DADT is dead #11

This will be brief -- for all those who are tired of my DADT rants. But I want to respond to the story they're trying to make about the Marines being the branch that's different in opposing the repeal of DADT.

The very wide survey of 400,000 service men and women and their families reveals a pretty surprising result: a large majority (about 70%) says there will be little or no problem with the repeal.

Except for the Marines, where the majority oppose the repeal. Seems they think their vaunted macho reputation will be diluted by allowing gays to serve openly (as opposed to allowing them to continue to serve as long as they don't reveal it) - and they also trot out the line about the intimacy of the battlefield, sleeping next to each other, etc. etc.

The other big factor is that the top Marine generals also oppose it and have done so vocally. So leadership and sensitivity training might take care of a lot of this.

But here is the little-remarked thing at the end that we should put up there is bold type.

Marines also pride themselves on discipline, on following orders, and on excelling at whatever they do. Marine Lt. Col. Hackett is quoted as saying that "every good Marine follows orders, and if that's what the president orders, I can tell you by God we're going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen and be damn good at it."

So there you have it: just issue the orders, and the Marines can be counted on to hop to and have the best record on integrating their gay brothers.

Tell that to John McCain -- see if he spins around once again.

Ralph

Stupid people

Why are there so many stupid people in high places?

No, I'm not talking about She Who Shall Remain Nameless. Or Dick Cheney. Not the obviously partisan crowd.

I'm talking about people whom you expect would be relatively balanced in their views and put the interest of the nation and its people first, ahead of politics. People like Alan Greenspan, who should have known better but who used his (unjustified) oracular mantle to make things go in the wrong direction.

Today, although he's not in the same league, I'm thinking of journalist/columnist/author Joe Klein. To many, he's something of a joke rather than a serious pundit. But Time Magazine has him as a commentator on national and international affairs.

I find this astonishing -- that someone who is not blinded by strong partisan allegiance but just got it so wrong anyway. But at least he is now saying that he was wrong. Here's what Klein wrote today in Time:

Columnists are paid to have opinions. Sometimes those opinions are wrong. Those two sentences are as obvious as a sunrise, but usually unspoken by my fellow opinionmongers. I can point you to many weeks of prescience and sheer genius in my work since I arrived at TIME in January 2003. But I think we'd learn more if we took a look at one of my goofs: I supported George W. Bush's idea of partially privatizing Social Security, which he tried to enact after he was re-elected in 2004. This was a close call for me at the time; it seems positively idiotic now that we've experienced the Great Recession — and the idea of private investment has finally regained proper perspective.

Investment is about risk; Social Security is about certainty.

A fair amount of certainty is crucial when it comes to retirement. Why, you might ask, was I blind to this simple proposition at the time?

He then explains that he had been highly critical of the "bloody futility of Bush's war in Iraq," and he was definitely opposed to his "demonstrably foolish supply-side philosophy that spawned his tax cuts."

Still, he was going to be my President for the next four years; my fellow citizens, and many of my readers, had voted him in. The partial privatization of Social Security was, he said, the top domestic priority for his second term. This seemed bold and politically risky. Scaring the elderly about cuts in their retirement benefits is one of the oldest tricks in the book, but Bush truly believed that if people could invest retirement savings in the market, they would end up with larger pensions. . . .And so did I, albeit with a truckload of caveats.

I never thought it was a good idea and never understood how thinking people could think it was a good idea. And my reasoning was exactly what Klein says now: "Investment is about risk; Social Security is about certainty."

Why didn't everybody see that? I'm no economist. It's just plain, simple, kitchen table common sense. Seems like the only people who talk about common sense are those like She Who Shall Remain Nameless who try to make education and expertise the villain and substitute "the will of the people" and "common sense," instead of elite, liberal academics.

What we need are experts who know all they need to know and ALSO use common sense.

Ralph

Thanksgiving -- without irony

I have a special feeling of thankfulness this year -- for my surgeon and for the always pleasant, always efficient, always responsive nursing staff at Northside Hospital. As far as feeling taken care of, this was the best hospital experience I have had.

First, my surgeon, Dr. Deborah Martin, apparently did an (almost) unheralded, heroic job of turning what could have been a disaster (my gall bladder was on the point of rupture) into a routine surgery and post-op course. The first hint I had to how close I came was when the infectious disease consultant came in to see me two days after surgery and said, admiringly, "Dr. Martin saved your life."

Second, the nursing staff at Northside is simply without peer, in my limited in-patient experience. Starting with the simple fact that not a single member of that staff (from head nurse down to cleaning crew) failed to introduce him/herself, telling me their names and what they were there to do for me. They were unfailingly immediately available and solicitous and never left the room without asking, "is there anything else I can do for you?" No one ever seemed too busy to attend to my needs -- and right away, or else they explained why it would take a little while and approximately how long, and it usually took less. Seemingly little things add up, and this sum was a positive.

Third -- but really first -- is the loving gratitude that I feel for my two daughters, Joanna and Barbara, one of whom (taking turns) never left me from the moment I needed to go to the ER on Saturday night, until I insisted, after being home for a couple of days, that I really didn't need one of them to stay overnight now. This was, of course, at some sacrifice for them and their families, upsetting their work and family schedules. But they gave it freely without complaint, even minimizing what it took for them to rearrange their lives, and not at the most opportune time for them either.

When I complimented the nursing care to the head nurses, they invariably gave credit to my daughters, saying that they had rarely had a family who was so helpful and made their job easier.

Fourth -- I sincerely appreciate the many friends, colleagues, and neighbors whose calls, visits, cards and gifts of food and flowers expressed caring and concern.

Writing a blog is no substitute for telling all these people of my love and gratitude in person, which I intend to continuing doing as well.

The lesson for me in all this -- besides a first-hand awareness of the gift of health and those who help restore it when things go awry -- is the hardest: that it is also a blessing to "receive," as well as to give. Letting oneself be taken care of, letting friends express their love and concern -- and just "receiving" the gift with a simple "thank you" is often the thing to do.

As one of my daughters admonished me, when it seemed I was wanting to make up for the time she had taken off from work by doing something to "repay" her: if I did that, it robbed her of feeling that she was giving something to me out of love.

Sometimes it's is more blessed to receive than always to do the giving.

Ralph

Thanksgiving and political irony (? hypocrisy)

Republican senator Jon Kyle has much to be thankful for. Just 3 days after he and fellow Republicans renounced earmarks, the senate passed a bill into which Kyl had inserted a request for $200 million to help pay for an Arizona Indian tribe's claims against the government for water rights. So Kyl gets to have it both ways: he opposes earmarks, but then he got a big one for his constituents.

Kyl's office insists this isn't an earmark. So, what is it then? An earmark is generally considered a spending item inserted into another bill by an individual lawmaker that benefits "one specific entity or is targeted for a specific state."

Of course, Republicans (earmarkers, par excellence) have concluded that being anti-earmark is a political winner right now, so they've jumped on the bandwagon, even Mitch McConnell, who has been one of the top players of the pork game.

The irony of all this irony, however, is the more nuanced analysis of the whole earkmark/anti-earmark debate that is now being discussed.

Although "earmarks" have a deservedly bad name because of too many really useless pet projects that the powerful can obtain to fatten their own claims to largesse for their constituents (bridges to nowhere, for example). But the majority of these projects are probaby worthwhile financial aid to transportation, education, and infrastructure; and it's a way for the federal government to award money to help local governments.

The question is in the how of the process; the what is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem is that the earmark process awards funding based on the power of the seeker, not the merit of the project.

Now that the Repubs have taken to denouncing pork as their latest political pet, Democrats are pointing out that this is very interesting, given that most of these projects would now be decided and funded by the bureaucratic system of the administrative branch -- which for the next two years, at least, is under Democratic control.

Get it? -- now, instead of the Republican senator taking credit for a school or road in his district, the same project will get funded (or not) based on decisions within the administration's Transportation or Education ministries.

How ironic, and how sweet. Maybe it's the Democrats, after all, who should give thanks today for this Republican move.

Ralph

PS: I had bought into the whole "earmarks are bad" scenario; it just seemed outrageous that an individual powerful senator could grab such large sums of money almost for the asking. I still think that's a very bad system. But if the projects are good, then it's a question of the delivery system and who gets to control it. I too think it's better if it is more systematic rather than "to the rich and powerful go the spoils."

Obscene

"American businesses earned the highest quarterly profits ever,
since records began being kept 60 years ago."
vs
"Unemployment remains at nearly 10%;
millions of Americans set to lose unemployment benefits."
---------------------

"Luxury spending has rebounded
as the affluent recover from the recession faster than others."
vs
"One in five Americans using food stamps to buy groceries;
small businesses forced to slash work forces to stay alive."

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

Welcome to the Republican world.

Ralph

The pope and condoms . . . again #4

I think this may be my last blog on the subject (that's not a promise, depending on developments); but I need to say this:

Yes, this was a courageous move on Benedict's part, to break with the long-held tradition and the iron-bound theological position of the church that opposes anything that artificially prevents a pregnancy from occurring.

And maybe it was a sincere examination of all the issues and coming to realize that I, among many others, was right last spring when we criticized his absolute anti-condom stance as "out of touch with the real world." And he certainly had his defenders then, some of whom I heard from following my opinion piece in the AJC.

If he really has changed his understanding and his sense of proportion, that's all to the good. However, the Vatican is still trying to say this doesn't change things, it's just saying that saving a life may be the lesser of two evils even if it prevents the creation of a new life.

Wow !! What a concession. I am skeptical, however, about the motives. The Vatican's clarifying statement came just hours before the announcement of the reliable study that showed a very significant reduction in the spread of AIDS and primarily due to the use of condoms.

But here's what I prompted me to post this (maybe) final say: In today's AJC story about all this, the subheading was just so stark:

"It's now permissible to prevent giving partners HIV."

Well, duh. Welcome aboard, buddy. That doesn't sound like a terribly courageous position to take.

But -- for whatever mix of reasons -- yesterday was a very good day for the fight against AIDS. And for that I am very thankful.

Ralph

Historic day for AIDS prevention

The AP's Marilynn Marchione reports (printed on Hiffington post):

In the nearly 30 years the AIDS epidemic has raged, there has never been a more hopeful day than this. Three striking developments took place Tuesday: U.N. officials said new HIV cases are dropping dramatically worldwide. A study showed that a daily pill already on pharmacy shelves could help prevent new infections in gay men. And the pope opened the way for the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

"I don't know of a day where so many pieces are beginning to align for HIV prevention and treatment, and frankly with a view to ending the epidemic," said Mitchell Warren, head of the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, a nonprofit group that works on HIV prevention research. "This is an incredibly opportune moment and we have to be sure we seize it."

President Barack Obama said the groundbreaking research on the AIDS drug "could mark the beginning of a new era in HIV prevention."

The U.N. report said that new cases dropped nearly 20 percent over the last decade and that 33.3 million people are living with HIV now.

"We can say with confidence and conviction that we have broken the trajectory of the AIDS pandemic," said UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibe in Geneva.

Health officials credit part of the decline to wider condom use, and on Tuesday, in a historic shift in church teachings, the Vatican said that using a condom is a lesser evil than infecting a sexual partner with HIV.

Condoms remain the best weapon against AIDS . . .

While I gave Pope Benedict a lot of credit in my last post for opening his mind and making this huge change in his position, these headlines which came just minutes later show what the effect would have been had he continued to take his same old position.

The evidence seems clearcut and can no longer be denied: condom use not only significantly helps prevent the spread of HIV, it is the simple condom that is most effective. To continue to forbid its use -- even for married couples -- would really make the Roman Catholic Church so far out of touch as to be irrelevant.

Ralph