Presidential & VP candidate debates

I saw a comment recently about Biden losing the VP candidates' debate due to his bizarre aggressive behavior, and how Obama 'lost' the first presidential debate "because he didn't interrupt Romney enough."  So I assumed the commenter was saying the “winner” is the candidate who interrupts the most.  The companion assertion is:  no interruptions at all is deemed to be bad. 

That doesn’t sound like a winning strategy to me.  In viewing the debates I didn’t give ‘points’ for interrupting, but what was said and how.  Indeed, I’d say a whole set of different characteristics were used by viewers to evaluate the candidates:  Confidence, thoughtfulness, being forthright, strength of conviction (but not arrogant,) and certainly intelligence.  Biden was one or two of those.  Ryan hit on all of them.

On the other hand, I think the deficiency on the part of the president's performance was passion in his answers/responses.  He doesn’t need to be hostile or uncivil to be effective, just positive, persuasive, ardent, and still factual.  

When someone refers to the constant interruptions by Biden (numbering 82 at one count) and says “Both parties do it," then I have to ask for an example of that behavior by a Republican candidate.  I can’t recall such boorish hectoring on the part of any GOPer, though it’s certainly possible if intemperate passion overrides civility for a brief moment, and it could be said the debates during the GOP primaries were heated.  Biden made it a practice for 90 minutes.  Also, as someone has said, “pointing to bad behavior doesn't excuse other bad behavior.”  

If there is an example of disrespectful behavior on the part of a Republican candidate, I will promptly condemn it, for what that is worth.  Perhaps Romney was interrupting Obama?  Not that I recall as significant, so was the commenter, above, asserting that Ryan laughed rudely during Biden's presentations?  Certainly not.  Speaking of which, did anyone think viewers were laughing along with the VP?  I really doubt it.  However, the Democrat base probably was thrilled about the "designated pit bull" for their party going after Ryan and challenging him viscerally; though most viewers were appalled.

No, the president also “lost” on substance, not just style, although the latter brought the most comments.  He did look listless and almost, I’d say, aloof.  As I write this on Sunday, October 14, here is a prediction:  Look for Mr. Obama at Tuesday’s debate (town hall format) to come on like gangbusters, double down on the VP's disgraceful performance in terms of hostility and discourtesy, and further erode his standing with all-important independents (now at 55-45 deficit.) 

In terms of polls, states are slowly turning "pink."  FL, VA and NC have moved from toss-up to "lean Romney."  PA, MI and MI are moving from the Democrat column to toss-up status.  CA moved 8 points toward Romney.  (Granted, he’s still down 22 points – hey, it’s LA-LA land – but that movement is nationwide.  

Bob Woodward on Fox News Sunday today said, 

     “Everyone has been kicking around this question, ‘Are you better off now than 4 yrs ago?’  But the question people want answered is ‘How are you going to make me better off in the next year, in the next 4 years?’  If you really look at the details, neither campaign has answered that sufficiently.”  

     That was a good point, but it’s the wrong question because I don’t think "the government can make me better off.”  If the government gets out of the way then businesses and individuals can do better on their own.  So the question should be, “How will your administration improve the business climate, ease regulations, and encourage businesses to hire."

Government can't create jobs, only businesses can do that, and they will do so when the economy expands so demand increases for a particular service/product of a respective business.  

Congressional Progressives vs. CP-USA

Congressman Allen West said he believed there were 78-81 members of the Communist Party in Congress by which he meant the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/allen-west-says-many-dems-in-congress-are-communists.html

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/04/allen-west-says-many-dems-in-congress-are-co

Here's proof.  Which of these are verbatim items from the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ platform and which are from the Communist Party USA’s platform?  Too hard to tell because they are virtually identical!

1. Uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all.
2. Provide a health care system that is comprehensive and free with guaranteed access to quality care whenever needed.
3. Preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.
4. Increase Social Security benefits and COLAs, expand housing programs for low-income seniors, provide social support for culture accessible to all, acknowledge the contributions that seniors have made and continue to make to society.
5. Preserve prudent public interest regulations that encourage sustainable growth and investment, ensure energy diversity and system reliability, protect workers and the environment, reward consumer conservation, and support an expanding marketplace that rewards the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies
6. Create a sustainable economy that takes priority over profits.
7. Ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
8. Increase minimum wage.
9. Extend the Voting Rights Act and reform our electoral processes.
10. Demand people’s right to full participation in the decisions which affect their lives.
11. Bring U. S. troops home from Iraq as soon as possible.
12. A two-state solution and an end to the occupation of the Palestinian Arab lands.
13. Re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.
14. Foreign policy will be based on mutual respect, peace, and solidarity.
15. Enhance international cooperation to reduce the threats posed by nuclear proliferation and weapons of mass destruction.
16. U.S. policies threaten not only world peace but increasingly threaten the very existence of humanity. The most egregious examples are the U.S. imperialist invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
17. Increase efforts to combat hunger and the scourge of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other infectious diseases.
18. Recognize that the internationalization of economic and social life means that social problems anywhere in the world impact all countries, including the richest ones
19. The U.S. Constitution, as originally written, placed many restrictions on democracy, so from the time of the country’s founding there has been a continual battle to extend democracy -- from demanding that the Bill of Rights be included in the Constitution to legal battles to ensure that all people have inalienable rights, from eliminating property requirements for voting to outlawing poll taxes, from not only freeing the slaves but enrolling them as voters to extending the franchise to women, from the Voting Rights Act to lowering the voting age.
20. Invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building America’s schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.
21. Sunset expiring provisions of the Patriot Act and bring remaining provisions into line with the U. S. Constitution.
22. Export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.
23. Reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.
24. Protect the personal privacy of all Americans from unbridled police powers and unchecked government intrusion.
25. Fight corporate consolidation of the media and ensure opportunity for all voices to be heard.
26. Ensure enforcement of all legal rights in the workplace.
27. Eliminate all forms of discrimination based upon color, race, religion, gender, creed, disability, or sexual orientation.
28. Honor and help our overburdened international public servants – both military and civilian.
29. Encourage debt relief for poor countries and support efforts to reach the UN’s Millennium Goals for Developing Countries.
30. Free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least three million new jobs, cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation’s security.
31. Promote environmental justice in affirmation that all people have an inherent right to a healthy environment, clean air, and clean water wherever we live, work, and relax.
32. Change incentives in federal tax, procurement, and appropriation policies to:
33. Speed commercialization of solar, biomass, and wind power generation, while encouraging state and local policy innovation to link clean energy and job creation;
34. Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles, enhance global competitiveness of U.S. auto industry, and expand consumer choice;
35. Increase investment in construction of “green buildings” and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces;
36. Link higher energy efficiency standards in appliances to consumer and manufacturing incentives that increase demand for new durable goods and increase investment in U.S. factories;
37. Eliminate environmental threat posed by global warming and ensuring that America does our part to advance an effective global problem-solving approach.
38. Expand energy-efficient transportation choices by increasing investment in synthesized networks, including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

Which political party has historically supported civil rights and liberty?

Here's an image I posted on FB, 'shared' from the RepublicanRevolution's page:

Many Americans think of the Republican Party as bigoted and racist -- an image foisted on the public, I believe, by the media.  For its own agenda.  To make the Democrat Party look good in comparison. Or whatever reason.  But media bias is not the point.  Rather, I'd like provide some FACTUAL and historical basis as to why the GOP is the party of civil rights and equality, while the Democrat Party is the one of bigotry and racism.

First, here is a comment on the above post from my nephew, a law school graduate and soon-to-be licensed lawyer:

[quote]  

Strum Thurman [sic] filibustered the civil rights act.  Are you telling me he was a democrat?  LBJ passed the civil rights act.  Was he a republican?  Upon passing the civil rights act, LBJ confessed he had just lost the south for the democrats for the next 40 years... It might be longer.

Let's go through this list...

‎1. Democrats; 2. No clue, but I'll believe democrats; 3. Ditto; 4. Republicans: Strum Thurman was a democrat until 1964, when he switched to republican, LBJ passed the legislation, I'm chalking this up to republican; 5. democrats I guess; 6. both parties, what was Wallace?; 7. Both world wars were under democrats and Vietnam under LBJ, which Nixon escalated, gulf war=bush, Iraq and afghan war=bush, democrats win again.
I guess Obama is responsible for all of this? 

[unquote]

My reaction:  Wow, don’t they teach ANYTHING in colleges or even law schools these days?? 

It's sad when the shortcomings of our public education system are so obvious when brought to light.  It's not my nephew's fault; he was fed a pile of mush.  For that matter, I wasn’t taught most of this either but had to learn it on my own. 

To begin with, “Dixiecrats” were a remnant of the segregationist Southern bloc of the Democrat Party, going back to the Reconstruction Era, and they were indeed racist -- an anachronism by the 1960s.  Yes, the following were ALL racist Democrats:  Strom Thurmond (Sen., SC), John Stennis (Gov., Miss.), George Wallace (Gov., Ga.), Eugene “Bull” Connor (Birmingham Ala., police commissioner) and Orval Faubus  (Gov., Ark.)  Most won’t know that last name: He was governor during the 1957 Little Rock High School integration crisis – when he threatened to use the state’s National Guard to block  9 black students from entering the all-white school.  President Eisenhower (a Republican you know) nationalized the Arkansas Guard so Faubus couldn’t order them into place.  Read up on Gov. Faubus – he was a piece of work.

Other factoids:

• The last acknowledged (past) member of the KKK in the Senate?  Robert Byrd, a Democrat.
• Who segregated the federal civil service?  (After it was integrated under Grant, a Republican.)  Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat.
• Who integrated the armed services again?  Eisenhower, as supreme commander of European forces, later of course a Republican president.
• What started the Civil War?  The election of Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform.  Seven states seceded between Election Day in 1860 and Lincoln’s inauguration in March 1861.  The South knew its days as a slave-holding civilization was doomed if they stayed in the Union. 
• The “Jim Crow laws” were created by Southern Democrats to keep the former slaves “in their place.”  Reconstruction exacerbated the split between the GOP and Democrats over the freed slaves. 
• Every black elected to Congress from the southern states from 1865-1880 was a Republican.
• The Constitutional Amendments proposed immediately after the Civil War (the 14^th 15^th and 16^th) were passed and ratified by GOP legislatures.
• The NAACP was formed in 1909 by a group of whites and one black to fight the Jim Crow laws passed and protected by Democrats. In 1913, the NAACP organized opposition to President Wilson (remember, a Democrat) as he introduced racial segregation into federal government policy and hiring.   

One of my heroes is Frederick Douglass, esp. after reading his Narrative (his first autobiographical work.)  After escaping slavery, he was first something of an anarchist – calling for the dissolution of the Republic rather than letting slavery exist -- from the time he arrived in the Northern states until he read the US Constitution for himself about 1850 and found it to be an ANTI-slavery document.  Thereafter he declared himself to be a Republican and eventually became friends with Lincoln.

The Republican Party was formed from the remnants of the Whig Party and a rising anti-slavery movement in the Northern states during the 1850s.  Lincoln was the VP candidate to John Fremont’s candidacy on the first Republican presidential ticket in 1856.  Democrat James Buchanan won in a three-way race, but the Lincoln-Hamlin GOP ticket won in 1860.  (Andrew Johnson was the VP in 1864.  As a Democrat president -- Lincoln chose him as VP to try to placate southerners -- Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which led in part to his impeachment.

It is not generally known there were SEVERAL “Civil Rights Acts” after WW2.  The least known was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, supported by President Eisenhower and the Republicans in Congress.  It passed easily in the House (80% of GOP voted for; 40% of Dems voted against.)  In the other chamber, however, the Senate Majority Leader deliberately sent the bill to the Judiciary Committee where his friend, a Southern Dixiecrat from Mississippi named James Eastland, rewrote it beyond recognition, effectively watering it down.  Oh, and the Senate Majority Leader’s name?  Lyndon Johnson.  After LBJ became president and the CRA of 1964 was coming to a vote, he did not stand in the way but instead signed it.  The Senate Leader by then was Mike Mansfield (D-MT) who was decidedly more moderate and less bombastic than the showboating Johnson, and much less racist as well.  Mansfield manuevered around the obstructionist Sen. Eastland, who was still chairman of the Judiciary Committee. 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the House by a vote of 270-97.  The split by party was 80% of GOP voted for, while about 40% of Dems voted against.  The “myth” that the several Civil Rights Acts were opposed by the GOP is scurrilous.  The overall record shows that since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.  In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes.  By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. 

Interestingly, the Democrat Party has encouraged the myth that it is the party that consistently supported civil rights in every case.  Not so at all.  See: http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/.  Rather, the Dems are “Johnnies-come-lately” to the civil rights arena.  As an example, the Nineteenth Amendment (women’s suffrage) was supported largely by Republicans.  NONE of the southern states (those in the defeated Confederacy) approved the amendment until after it was ratified by the requisite 38 states.

Strom Thurmond is an interesting case.  He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a Democrat.  He was angered by Democrat senators compromising to pass the bill (the vote was 60-15 – many abstained) and he then switched parties.  You might say he was "conservative" because he favored “states’ rights.”  Unfortunately, that term has forever been linked to segregation.  Many of the Dixiecrats did NOT join the GOP but instead formed their own caucus, walking out from the 1948 Democrat National Convention when a civil rights plank was added to the platform, to the credit of Hubert Humphrey.  Thurmond was selected as presidential candidate of the “States’ Rights Democrat Party” in 1948 election.  (Part of their platform was “We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totalitarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominiously defeating Harry S Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.”  Wow, and they say today’s TEA Party is extreme!)  The break-away Dixiecrats later returned to the Democrat party.

[As an aside here, it always rankles Dems when someone points out that environmental protection has long been part of the GOP’s platform, starting with Teddy Roosevelt’s proposals to protect the great Western forests and natural wonders through a National Park system, and continuing to Richard Nixon’s establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Hey, “conservation” is part of “conservatism”!]

[Another aside, regarding which party's presidents took the nation into war the most often.  They were Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy for the Dems.  George H W Bush  and George W Bush involved the US in Iraqi wars with the approval of the Senate.  There is were the latest foray into Libya and that would be a Democrat again.]

All of the above is fact.  In summary, the Republicans have been a protector of civil rights; the Democrats historically opposed statutory protections.  Somehow, the perception of those roles was reversed and it occurred about 1964, which was the real awakening on civil rights and the initial roll-out of LBJ’s “Great Society.”  For whatever reason, call it laziness on the part of the GOP or the unfair demonization of Barry Goldwater about that time, the Dems under HHH, LBJ, JFK and RFK grabbed the high ground on civil rights.  The Democrat-held House and Senate of the 60s also pushed through massive largess to the poor in the form of welfare, food stamps and Medicaid.  Heck, even I was leaning Democrat from 1960, when my 5^th grade class wanted JFK to beat Nixon, until 1976 when I voted for Carter.  (Yes, it’s true: I was suckered by a politician who offered 'hope and change' – 36 years ago!)

My theory on how the Democrat Party became champions of the black and Hispanic voters -- and thereby won a large majority of their votes -- came about through those Great Society programs.  The votes were basically ‘bought.’  Pretty simple, but the simplest explanations are usually the right ones.

The Democrat Party has been the party where voters just feel it’s on the right side of issues; there’s no rationale behind it.  Three prime examples:

1. Everyone “needs” medical care so let’s have the government provide it and everyone will pay into the system, and voila the nation is healthier! 
       That couldn’t be farther from the truth.  The nation will be poorer, certainly, but healthier?  Not possible.  Spending more money isn’t the answer because prices will certainly rise as patients ignore the costs since the government is footing the bill, OR prices will be clamped down -- as is currently happening -- and physicians will decline to cover those under the government's plan, resulting in rationed care in order to treat as many critically-ill patients as possible.  Those on the plan will have  long waits to see a doctor, if they can find one.
2. Everyone “needs” an education to succeed, so the government should finance college for anyone who wants it! 
       Two problems with this:  No, everyone does not need an education to succeed – people succeed in different areas, which could be as an air conditioning technician or truck driver.  Hey, we need plumbers in addition to lawyers and doctors!  Secondly, there is no cost containment when the government just funds whatever the private market demands, in this case universities.  The price of a college semester has skyrocketed, just as the federal government assumed funding of ALL college loans.  It's not a coincidence.
3. Collective bargaining is a right of every worker so therefore all government workers should be organized and represented by unions! 
       This is a path to ruin where one side of the ‘bargaining’ is management -- also known as “politicians” – whose campaigns for reelection are funded by the very same unions who sit across the table!  There is a serious conflict of interest right off the top.  The voter is hardly represented in the ‘bargaining.’  Even that great liberal FDR wanted federal employees barred from organizing.

The tide is turning as more people find out the Liberal mantra of “more, give us more” is costing too much.  The poverty level has not budged in a span of 50 years under a Great Society of high taxes and high spending.  The poor have remained poor.  Schools have not prospered or succeeded under a wash of money.  As an example, the Washington DC school district is one of the highest spending per student districts and has one of the lowest graduation rates.  Where does the money go and how come it isn’t being converted to educational success?  Most will say more money isn't the answer to the question of how to improve schools.  The real answer lies in innovation, school choice and recognizing and rewarding good teachers.

In general, the answer to EVERY problem isn’t "more government."  The answer will usually be "more individual responsibility," both to build your own success and to help others where there is a need.  The Federal Government should do what it does best, such as coin money, provide defense and roads, operate national postal and judicial systems, and protect our freedoms.  It should leave education, health care and poverty programs to state and local governments and agencies.  Those will in turn relegate or defer to local agencies and organizations.  We will get along just fine looking after ourselves and each other in our communities.  Thanks, Congress, but no thanks.

So finally, Dear Reader, after all that, if anything above doesn’t ring true then please research it for yourself.  Never take anyone’s word on anything.  Could professors have been incorrect on at least one or two points?  Did the student check out what they said to verify most of it?  My opinion is the universities today are turning out graduates who think just like their liberal professors -- not altogether a good thing. 
Some “food for thought.”

And no one said “Obama is responsible for all of this.”  No one blames the current administration for creating the current situation.  He didn't improve things much or bring together all Americans as we'd hoped. 

At this point, people should be thinking for themselves -- at least some of the time.

JDE

How to tell you might be a Republican

(With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

If you think our Rights come from Nature and Nature's God and not from government, or else government could also take them away ... you might be a Republican.

If you think when government overspends and borrows to cover the deficits, it burdens our children with debt ... you might be a Republican.

If you think too much government is the problem not the solution ... you might be a Republican.

If you think your family could make better decisions about your health care than a centralized bureaucracy in Washington ... you might be a Republican.

If you think local school boards can make better decisions about your children's education than a central government in Washington ... you might be a Republican.

If you think government has no role in bailing out companies "too big to fail" ... you might be a Republican.

If you think it's better for our enemies to fear us than to like us ... you might be a Republican.

If you think it's better for our allies to have confidence in us rather than to disrespect us ... you might be a Republican.

If you think government "stimulus" only serves to stimulate government ... you might be a Republican.

If you think a Congress that does not even consider or pass a budget should be regarded as a failure ... you might be a Republican.

If you think politicians often make promises they can't keep ... you might be a Republican.

If you think politicians work for us, and we do not work for the government ... you might be a Republican.

If you think it's possible for there to be too much government regulation and red tape ... you might be a Republican.

If you think taxing some people and giving money to others can be overdone and end up debilitating the beneficiaries ... you might be a Republican.

If you think government should give a hand UP but not a hand OUT ... you might be a Republican.

Finally, if you think a politician should be FIRED when his policies and programs FAIL ...
                   then you, too, might actually be a (gasp) Republican.

The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution -- Are we being faithful to our Founding Fathers?

Whether a person is Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Radical, whatever, there has to be some common ground in America linking us all as one Nation. That would be embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Either you believe in what our Founding Fathers dedicated their lives to, or you don't. On the other hand, the signers of those two documents didn't agree among themselves on many things. But they did put their differences aside to come together on certain principles.

No matter your political bent, there are some basic questions that have to be asked. Where do you stand on these issues today?

1. Do you think the US Constitution (with all of the Amendments) means what it says and it should be followed to the letter? Or, should it be just a guide and treated as no more or less than whatever we (the courts) think it means? Some consider the Constitution to be an ‘evolving’ document that the courts can interpret and mold to modern thinking. (The Founding Fathers were all just a bunch of rich, old, white men living in the 18th century. They couldn’t possibly have known what the 21st century would look like, so the Constitution must be way out-of-date, don’t you know.)

2. Is it OK for the Federal government to usurp the powers reserved for the States by the Constitution? Does the 10th Amendment mean anything today?

3. Does the “commerce clause” of the Constitution (Congress has the power to “make regular” interstate commerce) give the Federal government the right to regulate all commerce in the US, of whatever origin & destination? That is, if there is commerce which does not leave the boundaries of a state, can the Federal government regulate it? (There is a not-so-famous case in 1942 about a farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption. The US claimed the right to regulate it. And won.)

4. Is it OK for the Federal government to take 70% of the assets from a certain group of people and give it to another group? Doesn’t the Fifth Amendment prohibit taking of property without due process? There’s been no due process in the GM case. The deal brokered by the Obama administration awarded 30 cents on the dollar to the bondholders (supposedly the first in line to be satisfied in any bankruptcy case) but awarded a 55% equity stake in the ‘new’ GM Company to the labor unions. (Of course, the US taxpayers “invested” $19 billion in GM but the Treasury recovered none of that money, which I’m not even counting.) Was the 5th Amendment violated?

5. If the Federal government doesn’t ‘own’ GM, then what do these mean?
a) Obama fired the CEO of GM.
b) The ‘car czar’ is dictating the number and type of autos to be built.
c) It was reported the office of the President ordered a change in Chrysler’s advertising budget.
d) Dealerships were selected for closing by some arbitrary criteria (never explained to the dealers) and in one instance a dealer met with a congressional representative and was reinstated as a surviving dealer.

So, is it OK for the Federal government to be in the auto manufacture business?

6. Was it OK for Congress to pass the TARP Act and for Paulson and Geithner (Treasury Secretaries) to issue all of the bailouts? It started with Secretary Paulson under Bush proposing to buy toxic assets, which I opposed, and it ended up with the United States buying stock in bank corporations, which I vehemently opposed. Isn’t that corporate ownership by the government? In some instances, banks were strong-armed into taking the money and turning over stock shares. The Federal government owns 40% of Citigroup and soon the Treasury Secretary or the President can dictate it do whatever. It’s just a big piggy bank to disperse money -- a “slush fund.”
On the other hand, some of the TARP money is being paid back by the banks, but Sec retary Geithner said he is going to keep it for later disbursements, and not return it to the General Fund to pay off the national debt, which is what the statute required. Another “slush fund”?

7. Were you OK with the “stimulus bill”? Were you OK with no one even reading the 1000-page bill before it passed? How can that be called prudent governance? What happened to transparency and accountability, which were supposed to be hallmarks of this administration?

8. Is it OK that 75% of the stimulus bill won’t be spent this year? What was the bill all about, anyway? I haven’t figured that one out.
I saw a list of projects supposedly submitted by my city – it was a joke to call them “shovel ready.” We don’t even have an idea of what most of them should be. One line item I remember was “Delaware Creek Channel Improvement Project” for $7 million. (Not the River of the same name over near New Jersey – we have our own small facsimile, thank you.) There are no plans today to spend anywhere close to $7 million!
My conclusion was someone put together a whole bunch of projects from cities all over the country -- through the National Conference of Mayors, or something. I think it ended up being just a wish list of things the cities would try to do if a ton of money was thrown at them, and then Congress totaled it all up and it was $787 billion. My city alone is $1.2 billion. But if the haphazard way of coming up with that number was repeated all across the country, then calling it a “stimulus bill” is way off the mark. There’s no way even most of the money can be spent anytime soon.

And now the 'cap and trade' and 'health care reform' bills are winding through Congress. This is all about power and increasing the reach of the Federal government. It seems all wrong to me.

What I Believe

I believe in the supreme worth of the individual and in his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I believe that every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.

I believe that the law was made for man and not man for the law; that government is the servant of the people and not their master.

I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living.

I believe that thrift is essential to well ordered living and that economy is a prime requisite of a sound financial structure, whether in government, business or personal affairs.

I believe that truth and justice are fundamental to an enduring social order.

I believe in the sacredness of a promise, that a man’s word should be as good as his bond; that character — not wealth or power or position — is of supreme worth.

I believe that the rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.

I believe in an all-wise and all-loving God, named by whatever name, and that the individual’s highest fulfillment, greatest happiness, and widest usefulness are to be found in living in harmony with His will.

I believe that love is the greatest thing in the world; that it alone can overcome hate; that right can and will triumph over might.

With grateful thanks to the author, John D. Rockefeller.
(The above is incribed on a granite monument at Rockefeller Center. Every New Yorker -- and every American -- could do well to read and live by these principles.

JDE

Obesity and Health: Life and Death Decisions

My wife passed away on June 13, 2004, eight months after undergoing weight loss surgery (or WLS.) There are many forms this can take. The exact operation she selected is described below.

I wrote the following as a form of therapy and also to help others who are struggling with weight loss and see surgery as a 'quick fix' or a final solution. I don't believe it is. I posted this on the bulletin board (chat room) serving those who were considering or had just undergone WLS. I hoped it helped those who were still just considering it.

This is very long but if you are thinking about bariatric surgery in some form, and there are many different operations out there, please read this and heed my message: You are making a life and death decision, and the odds are not good. My wife thought she would not live ten more years, due to her weight, without some drastic course of action. Instead, she lived eight months after the operation and died at the age of only 52.

To begin at the end, the way I understand her anatomy when she died, Sherry basically starved to death. Oh, there were complications that brought her life functions to a halt, such as massive infections ("sepsis syndrome,") which was from a perforated ulcer of the intestine, and a pulmonary embolism. But her health was so bad by the end of May '04 that very little could have been done to save her. Such metabolic indicators as her albumin level were way below normal. Her electrolytes were chronically low. Each time she was admitted to the hospital they found her potassium level too low and would immediately start IVs just for that. Right before Memorial Day I was told a feeding tube would be a good idea and I made an appointment to see a surgeon about that, but Sherry didn't make it to go see him. As I say, by then it was probably too late anyway.

After the WLS, there were two reasons Sherry took in so little nutrition. One was her constant nausea. She just didn't feel like eating or drinking anything most of the time. I could get her to eat a little if I coaxed her. Usually she said her stomach hurt and she declined food. (I'll get back to that later.) She retched a half dozen times a day. It was a form of torture.

Even when she took in some nourishment, very little was actually absorbed. She underwent emergency surgery the day before she died and the doctor came out to inform me she had a very short "common limb" (where the two lengths of the intestines come together before the large intestine begins.) The ER surgeon, Dr. Matin, said the length should have been 75-100 cm but it was only 20 cm. I remember Sherry told me 20 cm was the designed length of her common limb, as if it was done that way on purpose. Since then I've researched this subject and found that Dr. Matin was correct. For example, the diagram at http://www.duodenalswitch.com/Procedure/procedure.html shows the "common loop" as 75-100 cm. I have no idea why Sherry's common limb was shorter than usual.

To go back to the beginning, Sherry's weight loss surgery (WLS) was in late October. At almost 300 lbs and with some serious co-morbidities (hypothyroidism, hyperglycemia, and fatty liver disease), she had been studying the different WLS options quite intensely for six months or so. She settled on the Duodenal Switch (D/S) procedure as being best for her and then announced her decision to her family. She also selected a surgeon -- one in Brazil.

I regret very much not being more involved in her decision, but she had made up her mind and I could either go along or resist her decision. I acquiesced too easily. (My first mistake, individually. My rationale: She was adamant that this was her last chance at a viable, active life. She feared she would not live long without the surgery.) So I supported her and she made plans accordingly. That was our first mistake as a couple. I should have been better informed and better prepared. She seemed to know what she was doing and I was more or less going along.

The next mistake was also one of omission. I didn't go to Brazil with her. She said I didn't have to, it would have cost more money than we had available, and she was sure it would be OK if I didn't go. I admit to being lukewarm about going at first, since I didn't see where I would help that much, as I thought she was going to be under direct medical care the whole time she was there. I waited too long before deciding I had better go, but by then it was too late to obtain a passport and to arrange travel. I spoke to her every day after the surgery, as I remember. I was chagrined she was released from the hospital only a couple of days following surgery, so she was then going to spend more than a week in her hotel room basically all alone. I realized only then I really should have gone so that her medical care in Brazil would have lasted as long as possible. Instead she decided to come back too early, our third mistake.

She returned to the US in pain but in satisfactory condition, or so we thought. She began a bout of vomiting that was frequent and debilitating over a course of months. I mean she threw up six to eight times a day, every day, shortly after she returned (Oct 31st) until Feb 4th. She often said, pathetically, she was so tired of vomiting and just wanted it to stop. It was a "dry heave" type of regurgitation and she brought up mostly white frothy mucus matter. This was significant in hindsight.

The effect on her health was slow and unnerving. We had to take her to the hospital for dehydration about once a month. Each time a different doctor treated her and released her. We insisted something was seriously wrong but I was told by each one, "Well, we don't know what they did in Brazil, and you know, once you have an operation like that, there are side effects." Or some variation, over and over again. This would be the fourth mistake: Letting doctors decide and dictate her treatment when they did not have any idea what the surgery entailed.

Sherry asked the physician who had been her usual doctor to follow-up her treatment after she returned from Brazil. He saw her once, he made no effort to help her very much, and so we never saw him again. From then on we were at the mercy of the physicians assigned to her whenever she entered the ER. I suppose this is the normal way of treating people now: Your family physician (or "primary care physician" PCP) will only see you in his/her office. If you go to the hospital then an internal specialist is assigned to you from a pool of doctors and he/she manages your care while you are an in-patient. These two types of doctors do not talk to each other, evidently. I was very skeptical about this process because every time we would get a new doctor we'd have to explain Sherry's past history all over again. Sherry would be treated for her immediate symptoms and sent home. That is, this occurred repeatedly until she collapsed in her hospital room on Jan 27th and the internal specialist (who ironically was about to release her) then realized something was indeed very wrong. His name was Dr. Thang Le and we were to see him several more times in our local hospital (Baylor Medical Center at Irving.) By the way, we went to Baylor University Medical Center ("Big Baylor" in downtown Dallas) several times for specialized care, but neither facility was able to do much after all.

On January 30th Sherry was given erythromycin and she stopped vomiting on Feb 4th. I suspected she had a form of bronchitis and was dry-heaving mucus from her chest. That would explain the white frothy substance vomitus. I thought the nausea had nothing to do with the WLS, but I was the only one to draw that conclusion. When I mentioned this to every doctor thereafter I was rebuffed because "Bronchitis wouldn't last that long (three months)" and "Don't you think someone would have noticed the chest sounds of bronchitis?" and "Erythromycin has many other uses including motility so that is what improved her condition." My question was: If she had not had the WLS then would every doctor have looked for a cause of the vomiting rather than pointing to the surgery each time? Our fifth mistake, then, was not insisting each doctor examine and treat the whole person rather than letting his/her focus be on the WLS as a cause for everything.

Sherry had every known test on her alimentary canal including many MRIs, sonograms, X-rays and even an endoscope. They were all negative for any cause of the vomiting. Yet the doctors more or less blamed the D/S surgery.

Let me go back to the point when Dr. Le at Baylor-Irving was about to discharge Sherry at the end of January but instead she collapsed to the floor: He was attempting to dispel our fears about her inability to walk on January 27th. He ran tests on her spine and cranium and declared that she should be able to walk, that there was no organic reason for her not to. He even brought in a psychiatrist to check for "conversion disorder" which means they were looking for a psychosomatic cause for not walking. On February 1st she was near comatose as she could not see, hear, speak, or lift her arms. She was numb from the sternum down. Eventually, several days later she could make out blurry shapes, could talk again, and could feed herself. On Feb 7th the consulting neurologist declared the diagnosis was Wernicke's syndrome, which is caused by a vitamin deficiency. I have since heard this is not uncommon in WLS patients. Sherry's nutrition levels were dropping steadily and by then it was probably too late to reverse her surgery. I would have done so if a doctor, any doctor, said it should be done. They each said, "Well, you might consider it." What the hell did that mean? It just let them off the hook as far as liability goes, as near as I could tell.

I did make an appointment with the ER surgeon who admitted Sherry in early January, with the first available office hours being Jan 17th. When I visited him, alone because Sherry was an inpatient at a different hospital by then, he counseled me at length about the type of WLS she had undergone and other procedures that were performed by various surgeons. He said one option would be to see if the surgery could be reversed and he referred me to the Bariatric Surgery Clinic of Baylor University Hospital. I discussed this option with Sherry and, God help me, she convinced me not to pursue it. Frankly, she was not interested in undergoing another surgery, especially if it would end up taking her right back where she started from, with the same intestinal layout as before. She viewed that as a failure and wanted to keep going forward rather than back.

That was the sixth and final mistake and, if we had realized it at the time and took a different course, it probably was the last chance to save her life. Looking back now, though, I will have to convince myself that the outcome was set no matter what we did. Reversing the surgery would have delayed the inevitable. She was doomed and I don't think I could have saved her.

These next sections are very personal and give some insight into Sherry's background from her youth to the past 30 years. If it proves too tedious by all means skip down to "Lessons Learned." That was the whole point of the exercise anyway!

Going back to see how Sherry arrived at such a life-and-death decision as to whether to have WLS, we have to start early in her life: Basically, she had always been overweight. She was teased as a child and a teenager about her weight. She shared those stories with me and I truly empathized. She pretty much grew up obese. After three full-term pregnancies, her metabolism, or whatever, changed so much that she had a difficult time losing the post-partum weight. This is probably common among women, I don't know, but because it was such a chronic problem before she was pregnant there must have been other reasons for her obesity rather than just laying it off on that. I'll say one thing here, she definitely lost a lot of weight when she went through basic military training entering the Air Force. I met her while we were at the same AF base just as she was being discharged in Jan 1974. (We were married in July of that year at the ripe old ages of 23 and 22. She died one month before our 30th anniversary.) Obviously, it was a combination of exercise and limited food -- they barely had time to eat regular meals and snacking was forbidden. She was in the best physical shape for the first year of her military service. When I met her two years later she weighed 135 lbs at 5 ft 2 inches. Early in our relationship I would joke about her weight and I found out how sensitive she was about it. She was still hurting from the teasing she endured growing up so I quickly stopped talking about it at all.

I'll say here for the record Sherry had psychological problems which we dealt with in our own way, and that was to avoid talking about them. I loved her and I thought it would be enough for us to overcome her shortcomings, as well as mine for that matter, for goodness sakes. We communicated so well otherwise and became devoted to each other.

The real problem with her weight began in 1975 when I went to Korea for a year as an Air Force first lieutenant. Sherry had difficulties coping on her own after three months, so she moved in with my parents. She was on a Weight Watchers program for a little while and other programs later, but gained weight anyway during that year, weighing about 200 lbs. in Jan 1977. We went to our next base, in Europe, and she became pregnant for the first time. She had a difficult pregnancy, had "morning sickness" most of the time, and then we lost the baby six days after delivery. It devastated her and she probably never got over that. Sherry wanted to be a mother so badly. She always worked outside the home but she would have been a full-time mother if we could have swung it. Eventually, we had two pretty great children. A son in 1979 and a daughter in 1982. We did a lot as a family, I have to say, especially during our two-year adventure to Turkey (in 1990-1992 when the kids were 11 and 8) which brought us together the most. Not having TV and depending on each other for everything and basically hanging out together all of the time does make a family closer.

Back to her death and the crushing guilt I felt for not being able to save Sherry: Three things loomed late in her demise that might keep me from feeling unrelenting remorse for the rest of my life. After a pulmonary embolism dropped her blood pressure into the 80's on Wednesday June 9th, X-rays of her legs showed her femoral arteries seriously clogged with plaque. This meant she had been a prime candidate for a heart attack or stroke already for some time. The reality was just as she feared: She was not going to live long in that body and she was right to take radical means to change it. But on the other hand being so bed-ridden for six months also took its toll -- the risk of embolism (a clot going into the heart, brain or lungs) had risen severely.

Secondly, and this was telling at the end, the co-morbidities would defeat her. Hypo­thyroidism, hyperglycemia, and fatty liver disease probably contributed to her very poor nutrition.

Third, Dr. Matin on June 10th said her stomach was producing too much acid and that is what caused the ulcer in her jejunum that perforated and served to kill her. I suspect the extra acid was causing her stomach to be upset all of the time and resulted in the constant nausea. How that could have been prevented might have had an easy answer. Dr. Matin said the condition would have required treatment by Protonix and antacids for the rest of her life. This might have been a detriment to her health for the rest of her life in any case.

The Bottom line: We did the best we could and came up short. We trusted too many people with too much of her health and her life. I'm very bitter about the medical health industry. Each person we met (doctor, nurse, support staff) was professional and caring, yet somehow Sherry did not get the care that would save her life, so I feel that we were let down. On the other hand, she and I made mistakes in retrospect, though to what extent any decision we could have made differently would have changed the outcome is impossible to say now. There's no way to know for sure what would have mattered, and how long it would have taken for her health to fail. In order to be able to go on I have to believe now and forever that the end would have been the same.

Lessons learned: Here are the lessons from our experience that I'd like to pass on to those contemplating WLS and specifically the D/S procedure:
+ Talk over all of the options with your family/spouse/significant other.
+ Someone be with the patient through the whole process. (My wife seemed to be the only one who was unaccompanied in Brazil.)
+ Before the surgery, review the procedure with your family physician (PCP.) Ensure that the PCP is in support the procedure and will take appropriate measures if there are negative effects thereof.
+ Any lingering effects (after two weeks or so) need to be addressed by your physician (PCP) at once.
+ Adequate nutrition is paramount. Since the objective is reducing the absorption of food it makes sense that there is the possibility that TOO LITTLE will be absorbed. How this could be determined is the tough part. Testing the albumen level seemed to be one indication.
+ Be active. Exercise should be part of any weight loss program. Start with simple easy exercises around the house on a frequent basis and build up to more strenuous outdoor activities.

Finally, the last thing is, have you really exhausted all other options? Let me preach for a minute, if I may be so audacious. Obviously, anyone who takes the time to read all of this is serious about losing weight and has been through a lot already. But my two cents is this, and it bears repeating for the umpteenth time: The only way to lose weight is for the calories coming in to be less than the calories expended by the body. This has to mean fewer calories coming in, whether it's restricted by following Atkins, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc. or by having WLS, and then it means more exercise to expend more calories.

Sherry's case was particularly sad because she had been active when she was younger, then gradually succumbed to her weight, and it held her back. Arthritis in her knees made simple walking very painful. I would go out to walk the dogs in the evening and ask her to come each time. She declined because it was so painful for her. How pitiful. We owned a myriad of exercise equipment over the past 30 years, but none of it was used that much.

Sherry would try different diets, perhaps every one of the ones out there, but didn't lose much. I'm one of the lucky ones because I wanted to lose 20 lbs from my mid-section. I was at 208 and I'm 6 ft 1 inch. I've been called 'skinny' by some but I felt heavy. I asked my doctor in June 2003 if I could try Atkins. He said I should set a target weight of about 190 and to go ahead with low carb diet. Over the next three months I cut out all carbs from my meals and lost 25 lbs. I was down to 183 at the lowest point and Sherry was seriously concerned for my health as I lost too much weight. Six years later I'm still around that level, hovering at 190, though I do need to gain back some of the lost muscle. But that's all about me and who wants to hear about that?

I felt so sorry for Sherry when I lost the 25 lbs. She saw my weight loss and felt even worse. She was adamant that Atkins was not for her because of the fatty liver disease and high cholesterol. She was an active, vibrant person inside and trapped in a body that betrayed her. Certainly, she didn't deserve to live or to die like that. I loved her and wanted her around for a longer time than we had together. She made her own choices in life and I respected that, but her decision to get WLS is one I would have rather overridden somehow. On the other hand, if she had died of some other cause in a year or two then I would have blamed myself for not letting her try the WLS option.

And that is the dilemma facing each of those who are in the same situation: To take this very risky course or to play it safe and keep going with diets and exercise. As those options are taken away I can see how people will reach out for this option. Just be sure it is really the last one, because there is no going back and it might very well be THE last. It might be fatal.

There are risks with everything but WLS is a risk I hope people will not take unnecessarily or unwisely.
And with that counsel, I wish the reader good health and a long, happy life.

JDE