That useless brain

Why ask why? 

For those old enough to remember, that was the question posed

in a television commercial in a bygone era, and one that should

be asked again today.

But the problem with asking why is that it presupposes you’ll

actually think.

And, hey, why do that? 

It’s so much easier to follow the crowd.

That’s what Holman W. Jenkins Jr., writes about in one of his latest

columns in The Wall Street Journal. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324634304578539453974685238.html)

That journalism suffers from a lack of mental dexterity or that

people are more easily swayed by their emotions or habits they

picked up from their parents and ancestors– anything but their brains!

– in deciding their votes or other important issues should come as no surprise.

After all, if your parents were Democrats, you’ll likely be one, too;

the same goes for Republicans. 

Religious beliefs are similar.  If you were brought up Catholic, you’ll

likely be one as an adult; and the same holds for every other religion.

It’s easy to simplify problems.  All we need is demon and a solution.

The fact that medical care is expensive is the demon.  The easy

solution – as brought to us by Congress and President Obama -- is to

make health insurance affordable and, thus, accessible to all. 

The fact that healthcare, as provided by the doctors and

the nurses, might suffer is not something you should think about.

And, whatever you do, don’t think about basic economics and the

fact that, at any time, you introduce a third-party payer – as the

current health care system is set up – the provider of any service,

medical care included, is given the ability to raise their prices, thereby

making healthcare unaffordable to anyone who doesn’t buy a

health insurance policy.

Or the fact that insurance companies, forced to cover any and

all illnesses, might compel some doctors to leave the system so

they're able to only accept private money for their services

isn’t something you should worry about either.  

The easier thing, instead, is to go along with the people who have

a complication to solve the complication.  It comes to us as the

Affordable Care Act, which, essentially, sells us to the health

insurance industry. 

Which means, other than allowing you to buy health insurance,

nothing’s been resolved.

But don’t think about that.

A better solution – if someone really wanted to lower the

doctors’ fees, hospital prices and drug prices – would have

been to eliminate insurance companies.

But that would have been too radical.

And since you’re struggling with basic thinking, Senators,

Members of Congress and the President know you can’t

handle hard solutions that require arduous thinking.

If everyone in the healthcare industry was forced to compete on

price – like the car companies are – drugs and doctor visits

wouldn’t cost nearly as much. 

Sure, there would some high-priced doctors and hospitals just like

there are high-priced cars and houses.  Those on the high end

would sell better service.

At the lowest tier, doctors charging far less would offer economy care.

And most doctors would likely fall somewhere in the middle for things

like physicals and urgent care.

But, hey, why think? 

It’s so much easier to leave that to someone else.

I need a fake ID

For the first time in a very long time – since I was a teenager – I’m

giving thought to acquiring something I’ve never needed. 

What’s surprising is that I didn’t need one when I wanted a particular

controlled substance when I was a teenager – booze.

When the drinking age was 18, I had little or no trouble buying beer

and wine without an ID.  Maybe it was my looks or maybe it was the

way I came across when making a purchase.

And when I was in college in Indiana, where the drinking age was

21, I still had little or no trouble buying beer, either at a store or at a

bar frequented by the locals in Greencastle.

So here I am, well over 21 – likely considered a geezer by my

children – with never a record of drinking under the influence or ever

abusing drugs and there’s one thing I can’t buy as often as I need, all

because of government regulations.

Claritin D – an incredibly effective drug at controlling allergies – can

only be purchased by individuals at the rate of 7.5 grams per month,

which from the information I can gather, is around 30 pills a month.

The problem I ran into the other night at my local drugstore was that

I had purchased some of these pills twice in the last few weeks and

had gone over government-imposed limit.  This was because my

wife had used some of them. 

As a result, the pharmacist refused to sell them to me, saying I could get a

prescription to successfully circle around government regulations.

The regulations, she said, are about preventing people from cooking

down the Claritin D pills so they can acquire methampetamine, an

obvious problem in the little suburb where we live.

Methampetamine, usually referred to as “meth,” is an illegal substance

used by some people to get high; there are published reports saying

young women will smoke crystal meth so they can lose weight rapidly. 

What’s interesting about the regulation over Claritin D is that it

has little to do with acquiring the drug as much as it has to do with

purchasing too many of the pills in too short of a time.  It’s thought

that by regulating the purchase times, the distribution of meth will

be dampened. 

I guess, if I was really determined to cook up some crystal meth – and

not that I am – I could store the pills until I have enough to create huge

batch of this illegal drug.

But, really, all I’m trying to do is breath, so the last thing I’m about to

do is cook up some meth – the lure of the money notwithstanding. 

I’m neither an addict nor a pusher and nor a buyer of illegal substances.

I just want to breath so I can go on my four plus mile run five mornings

a week. 

(In fact, come to think of it, I’d like to see my doctor – maybe even the

pharmacist – on this run, too.)

So I’m now giving serious consideration to acquiring a fake ID that

can be used at places like CVS and Walgreens so I can buy Claritin D

whenever I need it. 

We’re hardly talking heroin or cocaine here.  We’re talking a little pill

that helps me breath. 

Check out struggling to breath, and you’ll understand my cry.

So, really, thank you for your worries about my well being – whether

you work at the Food and Drug Administration, you’re a police

officer, a judge, a prosecutor, the local pharmacist, the president

or vice president of the United States or a member of Congress. 

Thank you.  But, really, I got this!

If you’re really worried I’m about to start up a meth lab – really I don’t

have the time! – you’re more than welcome to search my house, anytime.

Just show me your warrant at the door.

Jesus, Democrats and the price of victory

1. Iraq, the Democrats and possible outcomes

Twenty thousand additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq may very well not make much of a difference. But it’s something. It shows our allies and enemies that the United States is committed to the war’s successful outcome.

If the President takes up the Democrats on their suggestion and pulls out, Iraq goes to hell overnight. The Saudis, as was reported in The Wall Street Journal this week, will start funding the Sunni insurgency in Iraq; Jordan will move its troops far enough into Iraq to keep its border secure; Turkey will be forced to find a way to deal with the Kurds, people they don’t like.

And Iran, which is likely pushing ahead with its nuclear arms program, will be sitting in the cat’s seat.

There’s a good chance that Iraq will be the theatre of a proxy war between the Arab world and the Persians. And if that happens, civilian casualties in Iraq will skyrocket exponentially.

But they won’t be the only ones that are harmed.

Oil, the fundamental commodity of all western economies, will see an increase in price. Right now, it’s trading in the $55 range, good news for the developed world. But if there’s any fear in the oil markets, the price of a barrel of crude will increase. Maybe double in this scenario.

The economic fallout would be horrible. Gas prices will increase; airlines will raise their prices to keep up with additional fuel charges; and just about everything that anyone buys at the store will see a jump in prices.

Companies will layoff additional employees simply because they don’t want to pay the additional overhead expenses.

And the stock markets will likely take a turn for the worse.

Finally, the continued confrontations between the Palestinians, Israel, Syria and Lebanon will spiral out of control. Syria’s best friend is Iran; Iran will extract all kinds of promises from Syria in this scenario; that means the Palestinians and the terrorist group Hezbollah will be receiving even more assistance than they’re already receiving from Iran.

So before you add your voice to the antiwar chant, consider these possible outcomes if the United States pulls out.

2. The debate over Iraq

It’s time to have the proverbial “Come to Jesus Meeting” about Iraq. The citizens of the United States, those who vote and actually give a damn about the country, are owed far better than what they’re currently receiving from the politicians in Washington. The sound bites of “stay the course” or “pull out” just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Those lines are cheap. And it allows anyone, on either side of this debate, to take a pass at truly discussing, considering and thinking about what U.S. involvement in Iraq means, not only to us but also to the Iraqis.

It’s time for leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his top generals, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury to hole themselves up for a few days, maybe a week, in a place like Camp David, and hash out the issues.

And do so without issuing any press releases while they’re meeting. We need to force these people to devise a plan that meets the needs of everyone involved in Iraq. Maybe even those countries who have troops on the ground in Iraq, like Great Britain and Poland, should also join the meeting.

An American pullout doesn’t mean peace in Iraq; if anything, it means the exact opposite. More insurgents killing more people; and this time they’ll be funded by the treasury departments of Iran and some countries in the Arab world.

3. The All-Volunteer Force

If anything, President George W. Bush has proven the United States can wage a war with an all-volunteer force and, frankly, there won’t be too much resistance at home. To be cynical, those troops who’ve been killed in Iraq were, after all, volunteers.

Walk down any street America and you’ll never know that our sons and daughters are dying in central Asia or on a distant, dusty, Middle Eastern battlefield. You see the occasional flag but, otherwise, you’d never know there’s a war on.

Compare that with what happened during World War II, when houses posted star flags on their windows. If you posted a flag with one star, there was one member of your family in uniform. If you posted a flag with two stars, there were two members of your family serving, etc., etc.

The stars were silver. If that house changed their flag from a silver star to one that was gold, a member of that person’s family had been killed.

Since 9/11, I’ve only seen two silver star flags.

And this is the problem with an all-volunteer force. Only those Americans with a family member in the armed force are paying the price and feeling the pain of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else our troops are based.

If you’re in the peace movement, you want the draft reinstated. This might help you organize major marches across the United States on behalf of an American pull out.

If you’re for the war, you need to see the draft reinstated. It’s taken us nearly six years to increase the size of the active duty Army by 30,000; we simply need more troops on the ground in Iraq – like maybe a million – if we’re going to defeat the insurgents once and for all. We could probably say the same thing about our effort in Afghanistan.

The problem with the current size of the force in Iraq is that once we defeat the insurgents in one place, we need to move to another. And that allows the insurgency to reestablish its ties to the village or province we just secured. (Almost like Vietnam. But not quite.)

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 63 million American men between the ages of 18 – 49.

Here’s an idea: Draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status and whether or not they’re in college. The only way their names and numbers wouldn’t be subjected to the draft is if they’re veterans. Unlike the last time we used the draft, this version of conscription subjects everyone, regardless of their economic and educational status, to service in the armed forces.

The only way they would be allowed out of the military would be if they couldn’t pass the physical or basic training. If I had to guess, I’d say that half of all of those drafted will fail the physical and then another 50 percent will fail basic training. Still, that will give us about 16 million men in uniform, a number unseen since World War II.

Not everyone who is north of 35 or 40 will qualify for combat duty, but they should be able to contribute in some way to the well being of our forces.

A military force that consists of draftees will spread out the cost and the pain of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will force all Americans to come to terms with Iraq.

In addition, a larger cross section of the country will be represented in this force. Instead of the force being made up of people who either 1) patriotic or 2) don't know what else to do, the force will be made up all kinds of Americans. This was the type of military that brought about victory in World War II.

A longstanding argument against the draft is that the military brass doesn’t want it, saying the average conscript isn’t a motivated solider. This same military brass considers itself to have some of the best leadership skills in the world. It’s time to put them to use. The best leaders motivate the worst performers.

Tammy Duckworth for Congress

I’m voting for Tammy Duckworth for all the reasons presented in the Chicago Tribune’s endorsement. She's not wedded to Democratic Party politics, giving every appearance of someone who would be a moderate voice on Capitol Hill. But I question whether or not she really wants the job and whether the leadership of the Democratic Party wants her to win.

I've lived in Illinois' Sixth Congressional district for 13 years and this is, without a doubt, the most contested congressional race I've seen during my time here. Never before have more signs for a Democratic Congressional candidate been posted on the front lawns of so many residents. She’s the best candidate the Democrats have ever had in this District.

Peter Roskam is basically Henry Hyde Light while Duckworth is an entirely different candidate. She's hard to define, making her a candidate that's difficult to dismiss as simply a "liberal."

For the record, I’ve always voted for Henry Hyde. I didn’t always agree with his positions – abortion comes to mind as does the impeachment of Bill Clinton – but Henry was an excellent representative if the job is defined as working for the people he represented. What sold me on Henry was how he went to bat for the residents of Glen Ellyn whose houses are located near the train tracks.

One night, about 10 years ago, a Union Pacific freight train was parked on the tracks in the middle of Glen Ellyn. Its engine was running and one mother decided she’d had enough. The train’s engines were keeping her kids awake. So she walked out onto the tracks to talk to the engineer. She was killed by an oncoming train.

This tragedy, as might be expected, caused quite the uproar. There was a meeting between town officials and representatives from Union Pacific. Henry Hyde was there, too. Just by being there, Hyde changed the dynamic of the meeting and Union Pacific agreed to park its trains further up the tracks, away from the houses, and to turn off the engines. Henry forever earned my vote.

The problem with the Duckworth campaign is that it doesn't have any pizzazz. There's nothing sexy or unusual about this campaign. There are the customary campaign stops, debates, television ads, endorsements, and signs posted throughout the district. But that's it.

If Duckworth really wants the job, she needs to do something different. She needs to take a "walking tour" through the neighborhoods that she’d like to represent. I'm not belittling her war wounds. I'm suggesting, instead, that she do the unexpected, something different, that will help break longstanding habits among Sixth District voters. Maybe she's getting this advice from her political consultants. Maybe she isn't. I don't know.

To make matters worse, the Daily Herald reports that the Duckworth campaign is running out of money. As of September 30, it was down to just over $200,000 for the final month of the campaign. Compare that to Roskam’s war chest, which, as of October 1, had $1.5 million.

What this means is that Duckworth can’t afford the television ads. A new ad is now appearing on television and it’s paid for the Democratic Congressional Committee. It essentially slams Roskam. Nothing new there.

But other than taking over the television ads, where is the leadership of the Democratic Party? Here's a chance to represent a district which, heretofore, has been safely in Republican hands. Why aren't they making campaign stops with her? Why are they missing in action? Do they really want her to win? My worst fear is that Senator Durbin set her up to take a fall.

I can see why they might be worried about sending Rahm Emanuel or Nancy Pelosi out here, but certainly there are other, more moderate Democrats who could give her a helping hand. Senator Hillary Clinton could come here for day, maybe even her husband, someone who could give the campaign that extra push.

Or is the lack of an appearance from top party leaders indicative of today's politics? Is this just another way of telling Tammy and others that unless they tow the party line adinfinitum, forget it? They'll do nothing to help.

Capitol Hill's double standards

Congratulations to House Speaker Dennis Hastert for putting together an independent investigation about what we already know: A member of Congress sent out sexually explicit e-mails to a teenager.

With all due respect to former FBI Director Louis Freeh, what's he going to tell us that we don't already know? Not much.

To put this in perspective, last week, Hewlett-Packard's top officers were summoned to Capitol Hill to testify about nefarious wrongdoings under their watch. They're also being investigated by California's state attorney general, who's filed charges against HP's former chairwoman, Patricia Dunn, and others.

Here's the point: Hewlett-Packard's top leadership is forced to live with the law. Congress, however, goes on as if nothing really happened.

Sure, there's lot of noise and everyone's posturing on the issue involving former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), but top Republican leaders, unlike the people who oversaw Hewlett-Packard's corporate governance, aren't resigning -- or even being forced out.

When will Congress live with the laws they make?

Post a Sexual Predator Sign on Capitol Hill

The problem with the revelations involving former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL), and the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, is that it shows just how far out of touch Washington is with the rest of America.

If the average office worker, teacher, minister, doctor, in other words, anyone, sent sexually oriented and explicit e-mails to a teenager, their careers and lives would come to a crashing halt. First, they’d be convicted by public opinion. Then they’d be convicted in court.

And once they did the time for the crime, they’d be forced to register with the local police force. In addition, they’d be forced to place a sign outside their house or apartment, informing their neighbors about their past conviction.

Maybe it’s time to post such a sign – a damn big one! – on Capitol Hill.

Maybe all of us, especially the parents of these teenage Pages working in the House of Representatives, should know that their children are rubbing shoulders with child sexual predators.

Maybe it takes this kind of drastic action to get Congress to realize it’s not above the law.

And, ultimately, that’s the problem. Members of Congress think, their actions suggest, that because they make the laws, the laws don’t apply to them.

None of this started with Congressman Foley. This kind of behavior has been seen before.

And none of us, the voters, do enough to stop it. We’re upset for a week or two, or maybe the next time we’re at the polls, but, basically, we give these guys a pass. Not, perhaps, the congressman who’s charged with the crime but certainly the rest of them.

It’s time to start demanding accountability from these elected officials. Let’s start by voting out all of those whose hands touched this crime but didn’t do enough to stop Congressman Foley. Then let’s force Congress to unfurl a huge banner on their lawn – something that can be seen for miles – that says the Capitol houses child sexual predators.

Let’s do to Congress what they, through the legislation they’ve passed, would do to us if we were charged and convicted with the very same crime!