You Can't Get there From Here!

Juvenile Deliquency - 21st Century Style?

2005-07-15T04:17:00.000-07:00

In the July 11, 2005 edition of the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) online, there was an interesting observation regarding Islamic recruitment among the young people of England. The article observes that "one leading analyst of the Islamic diaspora even compares the lure of extremist Islam to 1950s teens listening to Elvis in an attempt to shock their parents." Apparently, some recruits to radical Islam have tried other ways - the example used was a Pentecostal preacher's son who first tried to get attention by "being a rapper" - to shock their parents. With today's insanely "understanding" (is that an oxymoron?) parents, children apparently will go so far as to be a suicide bomber to have their parents' full sedulity.

Has it truly come to this? Far beyond window-shattering sub-woofers, sexual promiscuity and unprotected intercourse, drug abuse and alcoholism, tattoos and piercings, children now must declare their independence and "adulthood" by blowing themselves and, more tragically, others up. Well, that completely tears it. Apparently, we have achieved a spirit of aloof, isolated procreation that mimics the guidance and supervision given to the offspring of the sea turtle. We fertilize the ovum far out in the murky, detritus-filled waters that are our modern world, swim through the 9 months of gestation in our own preoccupied and distracted lives, and leave our eggs on the beach and in the hands of whoever and whatever may befall them. That beach, with it's clutch of unattended hatchlings, is a breeding ground of despair, false prophets and hateful, racist, shallow thinking. These forsaken and abandoned children are, for all practical purposes, on their own, lest we - collectively, the parental units - "interfere with their process of discovering themselves." The pendulum of parental detachment and "Nanny 911" mentality is now, irrevocably, off its natural path. Pushed forward by the children of the 60s and 70s - regardless of ethnicity, religion, or race - the bob has swung wildly off its course.We are far past the apogee of the bell curve that plots the rise and, inevitable, fall of our civilization.

In reports from ABCNews.com, there were the following descriptions of the bombing suspects: "Every week, 22-year-old Shahzad Tanweer joined friends for games of soccer and his beloved cricket. Hasib Hussain, 19, was a charmer who liked to flirt. He wore blue contact lenses and hair so long that one friend said it "fell like a curtain" atop his lanky frame. Thirty-year-old Mohammed Sidique Khan worked as a counselor in a youth center. He seemed to spend more time in the gym than the mosque." Elsewhere, I read that Tanweer often cruised the streets of Leeds in a red Mercedes.

I see a patten that I hope is merely an aberration - a mirage - that only I see. Youthful rebellion - be it against parents or society or governments or religions - has become much more than a simple pursuit of getting an inattentive parent's or peers’ attention; it has become murderously de rigeur. The rich, materially-privileged but parentally-rudderless lives of many of the current generation has bred an infestation of discontent and ill-fated behavior. But, among a small number of advantaged - through the sweat of the preceding 2 or 3 generations - Muslim children, apparently this restlessness has transitioned to deadly, self-annihilating jihad.

My generation may have rolled lawns with toilet tissue, or egged homes or even bashed mail boxes down a rural road. The latest generation begat the madness of drive-by shootings and now, cross-culturally, become even more murderously inventive. Now, no longer content with self-mutilation, these misguided youths must make a horrific demonstration of their religious fanaticism. Blog Bloke on BlogCritics.org calls it "Death by Stupicide." He couldn’t be more correct.

The youth of today - be they Christian, Muslin, Buddist, or Jewish or Druids - seem to be desperately seeking a higher purpose- a calling. When they can’t find it within the superficial, vain, materialistic society in which they live - and is anyone surprised by that? - they turn to fanaticism. They may be as actors on our traditional stage of life but, when they remove their makeup, they are monsters.

"The boy next door" has taken on a new, wholly-frightening, meaning.

Remembering America's Hannibal

2005-07-13T04:26:00.000-07:00

O that a soldier so glorious, ever victorious in fight,
Passed from a daylight of honor into the terrible night;
Fell as the mighty archangel, ere the earth glowed in space, fell--
Fell from the patriot's heaven down to the loyalist's hell!
- Thomas Dunn English, Arnold at Stillwater

Had he been killed in one of the numerous military encounters of his career as a Revolutionary War patriot, he would have gone down, undoubtedly, as one of the 3 or 4 greatest heroes of the Cause. But, surviving - though crippled from his wounds as he was - he instead became the most reviled of any soldier in American history. The journey from the most celebrated of patriots to the very name his countrymen use, even to this day, to condemn the most vile acts of cowardice and betrayal is one that, unfortunately for those seeking the truth of his motives, will forever be shrouded in mystery. But, far from a story of simple villainy, it is a prism that, when subjected to the light of scrutiny, emits a spectrum of light that commands deeper inspection and scrutiny. As his infamy lurks even in the scant treatment of history in our schools today, all should appreciate by now I am referring to Benedict Arnold.

His ancestors can be traced back to 1635 when his namesake sailed with other Puritans, led by Roger Williams, and settled in Rhode Island in the Pawtucket River region. While the first iteration of the name Benedict Arnold rose to succeed Williams as governor of Rhode Island and served several terms until his death in 1678, subsequent Arnolds found progressively less prosperity. By the time of the birth of the fifth in the line of this once-esteemed name, fortune and esteem had passed from the Arnold family. Benedict V, the subject at hand, was born on January 14, 1741 to Benedict and Hannah Arnold in Norwich, Connecticut. He was the second child to the marriage; the first, also christened Benedict, had died in infancy, as so many of this time did.

Tragedy seemed to reside in the lives of the Arnolds, steadfastly anchored with the death of their first male child. Its dark cloak, all told, took three (Mary, Elizabeth and Absalom King) of the four children born subsequent to young Benedict. Only his oldest sibling, his mother's namesake, Hannah, remained in the once-happy Arnold home by the time Benedict reached the age of 13.

The psychological impact on the oldest child was clear to those who knew and wrote of Benedict in adulthood. Young Benedict's parents instructed him in the Calvinist doctrine, specifically, a vengeful, omniscient, but sometimes-capricious God whose wrath was not so much directed against the sinner but to those innocents whose death might serve as a more powerful warning. For if God will take an innocent, what might He do to those who would truly offend? With the tragedies of his siblings, the oldest child of the family disavowed any such arbitrary power, heavenly or earthbound, and continued to challenge it as an adult.

Adding fuel to his personal fires, was his father subsequent alcoholism and fall from social grace after the death of the majority of his offspring. Shunned by the church (whether or not he was formally excommunicated is unclear) and in financial ruin, Benedict's parents were both disgraced, dead and penniless by the time the boy reached 20 years old. Witness, as he was, to the Norwich community's abandonment and dismissal of his parents in their sorrow, one might see how the young man would come to despise those who were so unforgiving of human frailty. With little insight, one can imagine the anger the young man could harbor for those he would encounter later in his life. Those who, holding themselves aloft - buttressed only by artificial social or, more relevantly, political status - could abandon those of lesser standing with such sorrowful consequences as befell his parents. These are the experiences of youth that so often, for good and bad, chart the path of the adult life.

As he sought to salvage his family name, young Arnold rose from apprentice (with his late mother's brothers) to a prosperous New Haven merchant and owner of his own small, but active, West Indies merchant fleet. Driven by a passion to reclaim his family name from indignity, he became a true American success story. As available history recounts, he suffered no man impugn his name and was not one to avoid confrontation if honor was in question. As fate and the times would fall into place, Arnold was among the first to challenge New Haven's loyalists "old guard" when British taxation and disregard of the New World's colonies' began to boil in the late 1760s.

But, even with the demands of a growing mercantile and his constant feuding, driven by Benedict's disdain for the "establishment," a young man's nature will find its way through all distractions. Benedict married Peggy Mansfield on February 27, 1767. The young couple had three children before tragedy again fell at Arnold's doorstep. Peggy's untimely death in June, 1775 set her widowed husband on his fateful path in American history.

At the word of the disastrous day in April, 1775 of the confrontations at Lexington and Concord, it was Benedict Arnold who organized 64 men into a militia company in New Haven. Arming and supplying themselves, they were, through the exhortations of their leader, formally established as the Governor's 2ns Company of Guards. Allowed to vote on their own officers, the group elected Arnold, known throughout their ranks as a champion of American liberties, as their Captain. Later in the month when Arnold proposed to march to Massachusetts' aid, the loyalist "elders" forbid the Footguards access to the town's magazine and arms store. Arnold delivered the retort, "None but the Almighty God shall prevent my marching." Delivering a 5 minute ultimatum, Arnold and his men were promptly given the keys to the armory and, weapons
secured, his band were off to help the Bostonians confront His Majesty's General Gage in Boston.
That is was Arnold's idea to confront the British at Fort Ticonderoga and secure the precious cannons there is of little historical dispute. That the idea was also acted upon by Vermont's Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys virtually simultaneously is also a matter of historical record. Regardless of the timeline, Arnold's idea was accepted by the Massachusetts Committee of Safety upon his arrival in Boston and he was granted a colonel's commission. He left his new Haven Footguards and rode west in early May, 1775, recruiting his assault forces as he went. Within 10 days and, joined by Ethan Allen's forces, the audacity and boldness of Arnold's plan was substantiated. Fort Ticonderoga fell in less than 10 minutes. The some 200 artillery pieces captured there were subsequently part of the grand saga of Henry Knox and his amazing caravan of the precious cargo eastward to the Boston. The story of their "miraculous" appearance of these same cannon on Dorchester Heights in March, 1776 led to the British evacuation of Boston, retreat to Nova Scotia, and their triumphant reappearance in New York harbor months later.

As the rebels took command of the Fort and it's surprised British forces, he took one of the first of many steps in defense of his principles of honor that would bring him continued confrontations with others less chivalrous. As Ethan Allen's rowdy mountain men began to loot Fort Ticonderoga, Arnold stood against this unmilitary and most ungentlemanly behavior. He was, standing with a much smaller force of troops, roundly and aggressively shouted down, to the point of being shot at by drunken Vermont troops at least twice. It was Arnold's first but not last experience with louder voices and higher placed civilian patrons.

While Allen and his 'Boys dispersed back into the hills that were their homes, all the way telling all who would listen including the Continental Congress, how it was their initiative and bravery that conquered the British, Arnold had grander plans. His eyes were on Lake Champlain and, ultimately, the British fortress of Quebec. He moved decisively onto Quebec not knowing that his initiative was frowned on by the tentative Continental Congress who disavowed any offensive actions, especially into Canada. Though Arnold's name was bandied about as a renegade, a "loose cannon," he forged ahead. His disregard for his "betters" in the civilian sector were to be the seeds in Arnold that grew his doubts in the incompetence of those who would lead the new country.

Arnold, unaware for the most part of those working behind the scenes (including Ethan Allen) to minimize his martial talents, wrote a letter outlining his proposed campaign on Quebec to the Congress in June, 1775. After several months of personal lobbying, not the least of which was dedicated to convincing George Washington, himself, of the worthiness of the northern assault, Arnold was given command, from Washington, of around 1000 volunteers and set off across the treacherous wilds of Maine for Quebec. The journey would earn Benedict Arnold the title "America's Hannibal." The "famine proof" force of Arnold has lost too many men from disease and dissertion to attack the city when he finally scaled Abraham's Heights outside the city in November, 1775.

Nevertheless, Arnold, wisely, steadfastly laid siege to the city and its military leader, Sir Guy Carleton. He effectively bottled up the city and the British forces it contained, even though commanding an inferior (in almost all senses of the word) force, for nearly 2 months. With the arrival of General Montgomery, flush from his conquest of Montreal, the combined forces finally assaulted the city on New Year's eve, 1775. It was a disaster. Montgomery was killed in the first charge and Arnold was shot in his left ankle soon after. Leaderless and thoroughly undisciplined, the assault forces retreated. The great northern adventure was eventually abandoned. As he retreated from the failed Quebec campaign, Arnold further claimed widespread fame at the Battle of Valcour Bay where, with little more than canoes and rowboats, he kept the British fleet on Lake Champaign from proceeding south to trap Washington in New York.

Of course, in the halls of the civilian leadership, there must be someone to blame, as it always must be. And, as it would be throughout the remainder of his career as a citizen soldier - one not in leadership by wealth or land but by commitment and passion - it would be Benedict Arnold. Those who served with him - the honorable and the truly patriotic including Washington - would speak only of his passion and leadership. Those who would bring him to heel, the infant government with its petty power struggles and inconstant purpose, would constantly deny Arnold the recognition and acceptance he so passionately desired.

It was to remain so even after he almost single-handedly saved the day at the Battle of Saratoga for General Gates by leading the charge at Bemis Heights, Arnold was to still find no glory or appreciation. At the very moment the pompous Gates (who would, later in the war, be recalled from South Carolina by Washington, himself, for incompetence at the Battle of Camden) accepted British General Johnny Burgoyne's sword in surrender, Benedict Arnold lay near death in a field hospital with a left thigh completely shattered by British grapeshot. He would never physically nor, as history infamously reports, psychologically recover.

I do seek to change history. One cannot dismiss the significance of the act of ultimate treason Arnold committed. However, neither should we dismiss the life of Benedict Arnold as one of simple treachery and betrayal. His truly is one of the most complex and fascinating lives ever lived. It deserves all Americans' inspection. The contradictions - fervent patriotism versus heinous treason, military genius versus self-serving egotist, endurance through immense personal tragedy versus greedy perfidiousness and deceit - are many and will remain inexplicable in the haze of 250 years past. However, he - and the lessons his life teach us - cannot be simplified as some would have us believe. He suffered much for the Cause of Liberty and he cannot be dismissed, simply, as a ungrateful traitor.

Ironically, when all is examined, the name and fate of Benedict Arnold lay solely with a single misplaced bullet on the scorching fields of Saratoga. For if the bullet had been true to its mark, the death of its recipient would have undoubtedly secured his place in the esteemed pantheon of Revolutionary War heroes. But, striking as it did, sparing life but securing infamy, it did it's victim no service. I wonder if Benedict Arnold, as his lonely final years passed in London's exile, ever wished the bullet had been truer to the mark? I suspect, in my heart, he did.

On the Saratoga battlefield there is a monument consisting of only the left boot of an unnamed officer. The inscription, which fails to identify the boot's owner, poignantly reads:

"In memory of the 'most brilliant soldier' of the Continental army, who was desperately wounded on this spot, the sally port of Burgoyne's 'Great Western Redoubt', 7th October 1777, winning for his countrymen the Decisive battle of the American Revolution."

One Little Shred of Humanity Left

2005-07-13T04:14:00.000-07:00

I don't expect this entry to get much attention and probably even fewer comments but, as is true of about half the BLOGS I write, this one is for ventilation. Yes, the kind required for blowing some fresh air over my nostrils but also in the sense of ranting about a topic that just drives me up the wall. The subject in question is pet abandonment.

A little background may shed some light on the murky waters that are this crime. I have an office in a "professional office complex." It borders some woods, an area that stretches about 100 yards deep behind our building and a half-mile or so down the parkway, moving west. The wooded area and a 8 foot chainlink fence separates our complex from Highway 59 which runs on higher ground behind my clinic.

After I moved in the office, some 6 or 7 years back, I would get occasional, early morning (I get to the office between 4:30 and 5:00) glimpses of feral cats. These hearty buggers have, I assume, been living in those woods long before I got here. They are the most feral animals one can imagine: avoiding all human contact at any cost. Undoubtedly this is a learned response, sensing - as only animals can - that humans are not to be trusted. They know, perhaps firsthand, the capabilities and tendencies of our species.

It is a useful survival trait. For, if they were to be tame, they would dare to approach cars, moving or not, to beg for a handout. They would, if they were so naive, be crushed in the parking lot or on the street or, if they are lucky, just have someone throw rocks (or anything else handy) at them. Being the intelligent creatures there are, they have learned and they learned quickly. They scurry back into the woods and safety. I have been here for some years now and I see their ghostly images in the predawn hours. I can sometimes see then observing me from the safety of their woods, eyes reflecting the fading morning streetlights or in the headlights of my car. They know that potential evil and even death lurks out on the pavement.

I think, often, about where they once might have been. In the lap of their former owner or curling, figure eight-style, between their owners' legs while they are at the sink or opening up a can of wet cat food. Perhaps, they once purred in contentment, that motorboat purr that signals sheer contentment. Maybe once, they actually kneaded their claws into a rug (or some soft furniture) as I understand this is how they display ultimate feline bliss. But, for these cats, the days or purring and curling up in a warm lap are long over. Now, they run with the speed only a "flight-or-fight" adrenalin rush can fuel.

Last winter, I started feeding them. I couldn't stand, as an old man with all the sentiment that entails, to see their starvation-ravaged frames skulking about in search of the birds (that had long since flown further south) or rodents (who were hibernating), the staples of their usual scant diet. I would place a bowl of cheap, dry cat chow and a bowl of water at woods' edge in the pre-dawn hours. It would be completely gone a mere hour or two later. It cost me about 10 dollars every couple weeks; the reimbursement to my heart paid in full, many times over.

I have heard the arguments against this behavior. "You'll only allow them to bred more cats!" "You're not doing them any favors; they'll stop hunting." And the laughable, "You'll make them tame." My brain initially agreed with the naysayers. But, fortunately, in retrospect, my heart had a stronger voice.

A few cups of dry cat food a day is certainly not going to change their miserable existence. They are only a salve to the heart of someone who has seen too many animals killed on roadsides everywhere. Maybe, my heart tells me, if they have a regular - if meager - source of food, they will not be forced progressively nearer the roads, desperately trying to avoid starvation in the leaner times. My heart always wins the argument.

The first of the admonishments mentioned above, though, has come true. One of the female strays did have a litter of kittens this spring. I saw them, following their mother one early morning, as she showed them where the "emergency rations" were placed. The kittens, a marvel of evolution and strength of breed, were beautiful, typically-curious and playful kittens. That was in March and, while I don't see them chasing their mom much any longer - their time as adolescent cats give them leave to hunt alone now - I do know they are all still alive. I saw them all, for the first time in weeks, last Saturday morning, playing and chasing each other at the edge of the woods. Kittens are kittens, wild or domesticated.

Their mother, who is about as domesticated as she will ever be, does greet me most mornings. She keeps a distance of about 20 feet but she lets me know she is there and that it is time to serve breakfast, her only sure meal of the day. She watches, at a safe and unwavering distance - she is and never will be, tame - and sits. I trudge up to the woods, a plastic drink cup full of Purina, and exhange greetings. When I turn and walk back to my office, I glance back over my shoulder and she, incessantly cautious, approaches the food. I smile and I go back to the work of the day.

Sometimes, I am amazed at their strength and will to live. With the southern summer, comes fleas, ticks, biting flies, fireants and other plagues on the animals of the wild. But, somehow, they manage to survive. I know several generations of these ferals have died. A couple years back, there was an orange tabby who, I presume, was one of the earlier generations. He was truly a splendid specimen. I am guessing about 12 pounds and with an impressive bearing. I have to assume he was the patriarch of the clan for his time. I don't see him anymore. I also haven't seen his sidekick, a smaller male, a white tabby, either. I don't think of those two much anymore as I suspect they died from the elements or were killed on the highway in a lean time of distance foraging.

At least for now, "my" mom and her kittens live. I am realistic enough to know that they probably will not all last through the brutal summer and, certainly not through the more brutal winter. But, for their time, they will take what life gives them and, even if they could, probably not complain.

While I try and avoid it, sometimes I let myself think of the original owners of these animals. The ones who originally took the parents (more likely the grandparents or great grandparents) of these animals home as kittens and gave them a home. They fed them, petted them, maybe even took them to the vet for shots and the like. I wonder, when I am calm enough, what changes occur that allows abandonment of their pet - any pet? When there are so many - admittedly strained to capacity and beyond these days - facilities willing to take in unwanted pets, what goes through someone's mind when they leave a pet to the wilds or the side of the road? When animal shelters go so far as to place cages outside their buildings for anonymous, no-questions-asked nighttime drop-off of unwanted pets, what can these individuals be thinking? Do they actually have that capacity? What mind can rationalize this? The more I dwell on the subject, the more cynical I feel. So I don't allow it often.

Please, before you fire off your missives of censure and castigation for the audacity and superficiality of one who dares complain about the plight of dumb animals when people are suffering worse fates elsewhere in the world, I understand your prioritization and your point. The thoughtlessness and cruelty of mankind knows no bounds. Clearly, it is not species-specific. People, certainly, do come first in our thoughts and our concerns. Starvation of people is worse than starvation of animals. Yes, my $10 every couple of weeks could (at least, according to the commercials) feed a starving child somewhere in the world. Yes, yes, I do understand, more than I might have led you to think. Many may think, but polite enough not to write it, what a piteous, misdirected, and egocentric - yes, even eccentric - old man I am. After the recent "Live 8" concert, I realize this sort of writing is merely a flyspeck on the enlarging blot of humanity's indifference. Truly, there is no need to waste your time telling me that which I
already know.

Perhaps, it is all interrelated. If we don't give a care for the millions of refugees dying around the world of starvation, abandonment, and displacement, why should we even spend a few minutes of thought about stupid pets? Well, maybe we shouldn't. If we don't do anything about starving people, we shouldn't expect any concern whatsoever for lesser creatures. And, sadly, I really don't.

However, I will do what I can for the unfortunate orphans in my woods. Nature will, as nature always cruelly does, take care of the rest. Despite the inevitable I will not begrudge myself this simple, selfish and very personal pleasure. In a world where indifference and callousness grows exponentially everyday, I will enjoy to my own minuscule stand against apathy. It is a reminder that life will find a way, even in the face of - and in usually in spite of - humanity.

For more information about helping save feral cats, see this site.

The Benefits of Age

2005-06-06T04:10:00.000-07:00

“At sixty, a man has passed most of the reefs and whirlpools. Excepting only death, he has no enemies left to meet....That man has awakened to a new youth...Ergo, he is young.”

George Benjamin Luks, American painter

There are many wonderful benefits of middle age. It has taken me many years to come to this conclusion. In my younger days, I raged. I fumed I ranted. I rebelled. I have pictures of me in my youth, when I had more hair, fewer wrinkles, and seemed to always have a serious expression on my face. I was attuned to every slight, every ill-mannered comment, every question of my knowledge or judgement. Even the slightest sense of a challenge to my omniscience - a lowly pharmacist questioning my dosage instructions on a prescription - would be enough coal to keep the fires of indignant outrage burning for the rest of the day.

I remember the daily annoyances that used to drive me absolutely berserk. Just the drive to and from work would push me buttons just the wrong way for the full 24 hours, usually every day. People parking their oversized SUVs too close to my car. Drivers pulling out in front of me, quickly and just in time to cut me off, and then slowing to a crawl. Or, as I approached a red light, pulling up on the side street, tripping the traffic light and forcing me to stop for their entrance onto the throughway. One lousy car and I have to stop for them! Or some politician giving a speech on television and saying all the wrong things. That would give me enough righteous outrage for days. A teenager with his car radio booming with those horrendous bass acoustics rattling his and, more importantly, my car windows.

But for the past few years, I have become aware of quite a change. Driving home has become an almost welcomed comic ending to the day. I like to drive without the radio and in the peace and solitude of my little car because the entertainment lies outside these comfortable confines. Watching the helter-skelter drivers, forever jockeying for position and all ending up together at the next red light with hardly a change in their starting position brings a wide smile to my face. The young pharmacists, fresh out of school and equipped with the knowledge - or at least their computers are - of every known side-effects of every drug on the market, still question me about prescriptions. They call to tell me that my recently prescribed Drug X has been shown to cause diarrhea in 2 per cent of patients when used with Drug Y the patient is already on. They ask, with their best professional phone voice, if I really want to use this combination? As I suppress a laugh, I switch to my deepest, professorial voice and reply "Yes" and thank them for their well-researched, current information on the subject of these possible drug interactions. I assure the well-intentioned, young graduate that I think the patient will be fine. I thank the pharmacist again and hang up with a whimsical smile on my face. I think, briefly, of the pharmacist making a note in his log that they warned the prescribing doctor of the possible interaction and the physician accepted the risk. "CYA" and all that, at its very best.

I come to my empty home - I am divorced and my children are grown - and I, maybe to some, selfishly, revel in the tranquility. I have probably always been a bit of a loner but, like so many things, I fought against it. I married and stayed married for almost 25 years. I had three great kids. I grew up, for all practical purposes (a much too long a story), as an only child, but I thought it would be a good thing to have kids. I served 12 years as an Army doctor - this, after growing my hair long and vehemently protesting against the military and Viet Nam, Kent State, and the assorted missteps of the 1960s. Now, after all the rage and the indignation, I have finally had a soulful, spiritual exhale.

But, lest you think I am some bitter, complacent, aged shell of a man, resigned to living on the edge of society, for my remaining few years on this planet, I assure you nothing could be further from the truth. In my heartfelt solitude I have found an immense sense of peace and comfort. It is a oasis in my heart where resides a calm. There is a sensation that one must feel when, after fighting upstream against the rapids of a raging river, you reach a tranquil pool. Here, at the top of the headwaters, the current no longer pulls downward at you. There is no struggle and only minimal effort keeps you afloat. After the long swim, banging against rocks and scrapping against the shallows of the raging torrents called life, there is a respite.

I have a recurring mental picture of the salmon swimming upstream from the ocean in the northwest rivers. They fight against the river's torrent to spawn. Then, from starvation, trauma and exhaustion. We spend most of our lives in the same sort of struggle. Fighting and clawing against the currents of daily life is our youth. And, as we age - doesn't "maturing" sound better? - we realize that, despite all our fighting, kicking and screaming, we ultimately reach the same tortuous end. Some sooner (like my son, Danny, 1980-2002) than later.

After over a half a century of fighting the good fight, I have, reached a sense of contentment. I have achieved far more than was rightfully mine to achieve. The only son of a mail carrier in a family that never went farther than high school, I was the first in our modest history to go to college, much less medical school. My family could never afford medical school so I accepted a free-ride from my old nemesis, the good old U.S. Army. I have published 3 books, spoken to the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians. I have published medical research papers. The whole nine yards. I am proud of what I have accomplished. More importantly to me now, is that it has made my parents proud. Now as they slide onward toward octogenarian-hood, they can still talk to their neighbors about their son, the doctor.

Truth be told,. there have been many (many, many, many) failures and regrets along the way. I was never much of a father and an even worse husband. But I have made peace with these glaring imperfection and defects. Now, instead of regret and discontent for the errors and missteps, I am unabashedly happy. I have taken the conscious and innermost decision to rest in the backwaters of whatever remains of my life. Lest you get the idea I have given away all my worldly possessions and have gone to live in an Oregon commune, you couldn't be more wrong. I have all intentions to live life to it's fullest and enjoy whatever time I am given on this earth. It's just that I am, at long last, happy and contented. I am, in the trite old (is it?) phrase, "in a good place." Surely, it is not the absolute cloudless calm that I know death will be, but a conscious, deep sense of the sudden lack of conflict. It is a fine place to be.

I can speak, with some degree of experience, about the sensations of death. I recall, with great clarity, the "time I almost died." I venture that many have had similar claims to the almost-afterlife, but mine remains quite vivid with me. During a heart catheterization prior my quadruple coronary bypass (it sounds more dramatic to say "quadruple" than simply a 4-vessel bypass), I had what pop culture would call a "near-death experience." During the procedure, shortly after I threw up from the nausea induced by the dye injection, I remember what can best be described as simply falling asleep. But, unlike the sleep of fatigue or after a day's work, it was a memorable drifting off into unconsciousness. I don't remember the "feeling" of dozing off in any of the many thousands of naps and nocturnal rests in my life. I remember laying down and, then, waking up. But this sensation was exquisitely unique.

Before you roll your eyes, it really was a sensation I had never felt before and I have not since. There was no "light at the end of a long tunnel," no voices calling for me in the distance, no angels, none of the things I have heard from near-death survivors. This feeling was something entirely different. It was an overwhelming sense of calm, of peace, of solace. It was a deep inner sense of tranquility.

I noticed later, in the cardiac care unit, that I had some very painful circular burns on my chest. When I asked the nurse what they were, she nervously informed me that my heart had "stopped" (specifically, I went into asystole) during the procedure and I had to "defibrillated" 6 times to resume an effective heart rhythm. The burns, I was informed, were from the haste of the cardiologist to apply the paddles to my chest with inadequate conductant gel and the increasingly higher voltages used in the attempt to get my heart back into an effective pulse. When I discussed the episodes with my cardiologist, a friend who I had actually trained during his Internal Medicine residency, he told me he "was scared to death" he was about to lose his former Chief Resident. His exact words were I was "dead for about 60 seconds."

Since that little heart stopper, when I was the ripe old age of 42, I have lost all fear of death. Death, in my heart, mind and in the innermost depths of my soul, is nothing to be feared. It is an almost orgasmic peace. Perhaps not in the circumstances in which one dies - car wreck, gunshot, heart attack - but, when that heart beats its last beat, I am convinced we will all have this peace. When those last few red blood cells deliver their last molecules of oxygen to the last living brain cells and we have an "irreversible end of consciousness," we will experience a final, ultimate, overwhelming sense of placidity.

With apologies for the diversion, I return now to the point of this rambling: whatever lies ahead, it's all OK. Through all the aches and pain of waking up each morning, all the alopecia, all the wrinkles and blemishes, the daily loss of neurons, it's all going to be just fine. And when people question my judgement, drivers cut me off on the freeway, the power goes off in a storm, and I forget to record my favorite TV show, I will try to remember that lesson. I wish, as we all do, that I could go back and visit myself when I was 18 and scared to death of starting college, or when I was 24 and marrying for all the wrong reasons, or when I was 39 and leaving the Army for the alien and increasingly competitive world of private practice, or even just 3 years ago when my son died. I would smile, knowingly, and whisper "you will get through this, too." Age does have some unique advantages and I find that I like them very much.

Living in Deadwood

2005-05-18T10:20:00.000-07:00

Filthy, profane, pornographic, misogynistic, bloodthirsty, chimerical.

Innovative, ingenious, inspired, realistic, unflinching, imaginary.

Whatever your view of the HBO series "Deadwood" - if you even have one - you can find ample support on either side. I, for one, consider it just what the HBO original series advertisements call all their creations: "original, groundbreaking, award-winning," etc. Deadwood (with its season two finale scheduled for May 22) is the unpolished, warts-and-all truth about the settling of the American frontier.

I freely admit I am terribly prejudiced as I have been a fan of Deadwood's creative force, David Milch, for decades. I was hooked with "Hill Street Blues." I was reeled in with "NYPD Blue." I fought against drag of the reel when he struggled through addiction and a creative fog with "Murder One" (1995), "Total Security" (1997), and "Big Apple" (2001) which he put together without his long-time partner, Steven Bochco. But David Milch has landed me, hook, line and sinker with Deadwood. He has - but I really hope he hasn't - reached as high a creative arc one can reach with this view of the Dakota territories, circa 1880. While I am not much of a television-aholic as I once was (thanks to the spate of reality detritus clogging the airways), it is the one show that I actually plan an evening around. Fortunately, that evening is Sunday and easy enough to clear out.

The addiction started simply enough when the first season of Deadwood came out earlier this year. I had seen the occasional advertisement on HBO and an occasional review that sounded promising but it was the "Created by David Milch" that cinched the deal. Popping the first DVD of the set into the player was not accompanied by any real preconceptions since, while I knew Milch could write cop dramas very well, I had no idea how he would work with a western. The answer, quickly apparent, was that classic "Milch-speak" works as well in Deadwood, South Dakota as it does in New York.

And the formula Milch has developed over 25 years of writing and producing is not only geographically nonspecific it is time-insensitive as well. Dialogue is used to convey not just information but mood. "Anyways" is Milch-speak to signify either "it's time to change the subject of this conversation" or "you are boring me and I am going somewhere else with my thoughts and, possibly, my body." It means the same thing whether it is said by Andy Sipowicz or Al Swearengen. To David Milch, dialogue just gets in the way of action and is to be kept at a minimum. Storytelling and acting are the keys and they are at the center of all of Milch's work.

And the writing is the key. How else does one explain taking a serviceable but hardly distinguished actor like Ian McShane (never heard of him before, have you?) And turn him in one short 12 episode series into a Golden Globe Award winner. An actor who has been knocking around in films and TV since the early 80's and whose most recent "claim to fame" was the villain in "Cody Banks: Secret Agent" has gone from C-list actor to A-list celebrity. And, baring an unknown talent transplant from Lawrence Olivier, it is the writing and the scripts and the storytelling that make the actor. And David Milch has done that with McShane.

Equally important to Milch is that there are never "just" black and white characters. There is never just clearly a bad and a good. Despite all his warts (alcoholism, spousal abuse, child abandonment, racism, etc., ad infinitum), Andy Sipowicz (Dennis Franz) was one of the most beloved cops in televison history. He was honest; he was real. And when you dug way, way down to the core of his human essence, he was a decent human. But, as Milch would have it, it takes a lot of digging to find that truth.

In Deadwood, the flawed hero is even more obscure in his humanity. He is the previously mundane and unrecognized Ian McShane as Al Swearengen. Swearengen was one of the founding fathers of Deadwood and runs the town with an iron fist and a sharp blade. When we are introduced to him in season one, he is a ruthless, conniving, murderous pimp who, by all appearances, would just as soon feed you to Mr. Wu's pigs (this method of disposal of one's enemies is story all unto itself) as steal your gold. But, as the episodes roll on we learn Al is not the Beelzebub he would have all those around him believe. He defends and employs a crippled housekeeper at the Gem Saloon and, while he bellows obscenities and humiliations at her almost hourly, he would cut the heart out of anyone who dared do the same. He demeans women regularly and enthusiastically in his saloon/brothel, let anyone else offend his favorite (and possibly the only female he has ever loved) Trixie, and woe be unto him. When the local lay preacher falls terminally ill from a brain tumor and seizures, it is Al Swearengen who mercifully and, almost, tenderly, euthanizes him. In David Milch's world - as in ours - even the most vile humans have a glimmer of compassion, somewhere.

Conversely, the knights in shining armor in Milch's Deadwood are also flawed. The closest thing to a hero in the series is Seth Bullock, played by Timothy Olyphant, and the reluctant sheriff is a flawed and troubled character. He set out from North Dakota, where he was a Marshall, hell bent to seek his fortune as a merchant in Deadwood. But he is inextricably pulled by his moral fiber to bring law and order to this purgatory over which Swearengen rules. But, rather than enemies, he finds himself strangely allied with his moral antithesis in the quest for self rule. His morality is further challenged when, after doing the "right thing" and marrying his dead brother's wife and son, he falls in love with the femme fatale, Anna Garrett (Molly Parker), recently widowed at the hands of Swearengen and heir to the richest gold claim in the town.

These are but a few of the circus of characters in Deadwood. Cy Toliver (Powers Boothe) enters to play the even more evil foil for Swearengen with his own brothel and casino. Wild Bill Hickock (Keith Carradine) met his end there but his sidekicks, Calamity Jane (Robin Weigart) and Charlie Utter (Dayton Callie) are still important pieces to Milch's web of human, well, calamity. The artistry with which Milch keeps the thickening strands of the Deadwood plotline and the constant ebb and flow of allies and enemies is a wonder to watch. It is a soap opera with teeth; Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Knot's Landing and Dallas with dirt, grime, and horse shit. It is, unquestionably, the best series on television, cable or otherwise. [Trivia Fact: Ian McShane actually was on Dallas in 1989 as suave Englishman Don Lockwood. His character tempted Sue Ellen away from J.R. Ewing and ended up marrying her.]

As the finale for season two approaches on May 22, it promises to set the stage for the next season with even more plotlines. Who will meet their end before contract renewals is anyone's guess, though I have heard that Sy Tolliver (Powers Booth) will be leaving in the finale. Who will become Swearengen evil foil for next year? Will it be the arrival of Hurst, the multimillionaire from San Francisco, who will stay and become the nemesis? Or will Hurst's psychotic flunkie, Wolcott, stay around (personally, I doubt that "Mr. W" will live through the finale but never try and predict David Milch's twists and turns)? And what will become of the Chinese family feud of Mr. Wu (old school) versus Mr. Lee, a.k.a. "the San Francisco cocksucker?" One - or both - clearly, must die.

Whatever happens, Deadwood is one of those rare - and becoming almost extinct - dramas that entertain and capture the imagination of its viewers. In a broadcast world inundated with video cameras following pseudocelebrities and want-to-be-someone's through increasingly fake competitions and paper mache worlds, Deadwood is art. It is "reality" as I really imagine it was in the mud and muck of the Dakota frontiers in the late 1800's. With scripts becoming collector's items in television today, Deadwood is one of the last beacons of what the broadcast medium can and should be. Along with FX's "The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck" and a few rare other exceptions, let us hope that this sort of artistry and creativity can survive the Pet Rock craze of reality television.

In my shrinking world aesthetic, in comparison, I will take Deadwood's "fantasy" over what euphemistically is called "reality television" every day of the year.

When will we ever learn?

2005-05-15T05:26:00.000-07:00

As reported by Reuters:

CHICAGO - May 11, 2005 - Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. Wednesday said its experimental obesity drug was effective in helping patients lose weight in a 28-day, mid-stage trial. Patients taking a 15-milligram dose of Arena’s oral drug, known as APD356, lost an average of 2.9 pounds after 28 days of treatment, compared with a loss of 0.7 pounds by obese patients taking a placebo. Diet drugs have a checkered history, with few resulting in lasting weight loss. At the same time, doctors are eager for a safe and effective treatment for obesity, a major risk factor for conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. The San Diego-based biotechnology company said the results were highly statistically significant and that no serious side effects occurred.

There they go again! Yet another diet drug trumpeted in the press. The folks taking the drugs lost a whopping 2.9 pounds in 28 days and those taking the placebo only lost 0.7 pounds. Three pounds in twenty-eight days!! Four short weeks! WOW! Are you as underwhelmed as I am?

As this new miracle cure gets some ink, nudging up in the race to your drug store shelves with rimonabant (Acomplia), no one seems to get the big(ger) message. To whit: quit looking for healthy lifestyles in pill format! It just has not been invented nor is it likely to come out any time soon in a patch, topical gel, time-release, or enteric-coated gelcap. People, a pill is not the solution.

I won't even get into the whole "Fen-Phen" fiasco and how many hearts were damaged (and lives lost) by that ill-fated combination again. Nor will I get into another rant about how worthless and overpriced the most recent "diet drug" brought out for weight loss (sibutramine, Meridia) is. And don't get me started about the whole Relacort and CortiSlim green tea nonsense. But, for pity's sake, it is high time that the pharmaceutical industry climbed off this tired horse and started putting resources into something more important. Maybe, I don't know, just off the top of my head, perhaps - more thorough drug testing? With longer drug trials we will avoid the current travesty of bringing drugs to market with either insufficient testing or the ability to cover anything that is actually negative about the drug.

I am refering, of course, to the recent withdrawals of the COX II inhibitor class of antiarthritis drugs - Vioxx, Bextra, etc. With the rush to market and multimillion dollar rollouts of new prescription drugs, the pharmaceutical industry is, of coursem just doing what comes naturally. Profits over safety. But, that's just business. Even if I don't like it, I can understand it. Capitalism, the American Way, apple pie and all that. It's the "solution in a pill" metality, actively promoted by the drug industry, that I take issue with.

When will we, as the consumer, finally wake up to the truth? We are never going to have what we all dream of, namely, health by pill. Sure, there will be plenty of new, over-priced "cures for obesity" like this APD356 (Arena Pharmaceuticals). We should have Acomplia (Sanofi-Aventis, of France) - drum roll, please - next year. But with the best of the studies of Acomplia, patients lost 16 pounds on average over two years, compared with 5.5 pounds for those who took dummy pills. Now, by my calculations that is about 2.5 ounces per week over 2 years. Does this sound like a miracle to anyone? It certainly does not to me. For someone with 50 pounds to lose, that will "only" take slightly more than 3 years of Acomplia "therapy." Of course, on a cost per ounce basis, based souly on what I expect Acomplia to cost, it will probably work out to be about $5.00 per ounce of weight loss (calculation, purely hypothetical, are shown below). This is progress? I think not.

Somewhere in the reams of doctor and patient information that will be published in newspapers, magazine, professional journals, and by the crack team of Sanofi-Aventis representatives will be an asterisk which points to a discretely buried and barely readable subscript passgae at the bottom of every page. It will read, to the effect, that:

"Weight loss should only be expected to be accomplished in patients who follow a fat-restricted, reduced-calorie diet and participate in a regular program of moderately-vigorous aerobic exericse."

And there, my friends, will lie the real truth. There is no cure for inactivity, work and family demands on our time, meals in the car, on the run and out of a sack, Whoppers or 64 ounce Big Gulps, or reality television. There is no pill to cut down on dietary fat grams or sugar. There is no patch that will make you walk, jog, crawl, swim, or cycle for 30-60 minutes a day, 5 days a week. There is no time-release capsule that will reverse the "thrifty gene" passed on to you by your ancestors from hundreds of years of selection and stop your body from storing fat every chance it gets. And there has never been and will never be a drug that you put into your body that does not have side effects, some possibly lethal.

So, as we sit on our sofa or easy chair and watch the news and advertisements for the "next big thing" to lose weight while we sleep, remember this: where the rubber meets the road, there is only one thing that can improve your health - you. It is you - and you alone - that has the ultimate control of your health. How you choose to live, when all is said and done, is all we have. And the decision you have to make, despite the thousands of books and "experts" that tell you differently, is a simple one. You can choose to live as healthy a life as you can or not. You can swear off the absolute "garbage-as-food" sold out of drive-thru windows or not. You can park your car a half-mile farther from work and walk or not. You can take the stairs or the elevator. You can carry your golf clubs 18 holes or ride in a cart. You can break a sweat, raise your pulse and exercise or not. You can turn off American Idol, Survivor, The Great Race, The Newlyweds and Chasing Farah and all the other mindless dribble that passes for television, or not. When will the idiotic chatter of who's going to win a meaningless reality show change to "what I did to improve my health (or my mind or my family life or my profession or my hobby) last night?" Sadly, I answer myself, never. What type underwear Bo Bice wears or what Paris Hilton said was "hot" seemingly is the only thing on our minds these days.

I am not just talking about weight loss. I am talking about being as healthy as you can, in mind and body. About spending quality time with your children before it is too late. Learning something new - knowledge or a skill - that makes your mind expand beyond it's current boundaries. Discussing a real issue - like war, famine, genocide, the hereafter, your faith - with friends or family.

And, just on the off chance you might be interested to know, health does not come in a pill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculations: Based on the best study published to date, patients taking Acomplia lost an average of 16 pounds over 2 years. There are 52 weeks per year and 104 weeks over two years. There are 16 ounces in a pound. So, 16 pounds is 256 ounces. 256 ounces over 104 weeks is 2.509 ounces per week. Thus, if we (very, very conservatively) estimate the cost of a months therapy of Acomplia is $100 per month and we have 50 pounds to lose, we will need a little over 3 years to lose 50 pounds with Acomplia. Three years of therapy at $1200 per year (12 months X $100 per month) to lose 800 ounces (50 pounds X 16 ounces per pound) works out to about $5.00 per ounce.

The Death of Western Media

2005-05-07T04:45:00.000-07:00

I apologize before I begin because I know, right off the bat, that this item is going to be much more of a rant than an entry in this web log. When you get to be my age, it's not very often than the blood pumps with the rapidity and velocity that enables the energy required to go off on a rant, but this, gentle reader, is such a time.

There is a clear distinction, at least in my personal classification scheme, between a rant and a BLOG. A BLOG is typically a measured, coherent, logical opinion or attempt to sway opinion in one direction or the other. A rant is often driven more by passion and enthusiasm rather than logic or an attempt to sway the reader opinion. Be it anger, sympathy, outrage, or understanding - the release of the passion is the entire point and is not always a display of proper logical discourse or valid arguments. The purpose of a rant is purgative as opposed to the usual BLOG which is to educate or give structure to an opinion. So, forewarned, this is - and with no apologies - a rant in the purest sense.

I am so tired of watching (actually, not watching) cotton candy news. But, when I thought more about it, I realized they are only giving us what they know the majority will watch. Junk food for the mind. JonBenet Ramsey, Susan Smith, Elizabeth Smart, Lori Hacking, Laci Petterson - tragedies all but, the fact that we seem to be fascinated by such individual misfortunes is becoming, sadly, a pathological national obssession. I understand that there are reasonable, studied and clear explanations for the human psyche's need to stop, crane out necks and view tragedy unfolding. The Passion plays of Christ's and, even earlier, the Greek tragedies of Plato make one cringe and want to turn away, even as it makes one yearn to look, to feast one's eyes, and to try to understand: for abhorrence and fascination go hand in hand. But, when watching train wrecks of the human condition becomes a national idée fixe we have, in my opinion, a significant reason to be concerned.

Caution: Now, for those keeping score, what preceded could be described as a legitimate BLOG; from this point on, I descend rather abruptly into the pit of an absolute, unfiltered, and an unapologetic rant.

Now, with the seemingly all-pervasive story of the "Runaway Bride," we reach a new depth of degradation and profligacy. We have become not merely a society hooked on junk food, we are a society fizated on "junk news." There is little nutritional value in either. We, apparently, sit thoroughly mesmerized by the inner workings of the disturbed mind of a 32 year old medical assistant and the hand-wringing office manager fiancé from the obscure town of Duluth, Georgia. We hear sound bite after sound bit from anyone and everyone, jockeying for position at the microphone, including restaurant waitresses, clergymen, firefighters, policemen, pop psychologists, wedding planners, marriage counselors, the local police chief, the district attorney, and a "family neighbor" who had a cousin who knew a bridesmaid for the Mason-Wilbanks wedding. I have a visual image of everyone in this sad little town queing up, as if waiting for the Judgement of St. Peter, to tell their pathetic and tenuous "first hand knowledge" about the rueful and piteous tale of these star-crossed lovers. I await the appearance of a pet psychologist interviewing the beloved family pet, Old Blue.

It is a sad commentary on the American mindset when people actually care about this issue while thousands are being butchered in Darfur without a peep of interest. We never saw this depth of analysis when the world stood idly by during the massacre of almost a million Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994. If you want racism, the "Hispanic male" slur aside, that is racism. We fixate on the "evolving human drama" of this histrionic ditz and turn away from the true tragedies of the world. Particularly, if these tragedies involve Africa.

I, unlike others, do not place the entire blame on the mass media. While CNN, Court TV and others have made this story the Greek tragedy that it is, these successful ventures obviously have their bottom line in mind. These media outlets sell advertisements to make money and they will cover the type of news stories that they know the American public will watch. And, by our watching, will see their advertising minutes. So, they air these tabloid items as news. They are inexpensive to cover, do not require any actual thought or analysis, and even the most junior broadcasters can be sent to armpit Georgia for the live interviews. The endless parade of smarmy "experts" (expert wedding planners, expert psychologists, expert waitresses, etc.) have their perpetual "Will work for airtime" signs around their necks. Airtime sells books and services so this pro bono discourse is a mutual exercise in back scratching. Further, it is no small coincidence that CNN's blow-by-blow, minute-by-tedious-minute telethon requires only a 28-mile hop, skip and jump from its Atlanta headquarters. For cost-efficiency, this particular emotional meltdown cannot be topped.

But, it is the viewing public that shoulders the bulk of the blame for this woeful cataclysm. Those fueling this wildfire, consuming the meager remnants of rational thought in America, actually watch these broadcasts and, loaded with their trivia, are ready for the water cooler the next day. "Did you know she bought the bus ticket a week before she ran off?" "Did you know that John Mason's father used to be mayor of Duluth?" "Did you know that Jennifer's eyes actually did pop out of her skull once?" It is just these sort of probing inquiries that are important to we, the people.

And, before my head turns a full 360 degrees on my neck and explodes, this parting prediction. The final nail in the coffin that is our culture is the fact that I clearly see the following unfolding, quite probably in the order presented, in view of my mind's eye:

1. Paid interview with some major interview host in prime time; Before the end of May, 2005, Dr. Phil will also rush tape a show on "premarital stress" and use the phrase "What were you thinking?"

2. Book deal for Wilbanks in 6 figures; smaller book deals for John Mason, Wilbanks' parents, Mason's parents, and Old Blue (ghost written by Hiraldo Rivera).

3. Made-for-TV movie - two actually, authorized and unauthorized - run on different channels at the same time. In prime time, of course; one-hour documentary on Court TV. Old Blue is interviewed but turned down as host of the new Animal Planet series, "Crazy Brides and their Crazy Pets."

She, and the "tragedy-struck family," will actually make money off this silliness. And, the next time a woman is missing, anywhere in the country, those in the search will always wonder "Did this woman just run off to hide?" and, more disturbingly, "Why am I out searching in the woods, anyway?" It is with that question that the true fallout from Jennifer Wilbanks affect us all.

If you want to know how low the media in the West has sunk, you need no more proof than this. But it speaks volumes, also, about our collective consciousness. As long as our culture displays even a modicum of interest in this sort of tabloid fluff, I am confident in predicting we will continue to have it fed to our eyes and our brains by the commercial media.

Nero may have fiddled while Rome burned, but we will be watching "Newlyweds II: Britanny and Kevin Federline" on MTV when this civilization falls.

Flight of the Democrats

2005-02-09T05:19:00.000-08:00

It was with a twinge of sadness that I read a recent New Your Times article by Rick Lyman that chronicled the rise in U.S. citizens moving, permanently, to Canada.

It seemed to Mr. Lyman that a large contingent of American liberals were actively seeking Canadian citizenship and fleeing, what they feel, is a worsening of the American political and social scene. Quoting from the article:

"America is in no danger of emptying out. But even a small loss of residents, many of whom cite a deep sense of political despair, is a significant event in the life of a nation that thinks of itself as a place to escape to.

Firm numbers on potential émigrés are elusive.

"The number of U.S. citizens who are actually submitting Canadian immigration papers and making concrete plans is about three or four times higher than normal," said Linda Mark, an immigration lawyer in Vancouver.

Other immigration lawyers in Toronto, Montreal and Halifax said they had noticed a similar uptick, though most put the rise at closer to threefold.

[End Quote]

I have to admit I have some really mixed feelings about this, seemingly, unique watershed event. I deeply regret that some people see American as having drifted too far to one side of the political spectrum. Drifted so far, in fact, that they can no longer lives here as citizens. One young lady was quoted as saying "Under Bush, the U.S. seems to be leading the pack as the world spirals down." That truly saddens me. America should be a place for honest debate and discussion and, yes, even protest. For someone to feel so disenfranchised that they feel their only recourse is to leave the country is significant.

We have always been a country where healthy debate was welcomed. If your candidate does not get elected, you fight harder in the next election. You protest. You write letters and editorials (and, today, BLOGs). You contribute to the party of your choice. You go to meetings and you organize. You get more active locally for candidates closer to home. But to just pack your bags and leave? I believe this truly says something significant and worrisome. It's says something sbout the Democratic Party and the Republican Part. It says something about us all.

On the other hand, the conservative in me leaps for joy. I think "Fine! Leave! That will make our majority in the next election even greater. We won; get over it. Good riddance!"

But, I still keep having that nagging feeling that this is not the way it should be. The pendulum should not swing so far as to knock people off the edge. Should it?

The Art of Listening

2005-02-02T11:16:00.000-08:00

Do you hear the rumbling? Do you see the flashes of lightening and hear the rolling of thunder? Do you feel the tension of the coming war?

I am not talking about an invasion of Iran or the ongoing liberation of Iraq. I am talking about the "The War for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Ticket" or the "War of '08." I think it should be clear to everyone who has given this more than a passing thought that the clear frontrunner at this point in time is Hillary Roddam Clinton, the junior senator from New York, via Illinois, Arkansas, and Washington, D.C. The print media and the talking heads are dissecting her every word, phrase, and faint.

And, lately, there is much to dissect and examine. For example, she recently gave a speech in Boston in which she invoked the name of God more than a dozen times, according to the New York Times. What may have alarmed people even more was that she admitted, in the same Boston speech, that she had "always been a praying person." I am not sure exactly what that means. While she didn't specify to whom she is "a praying person," I am going to go out on a limb and assume it was prayer to a Supreme Being. The experts, and I use the term as loosely as possible, are suggesting she is reaching out in with a Biblical olive branch in an appeal to the - well, what do we call them in our politically-correct time today - "the Christian Right" or the "Evangelicals" or, as I have previously used, "People of Religion" (simply P.O.R.). If so, she is displaying an awareness that will bode well for a 2008 candidacy.

In the confirmation vote in the Senate for Dr. Condoleeza Rice, she did not join the yapping leftist lap dogs like Barbara Boxer and the increasingly piteous John Kerry, and voted for the confirmation. In her statement, she said:

"I'm hopeful that Dr. Rice's statements during the recent hearings in support of reaching out to allies, public diplomacy and building coalitions will be more than words, but instead describe a genuine effort to ensure that our country leads the world though its strong alliances, values and example."

I applaud Senator Clinton's sensibilities. For those who think it is an important issue, and I count myself among this group, she has also spoken out against gay couples being granted the right to enter into a marriage, at least in the traditional sense of the word. She recently was quoted in the New York Post as saying:

"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."

Again, Bravo! She has her finger on the pulse of the majority of Americans, I think.

Admittedly, Senator Clinton has some strong criticisms and several temporally remote faux pas to address if she does, and I think she will, rise to the top of the Democratic ticket for 2008. I will not outline them here, as they have been written about, ad nauseam, elsewhere.

May God forgive me, but I have very high hopes for Senator Clinton. I am a conservative by birthright and by choice. I am a practicing medical doctor by occupation. But, I have some rather non-doctrinal beliefs when it comes to some political issues. I firmly believe - and I may be expelled from the American Medical Association for saying so - that our health care system needs to be fixed. It is definitely broken. I see Medicare patients all day long who wonder how they are going to pay for the medicines their debilities require. I see Americans all day long that have absolutely no health insurance and, here's the sad part - refuse medical tests they need simply because they cannot afford them. These are not Medicaid prospects, just lower-middle class people who simply cannot afford insurance. I know doctors who make way too much money for way too little delivery of care.We need a solution. I am not convinced that solution is government intervention since they have clearly botched Medicare and Medicaid. But something needs to be done. I am also for gun control, in some form. I am also for pro-choice for victims of rape, incest, and for fetuses with clearly definable, severe and life-threatening congenital defects. We need more qualified and better paid teachers in our schools. We need better trained and better paid first-line emergency responders (police, firemen, etc.)

But, despite what many considers anti-conservative beliefs, I usually vote Republican. I think as long as the Democratic Party puts forth its "best and brightest" personified by candidates such as Al Gore and John Kerry, I will continue to vote Republican.

I am, however, acutely aware that this country populace is fractured. Severely fractured. I have never my 54 years seen a country so divided. I don't like what I see. The country seems to be as two plow horses, hitched to the same plow and pulling in opposite directions. George Bush, who I unashamedly voted for - twice - is, by his nature - not a uniting President. Perhaps that is always true of war time Presidents. He will never bring the Great Divide that is the American public together. Ever.

I think that is OK with President Bush. I believe George Bush does what he believes in his heart to be right for this country and, if you like it, fine. If you don't like it, that's fine also. That's George Bush. He's a love me or hate me kind of guy. Maybe that's what we need in these terrorist and perilous times. Only history will decide that issue.

Also, I don't see any rising stars in the Republican party, either. Jeb Bush (Florida) or Mark Sanford (South Carolina)? Bush is too polarizing and Sanford too unknown. John McCain? Better choice, good man but probably not viable in 2008. How about a "I (Heart) New York) ticket of Rudy Guiliani and George Pataki? Again, good men, but both would be out of their depth. Far right fringe candidates, such as the re-invented Pat Buchanan, need not apply.

So, in lieu of a strong Republican ticket, I really think the Democratic party will have an excellent chance to win the Presidency in 2008, if - and it is a very large if - they can move more toward the center on the heartland issues. I - with my pie-in-the-sky optimism - also hope the Democrats and the Republicans can at least discuss issues or growing importance to our country without name calling, race baiting, and hating to share the very air each other breathes.

Despite the long shadow of her past misdeeds (individually and through association with a certain ex-President), and at great risk to my personal safety, I am going to also hope Senator Clinton continues to move more centrist in her views on the "Heartland issues." I am, in turn, willing to compromise with my usual voting preference. I think HRC could be a unifying candidate in 2008 and, further, I think we will need one then, even more than now.

It is not only past time for our country to have a female President, it is high time we started looking at our differences and start working to narrow them. We cannot survive as a country or as a people with our current divisive stands. There is nothing that can defeat this country - economically, culturally, or militarily - except ourselves. If we continue this path of two countries - and that is really what we have become - we will remain too busy caterwauling in each others' direction to address the economic challenges posed by China and India, the cultural challenges posed by growing elitism and poverty, or the military challenges posed by terrorism.

Folks, it is time we all started moving toward each other rather than away. There needs to be dialogue not talking heads screaming at each other on the radio or TV. As a lifelong, firmly right-of-center Republican, I am ready to work some issues out. I hope there are enough P.O.R.'s (see above) like me that are willing to start listening to and stop screaming at the other party.

I know, from long experience, that feelings people have - on the right and the left - regarding highly emotional issues are never going to be changed by rhetoric or logic. I will never logically win over a pro-choice advocate on the issue of abortion. I will never, short of brainwashing worthy of the Manchurian Candidate, ever convince a peace-at-any-cost proponent that the Iraq invasion was the right war at the right time. But that is alright. There are things we can make compromises on. We need to start doing that and stop focusing on what we disagree on or, worse, think we disagree on.

Liberals and conservatives are not, innately, bad people. They really aren't. Michael Moore is not the anti-Christ and, conversely, Bill O'Reilly is not Satan incarnate. We are Americans, first and foremost. We need to start talking about problems and taking baby steps toward finding solutions we can all live with. I hope there are more who see the growing problem and are really ready to try and do something about it. If not, we are in for some even more troubling times ahead. Like pack dogs, our enemies can smell weakness. And with our continued division we will appear weak. Let's not wait for the next 9/11 tragedy to wake up and realize we are all in this together. Same ship, same ocean. If we sink this ship, we are all going down. Not just conservatives and not just liberals.

I will be listening to more from Senator Clinton and other Democratic party leaders. I hope more conservatives will do the same. I hope the Democratic party will also be listening to America's majority, as well. I can't remember who said it, but one of the wisest phrases I know, paraphrasing, is "I have never learned anything from speaking; I have learned much from listening." We should all take those sage words of advice.

What Would it take to get a Bush nominee past Barbara Boxer?

2005-01-26T10:17:00.000-08:00

Surely, it should come as no surprise that the Democratic Party has come out flailing at anything and everything that President George Bush seeks to accomplish in his second term. The humiliation, disorganization and dearth of leadership that lead to the Party's November collapse has brought out an inevitable response from its minions: obstinance. Refusing to accept the cold harsh reality that their Party is completely out of step with the American populace, the Democrats are not taking the high ground by working to enable a functioning, bipartisan government. Instead, they have apparently chosen to regress back to their collective childhood experiences as spoiled, mostly privileged brats. Since the adults spanked them in November, they are going to sit in the corner and hold their breath.

Witness Barbara Boxer's recent catfight with the overwhelmingly classy and immanently qualified Condolezza Rice. If it wasn't so outrageously partisan and totally off the hook, it would be downright hilarious. Barbara Boxer, a two-time senator from northern California (not an area known for it's common sense or even its sobriety) sitting there with her Bachelor's degree from - I'm not making this up - Brooklyn College, NY - trying to get into an intellectual joist with Condolezza Rice. Talk about bringing a bong to a gunfight! The unarmed former "journalist" (she actually lists that as her "Previous Occupation") appeared to be trying to get a rise out of Ms. Rice, by not-so-subtle innuendo, that she was a pathological liar.

The moment Mrs. Boxer’s questioning began, she began to lob her verbal spitballs. In her opening preamble (most Senators give opening remarks in these types of confirmation hearings; Boxer’s was a preamble), she started her attack with:

Boxer: "And if you're going to become the voice of diplomacy, this is just a helpful point. When Senator Voinovich mentioned the issue of tsunami relief, you said -- your first words were ‘The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity for us.’ Now, the tsunami was one of the worst tragedies of our lifetime, one of the worst, and it's going to have a 10-year impact on rebuilding that area. I was very disappointed in your statement. I think you blew the opportunity."

Let’s start picking nits, Barb! Everyone knew where Ms. Rice was going with that comment and her words were clear. Boxer then goes on to gratuitously give Ms. Rice some advice on diplomacy. I am sure Ms. Rice was taking copious notes.

Then, as only a Marin County, California bong smoker could do, she gets even more condescending. Remember, now, this is a white, New York, Jewish woman who dares to quote Martin Luther King to a southern Black woman, the daughter of a minister, no less.

Boxer: "Dr. Rice, I was glad you mentioned Martin Luther King -- was very appropriate, given everything. And he also said -- Martin Luther King -- quote, Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter. And one of the things that matters most to my people in California and the people of America is this war in Iraq. Now, it took you to page three of your testimony to mention the word Iraq. You said very little, really, about it, and only in this questioning have you been able to get into some areas."

What an truly arrogant thing to say. "My people in California," indeed! Now, imagine the reverse situation. Let’s say a Republican Senator from Massachusetts (isn’t that a fantasy!) was questioning a black female from Alabama and dare have the chutzpah to quote Martin Luther King to the black Democrat. Can you just imagine the howls from the Washington Post and New York Times about the vulgar effrontery of the obviously racist Republican Senator! How dare he?

Admirably, Ms. Rice maintained a much higher tone than her questioner. But, not content with merely making a haughty fool of herself, Boxer continued to bait Ms. Rice throughout her "questioning." Boxer launches into a rant about the Iraq campaign worthy of a full-length Michael Moore documentary. She rambles through an extended soliloquy, quite disjointedly and certainly not with any logical point on the horizon, reading off fact after fact about Iraq and concludes, not with a question but with a rousing "So I am deeply troubled. Thank you."

Huh?

With that non sequetur, even Boxer's fellow Democrat, Richard Lugar, the amiable, "Can't we just all get along" Chairman from Indiana, tried to bring some sort of closure to the verbal diarrhea. As Ms. Rice was chomping at the bit to get back at this rambling California clown, he steped in attempting to save Boxer from making a complete fool of herself:

RICE: Senator, may I respond?
LUGAR: Yes. Let me just say that I appreciate the importance of Senator Boxer's statement, that's why we allowed the statement to continue for several more minutes (inaudible) time.
BOXER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I lost track of the time.

[Yeah, those wacky California chicks!]

LUGAR: But, clearly, you ought to have the right to respond. [You think, Richard?] And then, at that point, we're going to have a recess. But will you please give your response?

After Ms. Rice gave an informed, point-by-point reply to Boxer’s 5 minutes of grandstanding, then came the "money" exchange. Having already exceeded her allotted session time, Boxer clung to the microphone like Bill Clinton to a cigar and launched into another attack. It ended in the following exchange:

BOXER: Well, you should you read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that particular vote. But again, I just feel, you quote President Bush when it suits you, but you contradicted him when he said, Yes, Saddam could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. You go on television, nine months later, and said, Nobody ever said it was going to be.
RICE: Senator, that was just a question of pointing out to people that there was an uncertainty, that no one was saying that he would have to have a weapon within a year for it to be worth it to go to war.
BOXER: Well, if you can't admit to this mistake, I hope that you will rethink it.
RICE: Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. [Claws exposed] But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity. Thank you very much.
BOXER: I'm not. I'm just quoting what you said. You contradicted the president and you contradicted yourself.
RICE: Senator, I'm happy to continue the discussion. But I really hope that you will not imply that I take the truth lightly. [Claws at the ready]

At this point, the befuddled Lugar stepped in and called a timeout. Boxer had accomplished her goal which was, crystal clear to anyone watching, to grandstand for her pot-smoking, gay-and-proud-of-it, peace-at-any-cost, save-the-whales-and-the-dolphins constituency back in San Francisco. As a bonus, she scored a major coup for any California politician: a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live which, if not quite as cool as actually hosting SNL, is about as good as Boxer can ever hope for. Only really cool Democrats like Bill Clinton and Al Gore (does anyone actually remember him?) can host SNL; but getting your name in a comedy skit is great for "my people in California."

Now, I am convinced of one thing for sure: If the Democrats are putting up this much malarkey and beating their shoes on the desk over someone with Ms. Rice’s qualifications, what chance does any other Bush appointee have? We all know that the Democrats are still having a raging hissy-fit over Bush’s reelection, but does this trump their usual Party checklist of prerequisites for approval of anyone to a government position? I mean to say, that Dr. Rice (yes, Barbara, she has a Ph.D. and you have, well, some degree in something from Brooklyn College) is all of the things Democrats would normally rubber stamp in a heartbeat. Specifically, she is a minority, she grew up in the segregated South, and she is female! For Heaven’s sake, Barbara, what more do you want? Democrats would kill to have someone like Dr. Rice to run for something - anything - in their party.

Can you imagine the questioning of any nominee for the Supreme Court? The only way you could get any nominee past Barbara Boxer and John Kerry would be for the person to be:

1. Ethnic or Racial Minority
2. Female
3. A Democrat
4. Lesbian

Hillary Clinton would look really slim in those long black robes, wouldn’t she?

Addendum (01/26/2005) - We don't need Hillary after all.

Addendum (01/27/2005) - Seems even Californians thought Boxer was a little overmatched! And, in the interest of being "fair and balanced," one Los Angeles columnist defends Senator Boxer.

Memo To Michael Moore

2005-01-20T14:08:00.000-08:00

Memorandum

To: Michael Moore

From: The American Public

Subject: Your Attempt at "Extreme Makeover"

Having seen your recent appearance at the "People's Choice" awards, I think it would be appropriate to make a few comments on what was, apparently, an effort on your part to improve your physical appearance. Hopefully, it was not a harbinger of more delusional folie de grandeur.

Mike, I realize that you have taken a lot of heat recently from the sinister "right-wing conspirators" (a.k.a "evangelical Christians," "Silent Majority," Republicans, etc.) or - as we like to call them here, the P.O.R. ("People of Religion"). A lot of the comments from your critics in these camps has been, unfairly I might add, about your physical appearance.

Let me first say that these sort of comments have no place when evaluating your craftsmanship as a documentary producer and director. Calling you a "Land Whale" or "Baby Huey" or "the second coming of Orson Welles" has no place in a constructive dialogue about your commercially successful and much discussed Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9-11 documentaries. People who would be so cruel as to say that "you looked like you crawled from the primordial ooze" or that "your blood type is Big Mac" are totally off point.

Also, to point out your inherited physical defects is harsh and wholly irrelevant to discussing your body of work and all that you have been able to accomplish. I understand, as a physician, it is extremely difficult to rise to social and professional prominence of even your modest station when you are afflicted with your particular genetic condition. The "F.U.D.A." syndrome ("fat, ugly, dumb, and asinine") is a serious handicap which has affected many throughout history. Genetics is, indeed, a cruel mistress. For you to have taken this grievous infirmity and played the cards dealt by nature as well as you have is a tribute to you and your determination. To have slept on the floor as a child because no crib could support your prodigious bulk and worn only diapers made from canvas remnants of Michigan Tent & Awning until the age of 12 is the stuff of legend.

In fact, we have come to, dare I say it, respect your curmudgeonly demeanor. By representing yourself as a "man of the common people" while living in a multimillion dollar New York flat, the world has come to regard you as, if not a man of principle, a man of incredible duplicity. Further, to have the courage to appear in public as you do, undaunted by your total lack of decorum, hygiene and style, we have grown to admire your courage. We continue to do so even if we chose not to stand downwind of you for fear of being overcome by the stench of moral and physical decay.

But, now, what are we to think? Have you totally sold out in an attempt to be a part of human society? Have you abandoned all your quaint beastial eccentricities and become a sellout to civility? Have you actually taken a bath? All are questions raised by your recent public spectacle. Say it ain't so, Mikey! We hope you stay just as you are - warts and all - at least until you inevitably succumb to your predetermined fate - obscurity, an inevitable turn as a houseguest on the Surreal Life and early cardiac morbidity. We hope this doesn't mean you will start directing real cinema (we know of your lifelong dream to remake the "Hindenburg Disaster" with you playing the titular role - as the blimp) and stick to what you do best, your annual rectal evacacuation of celluloid.

Turn back now, Mike. It's not too late. Go back to your roots as a purveyor of fallaciousness, obfuscation, and detritus. You have such a talent, shared by so few, for that! Don't try to be something you, clearly, are not. Don't try to take on the likes of Mel Gibson, Steven Spielberg, or Spike Lee. We already have enough real directors. Remain what God and genetics has sentenced you to, i.e. mediocrity. Be proud of even your meager gifts. Remember always, as my dear father was fond of saying, and I paraphrase here for the sake of maintaining a G-Rating, "you can't put a shine on a cow patty."

By the way, we eagerly look forward to your nude shots in National Geographic's "Wildlife of New York" edition.

Whither Goes the "Dream"

2005-01-17T03:36:00.000-08:00

Today, we pay tribute to one of the most influential Americans of my generation, indeed, of any time in our country's history, the Reverend Martin Luther King. As a "child of the 60s," I remember vividly the struggles led by Dr. King and clearly can recall the year my school in Birmingham, Alabama was integrated. We were fortunate, I think now, that our integration with black students, which occurred in 1967 (my junior year of high school) was not only uneventful, it was a truly remarkable time in my life and the lives of my classmates. Our school and the little world we lived in was enriched - culturally, athletically, and educationally - with the addition of black students. We all grew - as students and people - with the experience of integration after years of segregation. The black students I went to school with were interested in the same things I was - an education. We studied together, we sang together, we played athletics together, and we all grew together. And those experiences were all due to the efforts of Dr. King, to whom we pay tribute today, the 76th anniversary of his birth.

As I think back on those stressful but incredibly enlightening times for me, personally, I also look around today bewildered. I wonder about how Dr. King would view the world we live in today. In our times of "political correctness," I wonder how Dr. King would view our society's "progress" toward his goal of integration and racial equality. I think he might be surprised at what he sees. Dr. King fought hard and, ultimately, died for a society that was "color blind." I believe Dr. King wanted one society with equal rights and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race.

As I look around, I see a more pernicious form of segregation today than I saw 20 years ago. It appears to me that we are moving farther and farther away from a "color blind" society and closer and closer to a more subtle, but no less distinct, form of segregation.

To make my point, let me give you a "what if" to think about. What if Rupert Murdock or some other non-black multimillionaire announced to the world, on Martin Luther King Day, that he was starting a new television network. This television network would present programming directed to the white demographic, specifically white adults between the ages of 18 and 49. This network would be called "White Entertainment Television" with the call letters, "WET" The cable and satellite network would also be presenting the first of an annual "Miss White America Pageant" in the summer. In the fall, programming would also include the first of an annual "Image Awards" ceremony which would honor white Americans who have made significant contributions to American society. What if, in making his announcement, the fictitious owner stated:

"White Entertainment Television (WET) is the first and only television network in the United States primarily devoted to the attraction of white viewers. Launched with a paltry $100 million investment in 2000, the white-owned and operated, basic-cable franchise had grown into a diversified, $500 million media enterprise by late 2004. Nonetheless, WET has become much more than just a basic-cable network since its humble beginnings. By 2004, WET Holdings owned and operated a broad array of white-oriented media products, including: White Entertainment Television, the basic-cable network; YSB (Young Sisters and Brothers), a magazine targeted at white youths; White Politics, a magazine offering analysis and commentary on contemporary issues facing white America; Action Pay-Per-View, a national, satellite-delivered, pay-per-view movie channel based in Birmingham, AL.; WET International, a provider of WET programming throughout Scandinavia and other foreign markets; Identity Television, a London-based cable service targeting white European viewers; WET Productions, a subsidiary providing technical and production services to outside companies; WET Radio Network, a radio service providing news and entertainment packages to affiliated stations across the U.S.; and WET Pictures, a joint venture with Blockbuster Entertainment Corporation to produce and distribute white, family-oriented films."

Let me continue to ask what the country's response would be to this white multimillionaire announcing that, starting in January, 2006, his company would be publishing two new magazines. A monthly magazine, "Ivory," would have in depth articles about white leaders in politics, entertainment and sports. The second magazine, a weekly called "Vanilla," would be primarily a news format with current events relating to the white world. Incidentally, the mogul announced that he would be sponsoring, in January, 2006, the first annual "Historically White College All-Star Game" for football.

What do you think the country's response would be to such announcements? I think I know what that response would be. Outrage. Boycotts. Death threats. Protests. Quite probably, mass rioting. My question is simply this: Why is it "politically correct" to have all of the above - i.e. broadcasting networks, beauty pageants, "Image Awards" events, publications, and sports events celebrating one race when they would be abhorrent if these same things were held by another race?

[As an aside, the fictional "press statement" quoted above is actually taken from a company statement taken off Johnson Publishing's web site. Johnson Publishing, founded in 1942 by multimillionaire Robert Johnson, owns and operates all the entities mentioned in the above statement. References to "black" were simply changed to "white." Otherwise, the statement is presented here verbatim.]

In Dr. King's dream for American society, is there a legitimate place for such racial separation? Was not Dr. King's goal integration - not segregation? Indeed, Dr. King was reviled by the "Black Power" movement in his time for seeking integration not separatism, as championed by Malcolm X and his followers. Dr. King was strongly criticized by the Black Power and the Black Muslim sect leaders as misguided and, yes, even an "Uncle Tom" for seeking integration within the American community. Racial integration was anathema to the Black Power and the Black Muslim (now known as Nation of Islam) movements. But, in my understanding, it was integral to the philosophy of Dr. King.

I wonder, now, in our "enlightened" time of political and cultural "correctness," what Dr. King would think of our efforts toward integration? In a time when non-whites (I am not sure that is politically correct but what I mean by that is "persons of color" - is even that P.C.?) enjoy unsurpassed popularity and influence in all fields of endeavor in our society, is there an acceptable rationale for any racial segregation? In my fantasy example, why is it acceptable in our society to have BET and not WET? Why is there no public outcry when an event like "Miss Black America" airs when, if someone actually did propose a "Miss White America" pageant they would be, I have no doubt, called racist, exclusionary, and bigoted? To me, that seems like a paradox. To me, it sounds much more like a manifesto of Black Power than it does the teachings of Dr. King.

Will we ever - can we ever - be one society? A society equal and color blind? Will Dr. King's vision ever be clearly realized or are we slipping, ever so slowly, toward the preaching of a different, more dangerous, type of segregation movement? Specifically, are we becoming a society that is racially "equal but separate?" And, if that is true, I wonder aloud: Is that what Dr. King saw in his dream?

Introducing P.O.R. and Our Effects on the World of Movies

2005-01-12T10:40:00.000-08:00

The "people of religion" (my new, copyrighted, politically-correct phrase for people who believe in God) have been blamed for many things over the ages - e.g famine, the Ten Commandments, persecution of witches, The Lord's Prayer, the Bill of Rights, plagues, locust, the Pledge of Allegiance, tsunamis, etc. I am proudly among this ever-shrinking minority of Americans. We "people of religion" (hereafter, abbreviated, simply "P.O.R."), and others like me, have endured these past condemnations with a combination of pride and a resolute sense that "we have done the right thing."

However, I draw the line when the P.O.R. are blamed for bad movies. You see, according to the esteemed Oliver Stone, the P.O.R. are responsible for the poor box office revenues for his latest release, "Alexander." This $150 million sewer-clogging epic has, according to the latest box office figures, grossed a paltry $35 million in U.S. distribution. The 3-hour snooze-fest garnered negative reviews from the New York Times (which called the script "inane" and that was one of the nicest things the reviewer said) to the San Jose Mercury News (which says, among other things, the movie is "so over the top that you begin to expect The Village People to show up as part of Alexander's war council") and most every stop in between. Even Roger Ebert, that Teddy Bear of reviewers and widely known for being all-too-kind to even the most blatant Hollywood waste (for God’s Sake, he gave Stanley Kubrick’s "Eyes Wide Shut" 4-stars!!), could only meekly offer that "Alexander is not a success, but it is ambitious and risky." Is that a good thing, Roger? Even Colin Farrell, that embodiment of Irish virtue and bleach blond star of the film, acknowledged that friends who had seen the film had told him: "It's not exactly Gladiator."

Despite being bludgeoned to a early death by the reviewers, Oliver refused to accept any blame for both writing and directing "Alexander" directly into the commode. Oh, contraire, mon ami! He has chosen to take the low ground. According to the Oscar winning director, the real culprits behind his film’s early exit from theaters near you was, you might have guess already, we P.O.R.

In an interview given in London and reported by the Associated Press, Stone said the film's commercial failure in the United States could be linked to "a raging fundamentalism in morality in the U.S." He elaborated further, and more geographically, when he said "From day one audiences didn't show up. They didn't even read the reviews in the south because the Media was using the words, 'Alex the gay.' As a result you can bet that they thought, 'We're not going to see a film about a military leader that has got something wrong with him."'

Old Ollie goes even further. He also blames the United States’ invasion of Iraq for the film’s poor box-office performance. In one interview, he claimed audiences saw too many similarities between Alexander the Great’s invasions to that of President Bush. He was quoted : "Because Alexander at times sounds like George (W) Bush, (people) get the two confused. I think it makes people feel queasy about empire and the concepts that Alexander espoused but Alexander was not attacking the east in order to drain it of its resources. He stayed in the east." Ollie is implying, of course, that Alexander the Great (a.k.a. "Queer Eye for the Macedonian Guy") was pure of purpose when he invaded the Middle East. We, of course, are just doing it to grab oil reserves."

The comparisons were also not lost on the intellectual Colin Farrell, the mini-toga wearing, waxed-leg hero of the film. He was quoted by Anthony Breznican (November 24, 2004) of the AP as saying "The film was never made for the purposes of a correlation or to say anything about today's present state. People say history repeats itself, well it does in different ways, shapes and forms. This was kind of a freaky coincidence that our story takes place exactly where all the madness we're all talking about takes place now." When Colin Farrell talks history, people listen!

Richard Corliss, writing in Time magazine, attributes much too much insight to the film. He suggests that the film is an allegory for our time: "This Alexander is a clear model for George Bush, pursuing destiny or delusion from the civilized West into Babylon-Baghdad, completing the quest George H.W. Bush left unfinished."

Of, for pity’s sake, people! Let’s just agree that the film is a giant vacuum - it just plain sucks.

Critics can be truthful and say it’s just really bad or they can really stretch and say things like "it may be really bad but it has a message." It certainly does have a message. The message is, clearly, even Oscar-winning directors can sometimes produce Scheiße. [Nota Bene: You’ll need a German dictionary for that last word.]

To conclude, Ollie has said, when discussing his latest movie, "I operate on my passion and sometimes I'm naive, I don't think about the consequences." Note to Ollie: When you are spending $150 million of someone else’s money, you might want to start thinking of the that little detail of consequences. Just a thought from a lowly P.O.R.

Even Stupidity Can be Understood If You Think it Through

2005-01-11T10:40:00.000-08:00

This will be a relatively short entry today as I am still going through a personal intellectual crisis that prohibits me from doing anything insightful or thought-provoking. Allow me to explain.

This morning, I had an epiphany: After reading the news from several media outlets, I suddenly - as Marlon Brando’s Colonel Kurtz character in "Apocalypse Now" said "like a diamond bullet straight into my forehead" - I am totally disconnected from the world around me. I just don’t understand anything anymore. The news I read suddenly seems so nonsensical and irrational. Is it just me? I wonder.

Let me just put this single news item, from the Associated Press, as an example. Please read this and then let me explain why I have obviously lost my dial tone to world’s logic network. News article follow:
______________________________________
DETROIT (Jan. 11) - David Livingstone says the idea behind the economic boycott he's organizing is simple: If people don't show up at work or buy things, companies lose money. As he sees it, that's money the Bush administration can't tax, and can't use to run the war in Iraq, protect polluters or chip away at the Constitution.
So the Detroit Democrat and a handful of other anti-Bush groups across the country are urging others of like mind to withhold their cash and labor on Inauguration Day - from all businesses. They don't think they'll inflict a huge economic pain, but they do want to make a point.
''I view the inauguration of Bush as a black Thursday for this country,'' Livingstone says. ''We've tried marching in the streets to stop the war, we tried writing letters, we tried initiatives on the Web, but Bush doesn't listen. It seems to us the only thing Bush and the Republicans will listen to is money.''
Livingstone, a 41-year-old writer, hopes to be in Washington for the Jan. 20 festivities, which for him means protests, black armbands and backs turned to the parade route.
And he's vowing not to buy gas, food or use his credit card that day: He wants the GOP, big oil, big banking, big box stores and any other ''bigs'' to know they can't push him around or ignore him - at least not on Jan. 20.
The White House is taking all the boycott talk in stride. Bush ''is proud that we live in a society where people are free to peacefully express their opinions,'' spokesman Jim Morrell says.
Other groups nationwide, many loosely connected through the Internet, have put out calls similar to Livingstone's. Jesse Gordon, 44, of Cambridge, Mass., spreads the word through his Web site, Not One Damn Dime! Gordon doesn't expect to shake the economy, but does want to see the president recognize dissent. ''I think Bush should acknowledge the boycott. If we're effective, he'll know about it, and he should acknowledge it,'' Gordon says.

[End of AP Report]
________________________________________________
OK, let me see if I can get this straight. This is a man who lives in Detroit, Michigan. He is going to Washington to be at the President’s Inauguration ceremony on January 20. His aim is, as best I can understand, to express his protest of President Bush taking office. He is going to do this by - here comes the confusing part - "not buying gas, food, or use his credit card" on January 20. His logic is - again I am a little shaky here - if he, and enough others like him, can withhold purchases that day, they will make companies lose money and it will hurt the country’s economy. And by hurting the economy, there will be less tax dollars and companies will contribute less to President Bush's re-election. [Oh, wait. Scratch that last part; Bush can't run again. Sorry]

Fair enough. Now, let me think about this some more. He is traveling from his home in Detroit to Washington (512 miles, according to MapQuest) and back home. That’s over 1000 miles. I assume, under more happy circumstances for Mr. Livingstone, he would not be taking this trip. So, by deductive logic, it is an extra expense to his usual lifestyle. Then, he will stay in Washington for a day or two, presumably, in a motel (judging by his picture in the AP News article, he looks like a "motel" as opposed to a "hotel" kind of guy). Another expense he, though I may be wrong, would not ordinarily have. Unless he is going to starve (protesters call this a "fast" though) for the entire trip, I am going to again go out on a limb here and assume he is going to eat somewhere and sometime on the road. Again, the expense of food and, possibly, drinks he would not be paying for back in good old Detroit. All for the purpose of economically protesting President’s Bush Inauguration.

Does anyone, other than me, see any problems with this? This, presumably, sane man is going to participate in an economic protest by spending money into the nation’s economy that he wouldn’t ordinarily spend.

Please, I beg you, if anyone is reading this, explain to me: Would it not make more sense - at least if he is trying to accomplish his stated goal - if he stayed in bed in Detroit and slept all day or watched his soap operas or Jon Stewart, and never got out of bed? Wouldn't that be a more focused economic protest?

Oh, wait, I take all that back. I truly am a silly old man. It’s not about the protest at all! Now I get it. It’s not really about protesting President or anything else; it’s about getting some bored, inane reporter for some - any! - news outlet to write a dumb story about you. Then you get your name and a really bad picture of yourself in the news. Then this incredibly unfortunate, genetically anyway, man can get some liberal arts college chicks to go out with him! Well, DUH!

You see? When you think things through, sometimes you really can understand the world around you. But, alas, only sometimes.

Addendum - 01-20-2005: My friend Steve Lee suggested this site for a counter protest for this wing nut. It sounds like a good idea.

On Hypocrisy and Chicken Little

2005-01-09T06:25:00.000-08:00

"For neither man nor angel can discern
Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks
Invisible, except to God alone"
John Milton, Paradise Lost

Infuriating in my youth but increasingly humorous as I stand unsteadily in the rocky land called (with apologies to Tolkien) "Middle Age," I find the hypocrisy of the liberal news media as amusing as it is astonishing. I will cite a recent example of how growing old and knowing the sound of past howlings of the political left make today’s screeching so very laughable.

Harken back, if you are able and among those of us who survived them, to the early 1960s. The world was being jarred awake to the tenuous balance nature was holding against the rising tide of the human population. The post-World War II "baby boom" saw the world’s population growing by leaps and bounds. We, in America, sought ways to increase crop production and farmable land to feed ours - and as is our sworn duty - the world’s bedraggled hoards abroad.

One of the boons to increasing agriculture productivity was the use of the pesticide DDT. DDT was developed as the first modern insecticide early in World War II. It was initially used with great effects to combat malaria, typhus and other insect-born diseases among both military and civilian populations. It was used on post-war U.S. crops in the late 1940s. It was very effective on food and industrial crops (such as cotton) and agricultural productivity increased. The number of lives saved worldwide by the use of DDT to almost eradicate vector-borne diseases such as yellow fever and malaria are inestimable

Then, of course, along came Rachel Carson. One of the early tree-huggers, Ms. Carson wrote the enduring environmental classic "Silent Spring." Upon it’s publication and, in particular, through excerpts printed in - you guessed it - New Yorker Magazine, Ms. Carson achieved instant fame and celebrity in the inner circles of the elite - specifically academia, limousine liberals, and Democrats.

As the cacophony of outrage rose to a fever pitch, the Chicken Littles began crying out "The sky is falling." Well, maybe not the sky, but the environment. "We are poisoning our planet!" they all cried out. DDT, it seemed, at least according to the esteemed Ms. Carson was killing wildlife. That was her thesis. Arcane, at least at the time, phrases like "food chain" were bantered about, first by the liberal press and, inevitably, by the finger-wagging Democrats.

And it came to pass, that Congress - during the Kennedy-Johnson years, when else? - directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the use of DDT in the United States. In 1972, the legislation took effect and was followed, in due course, by a U.S. imposed worldwide ban. Though we still have not developed an adequate broad-spectrum pesticide, the DDT ban remains in effect today.

Now, gentle reader, flash forward to today. Now, with the death rates from vector-borne diseases claiming millions of lives throughout the world, and DDT remaining on the shelves, who should come out of the woodwork but that liberal, environmental sensitive, rampart of liberalism, the New York Times. In an editorial of January 8. 2005 by Nicholas D. Kristof (he of the "Land of the Penny Pinchers" editorial just the week before) has written another symphony of half-hearted outrage entitled "It’s Time To Spray DDT." In a startling reversal (the sort which hides hypocrisy behind righteous indignation), Kristof writes:

"If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

"It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

"I'm thrilled that we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.

"One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world's poor - by opposing the use of DDT."

Ok, so now the government is not guilty of killing the environment by using DDT, we are guilty of killing people for not using DDT. The editorial is dripping with the usual New York Times finger-wagging, hand-wringing, "we are evil rich suppressing the helpless poor," "why don’t we do something" detritus. Kristof includes this bit of pharisaism in his polemic:

"Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950's as children played in the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria."

Rachel Carson be damned! I would be willing to bet a large sum of money (if I had such a sum that would be considered "large" by anyone's standards) that, if Kristof was old enough to scribble anything in the 1960s, he would have come out firmly against the horrors of using DDT to kill anything, including mosquitos. However, now the worms have turned, The leftists now believe DDT is good and we are, once again, the villains for not spraying it all over the world to save the downtrodden masses of poor and oppressed. I feel an overwhelming sense of nausea. But, then, I am older now and I do find solace and remedy from the sweet irony of it all.

Age does have its own rewards. The pendulum of hypocrisy never stops swinging. Now that the environment is safe from capitalist thugs - the few, the proud, the Americans - we must do an about face and start marching in the opposite direction. After all, we are the alpha and omega of the world’s woes, are we not? I certainly feel like I am and, considering my accusers, it gives me a warm glow on a cold winter’s night.

Addendum #1: Malaria is coming! Malaria is coming! Break out the DDT! And do it quick!

Addendum #2: Someone must be reading this BLOG! An article is written with the same theme.

Terrorism and TV

2005-01-06T08:25:00.000-08:00

In his most recent New York Times "Arts" commentary, that bastard - er, excuse me, that should read "bastion" - of liberal, Bush-bashing, Michael Moore-loving (etc. etc.) Frank Rich makes the argument that fiction writers do a better job presenting the terrorism threats than does the current Administration. As he spews his usual venom about what he percieves are the shortcomings of our government's efforts to fight terrorism, I am forced to admit that one of his points, but only one, is correct. He does mention, in passing, that the Fox series "24" - or the "Perils of Jack Bower" - is a good fictional drama.

"24," which stars Keiffer Sutherland as the perpetually in-motion-and-in-danger Counter Terrorism Unit operative, Jack Bauer," is an excellent drama. The writing is unbelievable and the intersecting plot llines top anything I have seen in most movies, much less current television drama. It is a source of wonder and awe to me how the writers can make an hour-by-hour drama of one day in Jack Bauer's life fill out a 24 episode drama season. If I had Jack Bauer's life, I would crawl into a cave in northeast Pakistan, run Osama out, and hide. Jack has more crises and drama in "24" hours than Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan (what is it about the name "Jack," anyway?) has in a really bad decade. It is an excellent show, probably in my top 5 list of current television.

Now, back to the Frank Rich "commentary." First of all, having read most of Rich's diatribes over the past year ( not for the information that I might gleen, mind you, but merely to see what garbage he can actually get past whatever editors the Times have left) I sincerely wonder how these op-eds are run under the Times' "Arts" section. It is my understanding that the Arts section is for reviewing movies, television, books, plays, and entertainment. Rich has redefined what the "Arts" section should be, i.e. his private soapbox for trashing anything that is not liberal, left-leaning, socialist, Democratic or, at the very least, anti-establishment. When Michael Moore, my all-time leading candidate for emergency gastric bypass surgery, comes out with his next trash-u-mentary on health care delivery in America, take my word for it: It will get both thumbs up (if, indeed, he has thumbs at all) from Frank Rich. If Whoopie Goldberg, the next project for "Extreme Makeover - Personal Edition," does a profane, hatefilled, anti-everything standup comedy at New York’s ApolloTheater, it will be "boffo" box office for Rich.

After trashing everything related to the first term of the Bush Adminstration - for the life of me, I cannot see where the column has any other purpose - he appears to be arguing that fiction writers and Hollywood do a better job presenting possible terror threats to the American public than does Homeland Security. I struggle, like Sisyphus, to try and understand his point. Is he porposing that Homeland Security and the Defense Department should be making educational films on "How to Survive A Terrorist Attack?" I am not at all sure I want to see an educational film in our schools on "The Child's Guide to Finding Your Parents After a Dirty Bomb." Those films I remember from the 50s and 60s on how to get under your desk and hide your eyes from an atomic bomb or how to build a home fallout shelter caused more paranoia than provided any useful information.

Surely, even someone as fixated on fear and hate as Rich does not believe our government should do this. But, what are we to think when Rich concludes his latest harangue with:
"As 2005 begins, we must confront the prospect that a fictional TV action hero is more engaged with the war on terror than those in Washington who actually have his job."

What does this mean? Does it mean that Jack Bower does a better job than our current counter terrorist agents? Well, he probably does in his fictional world. That is the type of logic that would say "President Thomas Whitmore [played by Bill Pullman in "Independence Day"] does a better job fighting space aliens than our current President." Or, does he mean that "President Beck [played by Morgan Freeman in "Deep Impact"] does a better job handling a crisis than President Bush." Ok, I will grant that both are probably true. But, Rich must have missed the memo that was intended to remind him that "movies and TV are not the real world." In case he did, let me paraphrase for Mr. Rich: "Yo, Frank! What you are reviewing are works of fiction; they do not actually happen in the real world."

I think Frank Rich is starting to believe his own hype. He is trying to use his back-of-the-newspaper "Arts and Entertainment" column to indulge an ego that is as inflated as his torso. In my opinion, Rich uses his review - and the label "review" is applied very tenuously - columns to foist his extreme political and social views on his unfortunate readership. Luckily, for his continued employment, his readers - save this Southern aberration - are residents of grand old N.Y.C. People of that demographic and geographic ilk (remember, these are the people who elected Hillary Clinton as their Senator after, what, 12 days of residency?) are apparently entertained by Rich’s nonstop, repetitive, partisan illogicality. While I do find his extremism entertaining in a snide sort of way, I really wonder how he can still write under the Arts section.

Regardless, I think Frank Rich needs to cut back on his fiction input. He probably needs to spend a day or two reading the more important sections of his own newspaper or, better still, reading a newspaper from "the real world" so he can clear his mind of his warped fantasies. Then he will know that there are, indeed, Jack Bauers and Jack Ryans who work in reality and actually die doing their jobs. While the hero seldom dies in Rich’s world, they really do in reality.

The "No Fad" Diet Trumpets Success!

2005-01-05T04:49:00.000-08:00

In an unusual departure from protocol, today we are featuring a news release about a fad diet. I found it's information too valuable to omit from this web log. Press release follows:

New Diet Reports Mediocre Results

Wednesday, January 5, 2005 Posted: 7:41 AM EST (1241 GMT)

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (DisAssociated Press)

Dr. Leopold Smeglin published today, in the prestigious Journal of Extreme Makeovers, amazing results of his "Low-Fad" Diet which included over 1000 failed diet patients. Dr. Smeglin was quoted as saying: "If you can convince someone that a diet can cause them to lose weight - preferably, without any effort on their part - people will try it. That's why I am selling the "Low-Fad" Diet. And making a mint, by the way!"

Dr. Smeglin, an honors graduate from the University of Mogadishu (Somalia), went on to describe the diet as being the "Low Fad Diet." He explained: "People are convinced that a diet has to restrict them from something - anything - before it will work. The Atkins Diet says you cannot have carbohydrates; the Ornish Diet says you cannot have fat. So, with our diet, people can pick what they want to deprive themselves of. It's easy and it makes my diet easier to follow."

According to Dr. Smeglin, people simply eliminate from their daily meals something they generally don’t eat anyway - the less you enjoy eating it, the more effective the diet will be - and eat everything else, as much as they like. For example, if you have a dislike broccoli, just continue not eating broccoli. Everything else it allowable. If you hate raw egg yolks, then you must resolve to never eat raw egg yolks again. Dr. Smeglin said that "calories, fat content and grams of carbs are not really important. What’s important is that dieter’s feel like they are giving up something - anything - in order for a diet to work."

He went on to say another other important factor in any successful diet is to let people know that being overweight is really not their fault. "It’s important for people to hear the words, over and over, ‘it’s not your fault’ in any diet. They should chant it on the way to work and before they go to sleep. Overweight people, and people in general, enjoy the feeling that their problems are out of their control. They like to believe that the negative things about their lives and, for that matter, the world, are out of their control. They need to hear that they, individually, are not responsible for negative things. It just makes people feel better."

In his study of somewhat over 1000 patients, Dr. Smeglin said, that an impressive 2% of his patients lost an average of 2 pounds and kept the weight off, on average, almost 3 months. While admitting that weight regain occurred in virtually all patients, Dr. Smeglin said "Any diet will fail eventually, given enough time."

When asked what the most attractive thing was about his diet, Dr. Smeglin replied: "I think the emphasis on lack of having to really make any significant changes appeals to most patients. We make sure to tell them they don’t need to exercise or any of that other silly stuff. Exercise, keeping a food diary, or showing any self control are just too darned inconvenient!"

In closing, Dr. Smeglin had a message for anyone who is starting a New Year’s resolution for losing weight. He said: "Always remember, it’s not your fault. If you follow my diet, you may not lose weight but, darn it, you can always blame it on someone or something else. Just give up one thing - one thing you don’t eat anyway - and you will have done enough. You made an effort. At least, you can fool yourself into thinking you have done enough. And that’s what’s important!"

____________________________________________________
Copyright 2005 DisAssociated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Generation Gaps

2005-01-02T16:55:00.000-08:00

For the past 20 years, my mother and father were "digital dinosaurs." They were perfectly content to watch video tapes, the History Channel and Animal Planet on their aged 27 inch television. When I say "aged" I mean a TV that does have any input other than a cable connection. No "Video 1", "Video 2," no surround sound, etc. Just a simple circa 1995 TV sans any and all bells and whistles. As an aside, I commented to my Dad when he bought the TV in the late 1990s that it seemed like an older model. His comment was "It’s new and it was on sale!" He seemed very proud of the "it was on sale" part.

I, on the other hand, enjoyed big-screen TV with multiple video and audio inputs. When I would tell my parents about the latest developments in home entertainment, their eyes would sort of glaze over and they would nod politely and ask me if I could copy the new DVDs onto their familiar, comfortable VHS tape format. They were disappointed that I could no longer share videos I buy with them to watch. I couldn’t connect a DVD player to their archaic TV due to their single cable input. The situation cried out for final solution.

For Father Day in 2004, I bought my Dad (and my Mom, really) a brand new TV with built-in DVD and VCR players. They were very happy with the gift but I saw in their eyes the bigger issue in their mind: how will we ever learn how to use this complicated bit of digital machinery? To make a long story short, with a little handholding and supervision, my wonderful parents are now enjoying digital video technology with aplomb.

Christmas also brought a little high-tech (remember, it's all relative here) mystery into their lives when I bought them a dual-handset cordless phone setup for their home. While I understood completely their need to have me make all the connections and set the units up, I did smile to myself at my Dad’s first question. I hooked up the base unit and put the satellite unit down in their den, no where near a RJ11 connector or a telephone line. After testing the system calling from my (you didn't think they had one, did you?) cell phone, my Dad asked, quite straight-faced, "How does the set not connected with the phone line know to ring when a call comes in?" Rather than confuse him any more than he already was, I simply said "Dad, it’s magic." He seemed content with that explanation.

I spent the rest of Christmas morning performing a little more "magic" on my parent’s atomic clock (also, a previous son-to-parent gift) which was, in my Dad’s best techno-speak, "not working any more." After replacing the battery and reestablishing its "magic" my Dad seemed proud to tell me, for at least the 33rd time, "Do you know that clock gets set by a radio signal somewhere in Colorado?" I gave my best "Wow!" look and replied, "Really? That’s amazing isn’t it?" My final task for the morning was to adjust the bass and tenor of the sound system of their new TV. While my folks know where the "Power" and "Play" buttons are on their admittedly busy remote control, those pesky menu items are still a little confusing.

When all the technological repairs and adjustments were complete, my Dad humbly apologized for all the "trouble" of these trivial little tasks on Christmas morning. I am glad he did because it allowed my to tell him something I had been thinking about for some time. What I said, certainly paraphrased here, went something like this:

"Dad, I know this sort of thing seems easy for me and it is. This is the sort of stuff I grew up using. I had a computer way back in 1979 and have been using them ever since. I bought a VCR back when they cost over $300 and a DVD player when they were almost the same price. [As an aside, I am what is known in consumer marketing as an "early adopter" of new technology. A gadget geek would be a more apt description.] It really is easy for me. But, Dad, if you put me out in your workshop with a stack of your wood and all your tools and asked me to build a birdhouse or, worse, a dog house, I would feel just like you do with a remote control. I would be lost and feel completely overwhelmed."

I continued, "Dad, your generation grew up to fight World War II and came home to build this country with the sweat of your brow and by working with your hands. You know things that I will never know: The hunger of a depression, the horror of a World War, and spent most of your life building all the things people my age and my children's age take, so often, for granted. Just because you need a little help with new stuff, it doesn’t lessen anything you and your generation have accomplished and made possible for me and those that follow. You can still do stuff I couldn’t do if I tried."

My Dad smiled and seemed more than a little pleased. He seemed a little more proud and appeared to make an effort to sit a little straighter in his chair. He didn’t say anything, as is his custom, and quickly turned to finishing with the usual Christmas morning activities. I was probably more pleased than he to have said what I have known was true for some time. My generation may be more "technologically savvy" than our parents but I am quite sure we aren’t nearly as wise as they are. We may have more knowledge but I am equally sure we don’t have nearly as much wisdom. Their wisdom was forged in a completely different furnace - the furnace of hard times.

His generation, specifically those born in the 1910s and 20s, made this country great. They are the ones that built the infrastructure that we drive over and communicate over today. They built the great dams that provide electricity and had the wisdom to protect our great wildernesses and natural wonders. They faced the biggest crises in our history and brought our nation through them, better and stronger than before. As Tom Brokaw describes them, they are truly "the greatest generation."

So, the next time you have to do something for your parents that gives you a fleeting feeling of superiority, just remember: each generation gives something to those that follow them. I am completely sure my generation (i.e. those born after 1950) will come nowhere near contributing what my parents’ generation gave to our country. I am sadly sure that the generation behind mine will have contributed even less.

As for my wonderful parents, I look forward in 2005 to introducing them to some more "new" technology. Maybe a cell phone or, in a monumental leap forward, a computer. I may have to sedate Dad for that one. But teaching them something new will, in some small way, show them how much I appreciate what they have done for me.

Lessons - Good and Bad - From 2004

2004-12-31T06:00:00.000-08:00

Now that 2004 is coming to an end, let it be a time for all of us to reflect back on the year. It was a monumental year in many ways. Lessons and wisdom to be learned abound, at least for me personally, in a year truly like none I can remember. As Patrick Henry once said, "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past." Let us be guided by experience, and reflect upon the experiences of 2004.

Things I learned from 2004, good and bad, in no particular order of importance:

1. Celebrities are, by and large, not taken very seriously by the majority of Americans. I learned this during the 2004 elections as I saw "celebrity" after "celebrity" cry out to minorities, America's youth, and to anyone who might listen to "Vote or Die." Screaming from MoveOn.org, MTV, VH1, and every rooftop in Beverly Hills to vote for the Democratic candidates. While cleverly avoiding mentioning any particular candidate as prescribed by Federal Election Commission rules, they wanted Bush out and the John Kerry in. Fortunately, with all their ranting and raving they only accomplished one thing: alienating most of America who were offended by silly, superficial "celebrities" telling them what they should do and, worse, what they should think.

2. You're never lonely if you enjoy your own company.

3. The world is at the mercy of the forces of nature. From the awesome fury of the fall hurricanes in the Southeastern U.S. to the horror of the Christmas tsunami in Southeast Asia, all our technology and all the king's horses could not put the world back together again. At least not right away and not without great tragedy and loss.

4. Husbands kill their wives with frightful frequency in the U.S.

5. Islam, Christianity and Judaism have been at war for over two millennia and, by all apparent reasoning and experience, will never peacefully coexist.

6. It's never a bad idea to admit you are wrong or, better still, to admit you don't know the answer. The older I get, the more I realize what I don't know.

7. Web logs (BLOGs) are fun, cathartic, and - at times - informative and entertaining. BLOGs are the Gutenberg press for the third millennium. Everyone is an author.

8. All book publishers and most music and movie producers will produce anything they think might sell. As a corollary, people will buy almost anything. If Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton can write and sell books, William Hung can sell a "music" CD and Michael Moore can produce and make money from movies, I have all the proof I need. P.T. Barnum was right: a sucker IS born every minute.

9. What we have - individually and collectively - should never be taken for granted.

10. Mel Gibson is much more than a good actor.

11. You don't need talent to be "famous" in today's American culture. See item #8.

12. Elections in our democracy have been irrevocably damaged since the 2000 vote count. Now and forever, if the vote count does not go as a candidate or a party wants, the courts will decide who wins. Corollary: There is no longer the honorability of a "graceful loser." The term "honorable loser" has, sadly, become an oxymoron like "jumbo shrimp."

13. Western civilization has passed its zenith and is on a rather slippery downward slope.

14. Despite the self-promotion talents of Brittany Spears, she is not "the American Dream;" Bill Gates is the American Dream.

15. "Political Correctness," whatever it that may be, is a plague on America. To be "PC" in everyone's eyes is to say nothing and to believe nothing. It, in my opinion, may prove our greatness failing. When will we ever learn: you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time? Why must we try?

I learned a great deal in 2004. Some I share here, more painful lessons I shall keep to myself. I do still believe in the values proposed by our Founding Fathers but I also cannot help but see their hold on us is loosening. I was encouraged by the voter response in 2004 and see that we, as a people, have not yet given up on America. I still have hope for our country but we should never lose sight of what we sacrificed to be who we are. (See item #9).

God Bless you all and I hope and pray that 2005 will be a happier year. I close with a quote from Charles Hamilton Aïdé:

I sit beside my lonely fire
And pray for wisdom yet:
For calmness to remember
Or courage to forget.

Judeo-Christian Guilt versus Muslim Practicality

2004-12-30T05:27:00.000-08:00

Nothing better contrasts the divide between Western, self-imposed guilt and the stark realities of the Muslim religion than a couple of news items over the past year. Specifically, I refer to cultural differences in the proper way to handle illegal immigrants in predominantly Judeo-Christian countries (read: America) and those predominantly Muslin (e.g. Malysia). To examine this single issue speaks volumes about the way these countries and their people deal with "outsiders."

In our first example, let us look at our own country. We are certainly a multicultural land and our country was founded on the premise that all are created equal and all, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc. are deserving of the same benefits and protections under the law. Over the last 100 years, we have established a formalized method for immigrants to come to our country and, through a process, become full citizens of America. We issue nearly 150,000 "green cards" annually for immigrants to legally live and work in the U.S. "Illegal" immigration continues at an estimated rate of 8-10,000 per day and has become a much-debated issue with rising unemployment among documented citizens and, particularly, after the 9/11 attacks.

How do we, as a culture and a people, propose to deal with the ever-rising tide of illegal immigrants? Our President has declared that "the nation has failed millions of illegal immigrants who live in fear of deportation," and in January, 2004 proposed an ambitious plan that would allow undocumented workers to legally hold jobs in the US for the first time. The program that would bestow temporary legal status for at least 6 years on 8 million undocumented immigrants, as long as they keep their jobs. But it would not automatically put them on a path to obtaining citizenship or even permanent resident status. He said recently "We must make our immigration laws more rational, and more humane. I believe we can do so without jeopardizing the livelihoods of American citizens." What Bush calls his "temporary worker" program was eagerly embraced by business groups but condemned as stingy and impractical by advocates for immigrants. Many said it has little chance of passing Congress in the form Bush described.

So, once again, we must make amends for our sins. What sin is this, you ask? The sin of being a prosperous nation with a high living standard and land of great opportunity. In my opinion, it is analogous to the bee apologizing to the bear who is raiding the hive for the bee's honey. It goes like this:

"Mr. Bear, I am so sorry to have made such wonderful, nutritious and tasty honey. Mea culpa! It was so wonderful that it has attracted you, through no fault of your own, to my hive. You have eaten the honey that I produced by the hard work and sweat of my brow but I won't sting you because it is clearly my fault. You couldn't help yourself and, besides, I can always make more. Though some of us will starve this winter from lack of honey, we shouldn't blame you. Slurp on, Mr. Bear and I will get back to work."

Perhaps, a real-life example will be better appreciated. According to Heather Mac Donald, reporting in the Dallas Morning News, "Fear of offending the race and rights lobbies has trumped national security at DHS. This spring, for example, Asa Hutchinson -- the department's undersecretary for Border and Transportation Security and now a contender for the top job -- shut down a successful border-patrol initiative to catch illegal aliens.A specially trained team had apprehended about 450 border trespassers in several Southern California cities. The Los Angeles Times, La Raza and every other advocacy group for illegal aliens protested that the arrests were racially motivated and that they were 'scaring' illegal aliens."

God Forbid, we scare the illegal aliens! This is the way the Judeo-Christian mind is supposed to work and has worked for centuries.

As contrast, let us examine the Muslim way of dealing with the same problem. Malaysia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. As background, you should know that, beginning in the 1970's, an Islamic revival called the dakwah movement has rapidly taken hold, mostly among young, educated urban Muslims. They sought to return to the fundamental beliefs of Islam, inspired by Islamic movements in other parts of the world, including the 1979 revolution that established an Islamic government in Iran. The dakwah movement contributed to a growing Islamization of Malaysian life. Malyasia is one of the most prosperous nations in Asia.

A a comparatively well-to-do country in Asia, illegal immigration from Thailand and other neighboring countries has become an increasing problem to the native Malaysians. In 2004, the Malaysian government announced an "amnesty period" during which an estimated one million illegal immigrants can return home without penalty. Loosely quoting from Amnesty International, mass deportations could start at any time. Penalties include jail, fines and caning [for the uniniatiated, "caning" is much like flogging; bamboo stalks are used instead of whips and/or chains]. Malaysian government officials acknowledge the contribution to the economy that foreign labour makes. After mass deportations in 2002 there were severe labour shortages in the construction and plantation sectors, prompting the authorities to ease the immigration process for certain industries. Malaysia has refused over the years to offer protection to refugees on its territory as it is not a party to the UN Convention on Refugees. Home Minister Azmi Khalid told Agence France-Presse recently there would be no change in plans to deploy more than half a million Malaysian members of volunteer neighborhood security groups to track down and detain the illegal migrants.

A distinct difference in philosophy, no? In the Malaysian government and, I have to assume, the Malaysian mind, if we need labor, come on in. When we no longer need laborers, we will, if you're lucky, jail or fine you. If you are not so lucky, we will summarily cane you. The cutoff seems to be around 3-4% unemployment. If unemployment in Malaysia drops below 4%, come on down! If it goes above 4%, you could get caned. In Malaysia, the bee still, apparently, resents the bear's gluttony.

Before we collectively start wringing our hands in horror over the Malaysian government's "insensitivity" to the rights of illegal immigrants, we need to cut them some slack. After all, in response to the tragedy of the December tsunami, the Malaysian goverernment, in a robust display of benevolence and empathy, announced the amnesty period for getting the hell out of Malaysia has been extended to January 31, 2004. You want to see compassion? Now, that's what I call institutional humanity and charity!

Perhaps it is time America to truly embrace some of "humaneness" of the Islamic faith. Let us learn from other faiths and governments and incorporate some of their high ideals in dealing with some of our own problems. The only problem I see, though, is where the heck are we going to get all that bamboo cane?

The Guilt of Disaster (or "How to Get Millions in Aid from America")

2004-12-29T04:03:00.000-08:00

Is anyone, other than me, more than a little angered by the recent negative news about our country and its perceived lack of charity for the tsunami victims in southeast Asia? Well, I am thoroughly peeved.

I am, let me assure my gentle readers, deeply sympathetic for the victims of such a monumental disaster. This once-in-a-century (or two) catastrophe is a horror for its victims, probably as great as any in recorded history. I am saddened as I hear stories of the hundreds of thousands dead, injured, or homeless. The loss of human lives and property will be disastrous for the region.

What I have another completely different set of emotions - namely, anger, outrage, intense frustration - for is the apparent U.N. doctrine that we, as the world's most productive and "rich" country, are "stingy" and somehow responsible for the whole mess. I will go so far as to say I am thoroughly ticked off.

By now, with the liberal-leaning mass media trumpeting these criticisms of our country (as they always do), you are familiar with the story. U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland, a Norwegian, said on 12/27/2004 that "If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous."

This from an overpaid [I have no idea what he is paid but, if he works for the U.N., I am sure he is paid out of proportion to what he actually accomplishes - such is the nature of that august organization] paper pusher for an organization widely known as the great "Black Hole" of charitable institutions. The more "contributions" the U.N. demands from the world's countries, the less it accomplishes and the more bloated it becomes. The more money they "guilt" from our country and others, the more corruption they ooze out and the more officials they can overpay to criticize the Western world, our cultures and, of course, our "stinginess."

[Rhetorically, I ask Mr. Egeland: Exactly how much did the U.N. (and the rest of the world) contribute to disaster relief and rebuilding in the southeastern U.S. after this fall's catastrophic, multi-billion dollar onslaught of a record number of hurricanes?]

Perhaps he would be better served to ask Koffi Annan and his son and all the other corrupt U.N. flunkies to simply write out a check from their soaring bank accounts, recently filled to capacity from skimming off the Iraqi "Oil-For-Food" Program, and take care of the whole disaster? Maybe he could get more sympathy (read: dollars) from countries actually in that regions of the world (Russia and China, perhaps?) instead of singling out countries like ours, on the other side of the globe? I don't hear of any major contributions coming from the oil (and cash) rich countries of the Middle East (save Saudi Arabia) - who share the Muslim religion with the countries most affected by the disaster - do you?

At last count here's the scorecard as of 12/29/2004:

The United States is offering a total of $35 million, followed by Japan with $30 million. Australia has now pledged $27 million, Saudi Arabia $10 million and Germany $2.7 million.

Does anyone see Russia, China, France, Italy, Greece, or - better still - the European Union! - kicking a little something into the pot? I don't. Nor do I expect to. No, all I hear are guilt mongering directed at us. But, why shouldn't Egeland cast his venom at the Great Satan of the World, i.e. America? We are the country who has the most and are most easily prone to taking guilt trips to bail out the woes of the world.

Come suckle at the great teat of the world, American, all you tired, water-logged victims of Western Imperialism. All you have to do to get in line at the spigot is to say something that will make liberal America feel guilty, and you can move to the head of the ever-lengthening line. I am sure that, if enough guilt is heaped on our ears and our eyes by the media, the American liberals will soon be marching on Washington to demand we do more to help out the world downtrodden. Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn will be on MTV and VH1 expressing their moral outrage that we didn't send the entire Army Corps of Engineer's to Sri Lanka to sift through the rubble and rebuild all the luxury hotels (undoubtedly built by Western tourists' dollars) destroyed there. Bruce Springsteen, Sting, Bono, and the Dixie Chicks will organize concerts called "Feel Guilty, America!" to raise money to boost their album sales and their bank account. Oh, I am sure, 1 or 2% of the concerts' gross profits will go to replanting the rain forests of devastated Thailand.

After all, when the story gets homogenized by the media, this great disaster will be entirely our fault anyway. Somehow, it will be linked to President Bush's failure to ratify the Kyodo Agreement on greenhouse gases. Isn't everything due to global warming? Global warming undoubtedly caused the instability in the earth's crust that resulted in the earthquake that started the whole thing. It's a domino effect! That's the ticket!

I am equally convinced that the U.N. will spend $100 million on a study (incidently, the study group will be headed by one of Annan's relatives) about how to warn sunbathers around the world that they are about to be killed by a tsunami. Given that this type of disaster occurs, what, every century or so, it will be very timely and cost-effective. No one will think to suggest that, perhaps, all the money spent studying the problem would be better spent in relief of the victims now. Nothing will be actually done but they will commission a study on the problem so, if this does happen again in the next 2 or 3 centuries, we will be better prepared. I am equally convinced that the study will conclude that, if the U.S. spy satellites had been directed on the Bay of Bengal, instead of something so mundane as looking for terrorist training camps in the Malaysian forests, America could have prevented the entire catastrophe.

Such is the world we live in. And, unfortunately, such is the collective consciousness of America poulace. All you have to do to get into America's pocketbook is to trip our hair-trigger "guilt switch" and the dollars spew forth. It's sad, really, but it will never change. Colin Powell has already apologized for us. Can a Michael Moore documentary be far behind?

Addendum #1: It has already started! See CNN news article of 12/29/2004

Addendum #2: Egeland clarifies his remarks. (snicker snicker)

Addendum #3: I wholeheartedly agree! Let the U.N. take over relief efforts!

Addendum #4: The "illustrious" N.Y. Times confirms the worst: we ARE too stingy.

Addendum #5: One New York newspaper agrees with us.

Addendum #6: The Concert and Telethons are on! We are the World, Part Deux!

If Your New Year's Resolution is Losing Weight, Read On!

2004-12-28T08:37:00.000-08:00

Is This the Year You Get Healthy?

It is rapidly approaching the New Year and, given the increasing prevalence of obesity in our country and the world, I am going to take a wild guess and say the most common resolution is going to be to lose weight. Just a wild guess, but I think I will be in the ballpark of most "Top 10" lists and polls on the topic. Since I have dedicated my medical practice for the past 10+ years to guiding patients through this process, I am going to offer some advice. The advice, such as it is, comes from several sources:

Personal Experience - During my internship and residency - a stressful but very sedentary period in my life - I ballooned up to 250 pounds. Now, loosely packed on a statuesque 69" frame (I was one who explained my weight as being a victim of being "big boned" or, for the non-Southerner, "large framed"), I was big. I sported a 40" waist and wore an size 44 jacket. I shopped in the leftover tables because, at least back then, they were not a lot of men buying 40 X 29 (29" was my inseam) pants. I remember I always wore an oversized white coat because, in the deluded mindset of an obese person, I thought it would visually "slim me down." Anyway, I have lost the weight and, for the most part have kept it off. Having had a heart attack at age 34 and a quadruple coronary bypass at age 42 was more than enough encouragement. Now, I proudly have a 32" waist (which I didn't even have as a high school athlete) and no longer wear a white coat, even in my medical clinic.

Professional Experience - I have been treating overweight (I guess I should use the more politically correct "weight challenged" but being "PC" will be the topic for a future rant) patients for over 10 years now. I can pretty much spot the ones that will succeed in losing weight usually with our initial evaluation. Just talking to patients gives you an idea of their motivation. Also, you can get an idea of how badly damaged their ideas about weight loss are. Sometimes I get fooled; usually, after 6 weeks, I sadly see I was right. Losing weight is a lot like quitting smoking. When you are ready, you will do it. Before that point, no matter what you hear or are prescribed, you won't. It's like a light switch. It's either off or on. Being ready - truly ready - to lose weight is (as I throw out yet another metaphor) like being pregant. You are or you are not.

Research - I have pretty much read everything there is to read - both in the lay literature and in the medical journals - about losing weight. It all basically says the same thing and that is what I advise in my clinic and what I will advise here. Early in my medical career I was taught the doctor's mantra in the late 80's and early 90's - people are obese because they eat too much. My advice to the desperate people asking my medical advice was: "Just push yourself away from the table and you will lose weight." What I was saying was: "It's your lack of self-control that is your problem. Quit being a glutton!" I was wrong and, the more I read about obesity, the more I realize how wrong I was. Obesity is a complex problem with genetic, physiological and behavioral components. And, since it has so many components, it is is truly difficult to treat. However, it can be treated.

That said, let's get started.

1. What diet do I recommend you follow?

Here is the first of, probably, many "shocking" answers: I don't care. If you believe in and want to follow one of the low carbohydrate diets - such as the Atkins or South Beach diet - that is fine with me. I can't really get behind any diet that sells you prepacked foods (Jenny Craig, WeightWatchers, etc.) because most people are not willing to buy their groceries at those prices for the rest of their lives. My personal and professional preference is a low fat diet. I recommend a diet with no more than 30 grams of fat per day. The remainder of your diet may be split into carbohydrate and protein depending on your personal tastes. Some people enjoy meat - protein -and that is fine. Chicken or fish and baked or broiled are best but, heck, you can have beef too if it is lean and not heavily marbled with fat. If you like hamburger, buy ground sirloin or chuck rather than the 50% fat standard hamburger at the meat counter. Fried foods are to be avoided at all cost. Some people like breads, rice and cereal - carbohydrates. I do not put any restrictions on these.

My point is: any diet will work if you follow it and exercise regularly. I am more concerned with your activity level than I am with what you eat. All diets share one common thing- they are reduced in total calories. They differ only in what foods make up the calories you do eat. You can follow your personal food preferences in selecting your diet. After all, this is how you are going to eat the rest of your life. So chose an eating plan you can follow for the rest of your life for that is how long problems with controlling your weight will last.

Editorial Follows: I hate the word "diet" because it means, to most people, a temporary "fix."The thinking goes "I will follow this diet for 6 months, lose my weight and then go back to what I was eating before." Do I need to tell you what the inevitable result of this approach is? When you stop your diet, and resume your usual eating habits, you will gain back at least 125% of what you have lost. Notice, I didn't say 100% - I said 125%. Obesity if not like a cold. It cannot be treated for 6 months or until you lose your weight. If you think you are "cured" you will regain your weight. Obesity is a disease, much like diabetes or high blood pressure. It cannot be cured - only controlled. You are making changes toward a permanent lifestyle, not a temporary change in habits. In order to keep weight off, you will have to be conscious of the being prone to gain weight - just like a diabetic is conscious of their blood sugar - all your life. If you have been overweight in the past, you will always be "pre-obese." The minute you turn your back and stop doing those things that are necessary for healthy living (exercising, sensible eating, you will gain weight again.

2. What should you do for exercise?

It my strong belief, born out of many years experience and observation, that exercise is the cornerstone of any successful weight control program. Following a structured, semi-controlled eating plan - better known as a diet - will certainly help you lose weight. But the only behavioral change that can guarantee that you consistently lose weight and keep weight off is to become more active in your daily life. You simply cannot avoid it - if you want to lose weight, you must exercise. Now, as to what exercise is the "best," it is very much like which diet is "best." Here's your rule: The best exercise for losing weight is the exercise that you actually enjoy doing and have the opportunity to do on a regular basis. It's like (another metaphor) murder investigations.You look for motive, opportunity, and method.

- Your motive is to lose weight and, ultimately, to keep weight off. Simple enough.

- Opportunity is making the time to exercise. Yes, I know you are busy. We all are. Yes, I know you have a job, several small, children and and really demanding spouse. Yada, Yada, Yada! I would hope you have enough self-esteem and sense of self worth that you believe you could and should spare 3-4 hours per week to making yourself more healthy.

- Method is the tricky one. If you would love to cross-country ski for exercise and live in Alabama, that is probably unreasonable. ["Probably" because you could get some rollerblades and ski poles and "ski" all over your neighborhood] If you want to swim and live in Montana, that may be difficult as well. Seek an opportunity and method of exercise that is easy to get started doing and to keep doing. The simplest is just walking. If you can't get outside, then use an exercise video. My patients really like the "Walk Away the Weight" video series. If you have arthritis and walking aggravates your joints, you should try an exercise bicycle, CardioGlide, or rowing machine (they are all basically equal in effectiveness)

3. Why Should I exercise?

What happens when you don't exercise, and you starve (diet) for a few weeks and do manage to lose a few pounds?Here's what happens: you may lose body weight but what you have lost, research shows, is usually 50% fat and 50% muscle. If you have starved off 10 pounds, congratulations! You have just lost 5 lbs of fat and 5 lbs of muscle. Now, guess which body tissue most determines your resting metabolism and, ultimately, how likely you are to keep this weight off. If you guessed your muscle mass (or "lean body mass"), you're right! Fat tissue is metabolically inactive and burns very few calories during a normal day's activities. Muscle tissue is very metabolically active and uses calories all day, even when you are not exercising. If you lose muscle, your metabolism drops proportionately. [Parenthetically, that explains why men usually lose weight faster than women. Men, genetically and morphologically, have a higher muscle mass and, thus, a higher metabolism than a woman of equal weight.] So, what have you accomplished by starving off this 10 pounds" You have lowered your metabolism and, thus, made it even harder for you to keep the weight from coming back.

This is the much publicized "Yo-Yo Dieting" problem. Most people have done this over years and years - lost and regained, lost and regained - that, when they get in their 40's and 50's, they find it increasingly more difficult to lose weight. Why is that? Simple. It is because they have lost muscle mass every time they have lost weight through starving (diet) without exercise. Now, they have reduced their metabolism to that of an amoeba and they couldn't lose weight if they ate two crackers a day. If they would start exercising to build their muscle mass back up, they would probably be able to lose weight again. But only with improving their lean body mass which, in turn, improves their metabolism.

4. Does any type of exercise actually improve my metabolism?

I am glad you asked! While most people concentrate on aerobic exercise while losing weight, this is not really an optimal plan. Aerobic exercise got it's good reputation due to well-publicized authors like Kenneth Cooper and by the myriad celebrity videos. [Rhetorically, I ask: If you are a celebrity, you must know how to exercise properly, right? I mean who knows more about exercise than Jane Fonda, Suzanne Summers, or Carmen Electra? I can't think of anyone, can you?] I will freely admit aerobic exercise, such as walking, swimming, jogging, etc., is useful for general health and well-being. But, in order to increase your chances for long-term success, anaerobic exercise should be included in any exercise regimen. Anaerobic exercise is work that requires your muscles to work against resistance. As an example, weight lifting is anaerobic exercise. Pushups and sit-ups are anaerobic. Anaerobic exercise builds muscle mass and, thus, improves metabolism. Therefore, if you are 25 and are losing weight for the first time, you can probably stick with aerobic exercise and preserve your muscle while you lose weight. However, if you are in your 40's or 50's and have lost and regained weight more than 2 or 3 times in your life, you would probably benefit from 2-3 sessions per week of anaerobic exercise.

5. How much weight should you expect to lose?

Healthy weight loss is not 30 pounds in 30 days. Healthy weight loss occurs when the body can burn fat without sacrificing muscle. If you drastically cut calories to less than the body needs, the body will burn energy from any source it can find. Available sources are protein (i.e. muscle) and fat. In starvation mode (i.e. a diet), the body will burn fat as easily and as readily as protein. That is why exercise is so important during weight loss. If you are exercising and using your muscles, the body will concentrate on burning only fat for energy. You will preserve your muscle mass and how much muscle you have determines your metabolism. If you are exercising and cutting back on calories to a healthy level, you should reasonably expect to lose 1 -2 pounds per week. If you have 100 pounds to lose, you should plan on a year of consistent exercise and calorie reduction. In order to lose one pound per week, you only have to reduce your daily calorie intake by 500 calories per day [specifically, there are 3500 calories in a pound of fat tissue; reduce calories 500 calories per day for 7 days and, eureka!]. That will result in one pound of fat loss per week - if you are exercising. Don't be in a hurry! If you have gained weight for five years, you shouldn't expect to lose it in 2 months. As you probably already know: it's a lot easier to gain weight than it is to lose it. Be patient. Slow and steady wins the race.

6. Do diet pills work?

Equivocally, yes. Why do I equivocate? Because the current generation of medications(phentermine, phendimetrazine, diethylpropion) can be useful to give you an "energy boost"when initiating an exercise program. They also, at least for a few weeks, will help get your appetite under control. But the energy and the appetite suppression are short lived. They are useful and, I might add, safe for initiating a medically-supervised weight loss program. There is no longer any "Phen-Fen" to worry about. Phentermine and the other medications mentioned have all been available by prescription since the 1960's and have never been taken off the market.They have withstood the test of time. But they are not the key to a successful weight loss program. The keys to weight loss are, in order of importance, personal motivations, exercise and reasonable , healthy eating.

Well, there it is, folks. Your New Year's Resolution explained and all planned out for you. If weight loss is not one of your resolutions, good for you! If it is, maybe this will help you get some ideas about how to lose weight once and, more importantly, for all!

An Open Letter to Mrs. Pat Tillman

2004-12-23T14:58:00.000-08:00

Dear Mrs. Pat Tillman,

I am writing a long overdue letter to express my sympathies and heartfelt condolences on the death of your husband (see Time magazine). I cannot express to you how I was moved by the sacrifice made by Mr. Tillman on behalf of our country and it’s citizens.

If I could spend 5 minutes with you and if it would not be too personally painful for you, I would ask you to tell me about your husband. Very few Americans these days, including myself, have ever had the honor and privilege to meet anyone they could actually refer to as a "hero." In our modern world of artificially important and superficial accomplishments, we are relegated to thinking of much lesser men promoted as "heroes." Baseball players that pitch in the World Series with a bad ankle or actors who fall off horses and become advocates of spinal cord research are labeled in the mass media as "heroes." Apparently, some polled on the Internet are so unfamiliar with the concept of heroism that they chose to vote for a singer who, like so many people in America, rose above their poverty to win a popular talent competition on television. (BeliefNet) That is hardly heroism; that is America and what this country offers anyone. And that is what your husband fought to defend.

Your husband was so much more, Mrs. Tillman. I would want to know what he talked about with his friends or at night before he went to sleep. What books did he like to read? I would want to know what he ate for breakfast and what he prayed for at night. I would want to know if he ever told you about a dream and, if it was not to personal, what he dreamed. What was his favorite subject in school? Did he ever give a speech that I might find on the Internet? I would certainly be enriched by whatever words he delivered in that speech. What sort of things did he keep in his football locker and on his mantle?

Do these sound like silly questions? I am sure they do. But I would really treasure the information. You see, Mrs. Tillman, this is true "hero worship." Your husband was worthy of that sort of respect and, if I may dare say it in these times, awe. The questions are all designed to give me an idea of what makes a person like Pat Tillman. Men like him, so sparse in our world, are to be examined and thought of often.

Who among us would give up so much to serve his country? I am old enough to remember stories of a couple of generations back when men gave up much and volunteered to give up their comforts and, if necessary, their lives in defense of their country. I consider Ted Williams and Bob Feller heroes. They left their sport (baseball) in the prime of their careers and left their privileged lives behind to face death in World War II. But they were lucky enough to return from war alive and resumed their careers. I am truly sorry that your husband made even a greater sacrifice.

I am also sorry that, in order to find someone to even remotely compare to Mr. Tillman that I have to go so far back in our history. With all the men and women that have died for their country since World War II, we have few that had the conviction to serve and left behind so much. Lest I be misunderstood, I consider all the men and women who have served and died defending their country my heroes. They all made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. They gave up their future, their families and their lives for what they believed in, just like your husband.

But Mr. Tillman’s singular sacrifice was even more rare. He had everything we all dream of having and, yet, he left it behind for a higher service. Not service for personal gain, fame or comfort, but service for a country that allows these privileges for all who are willing to work and dream of them. His beliefs were so strong that he could not, like the vast majority of Americans, consider service to his country someone else’s duty. He sacrificed all so other’s could live their dreams. His dream, if I may presume, was a safer America. A safer country for his family, his friends, and just we ordinary citizens.

So, on behalf of myself, my family, and my country I want to thank you for what you and your husband have given to this country. It was your love and strength that allowed your husband to become the hero that he is to all of us. You and your husband are forever my heroes. May God bless you and your family and comfort you in your pain and loss. Never doubt the worthiness of the cause in which your husband gave his life. Service to country - particularly, service that results in such sacrifice - is always noble and worthy of all of our admiration.

I will never forget your husband’s life and his service to our country. I will never forget to pray for you and your family. I will think of Pat Tillman whenever someone throws around the term "hero" cheaply and quickly in some everyday event. I now have a standard for my definition of a hero. It will not be easily or quickly matched in my lifetime. Of that, I am quite confidant.

Movies as 2-Hour Cartoons?

2004-12-21T09:10:00.000-08:00

Have you noticed lately that movies have become more and more like cartoons?

I watched the lamentable "Torque" on cable a few days ago and absolutely laughed at the:

A. Really terrible acting
B. Cookie-cutter storyline
C. The absolutely unbelievable and gratuitous "special effects"

Now, before you start thinking I am some old geezer praising the days of the silent movie, let me assure you I am not. I have enjoyed recent special effects-laden movies like Spiderman (1 and 2) and X-Men (1 and 2). Certainly, the Lord of the Rings trilogy will be remembered as one of the very best ever. But, I do see a trend in the total absurdity of some of the latest movies. It seems to me that special effects have become the reason for the movie - not something to enhance the movie itself.

A movie, at least in my thinking, is story telling. A movie should show us comedy to laugh at, human emotions to empathize with, a historically recreated life or event, etc. A movie should be about something. A movie should give us something to think; amovie should make us feel something. What I see in "Torque" (and the hundreds of other movies like it) is, apparently a shift in what Hollywood seems to think we want: i.e. special effects for the sake of special effects. In other words: the story be damned, let's make a cartoon. Apparently, producers now believe that if the special effects have enough of what I call the "WOW Factor," then audiences won't care if the acting and the script are meaningless.

For those who see a lot of movies, let me contrast a few. "Pitch Black," Vin Diesel's star vehicle from a few years back, was a decent movie. Certainly, it wasn't "War of the Worlds" but it had actors acting and a story that you could actually follow. There was some conflict in the characters and their interactions and some special effects that aided in telling the story. Flash forward now the sequel of Pitch Black, "The Chronicles of Riddick." Here, we have the complete reversal. A cartoon without a story. A big budget (probably close to $100 million) that allows Vin Diesel to growl and flex and kill lots of bad people. The actors, including the "star" (and, Lord Knows, I use that term very loosely here!) are secondary to the special effects department generating a disjointed smorgasbord with a high "WOW Factor" of spaceships, explosions and space scenery.

"Torque" (which is just a poorly scripted knock off of "Fast and Furious," "2 Fast, 2 Furious," "Drumline," "You've Been Served," etc. etc. ad infinitum) is even worse that "Chronicles." It is bad special effects and no story. There are countless other examples. Contrast that with the "Bourne Supremacy," another sequel. Special effects we sprinkled throughout the movie but, wonder-of-wonders, there was also a story. Dare I even say it? There were also actors and acting. The special effects were part of the story and added in the presentation of that story. They were not the soul reason for the movie to exist. The "Bourne Supremacy" was a good, if not great, movie.

"The Chronicles of Riddick," which cost more than twice as much to produce as "Bourne Supremacy," was a bad movie. "Torque" probably also cost more than "Bourne" to produce (and it certainly was not on the acting talent) and was a really, really bad movie. Other recent movies which turned out to be, for the most part, cartoons include "Catwoman," and Walt Disney Company's "Hidalgo" and "The Alamo." At least "The Day After Tommorrow" - which has as much special effects as one could cram into a movie - had something of a story (a father's redemption and importance of family) and something to think about (what global warming might or might not do). If you hear someone describe a movie with "You won't believe the special effects!" as their first sentence, then you can usually forget anything resembling a script or acting.

I watched another movie recently that was a refreshing reminder that movies that actually have actors acting and a story to be told still exist. That movie was "White Oleander" and has Michelle Pfieffer, Robin Wright and Renee Zellwegger and Allison Lohman. There were no special effects, if you exclude make up (tattoos and the like). The budget was probably almost entirely actor's salaries. And the acting was very good. The story was a meaningful one and there was a point made. It was truly a breath of fresh air in an otherwise cartoonish film industry.

Fortunately, the audiences are starting to speak out in the form of empty seats. The "blockbusters" listed above ("Catwoman," "Hidalgo," "The Alamo," "Chronicles of Riddick") all lost money. According to a recent (12/21/2004) AP article, "with nearly two weeks to go before the end of 2004, domestic box-office receipts appeared likely to top last year's total of $9.27 billion, nearing $9.4 billion, according to Exhibitor Relations, which tracks the figures." But the increase in box office receipts are attributed to a rise in ticket prices, up 3.85 percent to an average of $6.25; attendance fell by 2.25 percent this year after dropping 3.8 percent in 2003.
So, the number of "butts in the seats" are declining. Just like all entertainment industries (see baseball, football, basketball, etc.), to make up for falling attendance the Hollywood brain trust decides to increase prices. But how long can rising ticket prices support an industry that continues to produce inferior products? Can a $10.50 movie ticket justify the experience of seeing what is, essentially, a cartoon? No story, no acting, just lots of explosions, body parts and a loud soundtrack. I am not so sure it can.

Perhaps, among the teenage date crowd where a movie is primarily used to fill in an appropriately decent interval of time before the sex starts, the price will be paid and not given a second thought. But, among people who actually expect to be challenged and entertained by a movie, that seems like an awfully high price with little or no return. You can expect to put out an inferior product and sucker consumers in with fancy ads and "start power" but, eventually, you will have to deliver something of quality. And Hollywood hasn't done that with very much consistency for some years.

On second thought, maybe Hollywood should stick to cartoons with a story. "Shrek," "Finding Nemo," and "The Incredibles" didn't do too bad at all, did they? But Hollywood should always remember, they did have a story. A good story will trump exploding buildings and mahem every time.

Blinded by the Lights

2004-12-18T03:42:00.000-08:00

What ever happened to true fame, i.e. fame that is earned by talent or societal contribution? Are there any people today who actually have earned our remembrance 50 years from now? I personally remember John Kennedy. I remember Groucho Marx, Lenny Bruce and Frank Sinatra. I remember books with tales of George Patton, Rembrant, Michaelangelo. I still remember from my youth Ghandi, Jackie Robinson and Chuck Yaeger. I remember Clark Gable and Lawrence Olivier. I can see their faces and their images in my mind's eye. I know what they accomplished and how they truly changed society and the world I live in.

Today, who are in the minds of popular culture? The "next generation" of people to be remembered? William Hung? The new "Fab Five" (I still remember the "Fab Four") from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?" Jessica Simpson? Joan Rivers or her daughter? Or, God save us, Ashlee Simpson? Or, perhaps we will remember Paris Hilton for something other than her last name? Do we still remember Justin Guarino from anything other than a list of "Top 10" really bad movies? How about Kimberly Locke or The Rock? Fifty years from now, people might remember Bill Clinton but not for being a former President of the United States. Will we remember Scott Petterson when all his appeals are used up? What about Amber Frey or the "celebrity lawyer" tandem of Gloria Allred and Mark Geragos? I may be able to recall some of these names a few years from now but will my children even know what silliness got them in the news?

I wonder, sometimes, if all the stars in the heavens - metaphorically speaking - are set. And, if so, what we are left to today - the "stars" we talk about at the water coolers and watering holes - are merely bottle rockets. You remember bottle rockets, don’t you? They are the little sticks we sat in coke bottles and lit on the Fourth of July or New Year’s. They would burst out the bottle, rapidly ascending to the stars as fast as light. Only, the little rockets never made it to the stars. They burn out, disappear in the night and fall quietly and quite unceremoniously back to earth. No one ever looks for them because they are useless and their "talent" is burned out forever.

"Fame" today in our E! and TV Guide world appear to be much like the bottle rockets of our youth. Fame, in the modern sense, is a fuse lit by publicists and talking heads who generate the lift off and into the sky of our collective minds the fake star goes. They shoot towards the heavens - where the real stars live. But, soon enough, the publicists and talking heads find something or someone else to talk about. Another rocket sits in the coke bottle, just waiting for someone to light the fuse. And we, the spectators at the fame game, are quick to turn our heads to new bottle rocket as it takes off on its doomed flight into the sky. In the modern world, fame has nothing to do with talent; it has everything to do with "buzz."

By now, we should have a collective case of whiplash. Our heads are being turned faster and faster as more and more bottle rockets are fired off each day. The faster they are lit, the faster we turn our heads. Another interesting observation is that the quality of the lowly bottle rockets is, if it is even possible, declining. Today's bottle rockets don’t go as high or burn as long as they used to. They just burn really bright for a shorter and shorter time.

I wish we had room for new, permanent stars. Unfortunately, the heavens are full. Further, I submit, that as long as our eyes are fixed on the fleeting glow and the unrelenting glare of bottle rockets, we will never be able to see the real stars. In order to see the true stars, our eyes need to be accommodated to darkness. Stars are best viewed far away from the city lights and in the dark quiet of the countryside. Unfortunately, we will never have that luxury anymore. There are far two many distractions in the sky.

It's Official - We're Killing Ourselves (and anyone who moves here)

2004-12-15T05:20:00.000-08:00

For years, people have been saying that they are overweight because of their genetics. "All my family are big-boned!" or "I am built just like my parents!" Well, that might be partially true; I do believe that genetics plays a role in obesity. But I also believe that environment (what we eat, what (if anything) we do for exercise, etc.) always trumps nature (genetics). Now I have proof.

In the December 15, 2004 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) there is an article titled "Obesity Among US immigrant Subgroups by Duration of Residence" from Northwestern University, Chicago. The conclusions are:

"Among different immigrant groups, number of years of residence in the United States is associated with a higher BMI [a measure of obesity] beginning after 10 years. The prevalence of obesity among immigrants living in the U.S. for at least 15 years approached that of U.S.-born adults."

So, you may come here skinny, but we will fatten you up within 10 years! Now, if genetics were in control, immigrants from Africa, Asia or elsewhere should have the same incidence of obesity living in the good old U.S.A. as their non-immigrant countrymen. But, not so! Once you immigrate to the U.S. and start adopting the much-fabled U.S. lifestyle (you know, watching TV, eating fast food, stressing out, rushing to make schedules, etc.), you get fat just like the native born Americans.

It just goes to prove what I have preached to my patients for years. It is the lifestyle, silly rabbit! If we would stop eating fatty, fast foods (how's that for alliteration!) and get off our ever-expanding buttocks and exercise, we could reduce our rates of obesity. But, then, that would require some effort on our part, God Forbid! And, as I step on my soapbox again, that is not the American way! We want a pill or, if we must, surgery to overcome our laziness and poor eating habits. We don't want to actually have to do something to lose weight! That would require personal responsibility, self-control and discipline. Anything but that, Doc!

So, give us your tired, your downtrodden, your skinny people from anywhere in the world. American is the land of opportunity, dreams and obesity!

Maybe it's time we started expanding the Statue of Liberty to better reflect her age and nationality? Then as immigrants passed by Ellis Island, they could see what they are getting into!

A Culture of Anxiety and Fear Cannot Be Healthy

2004-12-14T09:08:00.000-08:00

The media has been catching a lot of flack lately for a number of factual error and perceived bias. The NY Times and Washington Post are purely liberal; Fox News is strictly conservative. You've heard the shouts from both sides. I have been thinking a great deal about the way American media cover the news lately and its effect on our society. I believe, on both sides of the media circus, there is enough blame to go around. Specifically, blame for the American societies "culture of fear."

We have become a culture consumed by fear, dread, and self-loathing. And, for the most part, it is the food for thought we are fed by the media, liberal and conservative. We live our lives in fear. We fear terrorism. We fear serial homicidal maniacs. We fear gangs violence, road rage, rapists, child molesting priests, greenhouse gases and global warming. We are all inadequate and need fixing up (extreme make over, anyone?) What are we supposed to think about when that is all we have on the news? The more sensational and the more horrific the story, the more time and ink will be devoted to it. The familiar news phrase, "If it bleeds, it leads," has been supplanted with "If it smacks of impending doom, let's make lots of room!"

Exhibit A: the coverage of the Peterson trial recently. Undoubtedly, this was a heinous crime. But to devote hours of exhaustive analysis on Court TV as well as mainstream media was a prime example of what titillates our society's interest. Trust me, there would not be thousands of hours on a case of a husband killing his wife unless the media knew Americans would love watching it - and the advertising that bombards us while we do. The previously unknown Peterson is now one of the most famous faces in our country. Next up on the docket of horrific murders: Robert Blake. On deck for Murder TV: Mark Hacking.

Exhibit B: the proliferation of what I will call "Crime TV." We don't just have to wade through the horrors of real life, we also seem to enjoy a good fictional dismemberment as well. What are the ratings for "CSI" (Las Vegas, Miami, or New York flavor)? How's "Law & Order" doing after, what, 12 seasons? Not to mention, "Law & Order: SVU" which is about really, really vicious and horrific crimes. And if you are really looking for the end of life as we know it, there is "24" (with Keifer Sutherland), heading off plots to blow us all to kingdom come. Or, for those craving some really scarey drama, how about "Without a Trace" for fiction about people just disappearing off the face of the earth at the hands of some shadowy villain. And, finally, there is always "Cold Case" where we get to review a really monstrous crime that has been unsolved and is now reopened so we can review it again. And to round out our television crime festival, let's not forget "NCIS" (Naval Criminal Investigation Service") where we can see members of our armed forces commit and fall victim to crime. All, clearly are must see TV. Just so you don't think I am exaggerating, here are the Nielson Ratings for the week of November 29-December 5, 2004:

1. CSI CBS 9:00PM Thu 15.5 23.0 17,027,000
2. CSI: MIAMI CBS 10:00PM Mon 14.5 23.0 15,940,000
3. EVERYBODY LOVES RAYMOND CBS 9:00PM Mon 12.3 18.0 13,481,000
4. E.R. NBC 9:59PM Thu 12.0 20.0 13,176,000
5. SURVIVOR: VANUATU CBS 8:00PM Thu 11.7 18.0 12,788,000
6. WITHOUT A TRACE CBS 10:01PM Thu 11.7 19.0 12,874,000
7. TWO AND A HALF MEN CBS 9:31PM Mon 11.6 17.0 12,749,000
8. NFL MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ABC 9:07PM Mon 11.5 18.0 12,585,000
9. ABC PREMIERE EVENT-12/5(S) ABC 8:00PM Sun 11.2 17.0 12,286,000
10. 60 MINUTES CBS 7:00PM Sun 10.8 17.0 11,792,000
11. APPRENTICE 2 NBC 9:00PM Thu 10.8 16.0 11,877,000
12. LOST ABC 8:00PM Wed 10.8 17.0 11,787,000
13. LAW AND ORDER:SVU NBC 10:00PM Tue 10.5 17.0 11,523,000
14. NCIS CBS 8:00PM Tue 10.3 16.0 11,235,000
15 LAW AND ORDER NBC 10:00PM Wed 10.2 16.0 11,142,000
16. CSI: NY CBS 10:01PM Wed 9.8 16.0 10,696,000
18. COLD CASE CBS 8:00PM Sun 9.1 13.0 9,963,000

Just in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I am pleased to report that "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer" was the 20th rated show for the week. By my count, 8 of the top 18 shows (remember, this is for the week that is presumably a "let's get into the Christmas Spirit!" week) are crime/gore/violence related drama. And, I do not include "60 Minutes" which is hardly know for uplifting stories of better times ahead and individual acts of kindness. At a time when "real" crime is declining significantly in our nation (see Bureau of Justice Statistics) , we seem to be longing for murder, rape, and torture to make a comeback.

So, what is the problem? It's sort of a chicken versus the egg conundrum. Do networks inundate us with horror, crime and violence because that is what we WANT to watch, or do we watch horror, crime and violence because that is what TV shows us? Whatever happened to "Little House on the Prarie?" Whatever happened to shows that were uplifting to the spirit or the mind?

Here is the point, finally, of this ranting: In my opinion, the constant bombardment of our minds - voluntarily (our fault) or involuntarily (the media's fault) - has led to our society which is living in a state of constant fear and anxiety. Continuing the argument, this chronic anxiety has led to a higher incidence of anxiety-related illnesses - specifically, hypertension, heart disease and mental illness, among others - in our society than in all of the other societies of the Western world. We currently have a life expectancy of a little over 77 years; that is less than England, Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Iceland, Italy, France, Canada and others [The data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau's International Data Bank]

I use these examples because these are countries that we, as a society, are most similar to in culture and society. As a physician, I find this appalling and more than a little embarrassing. We have the best medical facilities and physicians in the world, yet we - as a society - die younger than most other similar societies.

It is my hypothesis that in a society fed a constant diet of fear and violence, we live in a constant state of anxiety; i.e. we are in perpetual "fight-or-flight" mode, physiologically. As a result, we have higher incidences of anxiety-related diseases and, not surprisingly, obesity and depression, as well. We are a society of fear, a culture of anxiety. We seem to revel in it, though it is killing us, day by day.

I, for one, refuse to participate in the vicious cycle we have directly or indirectly fallen into. I will not live in fear of impending terrorist attacks, global warming, gasoline shortages, drive-by shootings, or any other of the 21st Century specters that haunt our televisions. I choose to be happy. I am not going a Polyanna or pretend I live in Never Never Land or the Emerald City but I will not live like - or believe - I am in Somalia or Ethiopia, either. I choose to live without fear. I will work to change what I can and ignore what I can’t. And I won’t allow the media ratings to dictate what I will allow into my mind. I would rather watch a History Channel or National Geographic show than one minute of yet another murder mystery.

By the way, if the world comes to an end, send me an email.

Performance Enhancement

2004-12-13T05:10:00.000-08:00

Just a quick note today about something that struck me as one of those " WOW! I never thought of it like that!" moments that we sometimes have. The thought was about the current steroid controversy in sports, specifically, baseball.

Now, right off the bat (pun intended), let me say that I disapprove of the use of steroids in sports. But not for what the usual pundits cry out, i.e. "they ruin the integrity of the game." What they mean to say is "we can no longer compare statistics of today's ballplayers with the Babe Ruths, Ty Cobbs, and the older generations." Well, DUH! Today's ballplayers, in almost all sports, are better than the past generations. They are bigger, stronger, faster, in better condition, and almost any other parameter you can name. Except, perhaps, their love of the game and respect for the fans. But that is a subject for another entry.

But, I wonder how the argument against "performance enhancing" drugs really holds up without the veil of "it's the principle of the thing, dammit!" Don't most of us use "performance enhancing drugs" to do our jobs better?? How many people are using Prozac (or Paxil, Zoloft, ad infinitum) so that we can wake up, get out of bed and not think about blowing our brains out in the bathroom from depression? How many of us use Paxil or Ativan to overcome our social anxiety so that we can use a keyboard in a crowded office without our sweaty palms dripping in the keyboard and shorting out the machine? How many of us are taking something for Adult Attention Deficit Disorder (AADD) so that we can concentrate and do our jobs? Are these not "performance enhancing drugs?" I wonder.

Even more of stretch but possibly relevant, how many of us take something for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, migraine headaches, low thyroid, sexual disfunction, or irritable bowel syndrome? I would venture to say that a majority of adults take SOMETHING for one or more of these conditions. Are these not performance enhancing? Do they not cut down our sick days and increase the length of years we will be able to work before we go on disability or die? Is that performance enhancing??

Now before you shout out "yeah, but steroids are illegal!" I know that. That is the same reason we cannot use cocaine in the office to improve our energy level and the same reason we cannot smoke a join (a "blunt" for new generation) to calm us down on the drive to work. I am not justifying the use of illegal drugs in the workplace or any place else.

My point is simply this: Many of us use what are, in my opinion, performance enhancing drugs every day. Legally and under (presumably) a physician's direction. But we should look at our world - and the world of sports - with a little less of a jaundice eye and accept the fact that our modern work is full of performance enhancing drugs. Athletes who used banned drugs are wrong and should be punished. But perhaps we, as "drug-modified" humans, ourselves should not get so outraged when we hear about it in other workplaces.

Let he who is without pills throw the first stone.

Here I am, now what?

2004-12-09T07:31:00.000-08:00

Never have had a blog before, but I do love to write so this should be fun.

Anyway, let's get the preliminaries out of the way:

I am 53 y.o. (will be 54 on Christmas Day), male and live in the Deep South. I am a physician and have been "practicing" (always thought that was an interesting way to say that - doesn't everyone want a doctor who is through practicing?) medicine for the past 25 years. I am in private solo practice (which implies that I really can be difficult to work with, I suppose) and single. Enough of that junk.

Anyway, I hope to make this a regular "Dear Diary" sort of activity. Since I am quite sure no one I actually know will ever find this online (no, I do not plan to share the web address on my business cards so I can be completely, totally honest), I hope to make it therapeutic and a bit of a catharsis as well. If anyone does actually find their way here, so much the better.

I will end this monumental, if terribly boring, first entry. Soon, I hope to explain to myself why health care in this country sucks, why guns don't kill people - people kill people, and why our country has become a society of fear mongers and pessimists.

Have a great day and Happy Holidays!