Are cakes an art form?  Is art protected free speech?

This week the Supreme Court takes up the case of a cake maker who refuses to make wedding cakes for same sex weddings.  He cites the First Amendment’s freedom of expression, as his cakes are his art form.

Now, I can certainly say that I have seen other forms of art that I find highly offensive, for which the artist uses the same argument.

So, let’s make this more personal to all of us.  Let me set the stage:

YOU are the baker.  An organization comes to you, asking you to make them a cake for their rally.  On that cake, they ask for the words “Abortion Is Murder” to be put on the cake.

Would you make the cake for them?

If you say no, then just plan to get your wedding cake from a different baker.

You see, free speech applies also to speech with which you disagree--and this is very different than someone denying people their constitutional right (as upheld by the Supreme Court) to marry.

I believe this is the way the Supreme Court will rule.  We shall see.

Anthony

Gun Control.

I have been wanting to add my thoughts on this subject for a while, but it seems that we cannot get enough days from a high-profile mass shooting  for my words to seem too soon and not simply a response to the news cycle.

I believe there is a happy medium for this issue, but as per the usual modus operandi of both extremes, any variation other than full compliance with the said extreme idea leads to villainization of any disagreement.

Let me summarize my feelings before fleshing out each point in detail:

--Guns are here to stay.  Accept that.

--It is too easy to get a gun.  Unlicensed gun dealers don’t run background checks.   We have to fix that. 

--I grew up around hunters who used guns responsibly and didn’t go around killing people.  I never witnessed an instance of gun violence in my community of family and friends.  And, by the way--they voted mostly Republican.

--News cycles focus on a mass shooting by a deranged person, either radicalized as a white supremacist, radicalized as a Christian extremist, radicalized as a Muslim extremist, or with a mental condition.

--News cycles ignore the gun homicide rate in several US cities, some with the tightest gun control in the country.  Most of these people committing these gun crimes are not voting Republican.

--We must have strict background checks.

--We must keep people with mental illness and prior violent history from buying guns.

--The Second Amendment is just that—an amendment.

First, let’s tackle that last statement.  How does an amendment become a part of the Constitution?

Two-thirds of Congress must pass the proposal AND three-fourths of all states (either by legislature or constitutional vote) must ratify the proposal.

Can amendments be reversed?  Have they been?  Yes, and yes.

Consider prohibition—the 18^th amendment to the Constitution in 1920 made alcohol sales illegal in the US.  To make a long story short, that didn’t go over very well.  So, in the course of time, the 21^st amendment passed on December 5, 1933, which reversed the 18^th  amendment and made alcohol sales legal once again.

Could a similar repeal of the Second Amendment happen?

--Technically, yes.

Will a repeal of the Second Amendment happen?

--Not in our lifetimes.

We do, without question, need sensible gun laws:

--No one should be able to buy a gun without a reliable background check, and an appropriate waiting period.

--If private gun owners try to sell a gun, they should have to comply with said laws through methods yet to be determined.  You can’t just sell a car without a person registering it if they are going to use it, now, can you?  Guns should be the same.

--The military needs automatic weapons.  Private citizens do not need automatic weapons, or the ability to buy modifications to weapons to make them function as such.  Those should be illegal.

--Penalties for violating the above gun laws should be strong deterrents.

So, why does the media almost ignore the most worrisome, constant gun violence in cities?  I honestly don’t have a good answer for that.  But consider these statistics:

On October 1, 2017, a deranged killer ended the lives of 58 people in Las Vegas.  How many days did it take to have the same number of gun homicides this year in several American cities?  I’m glad you asked:

--Chicago, 58 gun homicides in 28 days

--Baltimore, 58 gun homicides in 68 days

--St Louis, 58 gun homicides in 70 days

--Philadelphia, 58 gun homicides in 105 days

--Kansas City, 58 gun homicides in 115 days

--Houston, 58 gun homicides in 118 days

--Detroit, 58 gun homicides in 121 days

The numbers keep going for large American cities, and this does not even include gun suicides. 
(NY Times, October 6, 2017)

My point is this:  We have a much deeper problem in this country than just the mass shooting that makes ratings in a news cycle.

Other mass killings have happened, including by plane, by big truck filled with fertilizer, by pressure cooker filled with explosives and nails, by car and truck driving into a crowd.  There isn’t a call for a ban of any of those devices or ingredients, but are they any less important or dangerous?  Do those victims deserve less focus on the methods?

This brings me to my second arm of addressing these mass killings:  It is part of the culture of this country to make the big news attention desirable in the twisted mind of these killers.  They know that they will go down in history, have their name repeated innumerable times, and have their own Wikkipedia page.  We as a country “celebrate” the perpetrator and all but forget the victims.  For that I hold our need for a 24-hour breaking news requirement responsible.

The third arm of addressing the mass killings is making mental health treatment more accessible and less taboo.  Until people feel that they have the resources and the support they need to address their personal problems, they will suppress them until they become like one of the pressure cookers used in ways that it was not meant to bring about destruction of innocent lives.

Folks, it’s more than just gun control.  It is about working together, not for a political agenda, but as a people willing to address the problem with one voice and work together for change. 

That means stricter gun laws.  That means that the Right should stop  denying that there is a problem with guns in this country.  That cheapens any valid points that you make advocating responsible gun ownership.

That means the news media and those watching must bringing the focus off of perpetrators of senseless violence.

That means mental health treatment and advocacy must be more accessible to all.

That means coming together as a people resolved to end this cycle of violence.

And, yes, that means that the left should not paint everyone who votes Republican as someone who desires or relishes these violent events.  Doing so cheapens any  valid points you try to make toward gun control.

Finally, here are two last points that I did not make earlier:

--I don’t own  and I never have owned a gun

--I may, soon, own a gun and obtain a legal carry permit.

--I will do so with a clear background check.

May our country find peace,

Anthony

Boy Scouts.

Or, should it be Scouting for Leadership?

Today’s announcement that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is now allowing girls has left many people stunned.  But should it?  Here are some facts, which I would like to unpack a bit:

—BSA was founded in 1910, nine years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote

—BSA already allows girls to join their Venturing, Sea Scouting and STEM Scouts.

—These girls do not have a current trajectory to obtain the coveted Eagle Scout rank.

—This new procedure would allow girls to join an all-girl’s troop, separating them from all-boys troops.

—Maybe this opportunity should not be called Boy Scouts?

I should probably reveal my own involvement in Scouts.  I was a Cub Scout as a boy, so many years ago that I cannot even remember much about it.  Our “den” was a group of boys who lived in my neighborhood, and the “den mother” was the mother of one of the boys.  That was my first influence from a woman in the Boy Scouts.  I really don’t know why I was not allowed to stay in the Boy Scouts.  I just remember really wanting to stay, but I was getting ready to go up to Weblos level and that required purchase of uniform supplies that my parents, at the time, were not able or willing to purchase.  I still remember the Pinewood Derby as one of the most fun things I did in scouting.

Years later, I worked at a boy scout camp as a volunteer physician in residency.  About ten years after that I was appointed to be the medical director of that same boy scout camp, a position that I still share with another faculty member in my department.  Although I rarely, if ever, am present at the actual camp site, I oversee the resident physicians who provide care there, and I am on call by phone 24/7 for the seven weeks that the camp is in session.

I was never an Eagle Scout, but I understand BSA.  I meet regularly with the local leadership.  I donate lots of money to this very deserving organization.  I love BSA.

So, what do I think of this change?

Let’s think about the impact of women in the world now, and about our ever-evolving understanding of how much women have to contribute to society.

I remember growing up thinking that a woman doctor was a curiosity, a rarity.  Now, I am surrounded by very capable women who work circles around their male colleagues simply because they have a chance.  For my own medical care, I have chosen a female physician, for the simple reason that she is the best doctor I know.  Seriously.  She is the best doctor I know.  In our Family Medicine residency, about half of our doctors are women. It is a different world, people, than 1910.

Some comments today have been about the “blending of sexes.”  “There is a Boy Scouts, and there is a Girl Scouts.”  Well, these organizations are not in any way comparable.  For many years, I was an owner in several businesses, in the position to hire employees.  In my current position, I take an active part in recruiting new residents.  On a resume, a designation as an Eagle Scout carries an enormous amount of weight.  The current process in the BSA prohibits 50% of the current population of youth from attaining this rank.  It is simply not fair.  I am thankful for BSA for recognizing this.  There is nothing anywhere close to the same impact in the Girl Scouts. So, the “blending of sexes?”  Let me name a few other places where this happens:  School.  Church youth groups.  Band.  High school sporting events with football players and cheerleaders traveling to the same place.  Want me to go on?  Believe me, there are many more.  So, the argument about “raging hormones” isn’t valid, now, is it?  Anyway, BSA is still keeping entirely female and entirely male troops as separate entities, completely invalidating that argument.  

Another argument I have heard is the “Christian Principles” argument.  

Church Youth Camps?  

I rest my case.

So, now, the other half of our population has the opportunity to attain Eagle Scout like the male half of the population has had for the past 107 years.  Even now, this is on a separate but equal trajectory from the boys.  

Some of you need to be tolerant.  Some of you need to understand the changing face of society is not for the worse, but for the better.

And some of you, especially professional women in careers you wouldn’t have had a snowball’s chance in Hell of entering in 1910 need to stop posting about how this is a bad thing.

Welcome to the new face of Scouting for Leadership, a new template for the future of Scouting, as we remember that women are equal, or just maybe a little bit better than men at almost anything they try.

Peace,

Anthony

To kneel—or not to keel.  That is the question.

Hamlet, you were so 16^th century.  This is the new, updated question.

Let me start this blog post by saying that I stand, with my hand over my heart, when I am anywhere that the National Anthem is played.  But, wait, please hear me out.  I don’t disagree with your right to do something different--

The question is not as easy as the two alternatives presented in the media and that our embarrassingly, socially-inept President would have us to believe.  Here is my breakdown of the issue:

To kneel:  On the surface, it seems ludicrous.  Colin Kaepernick (possibly the best self-aggrandizing person of our generation, besides our President) is a young black man who is standing up for the disrespect of black people in our society.  Of course, he was adopted by fabulously wealthy white parents and never knew a life other than that wealth, and has become a football star (at least until lately), making millions per year.  I don’t make millions per year,  and I have been in school most of my near-half-century on this Earth.  I am not jealous of that—I can’t do with a football what he can do, and this is a capitalist society.  People don’t sit on the sidelines and cheer after paying high ticket prices while watching me save a life.  That’s just not how life works.  I understood that coming into my profession.

 I do understand that people who are black are targeted more than a white person doing the same thing, whatever that activity may be.  I have seen it to be so.

To stand:  My grandfathers were in the Army in WWII.  They gave much for their country.  One grandfather was in the Pacific theater.  The other was on a tank in Germany.

The grandfather on the tank in Germany?  He fell during battle inside his tank, and fractured his kneecap into three triangles.  I know because it never healed back, and I saw the pieces on his knee as a boy and young man.  I remember his story--What did he do in battle?  He kept upright.  He could not bend that knee, because staying upright was the only thing he could do to win the battle.  And win the battle they did.

My father was in Vietnam in the Army.  He has always been one of my heroes.  Do you know what he does when he hears the National Anthem play?  Guess--

I personally know very well many members of the Army and the Navy who are enlisted members and officers right now.  Do you wonder why they are not posting about this? (Not the veterans, but current military persons). They are not allowed to be political.  Yes, the same people who are currently protecting your right to kneel, or stand, or wave the flag or burn it, are not allowed to make one comment about a political situation.  They are the military for all Americans, and they fiercely, and at the peril of their lives, defend your right to protest however you will.

I disagree with our President in his handling of this situation.  Peaceful kneelers should have that freedom.  That is the way they have found to make their statement.

Those who would burn their NFL jerseys and boycott the NFL, they should also have their freedom. 

Our soldiers fight for a society where we are free to express ourselves in any non-violent way that we feel, and they support the capitalist society that will soon show if the preponderance of support is for or against this move as it affects the NFL. 

I go one step farther in explaining my stance:

The vast majority of our enlisted soldiers make well below the poverty level (certainly not $15 per hour). Our officers make well below what they could make in the same job in the civilian realm.   When they are sent into battle, they work 100 or more hours a week, they sleep in tents with no air conditioning in the most grueling of environments.  Even in their training, their cot may be keeping them only a few inches above the ankle-deep mud where they must camp.

I know many, many soldiers and sailors in the military.  Way more than 50% of them that I personally know are in one or more of the many minorities that are not white straight males.

Without exception, they will all stand for the National Anthem.

On the other hand, the people kneeling in the NFL all, without exception, make millions of dollars a year.  They go home to incredible mansions and sleep well in the most comfortable of beds.

So, you ask, am I going to stand with the soldier with the three-pieced kneecap, the soldier who has slogged his way through mud to his cot, the soldier who sleeps in conditions that we would find unacceptable, night after night, just because she or he wanted to defend our freedom?

--Or am I going to kneel with the privileged few?

As for me, I’m going to stand with the soldier who is fighting with his or her very life for your privilege to kneel.

Peace,

Anthony

In this time where we need a champion of unity, all we have is a "divider-in-chief."

Yes, I meant that.  As a voter who was against Trump in the beginning, who voted for someone else, and was convinced that he did not have the polish or diplomacy to be president, it is disheartening that he continues to make that argument more real for me every day.  No one wants Trump to succeed more than I want that, because his success would be our success.

His response to the Charleston protests was un-presidential, and served only to even more divide people with differing opinions.

A few clarifications before we move forward:
--Racism is wrong.
--The Confederate secession and everything about that period of Southern history was wrong.
--White Supremacy and neo-Nazism is a vile, despicable ideology that should be disputed and counter-protested any time they raise their voices.
--Violence is not appropriate--ever.  Ever.  Ever.

Refer back to those tenants if you wonder where I stand at any time.  But hear me out.

I was raised in Tennessee and have not lived anywhere else for my whole life, which at this point is rapidly approaching the half-century mark.  My elementary school was Robert E. Lee Elementary, which still stands and still goes by that name in Tullahoma, TN.  It was built on the battlefield of the Battle of Tullahoma.  When we had a fire drill, we didn't just go outside--we went blocks away, for fear that the unexploded Civil War cannonballs still in the ground under my school would bring even more devastation if a  fire were to break out.  I grew up around that kind of Civil War history.

I was raised in a church that prided itself on the outward appearance and the control of thought, but was devoid of any true love of humanity and diversity.  I was surrounded by blatant racist propaganda from a few ministers who were supposed to teach us to be a light to the world.  Their racism was a message of darkness, and one of the reprehensible  and regrettable influences I have ever had in my life.  Thankfully, I escaped that racist past and moved beyond that as an adult.

During medical school, I lived in downtown Memphis and walked to my classes every day past Nathan Bedford Forrest Park.  In that park was a statue of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest on a horse.  For those of you unfamiliar with this man, he started the KKK in Pulaski, TN after the Civil War.  Since I have not been back in Memphis for several years, I don't know if that statue still stands there.  I can tell you, however, that the presence of his statue in that public park always made me uneasy.  I was not in favor of that kind of tribute to a man with such an evil past.  I don't care how many battles he won.  Also, if he did win any battle, it was against the US Army, which I now and forever support.  He was a traitor to our country.  Period.  End. Of. Sentence.

I now live in Knoxville, TN, which was in the area of Tennessee that was pro-Union.  For that reason, in this city, there are very few Confederate memorials.  Three blocks from where I sit in my home now, a memorial to those who died in the battle at Fort Sanders has been vandalized this week with green paint.  I have read that memorial, and it doesn't say anything that is offensive.  People did die there, and they were our ancestors, maybe the brothers of the Union soldiers in the same battle.  That doesn't seem the same as a memorial to Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest.

With the push to rid the country of Confederate monuments, we need to look at the reasons this has become such an issue at this time.

The Divider-in-Chief, President Donald Trump himself, is the reason this is happening now.

He cannot help but to incite anger in those with whom he has even the slightest disagreement.  He takes anything other than absolute devotion to him as a personal slight.  That is not presidential.   It is not even an acceptable social reaction in polite society, much less as a response by the leader of the free world.

Donald Trump has proven himself to be the embarrassment that I believed he would be.

So, why were these monuments not removed during President Obama's term?  The monuments in question are surely no more unacceptable to those who oppose them now than they were then.  The reason is this:  Donald Trump's divisive rhetoric divides this country and emboldens those who have a fringe racist and white supremacist view.  Whether he believes their way or not, he has opened the door for them to feel more free to protest openly.  Yes, I saw KKK rallies happening when I was growing up.  They would be in  intersections with their white robes and pointy hats taking money in buckets while motorists waited for the light to change.  That was an era that I hoped was gone.  Now, with Trump's divisive tone, they are back.  When they show up to protest, other people with better intentions also show up out of a sense of "Southern Pride."  The resulting anger when the extreme protesters are met with opposition enrages all involved, with a mob mentality, and a mob acts in ways that an individual may not act.

With Trump's resulting divisive press conference after the Charlottesville riots, he proved himself to be incapable of  being Presidential.  He lost me completely there.

Don't get me wrong--violence is never the answer:
--Charlottesville
--Ferguson
--Washington, DC Inauguration day
--College campuses when right-leaning speakers are scheduled.

This is what should happen, in my humble opinion:
--Speak your voice, no matter how right, left, or centrist.
--If you are centrist, people are not hearing your voice enough.  Speak louder.
--Don't resort to violence.  Ever.  The result is only more violence.
--If you are right, or if you are wrong, letting the other side air out their opinion can only result in positivity--on the whole, the general opinion will weed out the crazies, and go with a better option.

So, what should we do with the monuments?

I believe the Nathan  Bedford Forrest monument, if not already moved, should be.

I believe that memorials honoring the dead in battle, no matter what side, should remain to remind us to never go down that road again.

And I believe that we should not forget history.  Our country fought, and won, against the Nazis and the Confederates.  Those who fought for the other sides were, and are, traitors.

Unless you live in a different country than I do, it would be good to remember that.

I am afraid our President does not get the gravity of those facts.

Praying for a peaceful sorting out of these issues--

Anthony

The latest unemployment rate was recently reported as 4.3%.  Whether this is due to Trump's policies, or to economic influences left over from Obama's policies could be the subject of much debate.  The reality is that it is probably some of both.  Not being an economist (either a liberal one or a conservative one), I can only give my ideas on employment.

First and foremost, the unemployment rate is not the same as the unemployed employables rate.

What do I mean?  I'm glad you asked!

The unemployment rate is the percentage of people who don't have a job who either have one or want one.

The unemployed employables rate would be the percentage of able-bodied people who are not working.

What are the issues here?  

Every able-bodied and able-minded person should contribute to society. I am fully aware that there are people who are not able to function on a day-to-day basis in a regular job.  A safety net should be available to them.  There are many people who, because of mental illness, are not able to work.  A safety net should be available to them. However, there is a group of people who are not working who could, but instead are sitting at home and cashing their welfare checks monthly. 

Able-bodied people who can work should be looking for a job to continue benefits.

Recipients of a government paycheck should be subject to a drug screen. When someone can't pass a drug screen, meaningful intervention should be instituted and mandatory for treatment of addiction for the betterment of the individual and for society (I don't mean marijuana, which is erroneously classified as illegal).

Many people love to bash some businesses  (Wal-mart or such places) as taking advantage of the system to pay lower wages to their employees, because some of them still take a bit of government help.  Look at it this way:

--Not everyone can afford to shop at  locally-owned businesses (my personal choice when possible), which do not have the buying power to keep prices low.  Even more hypocritical are the people who blast Wal-mart and at the same time shop at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's, which are more acceptable to them, but result in the same closure of local businesses, simply because those stores answer to their elitist whims.  Let's frequent local businesses when we can, buy our organics at Whole Foods if we want, but not try to close the store that is more in reach of the people who are the less fortunate in society.  That's hypocrisy. 

--So, a person gets a job at Wal-mart--what of it?  I am thrilled that they are working and contributing to a business that can bring low-priced goods to the less wealthy in the country.  I will say this:  I would rather give part of a welfare check to someone who is working than a whole welfare check to someone who is home on his ass watching TV.  For many (I daresay most), this will be a first step in moving upward to a higher-paying job.

As more people seek employment, and consider moving to where the jobs are available, this country will be more successful economically.  We all must contribute.

We must also diligently contribute to the less fortunate in society who are not able to work for either physical or psychiatric reasons, and generously provide care and rehabilitation with the goal of helping even more people become contributors to a brighter future.

Enjoy life--work hard, play hard!

Anthony

Religion has often been intertwined with elected office.  To better explain my views about some political topics, my own journey of religious change may shed better light on my opinions to be expressed in later posts.

From the beginning of my life, I was involved in one of the most strict sects in this country.  Based on Arminian theology, my denomination considered itself the direct lineage of the "true" Wesleyan doctrine, having broken away from the Church of the Nazarene, which itself had broken off from the Methodist Church.  However, it is very different from the Methodists of Wesley's day, and unrecognizable to the current United Methodist Church.

In the opinion of the Bible Missionary Church (From here on called BMC), they are the special church with the only true way to Heaven.  They even look with suspicion on all other churches of similar beliefs, because of slight variations from their idea.  They are also protectionists of their members, discouraging any association with another denomination, especially in courtship and marriage.

The rules are many and strict--women wear dresses below the knee, with hose in even the hottest weather, sleeves on both men and women must be below the elbows, no TV or movies are allowed, no bowling, no skating rinks, no participation in organized sports, no circus, no "worldly places of amusement."  Music of any kind other than the Christian music recorded by members of the denomination is deemed "worldly." On Sunday, members are not able to go out to eat or to work (except medical), and not allowed to shop.  Even the children cannot go out and play a game of baseball, for that would be "breaking the sabbath."

The BMC teaches that you must be "saved" (go forward to the altar and confess your sins), and then, as a complete second "work of grace", you have to be "sanctified", an experience that completely removed the sin nature.  Of course, the preaching I experienced was usually of a type of warning to avoid all of the above mentioned transgressions, and others that the preacher might think up on the spot, otherwise you would "backslide", and have to start all over again.  Yes, even the ones who were "sanctified" could "backslide."  Have I lost you yet?

Folks,  I'm not making this up.

At the age of 34, the culmination of my experiences and presence of horrendous hypocrisy in the church were such that I could no longer be a part of the organization.  So, even in the face of the scorn and cruelty heaped upon those who leave the church, I bid them farewell.  For ten years, I rarely attended any church, and started objectively evaluating everything I had been taught.

So, what do I believe now?

I consider myself a Christian.  I believe in a higher power, we all call "God." I attend a wonderfully uplifting United Methodist Church, who sees their role as a place to worship, not to tell you how to live.  That's God's job. It's that simple.

What about creation?  Evolution?  That's an interesting question, and I haven't found many people who believe like I do.  Was the world created in six literal days as Genesis says?  No.  Scientific evidence is in support of evolution.  So--is evolution the way God used to create what we see around us?  I believe so, because the increasing order found in evolution is against the second law of thermodynamics, and the statistical improbabilities of such increase in order point, in my mind, to a higher power.  See, I told you that you wouldn't agree!

Was there a flood in which only 8 people, and two of every living thing was on a boat that came to rest on a mountain in what is now Turkey?  Absurd.  How did the Kangaroos get to Australia, and nowhere else?  Was it an allegory?  Yes.

What do you do about abominations?  Do you pick and choose?  Do you actually kill your child for disobeying?  Is the abomination of planting two crops in the same field, or wearing a garment of two different kinds of cloth as bad as other ones, or are we going to make excuses for them because "that was the old times?"

Not even the New Testament gets it right, because in 1 Peter, there is instruction in how a slave should submit to his master (yea, it's there).

I believe the Bible should be viewed in its historical context, and realize that it is a way that fallible humanity expressed the inexpressible higher power.  Period.  I don't know the answers, and I am highly suspicious of anyone who presumes to know the mind of God.

Well, that's my view.  It may explain some future posts regarding modern-day US politics.

To everyone of every religion, Peace--
Anthony

Health care--where do we go from here?

To begin this highly controversial topic, I want to say that simply being a physician does not give me special insight into how our health care system should be overhauled.  I think most people in the country, however, would agree that we have work to do.  I have my own opinion, as you may have suspected, and I don't think I agree with anyone completely.  I'm not even sure if my ideas are the solution, but here goes--

Most of my life I have been convinced that the US has the best health care system in the world, the best doctors in the world, and the best treatments available in the world.  I was convinced that this led to the best outcomes in the world.

And then I researched the data.

It turns out that the US does not have the best health care outcomes.  We aren't second.  We aren't third.  We aren't even in 10th place.

In rankings of 13 countries, the US ranks last in mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60.  Ranking poorly in other areas such as access to care and equity, the US simply comes in dead last.  (Dan Munro, Forbes, June 2014)

So, we just need to spend more on healthcare, right?

If you think that, you would be wrong.  At $9,451 per capita, The US spends almost $3,000 more per capita on health care than the next country (Switzerland at $6,935) and more than double the United Kingdom ($4,003).  (Sawyer, Cox--Kaiser  Family Foundation, May 2017)

Notice anything that the health systems with better outcomes have that we don't?  They all--every one of them--have a single payer, government-run health care system that covers everyone with a basic health benefit.  Keep in mind, it is for less money.  What does that mean for you?  It means that, though you may pay more in taxes to fund a single-payer, government-run healthcare system, you would spend much less than you are currently paying for your health insurance.  As with some of the countries, such as Great Britain, you would still get the option to purchase additional coverage that gives even better access, but it would not be a necessity in most instances.

Mind--blown.  And with a mind not focused blindly on one political party, my mind is changed.

What would it take to do that here?  We as Americans would have to completely rethink everything that we have come to accept about our health care system:  Pharmaceutical company nonsense, malpractice awards far beyond reason, immediate access to whatever test we want, going to the doctor with a "shopping list" that we expect to be filled as if we were just placing an order.  That would not work in a new system, but we would be better off in the long run because of it.

All of that being said, this kind of change will not happen in my career, or even in my lifetime.  The political wheels just turn too slowly for that.

So, what do we do in the mean time?  Keep Obamacare? Repeal? Replace?

Here is my opinion:

Keep the parts of Obamacare that work--no pre-existing condition clause, insurance for dependents up to age 26, etc.  There is a longer list of things that are better than before, but that is a start.

Get rid of the parts that are unfair.  End the "fine" for not purchasing healthcare, and instead give tax incentives for doing so--the result is similar, but just sounds better.

Very importantly, open purchasing options beyond state boundaries to encourage more competition and reduce premium prices that have risen tremendously because of monopolies on access.

Most importantly, stop trying to slam dunk a political win.  Republicans and Democrats alike are most interested in scoring, rather than helping the American electorate.

So, those are some of my opinions on health care.  I have a lot more, but we will save that for another time.

For now, peace--

Anthony

Let's face it--lots of people are discriminated against based on a perceived difference from the local norm.

I live in East Tennessee.  Thankfully, I also live in a downtown community in one of the most progressive cities in the Southeast--and that helps.  In a life not far away in either time or distance, however, I did not have that luxury.  I have seen people mistreated in ways that are reprehensible because they did not meet the White, Christian, Straight norm of the local expectation.

Some of the loudest voices were the most hypocritical--if you get my drift...

Not everyone that cries "racism" or "homophobia" victimization,  however,  is actually a victim.  When you try to single yourself out because you are making a "big deal" out of your status, you make it OK for anyone else to address that also--and not everyone is going to address it in a kind way.  Just go about your business and do the best that you can every day, and demonstrate that your difference is part of you--and it doesn't matter.  Yes, you may still be the victim of discrimination, and that is terrible.  Sometimes people face discrimination because of the ignorance of other people, but sometimes--and this is where this gets uncomfortable--sometimes people face discrimination because they are an in-your-face asshole.

Remember, sometimes you may need to be the tolerant one.

Be peaceable to all--

Anthony

FAKE NEWS

Oooh, this one is going to be fun!

I would encourage everyone to watch this video first, and then read the rest of the post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE&feature=share

I hope that this clip is also fake.  But if it proves to be real, what do we have?

I have been disappointed in the media for a long time, and especially recently.  The mainstream media plays lip service to objectivism, transparency, lack of bias, and promotion of fair assessment of the political landscape.

That. Never. Happens.

Let's take one media outlet for example:

--They create stories that purport to embarrass or expose corruption in one side of the political spectrum

Sound familiar?

--They will always support the other political ideology

Know of whom I speak?

--Businesses playing this particular news source were derided for their biased view.

Getting my drift?

--They weren't considered "real" journalism because their stories were said to be too biased.

Who are they?

Well, those accusations are, beyond question, now applicable to more than one media outlet.
--Fox News
--CNN
and, of course, others, but this example is to make a point.

News outlets that promote an agenda that is against a particular party or politician are all the same.

So, why is CNN ( along with other media sources) trying its best to "expose" a now obviously non-existent collusion between the President and the Russians during his campaign?

--It makes ratings
--It continues the narrative that was once thought to be Trump's downfall.

The problem with this idea is that Trump's campaign did not collude with the Russians to win the election.  Period.  News like that leaks out of campaigns.  There's nothing.  Crickets--

As I have long believed, Trump is actually OK with this talk of "collusion."  He welcomes it.  Because, while he is doing other things that don't get the press of people trying to tear down his presidency, the attention is taken off of those things he is busy pushing forward as his real agenda.

People, please pay attention.

I am not a Trump fan.  He did not receive my vote, and will likely never receive my vote in future elections.  But people are paying attention to the wrong things.  And, guess what--he will get by with things you don't like because you keep screaming "Russian collusion!"

Just wait.   Just watch.

Peace,
Anthony

Let's just go ahead and deal with this elephant in the room--

The Supreme Court did not make a new law concerning same sex marriage.  It turns out that all previous laws never specified that the two participants in such a legal document had to be of different genders.

That was only tradition.  A tradition based in religious habit.

Let's compare the two church sacraments of marriage and baptism.  For centuries they were both only church sacrament.  But in the last few hundred years, the governments of the world and ours have weighed in on marriage for inheritance purposes.  Then, about the time income taxes became a thing, the government decided that being married should afford some tax breaks.   At that time, our current civil marriage became associated with the same wording as the church sacrament, and it is still the only place in which the government blatantly violates the separation of Church and State.

Baptism doesn't have any money associated with it, so the government doesn't bother to try and regulate that.

I believe that every church should have the right to marry whomever they want.  Some believe in no divorce at all.  Some believe in polygamy (or did until the government told them that they can't do that).

Churches should baptize however they see fit--immersion, sprinkling, etc.

The point I'm trying to make is that the government does not have any business with an authority over marriage, or baptism.  Maybe we should call the legal document something besides "marriage."

But if the government is going to give the legal and medical advocacy rights to some people who choose to join together, they should give it to any two adults who want to enter into that civil agreement.  That is not the same thing as a church marriage.  These people aren't asking for a sacrament and it's not their fault that the civil, legal process is called the same thing as the church sacrament.

To be a witness to the world, the church should administer their sacraments as judiciously as they feel--

--and then live up to them.

Because as much divorce as we see in the strict, churchy world, they obviously don't believe in the sanctity of marriage.

Peace,
Anthony

They were supposed to win.

After the tumultuous election season and the first months of Trump's presidency, the Democrats were supposed to pick up at least some of the four special elections for vacant House seats.

They lost all four.

This was supposed to let Trump and the Republicans know that their agenda was not popular with voters, and was supposed to be a bellwether for the upcoming 2018 mid-term elections.  Maybe it is.  But why?

It turns out, that to win elections, you have to have fresh ideas.
--Not "We hate Trump"
--Not "Keep Obamacare"
--Not "Republicans are bad"

If the 2016 election told us anything, it told us that between an unlikable Presidential candidate who wanted to just keep all of the previous administration's policies, and an unlikable Presidential candidate who wanted to address head-on the policies that aren't working, voters will choose the one with new ideas.

Let's take the Obamacare issue as an example, since it is forefront in politics at the moment.  Now, to be fair, I don't think the Republicans are doing the whole healthcare thing right.  I wish their plan would have looked different out the gate from the House, and I wish the Senate was being more transparent.  But the Democrats who are losing are lauding Obamacare as the only viable option, and are not addressing what has become (obviously) unpopular with voters.

Being against Trump doesn't work either.  He doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks.  He truly has the thickest skin of anyone I've seen, orange tint and all!  Sure, groups can bond over their hatred of a politician, but that doesn't gather the middle-of-the-road voter who could go either way and help win elections.  Extreme left and extreme right politicians must address the concerns of the silent, more moderate majority.

So, Democrats, do you want to win elections?

Tell us what you will do differently to address the issues that are making voters pull the lever for the other side.

If you do so in a way that makes it clear that you have new ideas, and do it in a way that makes it clear that you are welcoming of those who are not extreme left of center, then you will get a lot more votes.

One of them could be mine.

Peace,
Anthony

Polarization in politics produces poisonous propaganda.

I just wanted to use some alliteration there--but you know what I mean.

In my lifetime, the polarization in politics has worsened substantially.  Today, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush (41) would likely struggle to win the Republican nomination for President. They would seem too liberal to the right wing of the party.  Likewise, Bill Clinton would seem too conservative for the liberal wing of the Democratic party.  In contrast to much of what we see in politics, these three men seem to be closer to the middle politically.

There are many reasons for that, but a few that I note:

--The Republican Party has been, by all intents and purposes, hijacked by the religious right.

--The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the social justice warriors.

To be fair, there are many people in the middle in both parties who don't feel like they belong either place.  

--Last, but most importantly, the polarization is magnified by the relatively new phenomenon of social media

Let's look at each of these in more detail:

1.  The hijacking of the Republican Party by the religious right

Sure, the Republican Party has long been the party to which the more fundamentalist Christians migrated.  That did not mean that the Republican Party of two decades ago shunned people who differed religiously.  In the last decade, especially with the emergence of the Tea Party with a fundamentalist Christian agenda, the moderate voices have been drowned out by the louder voices of the more strictly religious members of the party.  Of course, there is no negotiating in their minds, because God is on their side, and you can't argue with God, now, can you?  The end result is a party that is putting more and more candidates forward that are antithetical to the beliefs of Democrats.  President Trump is an interesting exception to this extreme religiosity.  But, while not an ideologue himself, his extreme rhetoric on the campaign trail resonated with the extremism of the party, and that irritates the rank and file politicians in the party.  Republicans deserve Trump.  

Religion has little place in politics.  While acknowledgement of God was common in the day of the Founding Fathers, most of them were Deists, believing that God set the world in motion and then has had little to do in intervening in the affairs of humankind.  They were for freedom to worship as you feel directed, but did not advocate legislation of morality beyond common human decency.  We should still be guided by those principles.  

My summation is this:  If you can legislate Christian rules and regulations, you have set a precedent for Sharia law.

Let that sink in.

2.  The hijacking of the Democratic Party by social justice warriors

I am for doing all we can to enhance the equality of all people. Many people in this country have been treated in horrendous ways, and often by our government.  Native American slaughter and displacement, African American slavery, women's voting rights and inequality in the workplace, the mistreatment of two consenting adults who love each other and just want to be left alone are a few examples of where we as a nation got it very wrong in the past.

But social justice warriors are hijacking the Democratic Party, and once again speaking with voices that are louder than the majority of democrats.  This leads to the same phenomenon we see in the Republican Party, only in reverse. Each of the groups above (with the exception of the Native Americans, who seem to uniformly approach advocacy the right way), has a very loud group of social justice warriors who have the audacity to think that they speak for everyone in their demographic.

They don't.

3.  Social media as a polarizing force.

Look at your social media friends list.

Do most of them agree with you?  Probably.

When we have the choice, by nature we surround ourselves with people who agree with us.  In social media, the number of people with whom we can communicate is exponentially more than what was possible even two decades ago.  

More and more shares of articles (some with dubious sources) that agree with our opinion are seen by us every day.  That leads to the belief that most people believe like us, and--horror of horrors--if there is someone who disagrees with us, they must be out of their minds.

Taken to the extreme, this kind of polarization of ideas is what leads to wars between religions and countries.

But does that really matter?  Can someone have an idea different than my own, and still be a good person?  

I believe they can.

I close this post by encouraging everyone to Google Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" quote.  There is an awesome Youtube video that has his voice quoting it.

Let us not be so polarized, and think that our opinion is the only right one when we are but passengers "on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."


Peace,
Anthony