I read Todd Domke's op editorial about the two candidates gaffs and thought it was ridiculous so I sent a response.

Todd Domke in his Thursday, April 24 op ed opinion entitled "Rate those political goofs" made me angry. I looked at his alleged analysis of the two Democratic candidates on his so called supposed humorous "Gaffo-O-Meter. I wondered why there were no gaffs listed for McCain and only one for Bush. For example, I wondered why he did not rate McCain's blunder statement about the 100 years war in Iraq, McCain's ignorance of the historical reality of Iraq by not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni not once but multiple times or McCain's admitted ignorance of things economic not to mention his many utterances of profanity and violence against his own Republican colleagues or even his utterly profane comments against his own wife when she asked an innocent question.

Listing the gaffs of the current president too would take a bound edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica to enumerate. The gaffs of team Bush are, as we all know, many and staggering. I'd like to rename Mr. Domke's Gaff-O-Meter to the GOP Gaff-O-Meter. Of course, as I read further in Mr. Domke's editorial I saw at the end it describes what he does. As stated, he is a "Boston-area Republican political analyst and public-relations strategist." Now I get it.

Patriotism and Pennsylvania: It is clear to me that the vitriol spewed against this country by a Reverend Wright and others like him did and does exactly the opposite of what we on the left want. Anti-American rhetoric has spawned the likes of Nixon, the Moral Majority, the so called Reagan revolution, extreme religious fanaticism and, worst of all, to me, a George W. Bush. All of those years the left verbally assaulted this country, the Republicans became dedicated to equating patriotism with Republican politics and successfully lured the electorate to vote often against their own economic interest. In the end the majority of Americans, especially post 9/11, love their flag and flag pins and hate the desecrators of them.

I have always said a party and a candidate in this country that eschews those things, in my opinion, cannot get elected. Damning America or an association with that comment simply will not get what we on the left, however morally well-meaning, want. Unfortunately, it achieves quite the opposite.

Barak Obama must appear patriotic and must be a unifier. In my opinion, he should have absolutely done more to distance himself from Reverend Wright, said the pledge of alliance and he should have worn a flag pin at least at times. It would not have hurt and indeed might have helped to close the gap Senator Clinton achieved in Pennsylvania.

The Profundity of Patriotism: Joan Vennochi's article "Obama's Patriotism" in Sunday's Globe was exactly correct. I have been saying the same thing about the American left in general for a long time. As a former sympathizer with the New Left of the late sixties, I was captivated by its hope for change and ultimately for the better, more just and more humane world it promised. For the first time then, too, because of the Left's fervent criticism of the Vietnam War, I absorbed the critical thinking about this country's foreign entanglements and, domestically, its racist past. It was a rude awakening then not to think of my country as historically exceptional.

As I aged though, I began to see the world in more grayish tones. It was clear to me that the vitriol spewed against this country did exactly the opposite of what I thought we on the left wanted. The burning of draft cards, the throwing away of war medals, the burning of the American flag did not usher in a more egalitarian society. To the contrary, it spawned Nixon, the Moral Majority, the so called Reagan revolution, extreme religious fanaticism and, worst of all, to me, a George W. Bush. All of those years the left verbally assaulted this country, the Republicans became dedicated to equating patriotism with Republican politics. In the end the majority of Americans, especially post 9/11, love their flag and flag pins and hate the desecrations of them.

A party and a candidate in this country that eschews those things, in my opinion, cannot get elected. Damning America or an association with that comment simply will not get what we on the left want. Unfortunately, it achieves quite the opposite.

McCain's Madness: Finally a big news story appeared about John McCain's well known temper and obscene outbursts of anger. It is documented that he has said angry, cruel, and profane things to his wife, senate members, colleagues and even the public when they annoy him. If elected president, this man's hand will be on the nuclear button?

Since the media is so intent to focus on small gaffs that the Democratic candidates make why doesn't the press focus intently on McCain's more important issues like his temper, his all-too-cozy relationship with the corrupt and ultimately jailed Charles H. Keating, Jr., which threatened McCain's career and Senator McCain's peccadilloes with women not only his recent raised eyebrow relationship with a lobbyist but also his affair with a woman, now his wife, WHILE he was married to his first wife?

How about focusing on Senator McCain's playing footsie with a Reverend Hege who does not like Catholics or anyone who does not see Biblical interpretation as he does and worse wants to bomb the Middle East to create a Revelationist rapture? How about more talk surrounding McCain's visit to Liberty University to pay a social call on Jerry Falwell, a religious extremist who espoused vitriol and hate? McCain's relationship with THESE religious extremists is far more damaging than Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright. These religious extremists McCain courts have managed to weasel their way into the echelons of power creating an explosive brew and risk to our country. They make egregious comments which have absolutely no validity and yet a presidential candidate has decided to share a bed with them now that he perceived he needed them to get nominated. How about the media talking about that?

McCain has many sins. How about the media devoting equal time to pounding the American public over the head about them?

To Torture or Not -- Fundamental Questions :

This administration will always claim 9/11 as its rationale to do anything it wishes. My anger against them is harsh because I love the ideals of the Enlightenment upon which our prescient Founders formed our American experiment. I do, though, of course, want this country protected from harm in a post 9/11 world. I want to know if the extensions of executive power are keeping us safe. I do not know who our government is capturing, what their charges are, or what methods of "enhanced interrogation techniques" are being used. Because there is no habeas corpus for those apprehended, they languish in jail, without trial, many of them probably tortured for nothing. Some, it seems, if one believes documentaries such as "Taxi to the Dark Side", simply found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up dead. I ask the question: is the abridging of the guarantees of habeas corpus, fair trial by jury, and prohibitions of cruel and unusual punishment justified?

If the government is throwing a dragnet over many who pose absolutely no real threat to anyone, that is problematic. It is a colossal waste of time, money and manpower to coordinate a Herculean effort to house people in jails without trial or without charges and to torture them forever. It has been shown that torture, indeed, does not work giving us faulty intelligence. In addition, it makes some who are subjected to this inhuman behavior very angry. So why torture? Our government has not shown sufficiently to me that because of these internationally unlawful tactics we are safer.

I want to know if there is justification for our government's controversial practices. The public is inured to the erosion of so many hard-won principles which have been the bedrock upon which western culture rests. Our nation's reputation in the world is severely compromised. Somehow I do not feel safer. Do you?

This was a response to someone who commented on my blog. It's a stream of conscious so it's not that well written but it gets my thoughts and philosophy across.

I perused your blog rather quickly. I am true to my zodiac sign although I surely do not believe in astrology. I am, if I were to characterize myself, a true Libra. I weigh everything and look at things from different angles.

Having said that I consider myself on most issues a progressive. At times, I do support the WISE use of military action. I do not, however, believe in American exceptional ism. I think our country does things usually for its own interests and, has occasionally fought the noble war. I believe the noble wars driven by men of great wisdom and ideals were the Revolutionary War, perhaps the War of 1812, the Civil War and World War II. Wars post World War II, in my opinion, were sheer folly and have led to countless unnecessary deaths of thousands. This latest Iraq War has been a tragedy which is still playing its hand. The consequences could be catastrophic and already have been disastrous because we took our eye off the ball which was, of course, Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, the real perpetrators of 9/11.

The Iraq invasion and occupation has been prosecuted with phenomenally inept leadership and begun by sheer hubris. In my opinion, although I supported the war in the beginning because I did not know that the "facts" used to justify the war were lies, much to my constant embarrassment, this war rises to the level of a war crime. The stupidity of it is staggering. The preparation for it was non existent. Our soldiers were put at great risk and our nation has paid out soon to be trillions. Our blood and our treasure has been squanderd. Billions have been lost and unaccounted for. Unsupervised cronies such as KBR and Blackwater steal our money, perform abysmally and get away with anything they choose. I believe, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others are war criminals.

Military conflict should be exercised ONLY when absolutely necessary and with great precision examining every angle and possible truth. Bush made up his own truth to fit a war.

I would never vote and never have voted Republican. I am an ardent Democrat. In my opinion, if you are not part of the top 10 percent in wealth then you have been duped by the Republican party to support a cause which is not in your interest. Patriotism is not only wrapped in symbols and phony utterances, it truly is a commitment to the ideals of those men of the Enlightenment who knew what it meant to curtail the power of government, who knew the risk of unbridled power and who, most especially, knew the dangers of a marriage of church and state. We have come a long way since that date but we have at least within the past few decades become lost. Bush II has been, in my opinion, an American tragedy and possibly the worst president in US history bar none.

I am hoping that the Democratic party will prevail this time and, although I was initially a Hillary Clinton supporter, I do support Obama because I believe he is the best possibility we have to utterly revamp American foreign policy and its constant penchant for war. I believe he can help change the course of this nation to one that cares about its own people and less about its own imperial power. I believe he can reintroduce to the world the America I knew and loved as a young child.

One thing I know no matter who wins, the inept, unqualified, corrupt, ludicrous, unconstitutional excuse for a leader George W. Bush or anyone like him will, hopefully, never darken the White House corridors again. He cannot shine the boots of the real giants of American history who, I believe, were Washington because he eschewed never ending power, Adams because he wrote our exemplary Constitution, Jefferson because he wrote the Declaration of Independence and expanded our country via the Louisiana Purchase, Lincoln and FDR for obvious reasons. These men truly saved our nation and made this country the envy of the world. Just my opinion.

ABC News online carried a story about Bush's discussion he had with a reporter about his alcoholism and his quitting drinking. He said he was not a "walk on his knees" drunk but definitely had a problem. I reacted and posted an opinion:

It would have been good for 4000 plus dead Americans and thousands of wounded, for our nation and indeed the world if Bush had never quit drinking. He would not have been president and not have presided over the most corrupt, immoral and illegal administration in US history. Iraq never would have happened and the recession emanating from it would not have occurred. People would have their limbs who now have none and sight would be given back to those now blind. Iraq is Bush's war. It is Bush who will have to, as he puts it, "walk on his knees" to ask that higher power he talks about for forgiveness as only that power has the power to give.

Fitna a Fitting Film for our time: I watched both "Fitna" and the film clip of "Obsession" which speaks to Islamic religious fanaticism sent to me by a Globe columnist with whom I occasionally correspond. I attach the links below. The word chilling is an understatement. All those centuries of hard-fought-for values of the Enlightenment can be gone in a flash. I do often believe mankind is going backwards. We must sit up and take notice. Those of all political and religious persuasions should know our will is the only thing sitting between tyranny and a just free society. This is not a left wing or a right wing issue. This is not a Jewish, Christian or just simply an Islamic issue. It is an every wing and every man issue meant for all of us who love our ability to think, reason, and question all things at all times.

www.themoviefitna.com
www.obsessionthemovie.com

J'accuse: Jeff Jacoby's article in the Sunday, March 30 Globe, brought into focus an important historical event which could otherwise get lost in the sands of historical time. The Dreyfuss case, illuminating entrenched anti-Semitism in 19th century France, is important not only to the history of the Jewish people but to all history where men are made into scapegoats and events are politicized so that justice invariably takes a back seat. The cost of that miscarriage of justice was profound. It was a mirror into just how deep the roots of anti-Semitism were in a Europe which ultimately gave birth to the greatest catastrophe for the Jewish people, the Holocaust.

We need go no further, too, than in our own country to see the political wreckage that has occurred at the hands of an utterly corrupt and unconscionable administration. We now possess our own Devil's Island, Guantanamo, and within our own Department of Justice, justice is a most elusive commodity. The innocent are jailed, so many guilty go free and the drum beat to maintain policies based on lies goes on and on and on to the peril of us all.

Wright and Wrong: The comments by the former pastor of United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright have certainly kicked up a brouhaha and placed Barak Obama, a 22 year parishioner of that church, in the middle of a whirlwind of accusations and protest. Is Obama now tainted by this zealous pastor's unfortunate vituperatively unpatriotic comments? In part, yes Senator Obama bears some associative guilt. He was a member of that church for over two decades, was married and his children baptized by Pastor Wright. To me that says something. Senator Obama must have had at least some suspicion of the political views of, as he describes this relationship, his uncle-like friend and pastoral mentor of twenty years. It does, however, not say everything.

Barak Obama has dealt with the issue immediately by answering suspicions some may have of this association. He has disavowed the caustic over-the-top comments of a religious figure. In addition, Reverend Wright has resigned from the Obama campaign. One cannot always be responsible for what others say. One can though, refuse to be a part of an organization which has had an affinity towards ideologies which do not often examine both sides of an issue. Some of what Reverend Wright believes can be objectively discussed. His views that American foreign policy has made some egregious mistakes, has cost many lives and alienated many people are, in my opinion, correct. Other things he believes, though, are debatable. He is not right in all he says and, indeed, much of what Pastor Wright says is unequivocally and consummately wrong. Senator Obama emphatically should say exactly that.

The Attack in Jerusalem: Religion's Advocacy of Murder and Mayhem: As a Jew, every Jewish death is like a stake in my heart. I was sickened, to put it mildly, by the murders of innocents in a Jewish rabbinical school in Jerusalem several days ago. I think one needs to understand that this is and will be a part of life there. It is something, difficult as it may be, to which we must reconcile ourselves. There will, I believe, never be peace in my lifetime. The fear of attack and killing will always be there.

It is my opinion there will never be peace because religion makes people absolutely intractable and uncompromising in their positions. It is impossible to deal with anyone -- Muslim, Jew or Christian -- when extreme religious adherence is at the heart of their motivations. Unfortunately, the ones who would use murder as a tool to promote what they want is not new. It is hard wired in us. Religion, though, has brought modern political violence to a new level as it successfully dupes the masses so its leadership can gain power. Through the fog of irrational belief, much of organized religion is, underneath it all, about acquiring power. For Jews, this is problematic because our numbers are so small and the competition is vast.

In my opinion, until humanity can get the monkey of fundamentalist religious world views off its backs there will be no peace. No amount of military expertise will stop these attacks when people think they have God on their side and that He is not on the other guy's side. I have lost hope a long time ago. I believe each side must listen to the other but when some do the other extremists (both Arabs and Israelis alike) don't and they won't. So Israel's fate and many others in that violent neck of the woods will suffer tit for tat ad infinitum endless violence until that violence engulfs all of us. Our life eradicating weaponry could mean, ultimately, the end of our species and civilization on earth as we know it. This may happen, if it continues as it has, sooner than we think.

Life Support or Life: In the final analysis whether the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama he or she will be running, of course, against John McCain. All rational thought would deduce that the US is in huge trouble with an economy tanking and no upswing in sight. Adding fuel to an out-of-control fire is the dismal state of US foreign policy.

Our country has suffered a train wreck. It would seem completely logical that the Democratic party, no matter who the nominee is, should experience a landslide victory over horrifically failed and utterly corrupt Republican politics on every single level of government. If, yet again, the American public elect more Republicans to the oval office and the Congress then, indeed, our country has a death wish.

We will sew the seeds of our own destruction by electing John McCain and opting for the same ubiquitously failed policies manufactured over decades. Electing a change Democratic candidate whether the change is Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama is vital to our country's resuscitation. If we do not do that we will be choosing to be put on life support. We are in critical condition. Team Bush and his Republican party have, indeed no question about it, put us there!

The Jewish Question about Obama: I will support Barak Obama if he is the Democratic nominee. I am also Jewish. I have heard some in the Jewish community express to me some reservation about supporting Senator Obama because of the tangential support he has received from those like Louis Farrakhan who are thought to be anti-Semites. It, admittedly, too, gives me pause that Senator Obama was for twenty years affiliated with a particular church which employed Pastor Wright as its minister. Pastor Wright has issued gobs of praise for Louis Farrakhan, a man who called Judaism a "gutter religion."

I sometimes believe the organizations one joins tells me something about a person's character. The United Church of Christ, Senator Obama's church, generally is and has been, in my opinion, a force for good. Occasionally, though the more progressive churches have been, unfortunately, sympathetic to Islamic political causes, are anti Israel and by extension sometimes anti-Semitic. This, admittedly, bothers me.

However, I will take Senator Obama at his word which he gave in the last debate when he said he not only denounces Louis Farrakhan he rejects him as well. I cannot imagine Senator Obama would go back on what he has said. One can never be sure, though, of any candidate's policies once he is elected president and can do what he wants. Israel's position is precarious and its very existence is at risk. The Jewish people, a small but historically besieged minority in the world, are once again, it seems eternally, threatened. I am hoping Barak Obama if the nominee and if elected president will have more credence in the Arab world which, I believe, could actually help not harm the Jewish state.

I am always concerned about the true sentiments of the possible and, perhaps, probable next president of the most powerful nation on earth. I hope the Senator does not disappoint me. If Barak Obama is the nominee I will, of course, without question, vote for him. I trust his veracity but as a Jew history has taught that I be always vigilant.

A Letter to Senator Obama


I am an Obama supporter and I am also Jewish. I have heard some in the Jewish community express some reservation about Barak Obama. I try to quell their fears. Having said that there is no question that any support whatsoever of a Louis Farrakhan would be problematic for me. I will take Senator Obama at his word which he gave at the last debate and even though he used the term "minister" Farrakhan, a term of respect, in reference to Louis Farrakhan, I believe Senator Obama when he says he not only denounces Louis Farrakhan he rejects him.

It is possible Louis Farrakhan wanted some press and took this opportunity to try to matter after being removed from the political scene for quite some time. The press, of course, because Louis Farrakhan is so controversial wants to stir the pot. It does make me a bit uneasy, though, that Senator Obama was for twenty years affiliated with that particular church which employed Pastor Wright as its minister. Pastor Wright has issued gobs of praise for Louis Farrakhan.

I sometimes believe the organizations -- or religious affiliations -- tell something about a person underneath it all. The United Church of Christ generally is and has been, in my opinion, a force for humanitarian causes and a force for good. Occasionally, though the more progressive churches have been, unfortunately, sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalist political sentiments. This bothers me.

I cannot imagine Senator Obama would go back on what he says but I am not assured of that even for Senator Obama once he is elected president. Israel's position is precarious and its very existence is at risk. The Jewish people, a small minority in the world, are once again, it seems eternally, threatened. I am hoping the Senator will continue to avidly support the State of Israel's existence and not only work for peace but actually achieve it. It is one (among many) reasons I support Senator Obama. I feel that he may have more credence in the Arab world which would actually help not harm the Jewish state.

My politics and my being have been shaped by the Holocaust. In my opinion, it is the single most important historical event of the 20th century, indeed, in all of history and certainly in the history of the Jewish people. Everything I am and everything I believe relates to it in some way so naturally I am concerned about the true sentiments of the possible and, indeed, probable next president of the most powerful country on earth. I hope the Senator does not disappoint me. If the Senator is the nominee I will, of course, vote for him without question. I trust his veracity but as a Jew I am always vigilant.

This was a response to a Beth Daley article on the benefits and draw backs to using florescent mercury laden energy efficient light bulbs:

I am on the side of green. I have used a few fluorescent (mercury laden) light bulbs but after reading your article, it is hard to fathom how advocates for using these bulbs think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The precautions one has to take if a florescent bulb breaks reminded me of something Homeland Security said to do if a terrorist uses poison gas. It made me think of duck and cover which we were told to do in the 1950's to safeguard ourselves from a nuclear blast. Those were ridiculous precautions that are laughable now. Now really, cutting carpet away, using rubber gloves, opening windows and using duct tape are some of the precautions one must take if a fluorescent light bulb breaks? Has anyone ever cleaned up after a glass has shattered? Cleaning up is not in slow motion. Do you think when we buy a light bulb anyone is thinking about using duct tape if it breaks? And what if a child breaks it and we do not even realize it's broken. All that time the child is inhaling mercury gas.

It's bad enough what we need to think about if there is, God forbid, another terrorist attack let alone using intense precautions cleaning up after a light bulb breaks. What if we happen not to have any rubber gloves, masks, duct tape or if we forget to open a window. My goodness it's a light bulb for God's sake.

Let me know when the geniuses who made these mercury-infused florescent light bulbs make one without mercury. Until then, sorry, no matter how green I am, it's the incandescent light bulb for me!

The McCain Mess: I cannot imagine the New York Times would put forward a story on John McCain of this magnitude which could potentially sink a nomination or derail an election without making darn well sure that it had the absolute proof positive truth that an affair and its attendant quid pro quo behavior existed. Then again I believed George Bush when he said the evidence is in about WMD in Iraq.

This NYT story if not true could be bad for a Democratic candidate as well, as the extreme right wing marches in lock step behind their Republican cause. If the NYT is seen by them as purposefully subverting the election of the Republican nominee it could, incredulously to me, force them to unite even behind a man they do not support. I doubt it will do that but it could. It is time for the New York Times to in some way show its hand and reassure its readers that they would not be so stupid as to report on something like this with spurious evidence!

Jeff Jacoby's editorial in the Sunday Globe talked about one of Barak Obama's (likened to JFK) campaign workers who hung a picture of Che Guevara in one of his campaign offices. Che, of course, was a violent revolutionary, Castro's philosophical mentor and cohort. JFK hated Che Guevara. Barak came out tepidly against the action of his campaign worker. Jacoby thought Barak's response was not emphatic enough. I wrote a letter to the Globe about it.


Jeff Jacoby's article "What Would JFK Do?" was thought provoking. He is right if someone in John McCain's campaign had a picture of David Duke or the KKK there would be hell to pay although I do remember someone named Santorum who proudly displayed the stars and bars. I remember working for a Republican State Committee in the late 60's. Curious to me at the time because I was an ardent Democrat, I met some wonderful people at the Committee about whom I still think fondly. Many were kind, loving and humane people who were very nice to me. There were others of the rank and file, though, whom I met who secretly harbored love of their right wing fascist heroes. One young man it was told to me threw a wreath upon the water during Hitler's birthday. How could such different types occupy the same group? The fact is each side of the political spectrum has its extremists.

Although the philosophical underpinning of extreme left wing politics is allegedly egalitarian and humane those who take power through violent means are often anything but that. Many such as Stalin, Che, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong IL and others are/were brutal killers wrapped up in a Marxist blanket which is not warm and fuzzy. Why some of the left make excuses, look the other way and remain uncritical of them is something that is hard for me to fathom. Likened often to JFK, Barak Obama, while always defending free expression, should come out vociferously against a campaign worker hanging a picture of Che Guevara in one of his headquarters.

A reasonable woman: The interview of Susan Jacoby and the discussion about her book "The Age of American Unreason" was one of the most interesting in the Bill Moyers series. I believe the most serious issue our nation is facing is the utterly stunning mind numbing ignorance of our people. The film clip shown of American young people on a game show not knowing that the country Hungary exists at all or thinking that Europe is an entire country is staggering. The discussion illuminated that many in our country do not even know that there are nine justices on our own Supreme Court, still believe the earth is the center of the universe and that angels are truth made me both incredulous and want to cry. Not only should our people know there are nine justices on our highest court they should be able to name them and understand the political issues surrounding the Court's decisions. It it so serious because these are the people who elect those who would influence our country's policies. These are the people I entrust with my safety. These people are the present and the future of our country. I cannot fathom when presented with simple questions of geography, science or history how stunning the lack of knowledge is. How did this happen?

I believe this ignorance is not only the fault of our educational system but is endemic in our history. There has been and is a thread of anti-intellectualism sewn within the fabric of our culture. Although our Founding Fathers were men of intellect, much of our historical dialog has catered to men who were not. Whether in the historical populism of an Andrew Jackson, the fiery sentiments of a William Jennings Bryan or, in modern times, the mind boggling cerebral and expressive incapability of a George W. Bush, there has been a large strain in American politics and populism which appeals to ignorance. It has run through the course of nearly our entire history.

I almost cannot read the arguments touting creationism. It is like saying it is okay to think that spirits cause disease. Some may believe in the germ theory of infection but others think that a spirit causes infection so let's debate it. No, let's not debate it. Bacteria and viruses cause infection and spirits do not. Facts rule. The case should be closed but it is not.

Evolution is the very foundation of science. It is NOT contextually debatable within belief of creationism. If we do not accept or understand its truth our ability to find cures for cancer, the nature of immunological resistance to infection and, indeed, to understand the origins of our species is fatally diminished. We will be relegated to a mindless prison forever mired in a Middle Age like philosophy when it was in the interest of the religious authority to keep mankind ignorant so their own power which married church and state could prevail.

I believe nearly all the problems we face as a nation are etched in and can be traced to this mindless tyranny which does not allow reason to triumph. This is not only deadly for our country but for the entire world as one can see how man is stuck in belief systems which cannot be verified and which contain little truth. These beliefs and the lack of critical thinking of them are responsible for the divisions in our society and these beliefs are responsible for the ultimate massacring of millions. I hope everyone will find the time to read Susan Jacoby's book "The Age of American Unreason." Her views are rational, reasonable and prescient. I believe, they could save the world.

An article appeared in Newsweek entitled:
The Secret Haters
It posits the following question:

Some experts say that even the most politically correct among us may harbor unconscious prejudices against ethnic groups, women, gays and others. Can these dark impulses shape our actions?

I commented on their blog the following:



Generally, I think people are inclined to want to associate and imbue with power those whom they perceive to be a member of their own group. There are many preconceived notions which we learn about other groups who are not like we are. This, in fact, may be subconscious or even be woven into our genetic tapestry instructing us to do so. Having said that, however, it is not beyond the capacity of man, when he sees proof to the contrary, to invalidate or overrule a previously held belief because he knows those beliefs to be untrue. It helps to know that we are, each and every one, related to each other through a journey which began out of Africa. Our mitochondrial DNA proves that over and over again. The superficialities of skin color, sexual orientation, disability, sex or age in reality are small variables. Nonetheless, in the history of our species, they have loomed large.

In previous centuries everyone took for granted that the sun revolved around the earth. It still SEEMS that it does except science has categorically proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the earth and its celestial cousins revolve around the sun. We must override the error of our ways because in this era science more and more is proving our previous beliefs were just that ... beliefs. Facts tell us a different story. We should act accordingly even if it is ever-so-difficult to do.

Have patience: I wrote this on an HBO blog which is devoted to thoughts about its new excellent series called "In Treatment." If you haven't begun to watch this you should. It is fascinating programming. It involves one half hour psychotherapy segments of four different patients of Paul, a psychotherapist. It takes place every day from 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on HBO. There is limited glitz to this show but I think it is supremely riveting. If you missed episodes you can retrieve them by going to HBO Series and you can even concentrate on just one of the patients if you choose. I enjoy all of them. Each one is unique. You can concentrate on Paul too who has his own session with his own psychotherapist/supervisor/friend (and maybe intimate friend), played by Diane Wiest.This is a summary of my initial feeling when the question posed was who was the bloggers' favorite patient.

Paul is my favorite patient. This show brings up so many issues. The one that permeates my thoughts is the question of what is therapy. How does a therapist learn or develop technique and does the traditional form of uncovering layers of personality so the patient has revelatory experiences which are supposed to transform their life really WORK? Do patients feel better as the therapist guides them to that end?

When one goes to a doctor, for example, for diabetes there are ways of treating a patient that we KNOW work. This is not so for the biology of the mind. We know so little about how it works and why it is so different from other organs and DIFFICULT to treat to make people change their behavior or make them feel "better."

I never understood what therapy actually does accomplish and why SO many people feel so negatively about so many therapists and why so many therapists are SO bad. My guess is traditional therapy, as we have come to understand part of it, simply does not help much and maybe does some harm because many therapists (not all of course) do not know what in hell they are doing or what to say to make the patient feel better and may even make them feel worse. Therapy really is not a science.

In my opinion, the only thing that SEEMS to work a little better or perhaps somewhat more predictably -- even then it surely is not perfect -- is treating mental or emotional illness pharmacologically. This, however, is FRAUGHT with problems as medications are thrown into a hat and chosen wily nilly to see what works. Sometimes the medication(s) work, sometimes for only a little while and sometimes not at all. Sometimes, the side effects can be too much to bear and can even be fatal.

PBS radio broadcast a great segment interviewing an author named Jonah Leher who wrote a book entitled "Proust was a Neuroscientist." This book links the creative and emotional part of the brain with its biochemistry. It was fascinating and reinforced the complexity of our most mysterious organ and its emotional and artistic relationship to science.

I wonder in this program what Paul trying to do and does he even know what to do or say when his patients throw an emotional cacophony in his presence. His own life, too, is such a mixture of emotions which are diffuse and explosive. It's hard to know if HE or ANY therapist has their own house in order or if they do not how on earth they could help anyone else with theirs.

Having said all of that, for me, however, Paul, has become the most interesting character. His confusion and relationship with HIS own therapist/supervisor is absorbing as he has at least SOME insight and can talk about SOME of his feelings a bit more easily than his patients. Other times, though, he is similar to his own patients in that he simply will not face that which assaults his equilibrium. This makes for an interesting brew.

This show is EXCELLENT and presents an oasis of programming in a sewer of disgusting, irrelevant, stupid, inane, profane, and brutal television which occupies a large segment of time in so many lives. What a better nation we would be if many more switched from American Idol to this.



Paul is my favorite patient. This show brings up so many issues. The one that permeates my thoughts is the question of what is therapy. How does a therapist learn or develop technique and does the traditional form of uncovering layers of personality so the patient has revelatory experiences which are supposed to transform their life really WORK? Do patients feel better as the therapist guides them to that end?

When one goes to a doctor, for example, for diabetes there are ways of treating a patient that we KNOW work. This is not so for the biology of the mind. We know so little about how it works and why it is so different from other organs and DIFFICULT to treat to make people change their behavior or make them feel "better."

I never understood what therapy actually does accomplish and why SO many people feel so negatively about so many therapists and why so many therapists are SO bad. My guess is traditional therapy, as we have come to understand part of it, simply does not help much and maybe does some harm because many therapists (not all of course) do not know what in hell they are doing or what to say to make the patient feel better and may even make them feel worse. Therapy really is not a science.

In my opinion, the only thing that SEEMS to work a little better or perhaps somewhat more predictably -- even then it surely is not perfect -- is treating mental or emotional illness pharmacologically. This, however, is FRAUGHT with problems as medications are thrown into a hat and chosen wily nilly to see what works. Sometimes the medication(s) work, sometimes for only a little while and sometimes not at all. Sometimes, the side effects can be too much to bear and can even be fatal.

PBS radio broadcast a great segment interviewing an author named Jonah Leher who wrote a book entitled "Proust was a Neuroscientist." This book links the creative and emotional part of the brain with its biochemistry. It was fascinating and reinforced the complexity of our most mysterious organ and its emotional and artistic relationship to science.

I wonder in this program what Paul trying to do and does he even know what to do or say when his patients throw an emotional cacophony in his presence. His own life, too, is such a mixture of emotions which are diffuse and explosive. It's hard to know if HE or ANY therapist has their own house in order or if they do not how on earth they could help anyone else with theirs.

Having said all of that, for me, however, Paul, has become the most interesting character. His confusion and relationship with HIS own therapist/supervisor is absorbing as he has at least SOME insight and can talk about SOME of his feelings a bit more easily than his patients. Other times, though, he is similar to his own patients in that he simply will not face that which assaults his equilibrium. This makes for an interesting brew.

This show is EXCELLENT and presents an oasis of programming in a sewer of disgusting, irrelevant, stupid, inane, profane, and brutal television which occupies a large segment of time in so many lives. What a better nation we would be if many more switched from American Idol to this.