Gross Disproportion in Health Care Funding

by Monreale

From the Center for Disease Control, Sept. 27, 2015:

"National Gay Men's HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed each year on September 27 to direct attention to the ongoing and disproportionate impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) on gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States. MSM represent approximately 2% of the U.S. population. However, MSM accounted for 67% of all new HIV diagnoses." (emphasis supplied)

In the last few weeks the San Francisco Chronicle has run a series of stories, often making the front page, on the heroism and selflessness of gay men who have combated AIDS. Today the story turned in a similar vein toward women with AIDS. Some reflections follow. 

Act Up is the international direct action advocacy group that presses for legislation and funding to benefit those with HIV/AIDS. They have been astoundingly successful. Their primary tactic has been to sell the notion that HIV/AIDS is largely a heterosexual disease.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases involve homosexual men, often men who have vehemently rejected prudent measures to limit the spread of the disease, measures that are mandatory concerning every other serious infectious disease. Testifying to their influence is the recent capitulation by the FDA in lifting its long-standing ban on gays donating blood, a ban which Act Up decried as "stigmatizing." A friend of mine, an internationally recognized blood researcher whose work on the Zika virus was recently mentioned in the New York Times, told me there is no medical justification for the FDA's action--"it's all politics."

The signal victory scored by Act Up and their allies has been the imbalance in Federal funds spent on HIV/AIDS medical research. NIH spends more on this research than on any one of the other 70 diseases and medical conditions it funds, more than breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, substance abuse, mental health and so on. Not to mention the enormous sums, much more than on research, that the government spends on the care of those with HIV/AIDS.

Significant progress has been made in treating HIV/AIDS, a disease that affects a very small segment of our population, much of which has exhibited a reckless disregard for their own safety as well as the safety of the broader public. Regardless, this progress has saved lives and deserves applause. At the same time we should understand that the huge taxpayer sums that produced breakthroughs in HIV/AIDS could well have resulted in similar breakthroughs had they been directed against any one of the 70 other diseases that have a much broader impact on the American people.

We need to restore a sense of proportion in health care funding.

New Writer Joins Common Sense

Monreale has joined writers Chris and John as a new contributor to Common Sense.  We are delighted to welcome Monreale.  See his first posting Protest Identity Politics.

Protest Identity Politics

by Monreale

Trump drew millions of votes protesting identity politics. The average American no longer wilts at accusations of racism, sexism or other unfair discrimination, which have become omnipresent.  We know such name calling today is often illegitimate, a bad faith ploy to seek the upper hand.  We see no ethical reason why at this late date in the advancement of civil rights minorities should feel entitled to the kind of governmental advantage that amounts to reverse discrimination.  In short we refuse to acquiesce to things as they are and we expect change for the better under the new administration.

To that end we subscribe to the following tenets:

--Nothing can be reliably judged solely by the race, sex, ethnicity or relative wealth of its supporter or of its opponent.

--A minority's claim is not always more deserving than that of a majority.

--Many important truths can be conveyed without reference to race, sex, ethnicity or relative wealth.

--The views of white males are not by that very fact unworthy.

--Claimed oppression does not equal merit.

--Questions are best answered by investigation, not by assertion.

Plain Old Partisanship, Or…?

by John Stevenson

Remember, faithful readers , that I have never yet written in support of our President-elect Donald Trump.  And I do not do so here---although I might in the future, depending upon what he delivers while in office.  I write instead to point out the hypocrisy of his critics on the Left.  So I offer this:

President-elect The Donald promised us an end---or at least a reduction---of illegal immigration.   Consider this statement: 

“All Americans….in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service (sic) they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration [will move] aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens….We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace….We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”

Anti-Trumpers call such comments racist, xenophobic, mean-spirited, even white nationalist.  Did I leave anything out?---insert your preferred insult.  Hillary Clinton says that those who harbor such thoughts are deplorable and irredeemable.

Whoa!  Hold your horses!  Maybe it ain’t so bad!

The quote is not from Trump.  It’s actually from the Top-Dog Democrat, President Bill Clinton, in his Jan. 24, 1995, State of the Union Address.  Ooooops!

Well, If that’s true (google it), then what we have here is a textbook example of a double standard and hypocrisy.

 

Did Democrats denounce President Clinton’s statement as anti-immigrant, xenophobic, mean spirited, racist, and so on?  Nope.  They gave him a standing ovation---as well they should have.

Although Trump’s rhetoric and tone have been more blunt and harsh than President Clinton’s, their message is the same: illegal immigration is “self-defeating” and “we must do more to stop it.”

To vilify Trump and his supporters for taking essentially the same stance as President Clinton is hypocritical and indefensible.

Perhaps the reason for the criticism is just plain old partisanship.  Or maybe it’s the fear that instead of just saying “we must do more to stop it” Trump might actually do it.

"Have Yourself a Merry, Scary Christmas*......"

by Chris James

*With apologies to Ralph Blane.                

     Paraphrasing Richard Nixon, I hereby publicly declare that: "I am not an economist."  Yes, I admit that I am pathologically obsessed with the brilliant, weekly magazine, The Economist.  But I do not sift the sustenance of my columns from this potentially abundant resource.  No sir.  But I may occasionally use it to support my literary wanderings, as circumstances dictate.  And that's about it.  So, what am I about to do here?  Answer: To take an ignoramus' dive into the Stygian pool of what is - or should be - making the U.S. economy tick today.  And to throw in a soupcon of historical hot sauce, just for the hell of it.

     This intention stems from the recent torrent of yowls and howls about "bringing jobs back" and "America first," blah, blah, blah.  The burning torch and pitchfork mob rages at a number of unspecified countries for taking jobs away from innocent, red-blooded Americans and, by golly, we're going to go right out and bring those jobs back home - where they belong.  And, naturally, I am confident that our wise, sensitive and alert government is already training a couple of million out of work individuals to seamlessly assimilate these tasks at a moment's notice and then to match, if not exceed, previous off-shore productivity.  All of the new capital equipment, resources, and facilities necessary to begin immediate production in the U.S. will be satisfyingly in place - at a trivialized cost.  In which event, overall (fake) costs of the re-established operations will be lowered, and U.S. consumers - a pillar of the U.S. economy - will benefit healthily from the change.

     Yeah, right.  In reality, any mindless implementation of such a strategy would trigger near-titanic economic, social, and political mayhem.  Not just in the U.S., but also in the countries that are left holding the (empty) bag.  Just so you know, the U.S. has a negative balance of payments with many of these countries.  That is to say, we owe them for goods and services that they have provided.  If we dump them, then it'll be no more nicey-nicey on their part.  They will want to be paid what we owe them.  RIGHT NOW!!  If, for no other reason, than to cushion the resulting negative economic impact of lost jobs and idle capital equipment imposed on their jurisdictions.  

     The victimized nations are also going be highly motivated to cash in any U.S. government debt that they may be carrying.  And where would our government get the money to pay off its share of this Great Flood of called-in I.O.U.s?  Certainly not from the government's usual trick of raising funds to pay off debts.  Namely, their Ponzi scheme of issuing more debt to satisfy their current debt repayment obligations.  With the catastrophic consequences of this utterly misguided bring-home-the-jobs strategy on full display, nobody is going to trust the U.S.  Especially the financial markets, where there will be little or no trust in whatever financial instruments that our government can conjure up to try to bail us out.  Remember the financial debacle in Greece?  Luckily, they were bailed out by the European Union.  Any volunteers out there to help the good ol' U.S.of A., as we thrash around in that same kind of quicksand?   

     And the situation could get much worse.  But since it's the Season of Happiness and Good Will, then I won't lay it on any thicker.  Instead, I would like to celebrate Trump's heroic action over at Carrier as a timely and delicious metaphor for exactly the wrong approach.  Now, don't get mad.  I'm fully aware that there is a human cost.  Focus, instead, on the abstract metaphorical dimension.  To help you do that, allow me give you a hot sauce, actual data, wake-up call.  A recent massive study by Ball University Business College determined that loss of jobs in the U.S. - some of the data going back as far as 1997 - was 88% due to technological changes in the U.S. and only 13% due to jobs being transferred off-shore.  Yeah, I know that it doesn't add up to 100%.  One person rounds up, another rounds down - it's a cup half empty, half full, thing.  

     Therefore, not only is Trump's objective barking up the wrong tree, but - Holy Toledo -  his strategy is also open to suspicion.  Because, as the erudite Mr. George Will deftly pointed out, government interference in the legal management affairs of private sector businesses is a bastion of Socialism.  It originated with Karl Marx's call for governments to "take over the means of production."  And lo, Comrade Trump is now revealed as a practicing, closet Socialist!  Arch-socialist Bernie Sanders must be wetting his pants with laughter.  Hopefully, Trump's outlandish performance is a one-off publicity stunt and is not a foreshadowing of a second Manchurian Candidate presidency in a row!    

     The totally dominant role of technology in the economy is exactly the way it should be.  Ever since the Industrial Revolution began in Britain around 1750, the transition of technology replacing labor has been paramount.  Costs go down, consumers benefit, the economy thrives.  Standards of living rise, which inspires further capital investment in the economy.  This cycle is one of the bed-rock foundations of capitalism.  Of course, displaced workers in industries undergoing technological change may suffer.  But it is the job of the government and of corporate leaders to ameliorate that suffering.  Not by bringing lower tech jobs back into the country, but by training and retraining the work force to higher skill levels.  This will be harder to accomplish with a 50 year old worker than with a high-schooler, but it is better all round to provide the older, non-transposable victims with a reasonably comfortable, pensioned life - richly deserved - and then to focus on the upcoming generations in an well-planned, coherent fashion.

     Obviously, not everyone can be trained in the mysteries of "technology."  Not everyone will want to be.  Frankly, not everyone is up to it.  But the technological nucleus must be protected and continuously nourished.  It is the vital inventive engine of the economy.  Not just in the form of R & D, but also in its pragmatic application to manufacturing - a bountiful field where inventiveness can pay off.  Then there is the service sector - the biggest in the U.S. economy.  This sector exploits much of the technology embodied in manufactured products.  For example, think data transmission, manipulation, and storage.  And the multi-million-employed service sector covers a vast range of jobs.  A colleague succinctly gauged the size and importance of the service sector in a simple, non-condescending phrase: The world needs burger flippers too.

     Clearly, the Holy Grail that allows the United States to sustain its position as a world power - perhaps THE world power - is to stay ahead of everyone else technologically.  Not just for military reasons but, equally important, so that consumers can benefit from an on-going improved life-style.  Beating a dead horse, I reiterate that raising the standard of living equates to consumers playing their vital part in stimulating the economy.  Yet, if we still have to transfer some manufacturing capacity to off-shore, low-cost countries, then let it be today's, or yesterday's, technology. Our country must maintain the freedom and the supportive political climate to routinely get ahead - and remain ahead - of the technological curve.  For U.S. business this is, indisputably, the glory road to "Making America Great Again."  Returning second-hand manufacturing and been-there-done-that technology to this country is not.  Indeed, a more appropriate slogan for Trump's risky jobs strategy is: "Moving Forward by Going Backward.”

Banishing George Washington

by John Stevenson

There is a George Washington High School in San Francisco---for now.

School Board head Matt Haney (who takes inspiration from Colin Kaepernick’s antics) has proposed renaming of San Francisco schools, beginning with Washington High.  Second on the list is Francis Scott Key Elementary, perhaps because Key wrote the words to the Anthem that Kaepernick disrespects. 

Haney objects on the grounds that schools should not be “named after people who bought and owned human beings.”  He proposes that schools named after historical figures with “questionable human rights legacies” should be renamed for people of color, LGBT figures, and women. 

Haney points out that “we now have a school district that is overwhelmingly children of color.”  He explains “there might be a more appropriate, meaningful name” and he suggests Maya Angelou, a Washington grad.  This would be more meaningful, apparently, to Washington High’s population---which is overwhelmingly Asian, eight percent white, and five percent black.

It is sad, even tragic, that any American would advocate erasing the name of any of our founding fathers---let alone “the father of our country.”  But the foregoing is all prologue.  The real issue here is the intellectual fallacy of judging yesteryear’s figures by today’s standards.

In his essay “Holier than Them,” Anthony Esolen describes how “the inestimable Robert George likes to ask his college students how many of them, if they lived in the South before the Civil War, would have opposed slavery.”  They all raise their hands.

Then Professor George advises his students “what their opposition would have cost them: ridicule from the most visible political and intellectual leaders of their society, slander of their motives, incomprehension at best from their families, loss of employment, loneliness…”  He also says that it is unclear how members of the slave-holding society “…could form a moral position running athwart so much of what they must have taken for granted from the time they were born.”

The professor goes on to tell his students that, if they had lived in Nazi Germany, it is unlikely they would have become Oskar Schindler, going “…against what everybody knows, what everybody says, what everybody does.”  Similarly, he tells them that, had they lived in communist Russia, it would be extremely doubtful that they would have chosen the gulag by opposing the government of the workers’ paradise.

Of course Professor George does not support slavery or totalitarian regimes.  He uses them to illustrate how unlikely it is that individuals will turn against the societal norms and institutions with which they grew up and which are accepted by all (or nearly all) of their contemporaries.

In addition to slavery, societies have embraced polygamy, public executions, even cannibalism.  The Romans fed Christians to the lions.  During the age of exploration, Europeans colonized and subjugated much of the non-white world, which previously had subjugated each other.  Against what standard could members of those societies be judged, except for the standards of their own time and location?

Who is so morally pure and so clairvoyant as to be willing to be judged by standards which will emerge decades or even centuries in the future? 

Consider consumption of meat, game hunting, sport fishing, capital punishment, abortion, the keeping of pets, the confinement of zoo animals, etc.    Might future generations view these things with revulsion?  We can speculate, but none of us can accurately predict the moral standards of the future.  And we should not evaluate our predecessors against standards of their future.

Here is historian and classicist Professor Sir Ronald Syme:  “It is presumptuous to hold judgement over the dead at all, improper to adduce any standards other than those of a man’s time, class, and station.”

Bullied into Silence

by John Stevenson

A recent article by Alexander Zubalov on “political correctness” caught my interest.  The thesis was that the appearance of widespread agreement with political correctness is false---that actual polling belies the appearance of agreement.  And Zubalov thinks he knows why: “…political correctness is succeeding in its objective…shutting people up. (It) bullies, shames, and silences those who have dissenting views…even if those dissenting views represent a majority.”

In addition to anecdotal evidence, the article provides polling results.  Here are some.

Don’t Blame Me

by Chris James

     Well, the King Donald didn't need my vote after all.  I took a lot of flak from fellow Republicans - including the wife - because of my stand-offish position on his candidacy.  And I've already received several nyah-nyahs stemming from Trump's success, which happened despite the lack of my benediction.   On the other side of the coin, I haven't been awarded any credit for stopping Hilary in her tracks when I withheld my vote from her too.  I didn't waste my vote.  I used it for Gary Johnson because I felt sorry for him.  Anyone who thinks that Aleppo is an exotic dog breed needs all the help that they can get.

Protected from the Truth

by John Stevenson

            Back in the day, report cards were handed out in class.  A student took his report card home, got his parent’s signature, took his lumps, and brought the report card back to the issuing teacher.  Apparently this has changed.

            Nowadays it seems that report cards are available to parents on-line, or in some cases mailed directly to them.  The latter is how it works at one particular private boys school in New York.

            Here is an excerpt from a report card transmittal letter dated January 8, 2016:  “Since our goal is to share accurate information with parents, and not to discourage or hurt a student, great discretion must be used before allowing your child to view his report card. Certainly, report cards should not be seen by students without parental permission and guidance.”

            So apparently it’s not a certainty that a student should be told how he is performing.  And if the student is to find out how he did, the parent must provide guidance so as not to “discourage or hurt” the student.  Huh?

            The transmittal letter goes on, in anticipation that the bad news may cause such trauma that the student should not learn of it.  Here’s the punch line:  “If after reviewing the enclosed report card, you would like us to develop a second version of this report card for your son with higher grades, please call…” (I omit the name and telephone number.)

            Now I have heard of kids forging their parents’ signatures or trying to falsify their grades before showing a report card to their parents.  But I had never until now heard of a school or parent falsifying a grade (or colluding together to falsify a grade) before showing the report card to the kid.

            This reversal seems so insane as to defy belief.  It probably has its roots in the everybody-gets-a-trophy self-esteem movement.  Whatever twisted thinking underlies this foolishness, the potential harm is obvious---and considerable.

            At the low end of the spectrum, let’s say the student is failing but is shown a false report card that says he is passing.  Where is the incentive for him to forgo the video games, get cracking on his homework, re-double his scholastic efforts, seek additional help or tutoring, and so on.

            Or let’s say a student thinks he is college-bound, is earning B’s, but is shown that he is getting A’s.  When will he learn the truth?  Maybe when he gets his rejection letter from his chosen university and finds himself at a community college.

In either situation, the student is being ill-served by the collusion of his school and his parents.  The obvious harm is that the student will be unprepared for his future---and perhaps condemned to failure in the real world.

I don’t know whether any of the parents took advantage of this offer to falsify their children’s grades.  I certainly hope not.  At least some were so appalled by the offer that they complained---and even turned the letter over to the press (I picked it up from the Daily Mail and other media).

We can hope that this practice is a weird anomaly---neither widespread nor a glimpse of the future.  I don’t know whether the school has belatedly awakened to the concept that protecting students from the truth is a really lousy idea.

The Lone Wolves---a New Kind of War

by John Stevenson

                Marcus Luttrell is a retired Navy SEAL and winner of the Navy Cross for his actions against Taliban fighters in Operation Red Wings.   His experience is the subject of the film "Lone Survivor."   Luttrell says "Your war is here.  You don't have to go searching for it."

                The low-tech  "lone wolf" attacks by jihadis here on our own soil have become so frequent and common that we no longer can remember most of them.

The Educational Gender Gap

by John Stevenson

            At Cal in 1960, it was commonly said that there were two-and-a-half male students for every female.  Very likely correct, or close to it.  In fact, that imbalance was probably pretty standard at most co-ed public universities back in the day.              

            (I say “co-ed” because there were still all-men and all-women schools at that time.  For perspective, Schroeders restaurant in San Francisco was still men-only at lunchtime, and no ladies were allowed at the Olympic Club.)

            Cal’s gender imbalance reflected the society of five decades ago.  The Ozzie and Harriet family.  Dad was the breadwinner and mom was the housewife (sorry---homemaker).  I grew up in such a family, as did most of my peers---today’s geezers.

            The bra-burning (I favored this) era took hold, as part of the feminist movement (not so keen on this).  Times, as the song said, were a-changin’.  Without apparent concern for the child-raising and long-term socio-economic implications, society sprinted headlong into achieving gender equality in employment, education, athletics, and so on.  Unless you were a movement advocate or a folk-singer, you just sorta hung on for the ride.

            So here we are fifty-plus years later.  How are the co-eds doing at my alma mater?   Well, enrollment seems to have flipped in favor of the gals.  Latest available data show a slight edge for female students---gone are the days of two-and-a-half to one.  But more importantly, what about schools nation-wide and what about the number of degrees earned?  Ah, there’s the real test.

            Well, apparently the girls are kicking buns.  The American Enterprise Institute has provided a report on this, which says: “Based on Department of Education estimates, women will earn a disproportionate share of college degrees at every level of higher education in 2016 for the eleventh straight year.” 

            According to the DoE estimates, for every 100 degrees earned in 2016 by men, women will earn 154 associate’s degrees (female majority in every year since 1978), 135 bachelor’s degrees (female majority since 1982), 139 master’s degrees (female majority since 1987), and 106 doctorates (female majority since 2006). 

            So apparently the college degree gender gap in favor of men was erased decades ago and has been replaced by a gender gap in favor of women.  Has there been a public outcry over this?  Have there been jock strap burnings?  Have government-funded “men’s programs” sprung up?  If any of these things has happened, I’m unaware of it.

           Where are the gender equality activists now?

Kaepernick---"Like Minds Think Alike"

by John Stevenson

                Here's the sequel  to "Kaepernick---Dissing the Anthem,"  which discussed the QB's disrespect of our national anthem, our flag, and our nation.  And that his anti-American butt plant was applauded in the media and sadly was even condoned by the President of the United States.

                In the original essay, I mentioned that I had been propelled into researching before writing (always a wise approach) and that my research had found there was more to this story than was revealed in the early reporting.

Kaepernick---Dissing the Anthem

by John Stevenson

A side-by-side picture titled "Two Quarterbacks" is circulating on the web. Tim Tebow taking a knee and praising God; Colin Kaepernick taking a butt to protest the Star Spangled Banner and, he says, America itself.  The caption says: "Tebow prays---Media criticizes him for expressing his beliefs on the field. Kaepernick sits during National Anthem---same media praises him for expressing his beliefs."

Looked to me like an issue crying to be written about.  So I researched.  As often happens, there was more to it than the side-by-side and its caption. 

Searching for Motives

by John Stevenson

My son picked me up from a too early flight on Sunday, June 12.  Had I heard any news that morning?  No, I'd been in transit.  He told me there had been a terrorist attack in Florida.  An attack on a gay nightclub.  It was being reported that the attacker was an Islamic terrorist.  Twenty dead, as far as was then known---but it would be more.  Eventually 49, the largest mass shooting in American history.

(Lest you think America holds the world record, it's not even close.  In July 2011, a mass shooting in Norway---strict gun control, even police are unarmed---left 68 dead, 110 more wounded.)

By the time my son delivered me home, more was known.  The killer had stopped 20 minutes into his bloodthirsty labors to call 911.  In that call (it later turned out there were three calls) he told the dispatcher that he was killing in support of the Islamic State (ISIS).  He also took the time to praise the Boston marathon bombers.  Perhaps in an effort to facilitate the investigation sure to follow his butchery, or more likely to taunt the police, he had publicly announced his motive.  The local 911 answering center, the local police, and the FBI all knew he was a self-described jihadi terrorist. 

When I got into my house, California Representative Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was on TV describing the killer's 911 pledge of allegiance to ISIS.  Well, that does it.  Everyone watching TV that morning (there was nothing else on) knew that the killer was an Islamic terrorist.  Case closed.  Well, maybe.

President Obama would come on TV soon to make a statement to the Nation concerning the terrorist massacre.  His message was incrementally delayed.  Viewers were assured that he was getting up-to-the-minute updates from the FBI director.  Finally, the President appeared. 

Since the killer had been thoughtful enough to publicly explain his motivation, imagine my surprise when the President claimed ignorance:  "We've reached no definitive judgment on the precise motivations of the killer…we must spare no effort to determine what, if any, inspiration or association the killer may have had with terrorist groups."  Wow---the killer says he's a jihadi, but the President is not so sure.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the terrorist just tell us all, publicly, that his motivation was his allegiance to the Islamic State?  Was the President not paying attention during his up-to-the-minute briefings from the FBI director?  Was he somehow not watching the news coverage on TV with the rest of America?  How is it that he did not know of the killer's declaration of allegiance?

Fast-forward to July 7.  Another savage opened fire on an apparently peaceful rally in Dallas, where protestors were expressing concern over two recent killings of black men by white police officers in Louisiana and Minnesota.  The killer did not fire indiscriminately into the protest.  He killed five white police officers and injured more.  He also hit two civilians. 

The assassin was soon cornered by Dallas police and killed.  But not before he explained his motives to negotiators.  At a Friday July 8 press conference, Dallas Police Chief David Brown told the world that the killer had said before his death that he was motivated by Black Lives Matter.  The Chief said "He wanted to kill officers, and he expressed killing white people.  He expressed killing white officers."

Aha!  Another open-and-shut case.  Another killer has been helpful to explain the motivation for his crime.  In his own words, he has told the world his racist motivation. 

Our Commander in Chief was at a NATO conference in Poland, but took time out on Sunday, July 9 to comment on this tragedy.  His offering was that it is "very hard to untangle the motives" of the killer.

Now remember that the killer himself had explained his motive, and that the Dallas police chief had in turn explained the stated motive to us all in his (by then yesterday) news conference.  And the motive was simple.  It did not need untangling.  The motive was to kill white people---especially white policemen.

Even in Poland, the President must have been receiving news from stateside.  Were his staff shielding him from the facts, keeping him away from CNN World?  Unlikely. 

Now I'm taking a leap of faith, but I do believe that the President of the United States has a staff that keeps him fully updated on significant events, even (or especially) when he's traveling.  So how to explain that when all the world knew of the self-confessed motives of the Orlando and the Dallas murderers, our President was left oblivious of their declarations.

Well, in the first case, the motive was jihad.  In the second, the motive was racism against whites.  Perhaps jihad in America and black racism do not fit the President's world view.  Perhaps the President thought some other more palatable motives might somehow emerge. 

In any event, in his initial statements he was unable to admit to these publicly-expressed confessions.  Or unwilling.

There You Go Again......

by Chris James

In my previous column, entitled "Good Luck With That," I surgically demolished the two most popular platitudes that are being used by Trumpists to try to persuade doubters and naysayers to vote for that quintessential Village Idiot. Namely, a) not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary, and b) do it for the good of your children and grandchildren. I complacently thought that my skillful efforts more than justified a self-satisfied "Well, that takes care of that." Wrong. The Phoenix has since risen from the ashes. And so, like Sisyphus, I am hypnotically compelled to push that infuriating rock back up the hill again---and to mix metaphors.

There You Go Again, Sisyphus

by John Stevenson

My colleague Chris James mounts an argument against Trumpians.  I'm not one, but I rise to point out a fallacy in his argument. 

Chris declares Trump's isolationist policies would render the U.S. an economic basket case equivalent to Cuba and North Korea.  He ascribes their economic failure to isolationism. 

Not so.

North Korea is truly isolated from the world, but Cuba is not.  Cuba was isolated from us, but continued to do brisk business with other countries.  The common debilitating force defeating the Cuban and North Korean economies is not isolationism.  It is communism.  With a hefty dose of dictatorship thrown in for good measure.

Two Grieving Families

by John Stevenson

At the Democratic National Convention, a Muslim Pakistani-American spoke powerfully and eloquently.  Khizr Khan's son Humayun Khan, a captain in the U.S. Army, had been killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004.  Khizr spoke of his son's sacrifice.  He eviscerated the Republican presidential nominee for not having sacrificed for America and for advocating a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S.  Khizr did not say that the Republican candidate had anything whatever to do with the 2004 death of Humayun. 

Trump and the Ruskies

by John Stevenson

Dear reader: Do not expect to find here an advocacy for either Presidential Candidate Donald Trump or Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton (well, you wouldn't have expected that anyway)---or an argument against either one.  I focus here on the narrow issue of the hacking of the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and, more specifically, the handling of that issue by the DNC, the media, the pundits, and the political operatives.  So this writing is rated "safe for all readers"---even for my Democrat friends (yes, I think I still have some).  But you'll have to pay attention because, as they say, it's complicated.

Three Gratuitous Whoppers

by John Stevenson

As you read this, Hillary Rodham Clinton is being coronated in Philadelphia as the Democrat nominee for President of the United States. 

In his Jan. 6, 1996 essay "Blizzard of Lies," William Safire wrote:  "Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the realization that our First Lady...is a congenital liar."   

On a trip to Nepal in April 1995, Hillary Clinton told reporters she had been named in honor of  Sir Edmund Hillary.  Sir Edmund, along with Tenzing Norgay, became the first to climb to the summit of Mount Everest---"the top of the world."  Clinton was born in 1947, but Sir Edmund conquered Everest in 1953.  Before that, he was unknown in the United States.  So the only possible way that Clinton's claim could be true would be if Dorothy Rodham had, at the time of her daughter's birth, foreseen Sir Edmund's six-years-in-the-future achievement.

Good Luck With That

by Chris James

At a recent local Republican Club dinner, the invited speaker asked the audience who was going to vote for Trump. Within my immediate field of vision, a few hands went up. The speaker then asked who was not going to vote for Trump. My hand shot up assertively toward the Home Depot inspired ceiling of the cathedral-like building in which we were being entertained. Within my limited panorama, only one other hand went up. I also noticed an outbreak of swiveling of heads, glaring at the malcontent in their midst (me). But the most obvious feature of this nearby population was that about half of them failed to raise their hands in answer to either of the speaker's questions. Aha! What have we here? An epidemic of undecideds? A scaredy-cat box of chickens? Or, worse, a closet full of wannabe Hillarians?

Which Statement Is Racist?

by John Stevenson

Racism:  “A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior…” from dictionary.com 

Marco Rubio was my candidate.  Donald Trump was not my first choice.  Nevertheless, I can’t help but point out a double standard in the way Trump is treated.  Here’s an example.

Federal District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel is assigned a case against now defunct Trump University.  In response to an adverse decision by Judge Curiel, Trump criticized the judge.

Trump called Judge Curiel “a Trump-hater.”   He suggested that the judge could not be fair to him because “he is a Mexican.”  Judge Curiel is a U.S. citizen, born in the United States.  His parents had emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico.  Ethnically, he’s Hispanic.

When questioned, Trump offered some reasoning behind his criticism.  He pointed out that “I’m building a wall.”  Presumably, this would be objectionable to Hispanics, and would play a part in Judge Curiel’s alleged unfairness.  In fact, Trump’s poor poll numbers among Hispanics suggest that many Hispanics might be disposed against him.

Trump’s statement drew a firestorm of criticism from all quarters.  It was widely denounced.  Republicans did not step forward to support or defend Trump’s allegation of unfairness.  Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, called Trump’s statement “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”  One Republican Senator actually withdrew his previous endorsement of Trump.  On this issue, Trump couldn’t find a friend.

Trump had declared that a Hispanic judge’s ethnicity could influence his decision making.  For this he was widely scorned and called a racist.

In May 2009, President Obama nominated Appellate Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.  At her confirmation hearing in the U.S. Senate, Justice Sotomayor offered the following for the Senators’ consideration:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Doesn’t that sentence perfectly meet the dictionary.com definition of racism?  Doesn’t it in fact qualify as what Ryan called “the textbook definition of a racist comment”?

That sentence, or some variation of it, showed up in several speeches Justice Sotomayor had made previously.

So in Justice Sotomayor’s view, a Hispanic judge’s ethnicity could influence his or her decision making.  In spite of  this sentiment (or because of it?), she was confirmed with bi-partisan support to fill the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.

I do not offer any opinion here regarding the role ethnicity plays in the decision-making by Federal judges---and I hope it plays zero.  I only point out the obvious double standard.  Trump was vilified for saying ethnicity played a role.  Sotomayor was elevated to the U. S. Supreme Court for saying ethnicity played a role.

So apparently spoken words might be offensive and racist or might not.  It just depends who spoke them.

A Modest Proposal (Courtesy of Jonathon Swift, 1792)

by Chris James

Since the Brexit fiasco, many people---from Prince Charles to the Berkeley City Council---are asking "what now?" Nobody seems to have the answer. Especially, as it slowly dawns on those who voted to leave the EU that they were sold a bill of goods---a la Obamacare, California High Speed Rail, the All-new Well-managed PG&E, etc. Luckily, my modest proposal is intended to fill this Anglo-Vacuo in a timely and lubricious manner.

Oh No! Not Another Allegorical Tale! Part 1.

by Chris James

An earlier column of mine, titled “An Allegorical Tale,” was written specifically for the Common Sense site. The allegory in question was provided by a single example that epitomized man’s idiotic inhumanity, not merely to man, but to just about any living thing. This current column, also written specifically for this site, is a pre-allegory introduction to a breathlessly awaited publication of Part 2.

Energy, the sort that mankind makes, and uses, every second of every day: what’s it all about? Well, it’s all about Einstein’s world-famous equation quantifying the relationship between the atom-splitting annihilation of matter and the resultant release of a force that we call energy. His brilliant mathematical insight represented the pinnacle of something that we have known, or suspected, for more than 200 years. Namely, that there are really only two tangible things in life: matter and energy. For thousands of years, we have also known that you can use one thing to get the other. A simple example at one extreme is, of course, the burning of wood to generate heat. At the other extreme, and infinitely more complex, is the capture and containment of atom splitting processes for the same purpose.

Allegorical Tales Can Be Lengthy---Here Is Part 2.

by Chris James

Let me reiterate that, while these stories are real, they are also intended to be allegorical metaphors for the utter chaos inside the Alternate Energy (AE) movement today. Where to begin, where to begin? Appropriately, let’s start on the sunny side of the street and take a peek at solar AE.

There are two main routes to exploit solar energy’s role in our modern and sophisticated culture: the solar array (pompously named the Solar Energy Generating System, SEGS) and photoelectric cells. The principle behind the SEGS white elephant process is to find a nice sunny spot in a desert and cover it with acres and acres of mirrors. Thousands of them, all focused on a central vessel where water is heated to some ungodly temperature and the resulting steam is used to drive turbines to make electricity. The mirrors are computer controlled to follow the sun as it traverses the heavens.

Ye Gods, There’s a Third Part?!!?

by Chris James

Let’s talk windmills. Oops, sorry. I meant “wind turbines”---as the wind brigade calls them (so that we numbskulls won’t confuse them with tulip fields and people running around in wooden boots). There’s a lot wrong with them---the turbines, not the Dutch.

First, they’re ugly. Put a wind turbine of practical size in your yard, and your neighbors will love you for it. Put a few hundred together in a (small) wind farm and the visual pollution is nauseating. Especially as these farms are usually built out in the open countryside, where the winds are unobstructed by man-made structures. And there goes your landscape. In addition, lonely people who have the misfortune to live close to wind farms have reported that when the turbines are in full cry, the noise is intolerable. And there goes your real estate nest-egg.

Ghost Voters

by John Stevenson

Legend has it that Chicago’s graveyard precincts gave John F. Kennedy the 1960 presidential election over Richard Nixon.  Who knows?  Probably an exaggeration.  Regardless, there’s apparently a Chicago-style get-out-the-vote effort going on right here in the Golden State.

An investigative reporter for CBS2 in Los Angeles compared California Secretary of State voting records with Social Security Administration death records.  Surprise!  He found that some of the dead were still politically active.  He interviewed relatives of the deceased voters---confirming the SSA’s assessment that the voters were, in fact, really departed.

Toke! Toke! Toke! That Cigarette!

by Chris James
(With apologies to lyricists Merle Travis and Tex Williams)

Cigarette smokers are society’s most reliable whipping boy. The latest pitch-fork and burning-torch taxation mob was inflamed by the Surgeon General’s scathing 2012 report on smoking, focused on smoking-related health care costs and the approximately 400,000 “avoidable” U.S. deaths directly attributable to cigarette smoking (an un-stratospheric mortality rate of less than 1% of U.S. smokers).

The Disinvitation Season Is Upon Us

by John Stevenson
(published in March 2014)

With springtime comes an annual ritual.  Universities compete for high-quality high-profile speakers for their upcoming commencement ceremonies.  Negotiations are made, invitations are issued, announcements are made, and faculty-student protests of the commencement plans commence.  Like the annual nativity scene war, it’s become a tradition.

Sometimes the invited speaker does not fit the political mold of the always liberal faculty organization and their like-minded disciples among the student body.  Then the university administration is in for a fight.  Time was, university campuses were bastions of free thought---the marketplace, as the saying goes, for the free and open exchange of ideas.  Diversity of opinion was valued in academia.  No longer.

Another Casualty of Campus Thought Police

by John Stevenson
(published in April 2014)

Mohammed Bouyeri is serving a life sentence for the 2004 murder of Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh.  Van Gogh had made a movie called Submission, shown on Dutch television.  It’s purpose was to draw attention to the plight of Muslim women; it was unflattering to Islam and it’s fair to say it was blasphemous.  Bouyeri stabbed Van Gogh to death in the street.  With his dagger, he then stabbed into Van Gogh’s flesh a letter addressed to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, threatening to kill her as well.

“What Are They Afraid of Hearing?”

by John Stevenson
(published in June 2014)

Michael Bloomberg, Harvard Business School alumnus and former Mayor of New York City, delivered the commencement speech at his alma mater on May 20.  His address had an unusual theme---tolerance for differing points of view.

“This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw, or have their invitations rescinded, after protests from students and… shockingly, from senior faculty and administrators who should know better.”

Newspeak---the sequel

by John Stevenson

My column “Newspeak” was published on May 4.  If you read that column, you’ll recall that Newspeak was the official government language of George Orwell’s “1984.”  I cited two dictionary definitions of Newspeak: “speech or writing that uses words in a way that changes their meaning especially to persuade people to think a certain way” and  “an official or semi-official style of writing or saying one thing in the guise of its opposite, especially in order to serve an ideological cause while pretending to be objective…”

Right on cue (but I do not take credit for this) Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason inadvertently provided another Newspeak example in her May 4 Washington Post guest editorial.  I found this coincidence irresistible, so here it is.

A Teachable Moment

by John Stevenson
(published December 2015)

Josef Stalin is reputed to have said “It doesn’t matter who gets the most votes. It only matters who counts the votes.”  A Soviet version of democracy.

“When we reviewed the results of our Associated Student Body election…we saw that it was not fully representative of our school population.  I made the decision to pause on sharing the results with the students in order to capitalize on a teachable moment.”  So wrote Principal Lena Van Haren, trying to explain to dismayed parents and students why she had put the election results on hold.

New York Values?

by John Stevenson

The dispute between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz over “New York values” has played a part in this year’s Republican primary electioneering.  Cruz’s use of the term drew applause in rural, conservative, religious states.  Trump’s counter-attack likely figured into the trouncing he gave Cruz in the New York primary.

Here’s a story which may shed some light on the difference between New York values and those of fly-over country.

New York City residents Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were traitors.  They stole atomic bomb secrets and transmitted them to the Soviet Union.  They were convicted of treason and espionage and were executed in 1953.

A Job for the U.N.

by John Stevenson
(published in February 2014)

“Gonna take my problem to the United Nations”
Summertime Blues by Eddie Cochran, 1958

Here are some observations just to put our America and the world around us in perspective.

Taking Responsibility

by John Stevenson
(published August 2014)

The most dreaded disease of our generation was Poliomyelitis.  You probably remember the newsreels showing polio victims being kept alive, forever trapped in their “iron lungs.”  In high school I knew two kids who had had polio and survived, but they were partially paralyzed, and would be for the rest of their days.

Then in the late 1950s Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin developed vaccines which would immunize us all against polio.  Sabin’s was an oral vaccine.  In about 1962, when I was a student at Cal, it was made widely available.  Here’s how it worked.

“Zany” Pronunciations

by John Stevenson

Donald Trump has been counseled to “act more presidential.”  So on April 27, he gave a teleprompted speech on foreign policy.  The thrust of the speech was that American interests should be paramount in national security, international diplomacy, and global trade.  Reviews were mixed.

But critics pounced on his pronunciation of the African nation Tanzania.  Trump was slammed by political pundits.  White House press secretary Josh Earnest got in on the fun, saying “Apparently the phonetics are not included on the teleprompter.”

Pria Lal, an assistant professor of African History at Boston College, said there is “no debate” about the correct pronunciation.  She also declared that “it is a serious error and it is ignorant” and that “it seems quite flippant to mispronounce the name of a big country.”

But was it a mispronunciation?  Trump said tan-ZANY-a which, by the way, was the pronunciation in common use when I was a youngster.  Those who seized upon his pronunciation as needing criticism declared the correct pronunciation to be tan-za-NEE-a.

Those Clairvoyant Republicans

by John Stevenson
(published October 2015)

In a presidential campaign debate on October 22, 2012, President Barack Obama ridiculed his challenger: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al-Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaeda….The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Newspeak

by John Stevenson

Newspeak was the official government language of George Orwell’s “1984.”  Merriam-Webster defines Newspeak as “speech or writing that uses words in a way that changes their meaning especially to persuade people to think a certain way.”  Dictionary.com defines it as “an official or semi-official style of writing or saying one thing in the guise of its opposite, especially in order to serve an ideological cause while pretending to be objective, as in referring to ‘increased taxation’ as ‘revenue enhancement.’”

Orwell was prescient: the technique is widely in use today.

“My Brother’s Keeper”

by John Stevenson
(published April 2014)

On February 27, President Obama launched “My Brother’s Keeper,” an initiative to help young black men to realize their potential.  I applaud the president for taking this step, and I wish for the success of this initiative.

The Re-education of Don Jones

by John Stevenson
(published May 2014)

In his classic novel 1984, George Orwell wrote of a totalitarian state that prosecuted “thoughtcrimes.”  Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, committed intellectual treason and was imprisoned and tortured for his crime.  As a result, he rejected his lover and soul mate, as well as his quest for truth and intellectual freedom.  In the end, he truly loved Big Brother; his re-education was complete.

In real life, re-education was an instrument of control applied by the Communist Chinese regime during the Cultural Revolution.  Millions of suspected counter-revolutionaries were imprisoned and underwent socialist “re-education through labor.”  In post-war Vietnam, similar methods were used against those who had sided with the South Vietnamese and American governments.

Defensive end Michael Sam had “come out” to his University of Missouri teammates last August, and found them supportive.  As the NFL draft loomed, he came out publicly in an interview on ESPN.

Eat Your Heart Out, Karl Marx

by Chris James

Recently, I attended a rather Progressively-oriented presentation on Global Warming (GW). The speaker had spent 15 years as a GW activist, conscientiously beavering away at GW whoop-de-do's all over the world.

The Proud-of-America Gap

by John Stevenson
(published in July 2014)

A Pew Research Center poll released June 26 reveals a deep divide between liberals and conservatives in their attitudes about America.  Not about policy (although there’s that, too) but about America itself.

A word or two about Pew’s methodology.  You can find the entire report by searching Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology---but be prepared for a long, arduous read.  Pew divided respondents into eight categories along a spectrum from conservative to liberal.  “Three are strongly ideological, highly politically engaged, and overwhelmingly partisan---two on the right and one on the left.”  The remaining “groups are less partisan…less engaged politically” than the three on the right and left.  More on that in a moment.

Bleacher Envy

by John Stevenson
(published in May 2014)

At the Plymouth High School in Canton, Michigan, the boys’ varsity baseball diamond and the girls’ softball diamond are adjacent.  The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has forced the school to tear down the bleachers at the boys’ field because they provide better seating than do the bleachers at the girls’ field.

Impossible?  Read on….

An Allegorical Tale

by Chris James

A few weeks ago, our newspaper's front page featured a dominating picture of a hunter. You could tell that he was hunter from his camouflaging, I-love-nature, attire and from the weapon that he was holding---about twice the size of your average elephant gun. Then, of course, there were the eponymous vacant eyes---the brain in lonely exile behind them---and the silly, slack-jawed grin; a perfect finishing touch to this iconic poster-boy.

“99.9 Percent” Peaceful

by John Stevenson
(published in January 2016)

After every terrorist act by a follower of the Religion of Peace, there are announcements from the media, law enforcement, and government officials.  And there’s a common thread---a seemingly obligatory disclaimer.  Those who comment, regardless of their place on the political spectrum, remind us that only a tiny percentage of Muslims harbor jihadi sentiments.  The vast majority, we are invariably assured, are peaceful and reject terrorism.

“99.9 Percent” Peaceful---redux

by John Stevenson
(published in February 2016)

In America today and in parts of Western Europe, any who speak out against radical Islamists are accused of Islamophobia and of lumping peaceful Muslims in with the jihadis.  And in some European venues, to speak against Islam is even illegal.

The Shameful, Un-American Religious Test

by John Stevenson
(published in December 2015)

The Islamic State (ISIS) seeks to rule Muslims, but it seeks to eradicate Christians.  Christians who fall under ISIS control are forced to convert to Islam or die.  They are beheaded or crucified.  Children are not exempt.

Trumpophobia on Campus

by John Stevenson

Students at Atlanta’s private Emory University were dismayed to find campaign signs “Trump 2016” chalked on sidewalks and buildings.  Some students reported feelings of hurt, intimidation, and outrage.  They felt unsafe.  They said they feared shootings on campus, thought there was to be a KKK rally, feared walking alone.  They demanded that Trump support be recognized as “hate speech.”

The Ministry of Truth

by John Stevenson
(published September 2015)

On June 17, 2015, an apparent white supremacist murdered nine parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.  Among his possessions, police found images of him posing with the Confederate flag.

The Ministry of Truth---revisited

by John Stevenson
(published September 2015)

The actress Julianne Moore is tired of apologizing for the name of the school she attended: J.E.B. Stuart High School in Falls Church, Virginia.  She felt compelled to apologize because of the “history of racism it represents.”

The Ministry of Truth---one more time

by John Stevenson
(published October 2015)

In 18th century France, a very popular form of entertainment and celebration was cat burning.  Cats were bundled together and roasted alive over a bonfire.  The audiences included peasants and nobility alike.  They delighted at the cats howling and screaming in agony.  The practice was abolished in the 1760s.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

by Chris James
(published November 2015) 

Ronald Reagan, addressing a controversial issue: The solution is not complex. It's simple. But not easy. 

How 'bout them "educational gap" problems, huh? Fortunately, they constitute a subject upon which I am, modestly, an expert. It's because I am blessed with an impregnable data base and an impeccable statistical model. Namely, those of your humble author's personal experience.

Feds Cut Pork!

by John Stevenson

Well that sounds encouraging.  Oh, wait a sec.  It’s not the wasteful spending kind of pork---it’s the kind of pork we eat.

A Change of Heart

by John Stevenson

I’m a self-confessed climate change denier.  I’ve written on the subject several times in the local newspaper.
  
But a November 2 article in the Washington Post has caused me to reassess.  The article was titled “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm---Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.”  It’s not too long, so I quote it here:

Thank Hank

by Chris James
(published August 2015)

A fellow undergraduate once asked if I could name the one individual who was most influential in bringing mankind to the state that it found itself in modern times. Easy: The first Australopithecine to walk upright. He contemptuously disqualified my answer on the grounds that he meant in the modern era, which he defined as beginning with the 14th Century Italian Renaissance. Weirdly, in 2015, this question has returned to haunt me; equally weirdly, I eureka-ed the answer: Henry VIII, King of England (1509-1547). Here's why.

Bias-Free Language

by John Stevenson

When my son was at Cal in the 1980s, there was a student in his living group who was in a wheelchair.  I made the mistake of referring to him as “crippled.”  My son told me that I should not say that.  It was deemed offensive, and I should use the term “handicapped.”  I had meant no offense, but corrected my archaic and apparently insensitive language so as not to embarrass anyone.  Little did I, or my son, or, for that matter, the wheelchair-bound student know that “handicapped” itself would soon be deemed offensive.  It would be replaced by “disabled,” and then by “differently-abled,” and then by “physically-challenged,“ and then by “person who is wheelchair mobile.”   Are you following this?

Gun-related Murders

by John Stevenson
(published June 2013)

Are gun-related murders in the U.S increasing or decreasing?  Conventional wisdom says gun violence is on the rise, right?

A May 2013 Department of Justice (DOJ) report answers the question.  The report covers the period 1993 through 2011, and it’s results are surprising.

Leadership Deficit Disorder

by John Stevenson

During our lifetime, we have seen several presidents called upon by circumstances to rally Americans and others to a dangerous, even existential, challenge.  Here are some examples of presidential leadership, including the iconic and historic rallying cries.

On December 8, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress:  “With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.”

If You See Something….

by John Stevenson
(published December 2015)

In the wake of the recent jihadi terrorist attacks, the government tells us to go about our business but also reminds us to be vigilant: “If you see something, say something.”

In fact, ordinary citizens’ vigilance has helped thwart terrorist attacks.  The shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, the Times Square bomber come quickly to mind.

Remember the “flying Imams”?  In 2006, the six men boarded a US Airways flight, loudly prayed in Arabic, left their assigned seats, took seats near the front, rear, and window exit rows, ordered seat-belt extenders they didn’t need, criticized President Bush and the Iraq War, talked about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.  They generally scared the heck out of the passengers and crew, and were removed from the plane before takeoff.

Then came the inevitable lawsuit, naming US Airways, the airport authority, and even the passengers who had reported the suspicious behavior.

Refujihad

by John Stevenson
(published November 2015)

Remember the heart-wrenching picture of a Turkish policeman carrying the body of a Syrian toddler who had drowned in the surf?  The child had been on a boat overloaded with refugees fleeing from Syria to Europe.  The photograph became emblematic of the refugee crisis: families on the run from the murderous Assad regime.  But is that an accurate representation of the tide of refugees?

Surely, there are families---lots of them---amongst the horde of humanity sweeping into Europe.  And they are often the focus of the news photos and videos.  But it struck me, as I saw more and more of the coverage, that a disproportionate number of the refugees were men.  Men who appeared to be of military age.

Refujihad---revisited

by John Stevenson

My Nov. 25, 2015 column “Refujihad” pointed out that most of the Muslim asylum seekers flooding into Europe are men, with very few women and children.  It also offered United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees statistics supporting that observation.  Further, it pointed to video evidence that the male refugees are overwhelmingly of military age, although UNHCR does not furnish an age breakdown.

The column’s conclusion was that our administration should at least reconsider its plans to admit Middle-Eastern refugees.  Better, that it should admit only the most vulnerable to persecution.  “Accept those least problematic and most deserving of asylum---Christians, Muslim women and kids.  Turn away those least deserving---military-age Muslim males.”

The Parable of the Triumph of Origin over Performance

by Chris James
(published October 2015)

I have an almost genetic addiction to soccer. Thus, as a faithful follower of the U.S. women's soccer team for many years, their towering performance in winning this year's World Cup went immediately to the top of my "best of" list. Apparently, there were some who did not share my adoration.

The newspaper featured the U.S. women's soccer team's success in their Sports section. Surprisingly, analysis of the team's accomplishments was written by a sports columnist who wouldn't know a soccer ball from a Nerf ball. The explanation for this odd journalistic choice quickly became apparent. After a few obligatory faint praises, Mr. How-Do-You-Spell-Soccer raised his true colors. Through his brilliant and meticulous investigative reporting, he had discovered that, among the 23 team members, only one "ethnic" was represented.

Prison Chaser

by John Stevenson
(published May 2015)

Under cover of describing my luncheon with General William Westmoreland, my April 15 column introduced “prison chaser” detail.

For those whose misfortunes extend to having missed the earlier column, prison chasers supplemented the Military Police who ran Fort Campbell’s stockade.  Prison chasers guarded military inmates who were temporarily outside the stockade---usually for a work detail or for a medical or dental appointment.

Prison chaser was a dreaded detail.  Detailees were armed with shotguns or .45 caliber pistols---of course with live ammunition.

Two-Star Lunch

by John Stevenson
(published April 2015)

In the Army of the 1950s (and maybe today, for all I know) certain work is done by detailees rather than as permanent assignments.  Typical among these are mess duty (kp) and various forms of guard duty.  Like most soldiers who never advanced beyond PFC, I frequently drew such details during my almost-three-years at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

During the summer of 1958, our “full bird” Battalion Commander decided to hold a Battalion picnic, perhaps in honor of the Fourth of July---but I’m not sure.  He invited the Post and Division Commander, General William Westmoreland, and Mrs. Westmoreland.  I happened to draw kp duty that day.

Crusaders and Indians

by John Stevenson

In 1969, Dartmouth College led off the race to rename sports teams.  The school changed its mascot from Indians to Big Green.   Ironically, Dartmouth was originally founded to educate American Indians.

Soon after, Stanford University abandoned its Indians, threw Chief Lightfoot under the bus and, after much debate, became a color.  There followed an avalanche of lemming colleges racing to be next to shed their Indian identities.

Climate Change

by John Stevenson
(published October 2013)

A Newsweek article began: “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically…”  It continued: “The evidence…has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it…” And then:  “…in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.”

A Gaga-Gag Order Would Have Been Nice

by Chris James

Being soccer-mad, I am fairly indifferent to American football, but my wife is a bit of a fan. Thus, in the interests of domestic tranquility, I find myself TV-ed by Super Bowl 50 and, pre-game, I am sweatily apprehensive: Lady Gaga is to deliver the National Anthem! The basis of my concern is that, in recent years, many popular divas have been let loose to lustily disembowel the Star Spangled Banner at many a major event.

A New World's Record

by John Stevenson

Tiny Lebanon Valley College in Annville, Pennsylvania, is a private predominantly white liberal arts school.  Last December, activist students attending a forum on campus equality called for changes to address long-standing “institutional injustices.”  Among these demands: renaming of Lynch Memorial Hall.  The name “Lynch,” it seems, conjured up the practice of lynching, and thus it had overtones of racial injustice.

It's Just a Camel

by John Stevenson
(published June 2014)

Just when you think you’ve heard the last word in politically correct silliness, along comes something like this.

The Residence Hall Association at Minnesota’s St. Thomas University planned an event to celebrate the conclusion of final exams.  Central to that event would be the appearance on campus of a real live camel.

The inspiration for the use of the camel was the GEICO TV ad, in which a camel walks through an office asking what day it is.  When one of the office workers finally admits that “it’s hump day,” the camel whoops with delight.

The Gun Free Zone

by John Stevenson
(published July 2014)

Sixteen year old Luke Woodham felt like an outcast at Pearl High School, and he apparently also had a less-than-perfect relationship with his mother.  On October 1, 1997, as his mother was getting ready to go out on her morning jog, Woodham killed her by slitting her throat and then bludgeoning her for good measure.

Taking a deer rifle and with his pockets full of ammunition, Woodham then drove Mom’s car to the school.

An Akademik Lesson

by John Stevenson
(published January 2014)

It was certainly a Happy New Year for the 52 scientists and tourists rescued on January 2, 2015 from the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy.  Their ship had gotten stuck amid Antarctic sea ice on Christmas eve.

I don’t know what possessed the tourists to take a pleasure cruise to the Antarctic aboard the Russian ship.  But the scientists were there studying---are you ready for this?---global warming.

Of Beer and Wedding Cake

by John Stevenson

It is hard to imagine a more devout and dedicated person than one willing to give his life for his religion.  Brahim Abdelsam was one of the November 13 Paris suicide bombers.  Despite his unquestionable commitment to Islam, he apparently felt no scruple against selling alcohol.  When Abdelsam wasn’t busy being a suicide bomber, his day job was saloon keeper.  Abdelsam operated Le Beguines, a bar in Brussels.

Faux Indignation

by John Stevenson

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to ensure a hearing for President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  His reasoning is that we are in a presidential election year, and the new president---whether Republican or Democrat---should be the one to nominate Scalia’s replacement.

Leading Democrats have been quick to criticize Republican “obstructionism.”

The Attorney General's Greatest Fear

by John Stevenson

In his December 6 Oval Office address, to update us on the war against the Islamic State (ISIS), President Obama admonished us against discrimination against American Muslims.  He said we should not “push them away through suspicion and hate” and we should reject proposals that they “should somehow be treated differently.”