that as a nation we get the kind of government we allow. If you don't like it, change it. Let's save the missiles and bombs and build roads and fight fires.

The Congressman sez:

The Congressman said that everyone in his district that needed food stamps would get them. Well, lah dee dah. According to his party everyone who is hungry enough and deserves them is already getting them already but, just to be safe, they're going to cut the nutritional program a bit more just to give those slackers a kick in the pants to get working. Maybe he can cut a few million out of Operation Unite to feed his constituents. The Congressman sits atop what may be the most powerful committee in the House of Representatives, a powerful member of the majority party and still his party can't pass a Farm Bill with a food stamp provision because it wants to cut the benefits even more than they have already been cut. The majority party couldn't agree to fund food stamps so they just decided to not talk about it any more. Well, to be fair not all of that party is really so zealous to cut food stamps but almost all of those members fear the new kid on the block with the initials TP and don't want to make him angry. They went ahead and passed the Farm Bill without the food stamp provision so they could go ahead and give some billions in benefits to the huge corporate farms. The Congressman said that if no bill is passed funding will continue at the present amount just as if that will be the best thing one could hope for. Well, that is not the best we can hope for. We can hope to actually feed the huge numbers of fellow citizens whose families don't have enough to eat rather than allowing them to fall into the same condition that people did before we had enough compassion to help them survive the hunger.

Most of us have never known the kind of hunger that the food stamp program is designed to alleviate. Oh, we may have skipped a meal or two and felt like we could eat the south end of a north bound skunk but we have never experienced the hunger that dulls the brain and sucks the life out of a body. The kind that a kid may experience before he gets back to school to get a square meal. When we look at breaking the cycle of poverty there are few things more important than having a kid nourished enough to learn.

We can talk right now about the frustration of some people who fall into line at the store behind someone with a cart full of steaks, potato chips and soda pop who pulls out his benefit card to pay for it. It makes us mad when we can't even afford those things for ourselves and our kneejerk reaction is that there are too many people receiving benefits who wouldn't work in a pie factory and we need to cut them out. I invite you to take a moment to think about that. There are very few who would deny the help to someone who really needs it and if that is true then the problem is not the food stamp program, it is the oversight of it.

I personally know people who were barely getting by on the benefits they had when the latest round of cuts came through. What some families receive now is laughable. Not funny laughable but outrageous laughable. For every person who thoughtlessly and carelessly uses their benefits there are dozens or hundreds or thousands who depend on them to survive and who use them to the greatest benefit for their families. The problem is not misuse although that does exist. The problem is the great unfairness and inequities in how the wealth of this nation is distributed. Our national philosophy is built on the notion that if one works hard then great success is possible but that has turned into a myth. Over the past thirty years a person in Europe has a greater chance of bettering himself than does a person in the United States of America and we need to ask ourselves why that is. What changed, what happened and what is going to happen to us if we continue down that path?

People like simple answers but the answers are not simple any more and require not just planning but long term planning and the people we elect are too worried about the short term to do that. There is just no incentive for them to do so. If you think they should do it out of a desire for public service you are right but most people just don't do that. Most of us are pretty self-centered. As I said, nourishment is key to education and education is key to success. All of us have looked around us and seen kids that don't stand a chance due to the environment in which they live. If they make it out of there it will be an exception rather than the rule. As a matter of fact, if the children of any of us rise above our station in life it will now be the exception rather than the rule and that is wrong.

One of the things the food stamp program needs is more, not less. And not just more food benefits but also more social workers on the job. One can't expect administration of this program to be efficient without those people who go into the homes and educate those people on nutrition, cleanliness and help nurture in them a desire to do better. Unfortunately, when we cut costs those people are the first to go. How on earth can we expect the public's assistance to the poor to be effective without the workers who go into the homes? Our social programs are not supposed to be just giveaways. They were comprehended to be a force that would help lift the beneficiary out of poverty and into a productive and taxpaying life but we cut the legs off those programs with our short-sighted zeal to cut costs in the short term but all the while increasing the need in the long term. When the red ink zealots took up the pen those who held those cushy government jobs were the first to go.

Now, the Congressman made an attempt to lay the large number of benefit recipients in his district at the feet of the President and the “War on Coal” which is a craven attempt to divert attention from his own party's responsibility and onto the party of the President. It may work, it certainly has been successful in the past in getting people to vote against their own self interests but it certainly won't be truthful.

But the food stamp program only touches the worst of the problem of hunger. Even more insidious is the desperation of the “working poor.” Those who actually have a low wage job that doesn't pay enough to feed the family and who are relying on food banks and charity to make ends meet. Does that sound like the “greatest nation in the world” to you?

In what may be the best documentary of the year, “A Place at the Table” is available to watch or read. If you don't do anything else this year take the time to watch or read this. It examines the critical issue of food inequity in our country. It won't be pleasant but sometimes it hurts to be shown the ugliness.

My take on just one of the injustices inflicted on our people. Stay tuned. Let me know whether or not you think about things like this.