December 28th, 2014
To tell you the truth, I’m sick and tired of watching the equivalent of present-day Nazis hide behind the ridiculous label of “ultra-nationalism’. A person claiming to advocate nationalism from the point of view of a given group is promoting the framer’s view of their identity. Reform efforts still fall within boundaries intended by the framers to permit adaptations to made for the health of the group. Otherwise, individuals might be termed dissidents or even foreign occupiers of a country they wish to remake while retaining the false impression of an unchanged land. An ‘über-national’ is one bent upon erasing the range of thought, action and appearance regarded as natural to a group.
Identity is not threatened by the presence of outside individuals arriving for purposes of tourism, education, commercial enterprise or even asylum. Arrival within the borders of a nation means acceptance of their nature as you pass through. Citizenship is granted based upon a traveler’s ability to learn and adopt a way of life that doesn’t cross that of the host country.
A great deal of present-day controversy is based upon a push towards uniformity of life-style in a manner akin to a “redistribution’ of cultural equivalents, much as some forms of economic policy urges redistribution of wealth. Government after government addresses the definition of marriage, family, religion and economics despite the fact that those falling outside of the traditional views are not persecuted for their differences. The essential expressions of humanity in an upright nation remain intact.
It makes no more sense to attempt to remove the Jewish nature of Israel from its residents than it does to alter Vatican City’s association with Catholicism. Humanity is a species native to earth with sub-groups attached to ways of life that might be akin to a ‘genus’ or recognizable member within the species. Just as you don’t attempt to legislate the gene expression of healthy DNA material, differences should not be dismissed as mere song stylings to be altered for the gig we call ‘Life’. The laws of biology are not up for a vote in a democratic society. Therefore, why expect the nature of a group to be placed on a ballot? Most human rights issues were largely agreed upon in international conventions decades ago.
Is there somehow a dearth of nations in the world that befits the various forms of world cultures? Is there an absence of good will that would deny any disenfranchised group it’s own needs for their expression of unity? The birth of new nations still happens without disbanding older ones.
When New York Times columnist, Roger Cohen, asked the question “What will Israel Become?”, in a recent edition of that paper, I began to wonder how Israel’s identity might possibly have grown vague to anyone remotely acquainted with Jewish history. Just because the rest of the world is in turmoil doesn’t mean the national identity of one of the first nations on the face of the earth has altered significantly. The real questions involve the intentions of other nationals feeling at odds with Israel’s self-assurance. Cohen’s article may be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/roger-cohen-what-will-israel-become.html?_r=0
My letter to the editor was as follows:
To the Editor,
The question posed by Mr. Cohen ought not to be what Israel ‘will become’ after some three thousand years of existence. Jewish people may identify as being ‘of Israel’ from any locality. Israelis have the distinction of living in the seat of the Jewish nation/state, regardless of religious identification or degree of secularism. Israel’s vibrancy describes a characteristic of a population that simply refuses to eradicate its own identity to join with other populations presently in decline.
The term ‘Ultra- nationalism’ used in the article is also an oxymoron. National identity is not a form of marketplace competition as in fascism, where ‘ultra’ or ‘über’ pretend-nationalists are bent upon destroying the identities of others within their borders (e.g. ‘Nazism’). With an eye towards the heritage of the Jewish State, remember that no one speaks of the Catholic ‘supremacy’ of Vatican City. No one questions the religious identity of Catholic Spain, despite a strong and growing Moslem minority.
From Jerusalem, Israel
Categories: commentary, Newspaper Commentary, NY Times
November 19th, 2014
Jonathan Stewart has been under fire for his expressions of ambiguous feelings about Jewish issues. As a Jewish American, I can sympathize with the issues expressed but not the manner of expression. Jewish life, when not viewed in a timeless sense, does lead to confusion about identity given the very definite parameters used applied to members of our nation. Modern education tells us you “are” whoever you want to “be”, as part of a free society. I wouldn’t mind being a rocket scientist but that ain’t happening. Nor am I a Russian although some of my ancestors were born there. Apparently Russians didn’t think my ancestors were Russians either as their passports labelled them as Jews.
An interview quoted in the Times of Israel had Jon stating that the definition of a Jew is supposed to come from outsiders and not insiders. Sorry Mr. Stewart, but the definition is of import when Israel has to decide whom to rescue from a war torn area bent upon murdering its residents. Only Israel and the Jewish people can define whom to rescue. After the rescue is done, it still remains the responsibility of Israel to resolve inequities in education that might lead a Jew to discriminate against another Jew or even label them ‘Fascist’. That is the purpose of requiring a formal conversion when the memory of your origins fades after generations of imposed ignorance about our people lead some of us to regard the issue as ambiguous.
I don’t question Jon’s strength of identification with the Jewish people but the growing strength of anti-Semitism here and abroad requires some further points to be made. Here is the letter I sent to him:
Dear Mr. Stewart,
I am writing to you in order to find out whether or not I am a fascist. This is an important question as I prepare to make Aliyah this month. Israel is home to persons of three major religions, all of whom have relatively stringent definitions of their membership, so the question isn’t limited to Jewish Israelis but also Moslems and Christian Israelis as well.
When you remove your tongue from your cheek when speaking of this issue seriously someday, please remember that only the process of conversion actually requires a candidate to formally observe Jewish rituals for the space of a single year. How else can a convert learn the ways of a nation without living that way in a formal sense? If you were naturalizing to acquire citizenship of a new country, you would be required to live as a member, learn the laws and avoid behaving in a manner that would adversely impact upon that group for at least a year before taking a test that allowed you to live and work there permanently. Having a parent or spouse sponsor your entry into a locale infers there would be a positive influence upon the individual seeking to become a citizen by association. However, the Jewish marriage contract has terms that are not equivalent to a state issued marriage license. Therefore, a claim that you are a Jew (child of Jewish parentage) or are the wife/husband of a Jewish person requires different proofs or a period of naturalization into Judaism. Of course, obtaining Israeli citizenship is not restricted to Jews but the Law of Return is a unique type of contract – one that is made with history, if you define history as A future in the making.
Is the Jewish definition of parentage fascist or merely different, inasmuch as anyone may live according to Jewish norms in any country? Why must any type of state marriage throughout the world be accepted by the State of Israel when some (e.g. gay) marriages are not even recognized between states under the same federal law of the United States? The transmission of a way of life is not identical between nations. Can you put the transmission of a Porsche under the hood of a Jag and still have it run as per their design? There are documents,solely Jewish in origin, that assure authorities you had that ‘beginning’ and are ready to build upon the foundation of the Jewish way of life.
Jews must learn to understand all levels of life, possessed of a both the longitudinal tradition and an immensely wide latitude in it’s expression. While no one will ask you if you believe in a deity, you ought to know the names of our anscestors and how to observe our traditions before you can recognize when others (Jew included), discriminate against any of us. Think of the conversion period as a form of ‘naturalization’ in a nation without borders. Religion knows no boundaries and Jewish life is marked by events without divisions in terms of eras. Israel, for Jews, is larger than any land mass.
The terms of Jewish contracts, like marriage or business arrangements, fall within the guidelines of the country where Jews reside. Still, those retain the expectation of an additional level or standard than exists where we dwell. You may recall the classic commercial for Hebrew National hot dogs, where they spoke of answering to a ‘higher authority’. While anyone could eat and enjoy those franks, only a person with an “insider’s” education would be able to manufacture them.
A Jew is hopefully educated not to regard any other Jew as either quaint, outdated, or as a fascist hoping to rule over a patch of sand. Americans even have communities that live the same way that Hasidim do and will only accept members like themselves. Oregonians in Ashland still dress and speak like many of us did in the early sixties, because time stopped for them at that period of US history. Jewish Hasids dress as seventeenth century Eastern Europeans because time stopped for them at that point when the terms of life under Eastern European governments no longer recognized Jews as worthy of life. To be honest, equal protection under those laws with non-Jews wasn’t really worth a great deal anyway.
Half the people recently surveyed stated that the Holocaust was a fiction. I would not want any of them to convert in order to marry my brother based upon surveys saying that Jewish husbands are less likely to be wife-beaters and more likely to be good providers.
Not without an intensive period of naturalization first.
October 21st, 2014
The American obsession with gender identity has again reared itself into the mainstream, this time in Texas. The start of this remarkable storm began with a rather ‘old’ issue of where people identifying as a gender different than that expected by mere, anatomical study ought to go to the bathroom. Public access to bathrooms is extremely important and the costs of altering them for wheelchair access tells the story of how seriously we do take this essential right to personal health needs. However, this case went further, with the result that every bathroom has the potential to become ‘unisex’, merely because an individual wants to enter it. Their motive is rather irrelevant when women prefer to undress and become vulnerable to prying eyes (and hands) while sitting on a toilet in a cubicle with a flimsy lock and large open area below the doorway. Men have the option to urinate publically, under the gaze of anyone entering the room, or within a cubicle similar to those in women’s restrooms.
The cases in point are important in that it brings up issues of safety and privacy. The right to privacy is easily attained by offering unisex bathrooms for a single person at a time. Those doors lock securely and no one will care about your gender orientation. Those intending harm (sexual predators) will lack the company of the opposite sex sought through wrongful entry into a group bathroom of the opposite sex. A toilet can be cheaply walled off from a larger rest room or a janitorial closet converted into a unisex toilet. This is not an insoluble problem if you delete the issue of ‘May I come into your toilet?’ question and go right to the main event, i.e. “Where may I ‘go’ in peace?”.
Fortunately for us all, this hue and cry led to a marvelous uproar regarding freedom of speech. Politicians unhappy with pastoral sermons advising their congregants to refuse to give up yet another needed privacy for themselves and their youngsters, were suddenly ordered to send copies of their pulpit talks to the government for review. Apparently the use of any lectern to speak about legislation the region where the audience has a vested interest was re-defined as political opposition, rather than education and discussion. Violations of free speech, now expected, were extended to houses of religious freedom. The phrase, religious freedom, was redefined as freedom from religion if you value group nudity. As a wedge into the minds of religious leaders planning their sermons, it certainly guaranteed that religious leaders would never be able to think again about any subject without having their minds on the government minders.
The public response was quite heartening, however. Even those unconnected with religious issues were outraged by the demands and the first amendment fight resumed. Outside of the toilet.
October 20th, 2014
I spend a great deal of time on the road, camping as I await a visa to Israel as a new resident. That means I listen to a lot of radio as the highway patrol doesn’t like drivers to read the paper while the vehicle is in motion. Neither does my rental car company.
I was raised in New York City listening to ‘All News’ stations and ‘Shock-Jock’ radio during my college years and during those long commutes on jam-packed highways to get to my places of work. My first foray into California, (in 2010), introduced me to alternative forms of news radio in the form of the Rachel Maddow Show. Emotionally charged, her show offered new insights into our complex mixture of issues. I just bought her book, “Drift” and hope to read it soon on a plane to Ben Gurion Airport.
This year, my trip into California led to a prolonged camping experience (a story to be told at a later time). Dancing around the wildfires from the southern to the northern parts of this state, I discovered ‘conservative talk’ radio in the persons of Dennis Miller, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They offered a greater range of approaches to relevant subjects with the improvisational options I’d admired while enjoying Saturday Night Live, back in the days of my youth. The advantage to be found in the conservative media for a grown-up is their greater intolerance for the frequent paucity of facts available to us when reviewing a story. The liberal media often applies emotion to that limited pile of evidence, revving up their crowd of listeners and relishing the possibilities yet to emerge. In these days of censorship, one group utilizes emotional intelligence until the other offers all of the building blocks needed for analytical thinking.
Talk radio is among the last bastions of an open press. The pressured but free-wheeling stars among them demonstrate how to think fast on your feet – or, in their case, in chairs at the forefront of the storm. Commuters and TV addicts rely upon the more rehearsed forums of CNN and the BBC, along with the regular nightly news broadcasts. Radio shows can offer sound-bytes from many sources without awaiting official interviews or even grab a source for a full hour while taking calls from the public. It is also very interesting to hear sudden ‘dead air’ on these shows or recognize when replays of past broadcasts suddenly appear, leaving you to wonder about the nature of the tech problems arising in their studios.
I was pleased to see CNN listening to radio, despite missing the precise details offered on ‘Savage Nation’ about Ebola and the prospects of transmission throughout the US. Savage is actually an epidemiologist, with a couple of other advanced degrees and thirty books to his credit. He recently questioned national policy vis-à-vis the hazards of travel, to and from the US, by Ebola-exposed individuals. CNN appeared unhappy with his views of the risks of our servicemen shipping out to Africa at the source of contagion. Debate between commentators may swiftly be replacing dialogue between neighbors hanging over their fences and blogs like mine. I rarely get to post these days but am working hard at keeping abreast of the news.
The swiftness with which events are happening today in all corners of the world demands that more attention be paid to radio. It made my solitary foray into the California wilderness this past year, one of enlightenment and intellectual challenge. Perhaps an expanding audience might lead to stronger coverage of breaking news from all media sources. The word ‘audience’ is as much a verb as it is a noun. I heartily endorse your “giving audience’ to the various and sundry talents around you in all forms of media.
July 6th, 2014
Among the more valuable perks of having a good education is the ability to pick and choose the kind of work you’d like to do while making your way through life. My work experiences began at twelve, babysitting for the child of a divorcee for fifteen hours per week after school. In later years, a Master of Arts degree opened portals that led me through many years as a speech pathologist in school settings and onward into university teaching and supervisory roles. The sheer variety of activities was exhilarating over a twenty five year period until premature disability ended my career. I’ve always sympathized with individuals suffering from repetitive motion injury. My sympathies were not limited to an understanding of their pain, but also for the nature of the work that called for the same set of motions to be used, again and again and again. The mind becomes numb long before the muscles begin to tear.
A few months ago, I found myself in New York City, visiting a lawyer to talk about the potential for resuming the prosecution of my law suit. Like the outlook for that possibility, it was also raining as I headed out for my rental car, parked on the other side of town. No cabs in sight, I set off to seek a bus stop when a young, Chinese male cycled up to me in what appeared to be a ‘rickshaw’, also known as a ‘pedicab’. I’d never seen one before.
‘Pedi-cabs’ have turned the human-pulled, three-wheeled rickshaw of Asian fame into a pedal-powered cab rented from owners who don’t think twice about young men and women wrecking their joints, hauling weighty passengers about town. Finding health care coverage ten years down the road to pay for knee replacements in these kids, might lead us to ask whether pedi-cab owners pay into state worker-compensation funds. Occupational injuries aren’t billable to normal health insurance. On the other hand, why should people even think about losing body parts to this kind of labor? My last glance at the calendar indicated this was 2014 and not 1914. Our aspirations appear to be dropping while orthopedic surgeons may have to study in places far flung from New York City to learn about these problems.
A native New Yorker, I’d been following the end-of-life stages of the horse-drawn carriage industry. After years of debate as to whether this labor is humane to the animals who pull passengers and their baggage beyond the bucolic views of Central Park into busy streets, the carriages are about to be replaced by electric carts . The thought of having a human do what we’ve deemed to be unfair to animals was rather appalling. Deep inhalations of particulate-laden air along with stress upon muscles and tendons evolved for other forms of labor are an awful price for a worker to pay for a few dollars. Even in India, rickshaws are being replaced with electric models despite problems in finding places to recharge motors. This can hardly be a problem in New York.
Immigration problems notwithstanding, we don’t need immigrants to occupy jobs that no person ought to be doing. I politely refused the offer and walked to the bus stop as the young man looked after me in confusion. Given the fact that he’d need a license to operate that pedi-cab, it may as well be a motorcycle license. That would offer him an additional ticket into a future as well as another way for New Yorkers to get from one place to another. In fact, it might be a ticket for all of us to regard labor in a modern light.
Categories: Christian Science Monitor, commentary, NIH, WSJ
June 9th, 2014
Obama faces some heavy charges of violating congressional process by trading Gitmo prisoners for an American held in Afghanistan for five years. While I won’t comment upon the politics of prisoner exchanges, I will applaud this action if it is the only way to close down Guantanamo Bay Prison. It is proof that we no longer reference the constitution when it comes to the justice system. Obama ran on a promise to close down Guantanamo Bay because WE do not torture prisoners. Studies show that anyone can be made to confess to anything in order to cease unspeakable practices like beatings and water-boarding. ‘Modern history’ is rife with tales of Russian, Chinese and Nazi prisons that were supposedly dismantled. In fact, stories of the Russian ‘conveyor belt’ of the Stalin era revealed that routine arrests were guarantees of execution. The only choice for a prisoner was to sign the pre-printed confession before torture or after it.
An article in The Times of Israel describes horrific and repeated incidents of torture in the North Carolina prison where Jonathan Pollard is serving a life sentence. He was convicted for giving information to Israel which, by treaty, they were allegedly entitled to have from the US government. Whether the conviction for treason stands up to scrutiny does not justify the descriptions of Pollard’s treatment as he described to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Outrages include the man being chained to an iron chair while hosed down with freezing water and being tortured with electric shocks.
When did we officially deteriorate into a fascist government that doesn’t consider incarceration for life in solitary confinement to be adequate punishment? Already convicted, what do they hope to learn during torture sessions or is it merely an urge to ‘break’ humans in half? In a war, we’d consider these reports to be worthy of a hearing before the Hague, just as Nazis were tried at Nuremburg for war crimes. If we are living in a time of ‘peace’, apparently that is with other nations and not an internal state.
Violence in our prisons is nothing new and many movies demonstrate how prisoners torture one another with the knowledge of prison guards and wardens. Many years ago, I met a male nurse working in a NY prison and was horrified by tales of activities that he considered normal, such as beating prisoners who were deemed difficult to manage. Knowing you can simply restrain a prisoner until they cease to be violent makes the infliction of further bodily harm a senseless act. How can civil servants be encouraged to become criminals in order to manage criminals?
In this post, I told of the mistreatment of a fictional character by the police in present day Spain. In actuality, this event really did happened when I was ‘mistakenly’ arrested for car theft in Madrid in 2013. That contractual misunderstanding and my subsequent release the next day, left me with a horror of prisons for non-violent offenders. In a Franco-era building, officers are still acting out historically evil roles. I was told by the American consulate afterwards that I had been lucky in such minor mistreatments (really!) in comparison to reports by other American detainees. It was only when the police saw me writing down their early behaviors (spraying aerosol cans near me despite the fact they knew I was severely asthmatic), that they ceased to continue spraying. Further harm waited until after the prison doors clanged shut on me.
There is a reason people invented ‘fountain pens’. The flow of words revealing truths is the greatest form of preventive medicine.
Categories: Newspaper Commentary, NY Times, The TImes of Israel
May 28th, 2014
Those lights will cause more accidents than they prevent
I drive quite a lot as I move about for my health in a seasonal manner. Rarely driving at night, the odd need to do so indicated just how problematic this is nowadays. Modern vehicles are now equipped or modified with forms of lighting that literally seem to burn out your eyes as they warm the cockles of your heart from behind you on the I-roads.
Looking up this eye fatigue and other serious implications for my health, I saw a website on macular degeneration that links that growing vision problem to these types of lights. Managing to get off a shot with my camera that delineates these abnormally bright lights from normal headlights, I sent this letter to the AAA, the Opthamologists of America and to the California Traffic Safety offices for remarks.
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to you regarding a potential source of harm to vision in the driving public. A long time driver, I recall being taught that one’s ‘brights’ ought to only be used on dark roads when there are no other drivers ahead of you or approaching you from the opposite lane. Of late, most drivers appear to be employing their ‘high beams’ as if they were completely ignorant of the increased risk of driver accidents from temporary blindness.
Over time, frequent night drivers (e.g. truckers) might find themselves suffering from conditions of macular degeneration and retinal damage given these unnecessary exposures. The following source deems exposure to lights of this intense nature to contribute towards eye damage. Personally, I find this painful and include a picture of one such encounter I had that momentarily impaired my sight. Stopping for the safety of myself and other drivers, I grabbed my camera to capture this highly inappropriate source of glare. Why would this driver require high intensity beams while the rest of us have no difficulty with the existing lighting on a major California road in the city of Napa?
My suggestions in pursuing this problem is to first determine whether this high intensity lighting is typical of all car makes and models or restricted to particular cars and trucks. Next, are these intense settings under a driver’s control or a default setting when turning on lights after dark? Many years ago, it was not unusual for police in marked cars to stop a car on the streets of New York City and request a reason why a driver was using ‘high beams’ without necessity.
Given the existing lighting conditions on major roads and our knowledge of how hazardous even momentary interference with clarity of vision can be on heavily trafficked roads, might this be a suitable area for investigation? Inasmuch as macular degeneration is becoming more commonplace and nearly all Californians drive and are exposed to this intense source of bright light, is there a chance we can reduce this kind of damage through driver education?
Thank you for your attention.
March 9th, 2014
This winter has been awful for record cold, snow falls and even Atlanta, Georgia has experienced two major ice storms this year. I was hoping to stay warm in the Hilton Head area of South Carolina, a great option for its environmentally friendly ways as home to sea turtles. In homage to those turtles, Hilton Head Island is free of those harsh lights familiar to all of us in the streets of our towns and cities. When I heard an ice storm was approaching a couple of weeks ago, I reserved a room at one of their Inns and left the campgrounds I often used in that area.
As an asthmatic, I wear a mask in lieu of taking medications offering heavy side effects. I was vastly grateful for those masks when this rather mild storm turned into a nightmare. The ice accumulation was almost nil as the temperatures hovered around the freezing mark and anything on the ground was destined to melt shortly. To my horror, I began wheezing inside my motel room and went to sit in my car. Having no idea what caustic fumes had led me outdoors, those same fumes began to accumulate all around the outer areas of the Inn. Driving into town, I found that the ice was not sticking to the surface, rain being uppermost in the messy downpour. However, the entire Island was encased in mist that tasted of salt. A dark area near an intersection was being crossed by a couple, although I was unable to make out their features. They were talking about ammonium salts being in use.
This is patently inappropriate for protected wetlands and this low elevation. The run-off is a pollutant and the salts themselves are harmful to the plant life of this lush oasis of the southern coastline. Choking, I heeded their words and left the region. It was two days before the fumes cleared completely and a woman working at a store where I shopped mentioned how the salt left near her apartment complex had become a considerable annoyance.
It seemed likely an EPA complaint had already been made by concerned citizens of this area but I decided to file one myself after researching the health effects of ammonium salts (NH4 chemical base) on humans and animals. I sent the following report to that agency. Their website notes it is unlikely they will tell complainants of the outcome of an investigation but island dwellers might find it useful to read it. Below that report are some relevant webpages regarding these compounds.
To the EPA, re: Unknown Air Release
I was driving on the William Hilton Parkway into the center of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, prepared to rent a hotel room at a Quality Inn where I’ve previously rented rooms. Upon crossing the bridge onto the island, my asthmatic condition immediately became aggravated. There was a strong corrosive odor that appeared to be similar to the particulates encountered near salt water but this wasn’t near the ocean or familiar to me as a frequent visitor. After the recent ice storm, I know salt had been put down in some areas, which seemed rather odd because salt is not permitted at elevations so close to sea level. This is also an environmentally protected wetlands area. As I passed nearby Simmonsville road (?), I believe I heard two people talking and distinctly heard one person mention ammonium salts being a problem. It was very dark (few street lights on the island) so I cannot describe them and only know it was a male voice. The pollution was too much for my asthma and I abandoned any intention of remaining on the island and left feeling quite ill. This is being written on Sunday evening, 9:40 PM. I hope you will be able to take a particulate count on the island and determine if a hazard exists or further action is indicated. Thank you for your attention.
Ammonium salts are dangerous to plant growth.
Ammonium salts/ice melt can be hazardous to pets, plants and a source of water pollution due to chloride content.
Rules defining terms regarding chemicals.
Categories: EPA, Letters
March 1st, 2014
There are a variety of outstanding oaths taken by adults in the course of our lifetimes. Elected officials, from the President of the United States to the newest member of your local library board, asserts their intention of protecting and defending the Constitution. Witnesses before Congress or the judiciary pledge to stand before God or upon their honor, to tell the truth.
On the other hand, there are oaths left standing outside of any known context. People casually swear to reverse an evil without taking action (e.g. I swear I’m gonna ____!). Some of us signed contracts we were unable to keep such as a car or house payment after the loss of a job. In our classrooms, we have children agreeing to become followers of a rectangle of cloth known as our flag through the Pledge of Allegiance. Who benefits from that pledge? If it holds meaning for adults, why don’t we begin each workday for federal or state employees with it? Oklahoma has plans to make that recitation mandatory for schools to lead according to this news report. Allowances would be made for those children who do not wish to do so or whose parents forbid it.
Objections to the ‘Pledge’ generally refer to the mention of a deity as objectionable to secular nationalists. Some hold that an oath taken before God is of too solemn a nature than befits a morning classroom rite for seven year old children. A Supreme Court ruling of 1943 allowed parents the right to assert their beliefs by prohibiting their children to recite that pledge. Interestingly, I’ve never heard the simplest of all objections: children are too young to be responsible for the taking of an oath. Are we to hold children legally responsible for violating allegiance to that political/economic entity known as ‘Mother Country’? A pledge is a questionable undertaking for a minor who recites it while running some of the words together, as we did the letters, ‘LMNOP’ in the alphabet song.
Taking an oath in vain is assuredly a violation of religious sensibilities within the Judeo-Christian and Moslem faiths. The reference to religion in the pledge was inserted during the Eisenhower administration to assist our religiously oriented majority to have an additional layer of separation from communist sympathizers inside our borders. It allowed them to retain the primacy of religious scruples, should we ever mistakenly elect an individual willing to oversee our descent into a fascist dictatorship (e.g. as Germans did for Adolph Hitler). The US flag code even altered the original form of saluting the flag. The right hand used to be extended towards the flag in a gesture similar of a Nazi saluting the Fuhrer. The gesture was truncated to leave the little right hands of primary school attendees at the level of each child’s heart.
Every morning, children’s voices join together in the rote recital of words expressing a commitment they are incapable of grasping. It would be a far greater use of a teacher’s time to dispense with this one minute long recital and spend the first fifteen minutes of each day teaching their classes something about our governmental structure and functions. A review of the historical ideals expressed in the Constitution, and the events that gave birth to them, would have far greater impact in their lives, not to mention posing a challenge to the creativity of a teacher attempting to explain government to a first grader.
The exercise of our vocal folds is best reserved for speaking truths understood by all. As Robert Frost reminded us, we all have “… promises to keep”. Do we really want the rote and highly ambiguous pledge made to an inanimate object to become a minor’s introduction to the government of the United States of America?
That’s for the grown-ups.
Categories: Articles, commentary
February 20th, 2014
New York City and vicinity has the best of everything and the worst of everything, a fact to which all great cities can attest. In New York, I’ve been able to have rarely diagnosed conditions identified through the perseverance of someone born to the theme of “I can do this!” Expertise is all around us today. If you can define the problem before you, an answer can be found. This permitted me to learn I’d been poisoned (see previous posts) and had suffered a fungal infection from the overuse of antibiotics. I’d obtained a diagnosis of gluten intolerance without undergoing surgery because my doctor happened to have studied advanced diagnostic techniques in Japan.
When I say ‘decline’, as in the title of this post, I mean your right to refuse any service of dubious purpose and/or quality. Yes, Virginia, you are allowed to decline any suggestion someone makes to you for any purpose and ask for clarification. For instance, what do you say to a radiologist who tells you that you must permit her to take 21 mammography films of your breasts due to the presence of a palpable lump? How about, ‘No. Is there something wrong with the equipment that you need so many films?”
So, in June of 2011, when a radiology technician looked at her orders and saw how many films had been ordered for me, she appeared disturbed by the information. I asked her what had been ordered. When she replied that a large number of films had been ordered (my memory indicates it was around 21 films), I refused. In this case, I’d just been ordered to take as many as a dozen more films than was needful. Hindsight informs me I ought to have walked out of that office but I was in distress. A woman newly informed she has breast cancer isn’t in the greatest shape for assessing the recommendations of professionals. Sad to say, you must be prepared to do just that.
The technician admitted she’d never performed that many films on a single patient before at one time. “I’m not allowed to change the orders but I can talk to the radiologist about your concerns.”
I felt grateful for her understanding. “Thanks, please do. This is simply too much exposure for even a hard-to-test woman. And I just don’t have that much to photograph!”
When the tech returned, I was escorted into the august presence of the radiologist who was frankly angered by my questions. However, hard experience had taught me to refuse rather than become refuse. It took me a minute to get used to her German accent but she basically ordered me to take the films. Five minutes later, following my calm but firm rejection of her prescription, she finally agreed to reduce the numbers of films and sixteen were taken, all told. I now realize even that was excessive after reading an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), about one of the largest studies ever done on the efficacy of mammography in reducing mortality rates in invasive breast cancer cases.
Performed in Canada, where national health insurance permits large numbers of women to be ‘followed’ for various health conditions, more than 18,000 exams were recorded. This led to approximately seven percent of the women to be identified as having invasive breast cancers. The statistical aspects of this study were problematic since another common form of cancer wasn’t included and assignments of the women between the ‘study’ and ‘control’ arms (with mammograpny or with manual examination alone) turned out to be a tainted process.
Nonetheless, the aims of the study were admirable and the responses of experts in this field were highly educational in evaluating the article, instead of merely rubberstamping the findings. The Canadian study concluded that manual examinations weren’t more or less effective than mammography in identifying cancers as measured by the survival rates of women under the age of sixty. One respondent, Dr. Kopans of Harvard University , had even evaluated the machinery of that period in 1990 and identified the machinery as producing films. of inferior quality. That, along with other factors, influenced the mortality statistics. Belated identification would certainly increase mortality.
Categories: Articles, British Med. Journal, Letters, Life Observations