Obama and tremulous liberals allowed Trump to prevail

 November 12, 2016

It is now five days after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton to be elected to the Presidency.  The N.Y. Times describes this statement she made today ,Clinton Casts Blames on F.B.I. Director for Election Loss.

The weekend after the bombshell Comey dropped that she now says lost the election, I realized there was only one response that could negate the damage, so after being almost barred by the liberal website I had been on for a decade for a similar suggestion, I felt I had to post this one which I have copied below.  What you don't see is the excoriation from the readership, with only a few people coming to my defense later after those who saw this as blasphemy had vented their rage, not at Comey or Obama but at me.

I responded to the hostile responses but it didn't help, what was needed was that this essay was lauded by large numbers, and was promoted to front page status.  Only then there would have been some slight  chance that this was seen as a movement, something picked up by other liberal venues, and maybe reached the President.  It isn't in his character to have done what I suggest, as sadly Barack Obama is not made of the same stuff as Harry Truman when he went against public opinion to fire this five star general for insubordination in 1951.  

But, damn it, I tried.  Now, much of the advances of not just the last eight years, but of long decades of doing the hard work of allowing diverse peoples and nations of the world to coexist is at risk. 

This was the article, as a link with the comments or directly below. 

------------------------------

Washington Post poll reports Clinton in serious danger of losing

I just checked out the diaries on the rec list, and all the current ones, and not a single one that describes the disastrous effect of Comey’s announcement on Friday.   Sure, Comey is excoriated as he should be, but it doesn’t go far enough.  Here’s the article now up on the Washington Post with this headline on the top online page .

About one-third of voters say FBI's review makes them less likely to support Clinton
I've noticed that deviation from optimism, that this election is all but won by HRC is often met with hostility, as if it is showing a lack of support for her victory.   O.K. before this Post survey,   maybe it was justified, but now we know that James Comey could be the individual who changes the course of history.  Yet there is one person, and only one,  who can stop this from happening.

I was watching CNN a few hours ago when a commentator said, “This FBI report won’t make that much difference, because two thirds of voters aren’t paying attention to it.”   I froze the program and said to my wife the converse that is the above headline “that this leaves one third who are being swayed by this announcement.”  If you read the text below the chart in the article you will see a breakdown that decreases the percentage somewhat, but it is still enough to change the outcome of this election.

This letter is still being described as “sent to Congress” which is really not the most accurate way to describe the target audience,  since they are in recess and could take no action until they return in December.   The letter was meant for the voting public, who will act on it in nine days when they decide who will be President, and sending to the key members of Congress was a way to make it seem more important — and official.

I’m don’t share the mood here to continue with business as usual, and assume that more ridicule of Trump and his voters is in order.   This is as much of an emergency as we will experience in our lifetimes and there must be a groundswell to the only person who can command public attention to reverse this.  This is President Barack Obama.  Here’s what I have in mind:

He orders Director Comey to his office, Monday or Tuesday.  There should be a letter prepared that he is removed from his position as Director of the FBI if needed.   At the same time the White House announces a press conference.  Yeah, this is a showdown.  A drama not usual for “no drama Obama.”
Now it’s up to Comey,  there can be a draft prepared  that references his letter sent to Congress, with an explanation that he did not properly anticipate the degree it would be misinterpreted by those who received it, and then inaccurately amplified by the media.  He must then accentuate the point that there is no evidence, or reason to believe, that anything in this collection of emails will change the previous outcome of the investigation.

While the Director of the FBI has seven years of his ten year term remaining, unlike the Chair of the Federal Reserve, this position is subject to removal by the President without any stated reason.   Congressional Report pp5

Some may respond to this suggestion as the President interfering with impartial administration of Justice.  No!  The President is not only the Commander in Chief of the Military, but of the Federal Law Enforcement Agency.  Taking a firm position on this will show voters that he is in charge, which is what Trump has been denying,  saying that both he and Clinton are feckless weaklings.
Comey was wrong, but only the President can get the attention of the public  to redress the harm done by his actions.

The Night I became a Trump Deplorable

I was walking along Sixth Avenue in the heart of Greenwich Village one evening in 1970 with my long time girl friend, enjoying the lights, the crowds and good feelings.  When a few yards in front of me, I noticed a man, a black man who appeared from nowhere, who was carrying what I have to describe.  It was a device of the time; we called them skate boards,  a skate nailed to both ends of a five foot base of wood, with a crate in the front.  But he was holding it from the back, and swinging it so the front with the crate gave heft to the roller skate.  He was disheveled and maybe staggering a bit, and was swinging it as he was walking forward into the crowded sidewalk.  People started to run, but then he was approaching a girl who had not noticed him.  He was using his board like a batter at the plate, with this girls head being a ball that he was about to demolish.  My reaction was instinctive, a shout that stopped traffic, “Watch out” -— in time for the girl to turn, see what was coming and sprint away. 

The man heard it too, and saw where it was coming from.  He pivoted and started walking towards me, as he came closer positioning the skateboard with each step, until with his weapon ready to swing at me, I raised my arms to deflect the blow  and we locked eyes, with mine imploring him, “why --  why are you doing this.”  And then rather than fracture my arms or worse,  he threw down his crate, and walked away into the crowd.   

Then as my fear subsided,  the first thought that flashed to mind was guilt.  Guilt, that in this almost all white crowd, I had somehow done harm to a disturbed black man.  This quickly faded, to be replaced by a realization, a crystallized thought,  that today four decades later provides a window on those who in the next month could possibly bring fascism to this country.  I thought,  “What kind of a world am I living in where my possibly preventing a homicide would leave me feeling like I’m a racist.  And how far does this white guilt go.  If I had been deterred by this doubt a second longer I would have found out for sure whether the board wielder was just joking around, or whether he would have completed his swing at the girl with lethal results.”  

I’m not sharing this on my liberal web site, where sympathy for diehard Donald Trump supporters is not expected to be welcomed because as both sides of this election agree, if the other side wins our country will be devastated.  Maybe I should risk it, since I am among those who abhor what Donald Trump represents, the distortion of conservatism known as the alt-Right, perhaps insight from my own experience may provide a key for a few to interact across the deepening divide.  

For those few seconds I was in a position of what a cop does on a regular basis, as it’s his/her job to confront those who could be a lethal threat to others or himself, or then again could be just acting in a bizarre way.  My life has been different, as I avoid putting myself in such situations, and if I do find myself in a high risk setting I can walk the other way.  Because of this, I can indulge myself in believing  that I could never do what some cops do,  kill someone who is not about to cause harm to anyone.  I can take comfort that I am always humane, and certainly not one who would respond differently to one race from another.  

This election is changing our country in a way that won’t be reversed after the votes are counted and we have a President elect.  Our focus on the candidates of this single election avoids the need to have understanding of the other side, all the more so to the degree that you view them as contemptible.  What I shared here of my feelings close to a half century ago, could have, with some small changes in my own life events,  put me on the other side, admiring Donald Trump as the flawed savior of this country.  He would have been the person liberating me from that guilt that had burgeoned to be an oppressive ubiquitous force that only he would challenge.  

In sports it may be true that winning is the only thing that matters, but it’s not that way with a complex society as disparate as ours in every way possible.  And we are only one of many other countries, for which an impervious wall of protective isolation is more and more inconceivable.  For one to aspire to the position of President of the United States, he/she must have at the least an element of delusional megalomania.  The escalating challenges should give any rational person pause, knowing that the best that can be done is the very un-heroic kicking the can down the road for a few more decades, with the hope that somebody else will come along to do the same.

    

Martin's Poem

This is taken from the laureate’s essay on the occasion of awarding of the Nobel Prize in Medicine to Martin Rodbell in 1994.

To my Friends: Thoughts from “On High”

Life on a roller coaster, oscillating from hither to yon,
no respite for the iconoclast, wandering from dusk to dawn.
Conjuring strange thoughts foreign and twice forbidden,
like Prometheus unbound, this Nobelist climbs in vain
to Andean peaks, seeking what most would proclaim insane.

Why, he ponders, are there no answers to protean questions when others thinking cleanly and simply with Occam’s sharp razor proclaim what seems obvious given the beam of their unerring laser. Nature, happily unfettered with philosophy, or with cunning, or with intent moves relentlessly onward or even backward with energy unspent while we mortals test and probe with twinkling machines blinking precisely at each movement, striving to unravel its irresolute randomness, its fathomless, unlimited, meaningless rush into spiraling chaos, oblivious of its multitudinous trials & errors which we pontifically believe must be unerring truth & resolution.

The laugh is on those who, burdened with pretensions of truth, believe they can fathom within 15 minutes of human existence what has transpired over eons of space and time in this Universe .

So, I extol the intuitions encapsulated in the folds of my mind from whence occasionally they hurtle to the forebrain and in a twinkling of a proton’s discharge bring to fruition a thought, an idea borne on the feathery appendages of teeming neurons wedded in a seamless synergy. Those fleeting moments are cherished as are those precious impulses imparted by the innumerable individuals who nurtured and instilled unknowingly their encrypted thoughts in mine.

So, with these fanciful thoughts in mind I give praise to you - my friends, my colleagues, my soul-mates, my loved ones - for letting my soul and thoughts meander hither and yonder in this attempt at philosophy and poetry. We now belong to the Gods on high who praise us for our frailties and our achievements.

Martin and I had the same great grandfather, who died, long before either of us were born, in a Polish ghetto that neither of us would recognize. And, I’m certain, this man said his prayers, went to synagogue and believed fully in his God. I don’t know whether Martin believed in God; but if he did it was a very different one than our great grandfather’s.

Here’s what his poem meant to me: Rather than being frustrated by how little progress he could make in fully understanding his chosen area of research, he takes pleasure in being able to solve a small part of the puzzle. As he thanks “the innumerable individuals who nurtured and instilled unknowingly their encrypted thoughts in mine,” he fully expects others to similarly value what he has brought forth, “intuitions encapsulated in the folds of my mind from whence occasionally they hurtle to the forebrain and in a twinkling of a proton’s discharge, bring to fruition a thought. “ His thought. A part of the chain of knowledge that his life work extends by a single link.

His poem can be taken as a response to those who would claim that science’s paucity of explanation is indicative of some other process, a purposeful all powerful designer. “Why,” he asks, pondering his own limitations , “are there no answers to protean questions when others thinking cleanly and simply with Occam’s sharp razor, proclaim what seems obvious, given the beam of their unerring laser.” Whether the designer be God or some ethereal conception of an ordered purposeful universe, Martin’s answer is the same, “The laugh is on those who, burdened with pretensions of truth, believe they can fathom within 15 minutes of human existence what has transpired over eons of space and time in this Universe “

I’m proud of my cousin Martin, even though I never even met him, and never will, since he died several years ago, at what now to me, seems a such young age. He would be surprised to learn that the words of his poem, imbedded in an essay printed in a book for libraries and attendees at the Nobel Awards in Stockholm, are now available to billions of people with a few key strokes on their computers.

While we are constantly made aware of the suffering caused by man and nature in all its permutations, we are also in the midst of an explosion of knowledge that his work is representative of. While we deplore the inefficiencies and, at times, duplicity, of pharmaceutical corporations, there is the constant accretion of the products of basic research, that however twisted its path, enriches us all. This growth, this inexorable drive to understand the processes of life, from the molecular to the societal, has a tenacity that defies all attempts to extinguish it.

Martin’s life is intertwined with a singular event, the epitome of focused destruction of a people, his people, my people--- a people who happen to revere this quest for understanding in all of its forms. The woman whom he married and raised his family with, his widow Barbara Lederman Rodbell, was a teenager in Amsterdam during the Nazi occupation. She joined the resistance and actively fought against the invaders. She was friends with another family of Jews, the Franks, who tried to survive by hiding in an attic. The world knows of their story from the diary written by their daughter, Anne.

In this time of questioning the relation between church and state, it is claimed that science is simply another religion, another belief system based on faith. While there are certainly differences between the two worldviews, there is truth to this claim. Martin, and Barbara, had faith that their lives, dedicated to a quest for knowledge, would in some way, in some time, make for a better world. Martin’s life work explicated the processes of inter-cellular communication. He showed how each of the trillions of cells of higher organisms, of we humans, coordinate to mature and survive to achieve our purposes, whether profound or profane.

Martin spent his life in his own resistance movement. It was a resistance against ignorance, and the imitation science that masks it, exemplified by the Nazi genocidal hatred that took such an unfathomable toll. His weapon was not a more powerful bomb, or a new way of marshalling the passion of the masses; it was in discovering how a process in our body works. He knew we could never erase the horror of six million Jews killed in the holocaust, or hundreds of millions who died in our lifetimes in similar excrescences of organized hatred fueled by ignorance.

All he could do; all we can do, is support the mosaic of scientific knowledge--precise, objective, verifiable, and universal. This slow laborious slog of discovery seems so puny compared to the grandeur of those who offer comprehensive answers, mystical or scientistic, whom he described as “burdened with pretensions of truth.”

If there is such a thing as evil in the world, this universal apotheosis that transcends time and place, surely its essential element is ignorance, the blindness that leads to fear, and the destruction that follows. Such evil destroys like wildfire, or nuclear blasts, or mass murder by a master race. Yet, resistance to these scourges is not to be found on a comparable scale. Rather it is the wisp of a seedling after a firestorm. Resistance is a life of discovery, the articulation of a concept that clarifies forces hitherto unseen, and perhaps an unfinished diary of a young girl, who still had hope for a better world.



Nobel Lecture and Autobiography of Martin Rodbell

"Great America" remembered, staring Cary Grant

September 7, 2016

In only a month mail-in voting will begin, one selection to endorse making "America Great Again" by electing a President to take us to this somewhat hazy place.  I got a glimpse of it last week watching the 1951 comedy,  "People Will Talk" played by a media star of that time, who had the charisma to make the film a hit.  

Dr. Noah Praetorius was not only played by, but was the Cary Grant, in all his self assured handsomeness, enhanced with the authority of being a physician with the added panache of flaunting his use of unproven alternative treatments.  In thinking about this films popularity, that exists to this day,  I realized that Dr. Praetorius and Donald J. Trump reflect the same archetypes in the unconscious mythologies of our nation.

The theme of this film, before the social revolutions of the 1960s where even imagined, still exist in our hopes and fears today  As an example, there was not a single black actor in the entire film; not a student or professor or even sprinkled among the audience of a concert.  Cary Grant's  hero doctor was lauded for his stalwart independence, not only the right to deceive a pregnant college student telling her "the test was in error," but then to have a private conversation with the natural guardian of this adult, her father, about how to proceed in her "management." It would be the men who would decide her fate.  An early abortion for this accidental pregnancy was never even mentioned as an option, as the choice was her marrying the doctor or suicide, attempted before, but treated as a joke in the film.

The movie world of 1950s depicted in "People Will Talk" is what Donald Turmp promises to bring back. While today's candidate boasts that he could kill a random person without any loss in his popularity, Grant's Dr. Praetorius presaged this by revealing that his close companion was a man who had murdered someone in public.  Ah, but his friend was a stalwart, kind person, who loved dogs and had bonded with our hero; so his confession, under the laws of human nature that then, as well as now, prevail over rational evaluation. He was given instant amnesty; and in addition he was bestowed the authority to deliciously demolish the character who had been investigating our confident, iconoclastic hero-doctor.
    

For the audience of 1951 and those who have praised the film on the internet over the years, the denouement fit the world around them.  The character who ended up being despised was not the charming doctor or the kindly murderer; but the scold who tried to call such people to account.  The film's popularity was a celebration of the America of that time that one presidential candidate now offers to restore.  

A short feature often shown with movies of that era documented the world news of the day, ending with a stentorian ominous voice intoning , "Time Marches On."   We knew it meant in one direction only, that if we failed to rise to the emerging challenges there would be consequences that were not reversible.  We could enjoy the zany comedies, the happy endings on the feature film without guilt;  but fiction ended when we walked out of the darkened theater into a world that we, as citizens of a democracy, were responsible for shaping.  

MCI or CRS, why the name of a decline of memory matters.

April 2013- References to Wellness Exam etc at end.

MCI is the latest medical diagnosis that had previously been called early stage Alzheimers, which was at one time called Senile Dementia.  The Initials stand for Mild Cognitive Impairment--I'll leave the interpretation of CRS for later.  There is a little known clause in the massive Affordable Care Act- or ACA, informally known as Obamacare  that will increase this diagnosis among the elderly- with unexamined adverse effects.

This change in our acceptance of medicaliazation of old age so far has gone unnoticed, as it is packaged in the form of more vibrant longer life, and better yet, that it will come at no cost at all, rather paid for by future efficiencies.  This is illustrated in memory decline, to some degree a universal that is as ubiquitous as diminution of  balance, height and strength.  It is something that societies have dealt with from the beginning of civilization, which always includes acceptance of of all aspects of aging-- ending with death.

This paper by the Alzheimers Association describes this requirement and their recommendations for the testing.  It included this paragraph that leads to the problem I explore:

These comments are supported by a number of studies showing that cognitive impairment is unrecognized in 27%–81% of affected patients in primary care.  

Now think about this for a second.  The ACA does not say that physicians may include assessment for cognitive impairment, but that they must if you choose to have the Annual Wellness Visit.   The political-cultural aspect of this is illustrated by the contrast with another part of this session.  The cognitive assessment is required, while discussion of end of life planing, because of the objections from the right, is optional.

Note in the paragraph above that the range of those who do not recognize such impairment is as high as 81%.  What this shows is there will be a large number of elderly people who are going about their lives, maybe even laughing about their memory decline, who will be told that this condition is nothing to joke about, rather a disease that must be monitored by physicians. (So severe according to a recent N.Y. Times article that there is a one in eight change of it becoming full Alzheimers within a single year)  One way of we oldsters dealing with this is making a parody out of this "medical condition"  describing it by the alternative name in my title, CRS which we laughingly say means, "Can't Remember Shit!"

When I first discovered this aspect of the Annual Wellness Visit I wrote this essay, that was both a personal reaction and a broader description of the fiscal consequences of this mandate and other aspects of the ACA.  It is important to clarify that my objection is not to gathering data about memory decline, which is a severe problem for the individual and for society, but rather that the procedure mandating this during the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit ignores principles of informed consent and damages the doctor patient relationship, most important to people worried over memory loss.

In the essay linked above I describe my experience with an Alzheimers research project at UCSD, where one of my criticisms is that they do not collect and analyze all of the data  from everyone who goes through their screening procedure. The key difference, one that is far from trivial, is that everyone, including myself, who availed himself of their mental tests made a personal decision to do so with full knowledge that they could get feedback that would be disturbing.  Let me be clear, those who volunteer for research on dementia have my admiration, along with those medical scientists who work in this area.

There is another important point that may have been obfuscated in my previous essay, which is there certainly are neurological diseases that cause severe memory loss.  While there is presently no cure, or even treatment to forestall the severe stages of the most common of these diseases, it is certainly feasible that such could be discovered.   I highlight normal decline of memory of aging, (the tail of the bell curve of this process being similar to the disease)  because there is a dearth of those who make this point, --who defend existing coping mechanisms that preserve well being of those elderly who choose it.  For those in the early stages of one of the degenerative irreversible neurological conditions, this could be only a temporary amelioration of the emotional effects of the disease, but this coping mechanism of trivialization or denial should be an option left open to the individual, rather than negated by government policy.

Let me be clear, there are doctors who form relationships with their patients where this cognitive assessment is just a part of what one physician described as the "art and science of medical care."  Advisor, confident, conduit to treatment to preserve life and health---this is the ideal relationship that does not need this law to perpetuate.  And the rare abrupt anomalous decline of cognition should certainly be referred for immediate follow up, as this overshadows the potential harm of this mandate for the vast majority of those with degenerative or normal decline of memory.

My position should not be confused with an earlier medical paternalism, where doctors withheld the truth about the severity of a patient's prognosis.  What I describe could be just as inexcusable, the physician imposing his/her diagnosis without the patient knowing that a condition is being evaluated. This simplistic one sentence mandate for an evolving, unreliable cognitive assessment with potential devastating emotional consequences must not be allowed to stand.

If the decision of public policy is to do otherwise, it should be only after open discussion, rather than remain unknown to the patient as is the current case of this mandated evaluation in the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit.
----------------------------
References:

This MCI assessment is discussed in this article in The Journal of Family Practice,  Assessing for cognitive impairment is now mandated as part of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit.   Finding this requirement in the actual text of the law is difficult but it can be located beginning on pp 1154 of the text.  that states,  "The Affordable Care Act stipulates that clinicians must assess individuals aged 65 and older for cognitive impairment as part of their annual wellness visit ."
----------------------------
This was expanded for the article, Normal Aging or Disease-the Demarcation Fades in Sept. Oct. 2013 issue of The Humanist 
----------------------------
This link is to required elements of the visit from the Medicare Service Bureau booklet:

Pg. 7. (pdf pagination adds 2)

Detection of any cognitive impairment that the beneficiary may have (includes the
assessment of a beneficiary’s cognitive function by direct observation, with due consideration of information obtained by way of patient reports or concerns raised by family members, friends, caretakers, or others);

In addition to the physician, this evaluation may be performed by:
Pg 3

A physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist; or a medical professional (including a health educator, a registered dietitian or nutrition professional, or other licensed practitioner) or a team of such medical professionals, working under the direct supervision of a physician.

Pg 8
Medical records must document that a health professional provided, or provided and referred, all required elements of the AWV. You should use appropriate screening tools normally used in a routine physician’s practice.
-----------------------
This short video produced by Medicare, explains the Annual Wellness Visit, with no mention of the cognitive evaluation that is done.
-----------------------
A long personal story that relates tangentially to this essay
My Alzheimer's Screening, personal narrative and technical discussion
-------------------
This post mortem  study illustrates how MCI is in the center of continuum of normals and Alzheimers disease.  This is evidence that the three categories are billing codes rather than discrete medical conditions.

Persons with mild cognitive impairment were intermediate in terms of Braak stage and CERAD and NIA-Reagan neuropathologic criteria for AD compared to the other two groups. In multiple regression analyses, persons with mild cognitive impairment had intermediate levels of AD pathology from those without cognitive impairment and those with dementia 
-----------------
Mild cognitive impairment: historical development and summary of research

Is an extensive survey that ends with this:

Although clearly valuable as a research tool, it may be debated whether physicians in clinical practice should consider a diagnosis of MCI for individual patients. Because MCI is a heterogeneous entity comprising a variety of neuropathological and psychiatric disorders, and because dementia is not an inevitable outcome, the term may carry too little prognostic and diagnostic weight to legitimize its widespread use on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the lack of universally agreed upon criteria and the public's unfamiliarity with the concept could result in increasing uncertainty, anxiety, and misunderstanding

It goes on to suggest that the clinician rather give the relative prognosis based on the subsets of the MCI condition.  From reading this long survey with over a 150 references, the probability that a general practitioner, much less a para- professional,  has mastered the current state of this research is minimal.
--------------------
Report on frequency, mandated tests, and payment of annual wellness exam.
Elements of AWV:

Patient's medical history
Family history
List of patient's current physicians and other health care professionals
Height
Weight
Body mass index (or waist circumference)
Blood pressure
Other appropriate measurements based on medical history
Cognitive impairment screening
Depression screening
Functional ability and level of safety screening
Five- to 10-year schedule for preventive tests, immunizations and screenings
Lists of risk factors, including mental health or other previously identified mood disorders
Health education and referrals for preventive counseling services
Health education and referrals for promoting wellness (e.g. weight loss, physical activity, smoking cessation, fall prevention and nutrition)

Donny Trump, Come Home All is Forgiven

August 19, 2016

Last week, as part of the Donald Trump pivot, his  new Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway, was interviewed by Chris Mathews introducing the “New kind and gentle” candidate, previously made famous by leading a mob of acolytes that he boasted, without rebuttal,  would support him if he killed an innocent stranger on a busy street.
 
He is right, as leaders of street gangs or organized crime gain power by ruthlessness that is never met with objections, but rather increased fealty to the leader, be it of a gangster mob or a national dictator.   Trump won the Republican nomination with this persona, but realized last week that he not could win the national election where his “gang members” do not constitute a majority.  

Since his gang has nowhere else to go,  this consummate performer is taking on a different role, a new persona, one that could grab just enough of those in the middle for him to gain the presidency.  His new part is the contrite little boy, who ran away from home and was very very bad, but really loves his mommy and daddy and even his little brother who stutters that he made fun of. He’s a full blooded spoof of Bart Simpson, as he tried to hold in his tears of embarrassment for being so bad, and convey it with a wan smile.

It only took a few words delivered from a teleprompter (as the lines had to spoken exactly as written)  at a campaign event Thursday night in Charlotte, N.C.:  His message was:  “I meant well, but you know me I sometimes lose control, but now I won’t be like that any more if you just take me back in,” 

"Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don't choose the right words or you say the wrong thing, I have done that, and I regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues."

Those with pets understand this; that even when the pooch got away and bit a kid, or mauled another dog, we still love the little rascal.  Or our son who got into a fight, and he really shouldn’t have started it and then lie,  saying it was the other guy, but now he really feels bad, so I will give him a big hug.

This is human nature, and the  new Trump machine knows this.  He has picked the time to reach out to those people who believe in redemption, oppose capital punishment, and want those who committed felonies to be rehabilitated and have every chance to be accepted by society….  those who ascribe to an ethos of redemption, even for those who have done great harm to many people.
Now back to another front on this full thrust of transformation of Donald J. Trump. It started during a Town Hall moderated by Chris Mathews who lives with the contradiction of belonging to a religion that considers abortion a mortal sin, while personally being in favor of it.  During this event last May Chris asked the question (full transcript) , “what about the mother, should she be punished?”   Trump, as he has never really thought through any of the defining issues of the political divide tried to cover this lack of exploring the issue with this dialogue:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment. 

MATTHEWS: For the woman. 

TRUMP: Yeah, there has to be some form.

.

This was an example of Trump thinking on his feet, and his not incorporating the absurdities of distortion of logic that is part of what political discourse. has become.  Shortly after this he tried to “walk it back" (a strange locution as if one’s statement could be unsaid.)  Trump’s initial statement was rational, meaning that abortion by definition means the act of a woman destroying her own fetus.  Abortion may or may not require the participation of another person, who may be a licensed physician or someone with a coat hanger and an Oxycontin pill to ease the pain. 

. 

Trump didn’t know the Republican party line, which was articulated by his new campaign manager to Mathews this week,  which is a statement about “political speech” which sacrifices logic and facts to the prime motivation of influencing voters.  Specifically, it demonstrates what the conservative “pro-life” position means for the definition of “woman” 

.

If abortion is murder, which is what the pro-life position states, then it would follow that the essential person to commit this homicide is the one who controls the victim, otherwise known as the fetus or unborn human being.  The  person could be a brute who takes a crowbar to the mothers belly and as such, the woman is one of the two victims of a crime. 

.

 This is the logic that underlies the situation in the U.K.  In England and Wales, where abortion is legal, (Pro-choice) a women is not penalized.  Where it is illegal, (Pro-Life) in Northern Ireland, a women faces severe punishment.  This is where the right and left differ dramatically, and why Trump was initially confused, and was  expressing his genuine conclusions of one who embraced the “pro-life” position, but for instrumental purposes only.  As such he did not understand the ideological and incongruous fiction, which is that medical doctors who follow a mothers autonomous decision to destroy her fetus are the instigators of murder similar to the man with a crowbar who assaults a mother. 

.

This is what Campaign Manager, Kellyanne Conway articulated yesterday when she said that a mother who hires an abortionist is a "victim” and does not deserve any punishment.  Of course in any situation other than abortion, a person who hires another to kill someone is, as Trump initially said, committed a crime. 

The orthodox “pro-life" position would have been perfectly appropriate a century ago when women could not vote, had limited right to contract and could only be employed in positions that were closely supervised by their natural superiors, men.  It was then part of our culture that women, like children would not be responsible if they did wrong in collaboration with those of higher status. 

.

Once buzz words have become ubiquitous and fraught with emotion,  the principles underlying them are never brought to light, and so the right to destroy one’s fetus becomes transformed into “Pro choice” and the antithesis of being “Pro-life.”  Donald Trump, when he said women should be punished, had not internalized the twist in assumptions of this position to make it politically acceptable, which is why he had been opposed to it most of his life.  Now, his natural desire to “be a winner" has transcended whatever humanity he may have possessed,  so it’s woman as infant that he must now endorse.  

. 

Donald Trump has ripped off his gangster-thug mask, to attempt to come home to the warmth of acceptance of those who will forgive the “prodigal son.”  It’s the role of a lifetime is to be deeply sorry for having offended anyone, of being a bully for so long.  We don't know how the script will play out.  The next scene could be he would reveal that when he was a child he never had the benefit of loving parents who would have  helped him be a more decent guy.  

.

I have to admit that Donald Trump is one hell of a performer, whether that’s a qualification for President is another question.

Presidential Election 2016 - Beyond Partisanism

First an Introduction to the Doomsday Clock where the scope is the destruction of the planet Earth, not the solar system or galaxy or any of the individual units such as continents or countries.  The concept, defining risk and then using the closeness to midnight as the analogue to such a catastrophe works for other complex systems, as small as a species being made extinct and as large as the universe itself.  

The clock was introduced in 1947 by a group of atomic scientists  when the danger of a thermonuclear exchange would have ended civilization as we know it, and since 2007 has reflected global climate change as a separate but additive risk.  Of course, the accuracy of the clock is beyond objective evaluation, as it’s main value is heuristic,  using this known image of a minute hand approaching midnight to convey a world at risk. 

Let’s see if this works for a country, specifically our own, which has had the major influence on our world over the last century — and also is where most readers of this happen to live. The “end of the world” has its national analogue in what is called “a failed state” usually meaning a lack of effective central government with the unleashing of bestial internecine hobbesian conditions of war of all against all.  

Even after generations of children being indoctrinated by reciting a pledge to “…..a nation indivisible”  this country is held together by the most fragile of bonds,  with greater centrifugal forces than most others.   We were founded by those whose greatest aversion was to a strong central authority, so much so that they provided in their charter a prohibition against the federal government disarming the people.  This charter also protected what was to be the seed of it’s own dissolution, the enshrinement and protection of the institution of Chattel Slavery, treating other humans as property, as mules rather than fellow human beings.  Rather than a nation indivisible, our constitution until the end of the Civil War was a loose agreement by sovereign states who like England this year could have left the Union at will.

The presidential election of 2016 while taking place in a milieu of a high stakes reality show with the country focused on each daily episode of the star performer follows a pattern, first an outrageous statement, then the analysis, then often his reinterpretation of the meaning of what he said.  After at most a hiatus of a few days, this is repeated, along with televised analysis of probabilities and strategies for winning the requisite number of electoral votes for the star performer to become President. 

While the country is focused on this election drama, the national doomsday clock is getting closer to midnight by forces that are ignored since they are reduced to components, demographics of one party or the other, to be analyzed endlessly as if this were a sporting event.  Unlike the Civil War where the one demographic was the elite of the Southern States and the central issue was slavery, at this time there are multiple groups that are on the verge of armed conflict.  What makes this moment in time unique is the individual who has gained the nomination of one of the two major parties of the country, and as such has provided a nucleus for the various forces of discontent to unite.  What is also unique is this individual and his coalition have various degrees of animosity to not only the federal government, but the laws and norms that have allowed it to exist and evolve since the end of the Civil War.  

The very name of this candidate evokes such strong emotions of affiliation or contempt that the individual obfuscates the historic meaning of this election --whether or not he wins.  One key is a statement he proudly made on television,  “I Could Stand In the Middle Of Fifth Avenue And Shoot Somebody And I Wouldn't Lose Any Voters.”  Never in this country’s history has a candidate for any major office made such a boast, and more importantly, that it would it be seen as accurate by his supporters.

The perception that this is a variation of previous presidential elections, rather than something quite different is an illusion.  This election is the first stage of the formation of coalitions, more variegated than our Civil War, but with the potential of unleashing internecine divisiveness, that with an armed population could take an unprecedented violent course.  This takes us back to the value of a national Doomsday Clock, just as the world’s version may have alerted us to danger, so to,  one for our country could have the same salubrious effect.   Let’s dispel the idea that we are blessed by God and accept we are only the product of human effort and inspiration and the desire to make our country function, and in doing so advance humanity as much as possible.

As for politic, as a process of dispute resolution it certainly beats escalation, with the danger of the long horrors of revolution.  In any conflict one can choose to sharpen issues or to obfuscate them, to ignore stresses with the hope that they will quietly resolve themselves, with the help of incremental laws that will eventually become social norms or bring the underlying stress to a head.  It could be useful to look at the two candidates as representing these two extremes, which would at least provide a language for discussion.

A parliamentary system of government would allow for this,  as the various groups who want change can, and must, articulate their positions to vie for votes.  While this election is nominally between the traditional two parties, it is really two coalition governments vying to gain power.  The Republican candidate is seen as incoherent as the attempt to reach all the desperate groups requires he presents as a single voice which in a parliamentary system would be articulated by the leaders of various parties in the coalition who are opposed to each the other.  What makes this candidate rare, perhaps unique, is that he has risen to this high candidacy in a realm without the need for political skills or adherence to their norms.  I use the word “political” in the largest sense, which would include those who rise in a corporate business structure, or academia or even to military leadership, where building coalitions is a necessity.

This candidate does have the ability to create his own reality, even his own language with the destruction of the meaning of powerful concept-words such as “founder” “Satire” and concepts such as “Second Amendment Solutions.”  Yet, for his followers this only demonstrates his strength,  his transcending the “mess” of our current civilization he echoes the spiritual, as in Mark 14:58  "We heard Jesus say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple, and in three days I will build another…….”

The Temple is the biblical representation of “The Establishment,” a coherent language and body of laws and norms that surround us.  It provides benefits to those who prosper and pain to those who feel imprisoned by it.  What makes this candidate so rare is that he has no coherent plan, nor does he believe in a spiritual being that will transform the world;  his persona being formed by  his actual father, not being God but a wealthy successful builder who allowed him to feel that he was gifted far beyond his own capacities.  

It would be useful to consider this election, this candidate,  dispassionately, ignoring the individual to look at the revolutionary nature of his proposals, that I will not articulate here.  Most are beyond the authority of the position being contested, but would have the effect of legitimizing them, or if he were to go down in defeat, of further diminishing them in political discourse.  We may be guided by Thomas Jefferson, who was among other achievements a scholar of political philosophy who is well known for this statement from the Monticello website ,  “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”  

The Presidential election of 2016 is a rebellion, whether a little one that he endorses or one that turns out to be the fuse for a big one that he warns agains will be determined by the unknowable nature of history-shaping forces.  Jefferson’s guidance was of a time when the primitive level of technology limited devastation of wars and damage to our planet,  so the concept of a Doomsday clock didn’t apply.  But now it does, for the world and every country, state or ethnicity.  Among the challenges are those of artificial intelligence eliminating the relationship between human effort and reward, which raises issues that we don’t even have the language to address.  But language is all we have, and while we must refine our terms, expand it for discussion of choices that have not had to be made previously, we must defend this tool of civilization from being degraded by the attachment of a partisan tag that arouses visceral emotion that replaces meaning.  

To only focus on the candidates, to root for ours and condemn the other, is a waste of what should be a time for reflection.  Simply demolishing the candidate we oppose is to admit defeat in what should be the ongoing effort to enrich the democratic process.  Our country and the world faces some harsh realities, and the suffering of those of our fellow human beings should not be ignored as we face new challenges.   

 

   

       

 

Trumps Ultimate Blasphemy of "Rigged Elections."

When Donald J. Trump made this comment yesterday, it was aimed at his largest demographic, those who need constant feeding of their inchoate contempt for this country. Trump is the man who persisted in asserting that President Obama was born in Kenya long after almost all considered it insane; but not all, not those who consume illusions of vast complex conspiracies because they are inherently un-falsifiable.  Certainly, Obama's mother could have inserted the birth announcement in the local Honolulu newspaper as part of the plan that he would run for president four decades later.  It is absurd, but not impossible, and those that buy into it have the satisfaction of being in on something that very few grasp.  Here are his words:     
-------------
"I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, to be honest," And later when asked about it said gave an example of a previous election where,   "you had precincts where there were practically nobody voting for the Republican."

He added, "I hope the Republicans get out there and watch very closely" during Election Day.
--------------
This is the single most damaging example of Trumps propensity to find a nugget of truth and then send it out to the world.  This spontaneity in his utterances betrays his uncaring ignorance of the context or interpretation of what he is saying.  This man who has risen to be one of two people who will be elevated to the apex of national government authority, one who will swear to "preserve and protect" the nations laws -  from federal statutes to our Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, chooses to cast doubt on the essence of choosing the individual to hold this awesome power.  "Rigged" is a word that for him means a conspiratorial illusion just like global warming, evolution and the birth place of the current President.

He closes with the suggestion that Republicans pay attention that there is no cheating, as if without his urging they would not think to do this.   What this reflects is his rarely or never having gone to a polling place to cast a vote. Each of the thousands of them are outposts of our secular ethos which inherently means that there will be members of both parties challenging the legitimacy of every single vote and following the elaborate laws of their state to prevent what he "is afraid will happen."

I know a bit about polling from my run for the nomination for N.Y. State Representative in 1993, when my name was on a printed sheet that could only be produced by one company where I had once worked. Each group of voting booths had a different list and they even randomized the order of names within them to negate top of the list advantage, meaning these had the worlds shortest press run, as low as a few copies due to non-overlapping districts and multiple levels of government.   It kept alive a typesetting technology from the nineteenth century called a Ludlow machine, soon to be made obsolete by large size computer graphic printers.  As a candidate I had the right to personally inspect each machine, and to inspect the mechanism, to verify that a pull of the lever went to the correct counter. For those who know the term "steampunk" this was the real thing, not much different than that of the original invention in 1881.

"Rigged" ----by whom?   Trump, as is his ingrained wont,  has not taken the effort to understand how the polls in the state of Ohio actually operate, what procedures have been implemented to ensure that each vote is counted, and that it is as accurate and uncorrupted as humanly possible.  He has not taken the time to learn of the severe penalties in Ohio, and every other state, for tampering with the results of a governmental election.  Why understand a body of laws, and the technology and procedures that accompany them, when in a second you can create out of thin air the myth that elections, the solemn rite of a democracy is something other than the effort to refine and protect the sacredness of a citizen's vote.

Suffrage, the right to vote, is something various groups have fought and died for; even though the process can never be perfect and there are stolen elections in spite of the ongoing effort to limit such criminal acts.  Trump's casual expression that he expects this to happen, without his doing a thing to understand the process in order to limit such vulnerability is what he is, which is why so many from both parties find him to be uniquely contemptible.  

"How American Politics Went Insane" - Review and Commentary

July 4, 2016

The long article of this title by Jonathan Rauch is available in the current  "Atlantic,"with multiple reviews now available.  It is an important recent history of how we have gotten to this election, specifically represented by several "political revolutionaries"  Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders and the one who represents the culmination of this movement, Donald J. Trump.  Rauch's extensively researched article is a welcome relief from the extreme partisanship that is exacerbating the, mostly still repressed, animosity of this election, as it is a history of a movement that goes back a century, which like most based on eliminating great evil, rarely anticipate the adverse consequences of the new system.

My wife and I have a common response to anyone in political life who appends her proposal with the word, "commonsense" as is meant to connect with those who dismiss all complex thought about underlying causes of existing rules and what may follow if altered.  Rauch explores this in this paragraph: 

--------------------------
Using polls and focus groups, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse found that between 25 and 40 percent of Americans (depending on how one measures) have a severely distorted view of how government and politics are supposed to work. I think of these people as “politiphobes,” because they see the contentious give-and-take of politics as unnecessary and distasteful. Specifically, they believe that obvious, commonsense solutions to the country’s problems are out there for the plucking. The reason these obvious solutions are not enacted is that politicians are corrupt, or self-interested, or addicted to unnecessary partisan feuding. Not surprisingly, politiphobes think the obvious, commonsense solutions are the sorts of solutions that they themselves prefer. But the more important point is that they do not acknowledge that meaningful policy disagreement even exists. From that premise, they conclude that all the arguing and partisanship and horse-trading that go on in American politics are entirely unnecessary. Politicians could easily solve all our problems if they would only set aside their craven personal agendas.
-------------------------
While Rauch uses the term "Politiphobes" this itself is unfortunate as the word "phobic" has over the last few decades come to mean "rejection" or "opposition" as in xeno or homo "phobic."  Phobic had been a root that meant a visceral emotional reaction that led to avoidance and thus antipathy.  Those he describes do not have a fear of politics, but a distaste that causes them to accept more readily any candidate for office who has the credentials of ignorance and lack of contamination by the machinations of political life.

Rauch himself in his early support for same sex marriage made use of the term "homophobia" implying that to oppose this government-sanctioned union at a time when those such as both Clintons did, were touched by this disease, and so he could he make his case with assumption of mental disorder of opponents inherent in his choice of words;  one that with the new connotations  ultimately became a part of our vocabulary.

Rauch is looking back on the proverbial smoked filled room, now seeing the excrescence of the alternative, with fondness.  He is asking us to rethink the decades long effort to finally successfully end the practice of members of congress cementing their seats with special earmarks, federal funding of agencies or projects in their districts, as a way of building party solidarity.  He acknowledges the waste, although "small" but now sees it a part of the complex of seniority, cooperation,, voting for personally opposed laws for the sake of the party, that builds party loyalty. 

His premise, although not specifically articulated in this article is that the conflicts of a complex country such as ours are real, and that politics, specifically party politics, is the best way to address them.  Well, compared to the conflict that came to a head in 1860, with a loss of  some seven million men (if extrapolated to current population) and then the long resurgence of Jim Crow pseudo-slavery,  even if had been done through political compromise over decades with payment to slave holders,  would have been far preferable.  To do this, Rauch implicitly argues would have taken a solid two party system to underlie our national government.

Politics, and the practice thereof by those who are called "politicians" is, according to Rauch and this reviewer, a potentially noble career.   Rauch is making the case that the "smoked filled room" needs to be rehabilitated, even including the secret deals that incentivized party members to take a hit for the larger values of the group. He implies that in a two party system their different agendas will be subordinated to the most vital exigencies of the country, and out of this will come --- if not an ideal society, one better than what we seem to be approaching.





     

Trump rips the cover off the Evangelical Right

6/21/2015

Trumps meeting with hundreds of leaders of the Christian Right on Tuesday was closed to outsiders, but somehow much leaked out, including this hidden video  that begins with words to the effect, “...there nothing out there about Hilary’s religion, nothing.  I think it will be an extension of Obama, at least with him we know what we were starting with and could be alert”  Interpretation in plain English:  “There is no evidence that Hillary is a Christian, and could well be a Muslim, like we know Obama is.   But at least we were on the lookout for him, while Hillary is “passing” as Christian so she is not only  but could be anti-Christian like that other deceiver.

Evangelists relate to this and know that the Devil is also known as the great deceiver, they know this passage:
-----------------

2 Corinthians 11:3

Verse Concepts

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.”
------------------
The crowd knew well of Donald Trumps life, his repeated adulteries, which far from asking for forgiveness he boasted about on the air.  They also knew that for most of his life he had been in favor of Abortions, Pro-life, or in their perspective, allowing the murder of unborn babies.  But none of this mattered at all.

Trump has done what could not have been done by any atheists, humanist or progressive.  He has  ripped off  the facade of the Christian Right having anything to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ.  What it has evolved to in this country is a special interest group, that along with all organizations that say the magic words “I am a Religion” are given tax subsidies.  And if it’s the Religion of the Majority the right to allow prayers in Government legislatures.

What they have not be allowed to do in order to retain these benefits is to be overtly political, to endorse a given party or candidate.   This is basic to the rationale of government subsidizing of and support religion, in that it transcends these secular mundane battles, to look to higher principle of unification. loving  one’s neighbor and being responsible to a higher moral authority.

Donald Trump, being what he is, is oblivious to his principle, and so as a special bonus for the Christian right’s ignoring that his life is the antithesis of Christianity, promised them he will as President allow churches to become overtly and blatantly promoters of a chosen political movement.  Under a Trump presidency,  the organized Christian religion in America will be part of the the Trumpian regime, with the legal right to preach the message that Christianity is engaged in a war, not with the Devil, but that other deceiver, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

I realize that it’s difficult for readers here to handle more condemnations of Trump destroying the core values of this country,  but this should be a meaningful landmark in his quest to change the essence of this country.   His clarion warning against outsiders, Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks and Asians; his opposition to the movement to replace the wars of the previous two centuries with a developing openness to free trade in commerce and ideas has now been extended.  This meeting, this secret meeting, was his message to Christians that even though he isn’t a very good one, he wants them in his coalition.

Mike Huckabee was the M.C  of this event, and said words to the effect, “We certainly would not be considering you to be a pastor at one of our Churches.”  This was acknowledged with laughter from the crowd meaning that we know you are no model of Christianity and maybe not even “born again.”  But, so what.  They did not want that from from Donald Trump.  The deal was we will support you, if you give us even more power.  We, with the help of your Supreme Court, will be allowed to infiltrate public schools and local city councils, and plant the symbols of Christianity, which means our Church will subtly become what America is.

We will be closer to the religio-facism of Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, if the current neo-Islamist President succeeds in his country..    This is the meaning of Tuesday’s secret meeting, that if Trump becomes President will go down in history as one of the markers in his path of transforming this ostensibly secular democracy into something very different.

Coast News article on four way stop signs

Posted on July 1, 2016


Printed in Coast News June 24, 2010

Traffic scofflaws rejoice

Yes, I’m talking to you — those who probably this very day were guilty of an infraction of the California Code that requires coming to a full stop at every stop sign, even those four-way signs where the cross street gets a car or a pedestrian every few minutes at most.

You may have slowed down to a few feet a second, scanned both directions safely, but as long as those wheels are turning, according to the law it is exactly the same as going through the intersection at full speed.

About a year ago when some people in my neighborhood suggested that they were going to propose another stop sign on the road along the wide greenbelt that is the delight of residents of Village Park, I decided to do a bit of research. I presented my findings to the Encinitas City Council, that the results of dozens of studies show that inappropriate multi-way stop signs, far from preventing accidents, actually increase them.

It’s really not that hard to understand, as good drivers actually have their attention diverted, not by looking for cars or children who could dash into the intersection, but for the police car that might need another ticket to top off his day. To make it worse they often make up lost time by speeding up between stop signs, rather than driving at a steady safe speed all along the corridor.

My arguments about the deeper “moral hazard” of turning law-abiding citizens into law breakers fell on deaf ears. Inertia is a powerful force — whether in multilevel systems of government, like those that determine traffic regulations, or the amount of force converted to heat required to bring a 2-ton vehicle to a full stop. And herein lies the hope for us law-abiding scofflaws who commit the routine crime of performing “California rolling stops.” It is copper. The element that happens to make up as much as 25 percent of brake linings.

Copper is just fine as we normally use it, as wires in our homes and in the pots of upscale cookery. But when heated to high temperatures during breaking there are problems, as a recent editorial in the Union Tribune stated, “ Copper is Toxic. As motorists use their brakes, copper dust is released and settles into roadways … to be washed into storm sewers and roadways. It destroys marine life, plants and animals.”

The editorial does not suggest ways to lessen the use of brakes, but approves of a law to require less copper in them, even though they acknowledge that “not enough is known about the potential environmental hazards from replacement materials.”

Multi-way stop signs, although shown to be worse than useless, are a product of bureaucratic inertia. (Need I mention it also being a sweet piggy bank for cash-strapped local government?) The energy required to change public perception has been too great; but now there is a new force, that of the conservation movement, those of us who care about the environment that provides a home for all the flora and fauna of our world … which just happens to include us.

Unlike traffic lights, which are the best way to regulate two major arteries that cross at an intersection, multi-way stop signs have long been known to be subject to political pressure, and defective in many ways. Now there is this new disclosure. Beyond the waste of millions of gallons each year in starting those cars from a full stop, we have the biological hazard of a toxic material being added to the food chain with each unwarranted stop.

In a world full of intractable problems, this one is amazingly simple to correct. It’s as easy as changing a few words in the California code, or the replacement of most four-way signs with yield signs. But inertia is a powerful force of nature. So while we are waiting for the law to be changed, remember those tickets for rolling stops are expensive, and quoting this column probably won’t get you off.

Stop Signs - When Moral "Hazard" becomes Reality

July 1, 2016

When I wrote an article on four way stop sign for a local weekly newspaper six years ago, we lived in a different country.   "#blacklivesmatter" and all that it represents didn't exist.  We had never had a presidential campaign where the criteria for election is which of the major candidates is less hated, rather than more respected.  When I wrote that article, actually with a touch of irony, to be read in a  white, wealthy coastal city, the following two sentences didn't resonate with the audience.
------
"My arguments about the deeper “moral hazard” of turning law-abiding citizens into law breakers fell on deaf ears...." "Multi-way stop signs, although shown to be worse than useless, are a product of bureaucratic inertia. (Need I mention it also being a sweet piggy bank for cash-strapped local government?)"
------
About an hour ago, I stopped to chat with a sheriff's deputy who was on a side street waiting to ticket those who did not come to a complete stop (details available).  He welcomed a short conversation, but said he had to do his job, and pointed past me to one car that had slowed down, and with no pedestrians or cars nearby, then slowly went through the sign.  "I have to go after him" the officer said, as  he pulled away to come back a few minutes later saying he missed him.   Our conversation continued.  I explained my position, that carefully slowing was preferable to a complete stop, acknowledging that he had to follow the law as written; his then said that this would require a  yield sign. I told him about the proposal for a hybrid sign that would be a virtual roundabout, and explained that most four way stop signed are not "warranted" based on federal criteria but rather installed because of resident's demands to elected officials.

 In justifying his ticketing drivers for an infraction that is all but universally breached, he said something interesting on a larger societal level.  "Stop means stop.  If someone is pummeling someone with a bat,  he must stop, not slow down."  This is telling, as for this police officer, there is no differentiating between a lethal assault that would cripple or kill someone, and a careful rolling though a stop sign that presents not even a heightened risk for harm.  For this officer observing someone breaking the law triggers a reaction, the apprehension and meting out punishment.  If the law breaker is compliant, there will be the issuance of a traffic summons, and perhaps even a cordial "Drive carefully."  If not, if bad moods coincide among the two parties, there can be a tragedy such as I describe below.   

After the officer said that he personally always comes to a complete stop, I asked if members of his family do.  He said they do when the is in the car with them. (I had had this conversation with another deputy who acknowledged his family does not).  While six years ago, the moral hazard I alluded to could only be predicted; but after Ferguson, Baltimore and Sandra Bland -- who driving to her interview for a university position, where a questionable traffic stop set off a chain of events that ended with her death -- it is no long a hazard, but a reality.

While Bland's story is rare, we now know that for many in this country a traffic ticket that can't be paid can change a life.  For those in north coast San Diego, it's usually just an annoyance, but the money to pay traffic fines is there and won't supplant vital medicine or food for the family.   Most even accept the randomness of traffic tickets, that driving 80 on a highway should be suppressed even though only one in a thousand get caught.  Since accidents increase with speed there is a legitimate purpose for suppressing this. This is not the case with carefully rolling through multi way stop signs.

With four way stop signs, the problem is not those who enforce the laws but those who make them.  There may be intersections where a full stop is appropriately mandated, but they are the exception rather than the rule. This is being written to provide tools to city councils to explain that what appears to be enhancing the safety of their children is not doing so, and actually causes other adverse consequences.
 ----------------
Compendium of 70 studies on four way stop signs.
pp2, paragraph 6
  

Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially small children. It seems that pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of running the "unnecessary" stop sign. Thirteen references found this to be their finding.

 

Fourth Jewish Justice- Cause for Celebration or Concern

Today, in the U.S., antisemitism, I prefer the expression "Jew hatred," is only expressed in earshot of those sharing the same sentiments.   Social media has provided private channels, echo chambers, among groups of all persuasions, facilitating out-group animosity.  Religious discrimination is unlawful, as is age, race and sex, yet the campaign promise by Donald Trump to bar every member of a major religion shows how the potential for this exists. This article, "Obama Nominates Another Left Wing Jew to the Supreme Court" conveys the alternative reaction that is not reflected in the main stream media. As these restrictions accumulate, with accompanying norms against even expressions of disdain, more and more people feel oppressed, the phenomenon itself, described as "political correctness," becomes a cause celeb  and a political rally cry for freedom from these restraints.

With freedom to discuss such issues there is often released an overt hostility that had been incubating among those who only spoke about the issues among themselves. What I'm describing is analogous to a supersaturated gas that requires only a seed crystal to cause precipitation, a liquid manifestation of what had been present, but invisible. Out of a clear day first comes clouds and then a downpour. The Trump example of his promise to exclude all Muslims from entering the country, legitimized religious discrimination and made the unspeakable into a mass movement in hours.

This physical phenomenon is a metaphor for the perception that in the United States antisemitism does not exist since there is no public manifestation of it.  In fact the mere addressing the subject, as this writer is now doing, is easily construed as introducing Jew hatred into the existing atmosphere of toleration and respect for Jewish people.  The messenger becomes the problem, rather than the message.   

This article in N.Y. Jewish Week expresses a common viewpoint among many Jews I have spoken to:   

“It is a remarkable testament to America that a fourth Jew can be nominated to the court and that his religion is not an impediment,” said Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee.

If confirmed, Garland would fill the seat held by Antonin Scalia, who died last month.

Stern said he believes it unlikely that Garland’s religion will “generate substantial opposition from those who would say there are too many Jews on the court. Nobody is threatening violence against the Jews, as happened in Europe when they thought the Jews were too powerful. … It’s unprecedented in the long history of the diaspora that you have an institution as powerful as the Supreme Court and that there could be four members who are Jewish when Jews constitute less than 2 percent of the population.”

Mr. Stern is saying, "We have arrived, and this disproportionate representation on the high court is cause for celebration.  This sentiment was echoed by the chair of Jewish History at UCSD, along with the writer of  "The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives and Antisemitism" a book that examines an era exactly like today's when Jew hatred was subtle, shortly to be expressed in catastrophe of  the Nazi genocide.  Both of these scholars Debora Hilton and Jack Jacobs in a private discussion, echoed Mark Stern's position above.  

There was a time when there wasn't a single Jew on the Supreme court, and I would agree that the appointment of Louis Brandeis in 1916 would deserve the celebratory tone of Mr. Sterns article.  Yet, I would argue that being the first, breaking a barrier for this important post, is qualitatively different than being one more of an existing over-represented demographic.

My argument would be the same if the situation were reversed, and there it was a Republican President and his nominee was Catholic.   Then it would be, as it had been when Scalia was alive, that those of this religion being the entirety of the conservative bloc.  The analogy falls apart because Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, and it's social values on current social issues around abortion and gender is similar to conservative protestants.  While Catholics are vastly over represented,  Christians are still under-represented.
     

Let's jump forward for an unspecified period, and assume that there has been a series of Supreme Court decisions that, from the conservative perspective, has fostered the murder of millions of unborn babies and impeded the teaching of Gods plan of defined gender roles.  And, it could be pointed out that these cultural changes were made by a faction of five un-elected members of the Supreme Court, known as the Liberal Bloc.

Those, such as the writer of the above article, choose not to accept that Jew hatred, something that has existed in various forms for millennia, could surface again.  There are dozens of jurists with credentials comparable to Merrick Garland who could be nominated for this position with similar juresprudential and partisan values; many who are Protestants as are a majority of American citizens with not a single Justice on the Supreme Court, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in the Obergefell decision  This anomaly, and problematic nature of skewed demographic and religious representation on the court was echoed recently by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, specifically stating......“I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,”  

While I do not believe that President Obama gave this representational aspect much thought, and just worked the political calculus of this nomination, it behooves others to look at the possible adverse consequences.  When someone attempts to discern the reality of "Judeo-Bolshevism," the contribution of Jewish values on the Russian Communist Revolution of 1917,  the first question is the the proportion of Jews in the revolutionary leadership.  For objective investigators if there were an  insignificant number, it can be dismissed as a "canard" a lie as it is currently in Wikipedia .  For those who who want to validate their Jew-hatred, the dramatically larger percentage of Jews at the least provides a plausible argument for a connection between Judaism and the event.  The Bolshevik revolution evolved from complex historical causes, multiple demographic levels, such that no religious tradition can be a full explanation of this event.  The Supreme Court is structured, with correlation between religious background and political identification easier to quantify. 

I see this nomination as a time-bomb, that while unlikely ever to explode, there being no valid reason for it to ever exist.  As of now it is unlikely that Mr. Garland will be confirmed by the Senate before the election, yet if he is still the nominee should the Democratic candidate win the election, he would likely be confirmed in a lame duck session after the election but consisting of the  pre-election members of Congress.  Merrick would be the most moderate, and more importantly given his relitively advanced age,  with the shortest tenure to come from a Democratic President.  This will have two effects.   First is the potential for antisemitism due to the decisions by a liberal bloc that could be construed of representing Jewish values and power.  Second is that a younger nominee would have more impact over his/her career in support of liberal values.  

In recent years, the argument that the Supreme Court objectively evaluates the constitutionality of cases has become insupportable whether by statistical or content analysis. Numerous independent groups from both sides of the political spectrum have called for ending the life tenure of Justices, with some type of staggered system to end the random nature of Presidential appointments - some get many; others none.

Since such a constitutional amendment that would be required is unlikely, we are stuck with the randomness of occupancy of this branch. It has the capacity of defining social movements, and advancing those such as gay rights that the legislative-executive process could not. Since the Justices of the Supreme Court are not elected, an approximation of democracy lies in Justice's numerical representation of the public.  Certainly race, gender and ethnic origin  are broadly approximated,while religious identity has become skewed, with only Catholics and Jews on the court at this time.

With Garlands confirmation, the distortion will be exaggerated, which would be fodder for the right wing extremism, often including antisemitism, that appears to be on the march throughout the world.

Un-nominating Donald J. Trump

June 8, 2016

This comment below is on from this article in The National Review, 

"Not a single delegate is bound to vote for Trump"

It presents the legal principles, including case precedent, that each delegate has complete freedom of action in choosing a Presidential nominee of the organization, the political party.  (BTW, this goes for the Democrats also)  This is in support of the editorial position, that the nomination of Trump will be a disaster for the conservative movement.

I had just subscribed to this on-line version of the magazine, which was the first and most important of the conservative movement in the 1950s, started by William F. Buckley.  His good friend Ronald Reagan and he would be rolling in their graves if they knew the magazine was challenging the party's nominee -- but then again, maybe they would be proud!  

Here's my comment:


Trump won the primary victories through fraud. So even if in the absence of the legal right of discretion described herein, there is a moral obligation NOT to cast a convention vote based on citizens being misled.

His most powerful claim was that he was going to self fund his campaign, never stating that this was only for the primary elections, but rather implying it was for the entire campaign for the President of the United States. He then castigated every other candidate as having their hands out, which means they, unlike him, would not be free to tackle all of the powerful special interests that contribute to them.  

He made this same point dozens of times, often as accusations to demean every one of his competing candidates. This set him apart and won him the nomination. He even presented his self-funding as being a way to end the scourge of independent PACs,  publicly disavowing his own.  I would argue that this fraudulent offer, a classic example of non-performance of a contractual obligation, not only invalidates his nomination but the totality of the 2016 Republican primaries. 

But even worse than dropping Trump, would be to replace him with Ted Cruz.  This man has the unique status of being viscerally hated by both liberals and elected conservatives.  If anything he would be more of a disaster for the current tea party dominated Republican party.  Christian Dominionists, such as he, represent a small segment of the party and even smaller one of of all voters.  It is close to being an analogue of radical Islam, that can motivate a very few beyond concern for real world consequences.

If Trump were dumped, not only as a Candidate but repudiated for his fraudulent commitment to self-fund, there could be one of the few moderate Republicans candidates who were collateral damage from his misrepresentations to carry the banner. To win the general election, the nominee must be a moderate like Lindsey Graham or John Kasich - (I prefer Graham).  This could not only save the election, but perhaps transform, and thus preserve the Republican party.

AlRodbell.com