The Mystery of Mental Illness: Sent this to the Metro News responding to an editorial on mental illness.

I agree with Dr. Gordon's April 7, 2009 editorial "Don't Stigmatize the Mentally Ill." I believe, though, some critical comments about mental illness and its treatment are in order. It is true mental illness should not, of course, be stigmatized. We are advanced, at least SOME of us are advanced, enough to know that the brain is an organ just like any other in the body. Sometimes as one's pancreas, for example, it does not function effectively for a variety of reasons. However, the stigmatizing, I think, that is accorded mental illness is that it is behavioral and not simply systemic in nature. Unlike other illnesses mental illness CAN produce threatening behavioral manifestations. I submit, it is the nature of how mental illness presents itself that is often the reason people fear it, stigmatize it and isolate people who show symptoms of it. We can clearly, I think, state that the man from Binghamton who killed so many innocent people was mentally ill. That does not preclude the fact that he posed a very clear and present danger to the community and no one knew it. When people present with bizarre behavior or speech people often do not know and fear what they will do.

Dr. Gordon and others in the mental health field will say that there are treatments for people with mental illness as there are treatments for people with diabetes and that is true. I though, maintain, the treatment offered to the mentally ill is sporadic at best and ineffective at worst. The treatment for mental illness shown in the panoply of medications offered for it are delivered often by trial and error. Treatment is haphazard as medications for certain diagnoses are seemingly thrown into a hat and then selected. Even the diagnosis itself is subjective. There is, in my opinion, no effective scientific measurement yet to determine which mental illness one has and which treatments are proper for it. We can only guess. That is not the case with diseases such as diabetes. Much of mental health care is, I submit, guess work and it often does not achieve the effective result. Drugs seem to work for a time, then medications must be increased and finally stopped as they become ineffective or cause unacceptable side effects.

Further, to complicate matters, drugs to treat mental illness can get expensive. We know the record of insurance companies paying for the average disease is often less than desirable but it is worse than that when it comes to mental illness. It is NOT treated by insurance companies with the same procedural equality as other illnesses may be. Co-payments are often large and sustained treatment sometimes not available ESPECIALLY for people who fall into the middle of the socioeconomic strata who have a difficult time -- especially in a down economy -- of getting treatment for anything much less for mental illness.

In my opinion, mental health professionals must work most especially on developing scientifically precise measurements of the brain and blood chemistry of mental illness. Insurance companies, too, should be forced by law to pay for the necessary treatment as they should for any other disease. It is only then, by the successful treatment of mental illness and the patient's ability to pay for it that its behavioral ramifications will be ameliorated and the public stigma reduced.

Bill Maher -- I have seen better shows: Wrote this to HBO and Bill Maher

I have been an avid fan of Bill Maher for years. I will continue to watch his show. I do, however, want to convey my irritation lately about his shows. Last week, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens and Mos Def were the guests. Rushdie and Hitchens are significant intellects with much creative thought to offer. I believe Mos Def, whom I have seen on Maher's show before, yet again was not only out of place but obstructionist as he, in never ending fashion, interrupted the other guests and had little well thought out ideas to convey. He was, I thought, inarticulate noise and prevented my enjoyment of the other two intellectual giants. I thought this was an extraordinarily incongruous choice of guests by Maher and HBO.

This week Bill Maher had on the conservative journalist David Frum who is absolutely humorless and boring. Sam Donaldson, Reihan Salam, and Carol Liefer were interesting. Bill Maher himself was, I thought, obnoxious, disrespectful and crude to both Sam Donaldson and Carol Liefer. First, he forgot Liefer's book which I am sure was an important part of her appearance on the show, next he used insulting words about her body as she described her scare with breast cancer. If that were not enough he used a disgusting reference to her about female genitalia. She, I thought, did NOT deserve that. Moreover, Sam Donaldson, a cultivated journalist, was insulted, too, by Maher when he made reference to his hair. Bill Maher should have refrained from making reference to his "rug." It sounded insensitive, crude and ignorant. Mr. Donalson was a gentleman about it. I thought, however, he was embarrassed by the insult and that Maher's treatment stifled Mr. Donaldson's thought. He, it seemed, did not give the audience enough benefit of his vast experience on the world stage. Surely Mr. Donaldson deserved better treatment than he was given. I, too, in my opinion could have easily done without Joe the Plumber. I believe he has NOTHING to offer. He has no intellect, no achievement, no well thought out ideas and has been merely a media creation with no purpose.

Surely, Bill Maher, a talented man, with many gifts for comedy, political satire and criticism does not have to resort to vulgarity and insult to guests who deserve better. I will give The Bill Maher Show some more viewing time but, truly, if more thought is not put into the congruency of whom Maher has on as guests and WHAT vulgar verbiage Maher uses I just may not view him any more. Time will tell.

The Place of the Jewish Holocaust: A letter appeared in the Metro West Daily News, April 1, 2009 from an Armenian gentleman, Mr. Demoorjian, whose opinion was essentially that all genocides were the same in that they were important to the individual group which was the subject of the onslaught and equated the Armenian genocide to the atrocity of the Jewish Holocaust. In fairness to him he did not belittle the Jewish Holocaust BUT he did create what I saw was a rather egalitarian concept of the 20th century Jewish Holocaust in Europe with respect to all others. I took issue, in part, because I do not believe all genocides, while horrific occurrences in and of themselves, to be the same. Thus, I wrote my own editorial to the News commenting on it. It stated as follows.


What Mr. Demoorjian's says has, without doubt, merit. One cannot calculate the human suffering of genocide whether in Armenia, Cambodia, Sudan, the slums of Mumbai or of the Jews of Europe. I as a Jew and as one whose politics have been shaped by the Holocaust, have long advocated for world admission of the Armenian genocide. There is no question about its reality and no question of its horror.

While, in my opinion, the near complete eradication of the Jewish people in Europe reigns sadly supreme among man's inhumanity to man, the Armenian genocide comes close to equaling its scope. Still, as horrific as other attempts at genocide are, in my opinion, nothing on planet earth rises to the Olympian heights of the Jewish Holocaust. It was unparalleled in its length, in its scope and in its near successful completion as man used all his technologically sophisticated machinations to arrive at the German self-proclaimed Final Solution.

What does the word Final mean? I believe we must look not only at the deaths of the six million innocent men and women -- a million of whom were children -- but we must look also at the progression of Jewish history throughout the ages to see what the word final really means. Final means, to me, the end, the last, the climax of the 2000 year historical orgy of anti-Semitism born from Judaism's early schism with nascent Christianity.

Throughout generations, Christianity, uncompromising and extreme, laid a claim no other genocide ever did. The New Testament accusation against the Jew for the crime of deicide -- the actual killing of God --, in fact, made centuries of cruel, restrictive and brutal treatment of the Jewish people possible. Its orgasmic climax became the Holocaust and Europe's attempt to finally rid itself of a people the indictment of whom was a part of Christian doctrine for two milenia.

No other hatred has been as long, as wide spread, and as continuing as the hatred of the Jew. Moreover, while that kind of anti-Semitism we may consider now obscurantist (even though we do see some of it in modern Europe today), the baton of it has been relinquished to other Middle Eastern peoples who often use identical anti-Semitic spewing heard in the ghettos of yesteryear's Europe to justify the violence they spread.

It is with that historical milena in mind that I make my argument. I DO, though, understand the horrific nature of the Armenian atrocity and my thoughts, I hope, in no way diminish its historical importance to the world.

Watching the Wolves: Jeff Jacoby's April 1, 2009 op ed "Beware of wolves in suits" is a superior piece. I agree with every sentiment as my blood boils over the egregious abuses of the partnership between government and the people's money irrespective of political party. In circular fashion our money ends up often in our elected officials' or their appointments' pockets. They at times give back little and even sometimes nothing to the job they hold or to the people they represent. Much of the behavior such as collecting salaries and pensions at the same time, which Jeff Jacoby illuminated, is or should be illegal and if not illegal is certainly hugely unethical. As Jacoby says, it is especially unethical given our severe recessive economic times. Whether it's Wall Street bailouts and bonuses or pension funds and salaries for public employees, in the final analysis, it is the taxpayer's money. There must be strict oversight and intense regulation of those who could breach the public trust as human being's natural proclivity for greed is taken by some to Herculean heights.

We are, indeed, the sheep who do not have even a chance against the wolves who guard the hen house too because, often, the public's memory, unfortunately, is short. We read an occasional editorial exposing corruption one day and the next day it is forgotten. Perhaps it is because we feel powerless against government corruption and because there is so much of it. If we do not have our governmental officials to protect us then who do we have? In that case, it is up to the press to relentlessly pound the drum exposing the slime under the rock. It is then up to the people in a democracy to demand clean-up and watch ever so closely exactly what the wolves are doing. If our elected officials and their cronies breach the ethical divide we can use our power by giving them either the prosecutorial or electoral boot.

John Hope Franklin -- A man of hope: What a marvelous man the eminent historian Dr. John Hope Franklin was. It is all together fitting that his middle name was Hope and that his efforts to chronicle, understand and improve the politics of race provided just that -- hope. The presidency of Barack Obama I am sure realized a dream embedded in Dr. Franklin's DNA and, indeed, embedded within all of our DNA who value justice, fairness and equality promised in the Constitutional foundation of our nation.

Dr. John Hope Franklin, who died March 25th at the age of 94 and whose obit, sharing so much of what this man accomplished, appeared in the March 26, 2009 edition of The Boston Globe, was a gentle man of infinite scholarly preeminence and wisdom. He was a credit to all humanity everywhere whose thirst for knowledge could not be quenched and which knowledge was imparted by him to so many. I will miss his sweet tones and brilliant analysis of historical events I heard often on various media and read in his book "From Slavery to Freedom." Rest well, Dr. John Hope Franklin, a beautiful man, who was an inspiration to so many. You will be missed.

Moving the Money: I do not think the eschewing of large profits is what most are advocating as a remedy to our current economic crisis. If one is truthful, most of us would probably love large profits. The issue, I believe, is the running of the ship of state into the ground by the few who would scandalously use often fraudulent economic structures under the noses of the powerless and poor to sweep up for themselves, with government help, an immense and wholly unequal share of the public wealth. The question is, I think, who are we as a culture, as economic graphs show, if a gargantuan part of the wealth of a country is concentrated solely in the top 1% of the population? The answer is we are not a very comfortable or happy place in which to live as the so called American dream -- financial security for us in our retirement years and our progeny for their future -- becomes impossible for most to achieve. This cannot stand and it did not historically stand as the great trust busting years of Theodore Roosevelt show and, later, as Franklin Roosevelt proved during the Great Depression. Sadly, Ronald Reagan, the so called "great communicator," told us to reverse course that little government was the best government and that the forces of the market would wield their magical brilliance for the greater good of everyone.

Again and again, this has proven to be a fallacious philosophical argument as repeatedly we have seen wealth concentrated in the hands of a few means often economic catastrophe. Wealth in the hands of the very few does not, in fact, as Reaganomics told us ad nauseam, trickle down but, rather, stays in the hands of the very few. The few co-opt the many as they tap into a tired old long-time American anti-tax tradition. Anything with the word tax in it can be exploited to convince the American people that government is their enemy not their friend and that the best tax is NO tax at all while the monied class runs off with the store.

I submit government is NOT the enemy and it, indeed, CAN be your friend IF the majority understands the shell game some at the very top try to play. I am not a socialist but I am a fairist . I believe in a fair and transparent economic structure which does NOT soak the rich BUT, rather, requires them to pay their fair share which, I believe, quite ethically, should be more than those who occupy the lower ends of the socio-economic ladder. Through microscopic regulation of big business, government must ensure that too-big-to-fail corporations be disallowed, split up, reorganized and ultimately those that are left contribute their fair share to the tax structure. It means eliminating off-shore accounts, tax havens and unfair trade practices as well.

If the President and his economic team can ever untangle this mess, the bloated few who were responsible for the sub-prime loans, short selling, derivatives, hedge funds, credit default swaps, and other unsavory stock instruments which have nearly brought this country and, indeed, the world, to its knees, be neutered and a new fair redistribution of the wealth enacted through the tax code. Only government can ensure that Wall Street is regulated properly, that too-big-to-fail corporations be broken up, that unfair procedures be terminated and that those who committed unparalleled fraud be jailed. Everyone LOVES the things such as education, roads, bridges, and health care only government could provide everyone but seemingly NO ONE wants to pay for it. It's time someone did.

The Pecuniary Papacy: In response to the March 24, 3009 article in The Boston Globe entitled "Pope urges help for the poor as he leaves Africa," I am always stunned when the Pope, in this case Benedict the VI, the head vicar of Vatican opulence, states that he "urges" help for the African poor. If the Vatican and the Catholic Church are so concerned about the African poor and dispossessed I suggest they sell a few priceless paintings, artifacts gold pieces, rings and other prayerful items suggestive of the Vatican's overflowing fortune to help those poor about whom they, supposedly, care so much. While they are at it they might look into the billions of dollars in secretive Vatican investments, the coffers of which, despite the economic downturn, I am sure are sufficiently well stocked!

Mary Tyler Moore Idol NO MORE -- A Response to a Parade Magazine Interview:

I grew up watching without fail Mary Tyler Moore shows. Laura Petrie and Mary Richards reflected their times. They showed a moral goodness, innocence and a beauty that was what we thought life was like in this country. She sat high, for many years, on the pedestal I built for her until I read the Sunday Parade Magazine interview. I was surprised -- NO I was shocked -- to read about Mary's political support. I simply could NOT believe it. We all have a right to our opinion, no doubt. I, though, believe one's political beliefs ARE one's principles and one's principles are one's character.

I could not understand her support of Republican candidates most especially John McCain with his insipid side-kick Sarah Palin nor could I at all understand the excuse she used for George W. Bush's unconscionable and egregiously immoral stand on stem cell research. I was not angry. I was simply disappointed. It is beyond my imagination how a person nearly killed by the onslaught of diabetes and alcoholism, one who has suffered so many internal struggles and so much tragedy could support candidates whose sympathies for the feelings and conditions of others are so lacking.

Ms. Moore's inability to realize the necessity and the value of our Constitutional separation of church state clause is also staggering to me . It is the height of irony that a woman who needed most the advocacy for her plights would eschew candidates who could give just that to her. I, too, could not understand a woman of the theater, who most definitely in her career must have known many homosexual people, yet throws her support to candidates whose so called "moral" position on homosexuality would be that those people either not exist, deny their feelings or deny their rights which other American citizens take for granted. It is unconscionable to me that a woman of her stature could not think about the people she supports and look with suspicion on the company they keep. I might, respectfully, tell her, too, that George Bush did NOT reject embryonic stem cell research BECAUSE he “had an obligation to his religion …” On the contrary; others who have known him relate that he truly held weak religious belief. He USED religious belief, however, to appeal to a base he thought he needed to attain political power.

Ms. Moore's diabetes at this moment in time COULD have been cured IF George Bush had not been president wasting eight years while lines of stem cells were thrown in the trash. Those lines could have helped cure her diabetes and Michael Fox's Parkinson's and Chris Reeves’s paralysis and even MY paralysis from polio and millions of others who suffer from hideous diseases every day of their life. Chris Reeve could possibly be alive today if it were not for George W. Bush. George Bush had NO trouble sending thousands to their death but could not see fit to protect full term human life. This, Ms. Moore, says is because of his moral compass. I say WHAT moral compass. He had none.

It is sad in our time to see our idols fall from grace but fallen she has at least from MY Mt. Olympus. I wish her well but I SURELY hope those whom she supports as political candidates NEVER in this country and in MY time again gain the immense power they once had to create the kind of destruction we see today. Our president now may be our country's LAST chance to redeem its image; an image that was reflected by the innocence and beauty of the television of which, for so many years, Ms. Moore was a part. It is sad for me to see that she is not exactly who I thought she was.

I wrote this in response to a Newsweek article that said Obama was giving the country a too rosey scenario of the extent of our fiscal crisis.


In response to the Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart article entitled "Don't Buy the Chirpy Forecasts" if President Obama came out and said the prospects for economic recovery any time soon look bleak and the economic downturn will most likely last a decade then the media and the public would be screaming from the rafters that Obama does not inspire confidence. You cannot have it both ways. I think the president is doing the best he can given the can of worms he was handed. He tries to exude hope and realistic Rooseveltian optimism. The example presidencies of Lincoln and Roosevelt from which the president seeks direction serve us well. It was Lincoln's sagacious ability to look at issues with multidemensional heart and Roosevelt's optimistic oratorical brilliance which kept the country's spirits buoyed to save a nation.

I cannot imagine a worse scenario than to have an economic catastrophe and a president at the helm with a lemon-like Calvin Coolidge personality or a deer-in-the-headlights helpless impotency of a Herbert Hoover. We are lucky to have a president of substance and ability after the dearth of leadership we have experienced in the past decade. Will the president have missteps? Of course he will. Look closely at what his inept and incompetent predecessor did. Bush was, in my opinion, a disaster to this nation. The American public should never forget and be thankful someone brilliant, competent and hopeful occupies our highest office. Moreover, our speed dial McDonald's nation needs to understand President Obama has been in office a mere two months. Give him a chance. I think, perhaps, our nation, with any luck, may luck out once again.

"Ethical Embroys": Before I even read Jeff Jacoby's March 15, 2009 Boston Sunday Globe article"Embryos and Ethics" I knew my blood pressure would soar. It did. Curious how the right wing's moral compass is all atwitter about a frozen group of cells used in embryonic stem cell research but wars that kill and inflict horrendous suffering on often innocent full term human beings goes off their radar screen. Hypocritical as usual, the right wing often marches to every beat of a war drum but beats up on the possibility of cells in a petrie dish curing disease.

For me, a paralytic polio survivor since the age of five, this issue literally has legs. 30 years ago I was told about the possibility of the regeneration of nerve cells in my spinal cord and that regaining the use of paralyzed parts of my body was not simply the stuff of science fiction. More research, at that time, needed to be done. It never happened because of the right wing's oppressive agenda and because of George Bush who for eight long years limited research on it to only a few existing stem cell lines. Other lines created after subsequent fertilizations could not be used and, in morally dubious fashion, were thrown away. My leg and other parts of my body remain paralyzed.

I do not care a wit what Charles the ideologue Krauthammer thinks about this issue or if he cares about his own physically compromised life. I care about mine and others. He and Jeff Jacoby are wrong. This issue will never be like the Tuskegee experiment which was so immorally done on full term African American human beings. It is not even remotely the same and experiments such as that have nothing to do with stem cell research. A clump of blastocysts could promote tissue repair and cure hideous diseases. What a boon to all mankind that would be. I cannot think of one thing more that I would love my tax dollars to go to than to help cure human beings who suffer unspeakable torment every day of their lives. The people in our democracy must believe that too since they elected Barack Obama who was unequivocally supportive of stem cell research in his campaign. It is a breath of fresh air that he finally brought some intellect and rational thought to the White House. It gives hope to millions including even to me!

Written to The Boston Globe in response to Jacoby's March 11 editorial

I agree with Jeff Jacoby's March 11, 2009 editorial "History's Oldest Hatred." His article was flawless and his comparison to the Jewish festival of Purim well taken as it celebrates, in ancient history, the foiling of a Persian plot to kill all the Jews.

I once, many years ago, viewed the PBS documentary "The Longest Hatred." It explained the historical progression of Anti-semitism but began mostly with early Christianity. The truth is, the etiology of Anti-semitism is even further removed from that as the Jew has so often, even in ancient history, been the other. The uniqueness of Anti-semitism as he says is its protean quality and its ability to evolve over historical time.

He is quite correct to say it endures as an "obsessive and indestructible hatred" the lethality of which has been its legacy for so many Jews. The Jewish people have been condemned to this fate but have endured. It is why, though, ever vigilant will always be my motto.

This was in response to the story about the woman who had recently given birth and stole another new mother's purse from the maternity ward at a local hospital:

The sadness that exists in this world is sometimes hard to fathom. Why people do what they do to themselves and to others will often be an enigma. Poets, philosophers, writers and the like have written about it for centuries. Unless one can walk in another's shoes one cannot know for sure the why of things. It is up to us, I believe, to have the empathy to try to understand. In Truman Capote's book 'In Cold Blood' I believe he entitled it as such to give us a glimpse into the motivation of the perpetrators of a heinous crime. I think Capote was saying nothing is ever done in cold blood but, in truth, much ill that is committed has reasons, often volcanic, which explain the etiology of pathological behavior. On the face of it we only see the horrific nature of some crimes and we never get to see beyond it. The victim, too, has rights and deserves justice. Crime affects all of us as we use our precious tax dollars to pay for police, judges, juries, lawyers and, ultimately, if necessary, incarceration. We all pay for what others do as we are all in the boat together. If the boat is rocked we are rocked with it.

The nature of addiction is not known. Some say it is in DNA. If so one can only hope she gets the help she needs to manage and overcome it, if possible. It would behoove us, I think, as a society not to punish with verbal vitriol but to try, in some way, to offer hope that she gets the assistance she needs so she and her child not suffer any longer. We as the community, who must pay the price and bear the burden, should hope she receives the help she so desperately needs since even once removed if it happens to the least of these it happens to us as well.

Islam and Freedom of Speech: Jeff Jacoby's interview with the Dutch politician Geert Wilders in the March 8, 2009 ListenOP section of the Boston Sunday Globe entitled "Islam and Freedom of Speech" was commendable. I agree with Mr. Wilders entirely. Every country with no exception which considers itself based on Islamic law subjugates itself to a literal and unquestioning view of Koranic belief. Any perceived rejection of that will visit a death sentence or fatwa against the person postulating disagreement.

When religion is entwined with state it is so obvious the toxic and cruel brew that results. I believe the First Amendment to our Constitution is the most important and within that, freedom speech and freedom of the press go to the head of the class. It is why the potential restriction of that speech by a man like our former president was so threatening. It was threatening because our nation would be forced to subject itself to the whim of simply one man.

A nation whose life blood is a religious document with no escape clause becomes no less threatening. That nation is subjecting itself to the unquestioning statements of one document no matter how perceptively unjust or conflicting those statements may be. The separation of church and state is more than an extraordinarily important doctrine. It is life saving.

One, I think, could not argue with much Mr. Wilders said or one could. I would, though, as Voltaire said, defend his right to say anything he chooses. Too bad the UK government by not permitting the Mr. Geert Wilders entry into their country does not see it the same way.

Peter Singer -- A Different Song: In response to Jeff Jacoby's March 4, 2009 op ed article in The Globe "Intelligence is No Guarantee of Goodness" even I a 150% supporter of abortion rights and free choice have a hard time accepting an ethical argument of Peter Singer that parents along with doctors have the right to determine whether the life of a newborn child with severe disability can be ended. That is, indeed, to me, a right for which it is difficult to argue. Ideas such as that, while in theory seem to have humane intent, in practice are very hard to employ. When does even a doctor much less a parent consider a child born with severe disability unfit to live? I envision the abuse of determinations of that fact as families think about the financial costs incurred supporting that child through its life even when the parents are not there.

There is a line, as a free choice advocate, which must be drawn. Full term human life is not the issue for me. Life in utero solely dependent on the mother to sustain it is for me the essence of the abortion debate. Adults have the ability through health care proxies to let others know what they want. An infant, however,
has no such ability and to think of euthanizing it after birth is too much for my moral psychology to bear. Singer's thoughts reinforce my support for abortion rights more than ever. It allows me to conclude that the freedom to choose abortion is, in reality, pro life. It is a right which could often eliminate the need for a dastardly deed to be done after a full term human child is born.

The Anathema of Yoo -- a letter to Chapman University Law School where, John Yoo, one of Bush administration's lawyers who wrote memos to George Bush justifying torture and other breaches of civil liberties, is a visiting professor at Chapman from the University of California Law School at Berkeley:

I have read your law school's rationalization for the employment of John Yoo as visiting professor of your prestigious university and find it abhorrent. John Yoo has treasonously subverted the very essence of who we are as a nation. He helped undermine the very foundation of our sacred Constitution and subverted our most cherished legal civil libertarian values. He wrote opinions some of which were enacted and some of which were not. Those that were enacted with respect to the advocacy of torture possibly could indict Mr. Yoo for crimes. Torture, as I do not have to remind you, is ILLEGAL in this country.

Employing a visiting professor who harbors a hint of complicity in the advocacy of such policies should be an anathema to you no matter what one’s political persuasion. Those policies he helped justify meant the overthrowing of the entirety of our nation’s system. His opinions try to justify the very tyranny of presidential power we profess to abhor. They serve to justify the imbuing of the executive branch with so much power it COULD have meant even the apprehension of many in your law school, many in the University of California at Berkeley Law School, many in Harvard Law School, indeed, many in any law school, any university, any home, anywhere and at any time. That person could be jailed, literally, forever with no ability to redress his grievances and worst of all he could even be a citizen of our country. The decision to do so would rest with only one man. In Jon Yoo’s universe that decision would rest with George W. Bush alone. Would YOU have wanted your fate determined solely by him?

Our Founders were dedicated to avoiding the pitfalls of tyranny and eschewed the idea that one man would be able to exercise so much power that he, on a whim, might use that power to levy punishment on anyone he chose. That person selected, no matter how innocent, would have no right of trial and no right to face his accusers to state his case. This should be an egregious affront not only to ALL those within the hierarchy of most especially a law school but to all of us, too, who love our Constitution and our country's form of government. Mr. Yoo’s memos constructing ideations of presidential power took the history of humankind’s hard slog toward civilized conduct and reversed it centuries. He did not bend, as Dr. King so eloquently iterated, the long arc of the moral universe toward justice but he twisted it to an unrecognizable shape of injustice so that any man occupying the highest offi ce in our land could do whatever he wanted without fear of consequence.

He ignored our separation of powers system. If our Founders wanted the system for which Mr. Yoo advocated in the memos he produced they would have let King George III remain as colonial overlord and the colonists would have been required to endure whatever injustices he wanted to bestow. The abrogation of those civil libertarian values, so necessary for our democracy to flourish, makes our country the laughing stock of the world when we attempt to tell totalitarian governments how they should act.

If our civil liberties cannot be maintained even in the harshest times then that must mean they apply only when times are good. Our cherished civil liberties are NOT simply for times that are easy but for also times that are hard. Mr. Yoo, in my opinion, should not be teaching at an institution that values the rule of law and his employment there or anywhere else in an institution of higher learning should be repugnant to those who value the essence of our nation.

The Fatal Fatwa: The article entitled "The Yoga Fatwa" in the February 27, 2009 The Boston Globe op ed written by Renee Loth says it all. She excellently explains why America, even with its frailties, is preferable to many other cultures. I am not an American exceptionalist impervious to American shortcomings or bad policies but a story such as this which talks about countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Egypt banning something as innocuous as Yoga drives home that point. How can banning something as benign as Yoga or for that matter blowing up ancient statues of the Buddha, or killing someone because they paint a cartoon be defended in any way? Loth takes aim at Europe, too, with their culture clash and the banning of Islamic head scarves. She even admits to our own, at times, American intolerance.

Who in this county would even think, though, to file a bill for the government to ban yoga, blow up Buddha statues, or make the wearing of an Islamic veil a criminal offense? Religious secularism, despite attempts at times to reverse it, still prevails. Multiculturalism is the essence of who we are.

For all of our shortcomings I agree with Ms. Loth. I'll take this country and its secular tradition -- albeit compromised at times -- any day over any other place on earth!

Forgot to add -- The President's Speech -- one word -- BRILLIANT! Now let's hope he can implement it AND I hope the banks do not fail, and Pakistan does not explode! Beyond that I feel safe.

Dowd Does it Again: Maureen Dowd hits yet another home run. How true her thoughts are. This one is entitled "I Ponied Up for Cheryl Crow"
Great reading link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1


I particularly love the line:

"The bank cloaks itself in a philanthropic glow while wasting our money, acting like the American Cancer Society when in fact it’s a cancer on American society."

While I am at it and do not have much time today -- to sum up the president's first
speech before a joint session of Congress: BRILLIANT !!! This man, if all he says works, yes, will walk on water.

This was written in response to an article by Betsy Hart in the Metro West News entitled "When your child sasses the principal.

The Vulgarization of America: Steve Allen wrote a book entitled "Vulgarians at the Gate" where he talks about and criticizes the vulgarization of contemporary culture. As an attendee of Boston University (the Berkeley of the East) during the turbulent late 1960's I often nostalgically look back on that time as the first time in my life I experienced purpose and hope. That era brought necessary change for blacks, for women, for the environment, for the understanding of sexuality and it encouraged a new found freedom of inquiry and verbal exchange.

I also look back on that era with some profound sadness, doubt, regret and even some guilt. I fear that maybe some of those changes brought with them a variety of dysfunctions. The new found freedoms of critical analysis ushered in a violence, a promiscuity, addiction and a general lack of civility for what is permissible and what it not in the course of human relationships. It became okay to say anything, do anything, sleep with anyone and treat one's superiors like they were not superior at all.

We felt we should get along with everyone BUT we really didn't have to if we didn't want to. I feel so old when I say in my day but I will say it anyway -- In MY day in high school we would NEVER EVER think of "dissing" a teacher even IF that teacher was consummately wrong. We held our breath at the ones who dared. Is is right to be in such fear of after all mere mortals? No, I think not. We must, though, if we are to remain civilized TREAT each other, most especially those who are trying to educate and/or protect us with respect. It is that respect which is missing and I fear the genie can not be placed back in the bottle. There is, indeed, a crudity, coarseness, outrageous behavior and speech which is sanctioned now but never would have been in bygone eras.

When I visited the old South High School over a decade ago the lockers were defaced, doors removed from the bathrooms and there was, I felt, a general sense that the respect WE once had for not only the building but what the building represented, was gone. It made me cry and wonder if our generation ushered in something terribly wrong. Perhaps it did. Still, I would not want to return to the days of yesteryear when we did not question and we were not critical of a system that begged for criticism. I wonder, though, if we could not have done that in a kinder, gentler and more civilized way. Something good, civil and right has, I think, gone and my fear is that we will never be able to get it back.

Why I am what I am: READ this article link below appearing in the Metro Section of the Globe today. THIS is why I cannot let what the Vatican has done go. This is the example extraordinaire that sets my blood on fire. This is the story that makes me feel explosive and shapes my views and is responsible for my furiousness at the fate of the Jews. This story says EVERYTHING about a deep seeded endemic view sewn into the bowels of Christianity that makes a POPE -- a POPE mind you -- want to embrace priests within this horrifically antiSemitic Order to try to in humanitarian fashion "bring them back" into the fold. The Pope has the audacity to say that he did not know Williamson's views when it is clear even from laity who KNOW his views and have heard them first hand or any kid who can use google what those views are. Read this article below and see the spewing told directly TO the people who know Williamson and served him and YOU TELL ME how you are able to defuse an awful anger at the HORRENDOUS injustice that for centuries STILL lives in a part of the Christian and especially Catholic verbiage and belief. Not only does it live there I submit that despite a few Christian fundamentalists who claim to love Israel there are STILL many who are antiSemites of the worst order blaming the Jews for the death of Christ. IF the pope did NOT know this then WHY did not someone in his entourage CLUE him in? Why? Because I submit they are in sympathy with people in this Order and want them taken back.

This putrid belief has legs. Their perpetration of the fundamental basis of the stereotype of the Jew as the archetypal planner, schemer, and owner of all things of money and power in the entire Globe bent on raising himself and annihilating innocent Christianity if not God himself must be held accountable. This they believe is the Jew who is the only one who could perpetrate a fraud of such huge magnitude to get even scholars from Harvard to believe it. It is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for everyone to view. Israel naturally is swept up into this poison of 2000 years. Arabs all over the world use these rancid beliefs, spread them and sell antiSemitic literature and transmit it especially to youth so that THEY believe it is justified to eliminate the Jew. It goes on and on and on and on year after year, century after century and leaves NO room for reconciliation or peace.

Now when I wrap my head around the massive six million -- SIX MILLION -- number I cannot let it go. I can't let it go, I WON'T and I strike out verbally. This link should be spread everywhere. You should read it because it says something and those who have been critical of me and want me to let the strong feelings I have about the Holocaust and those who are responsible for it by belief and deed can see why I just simply cannot. The memory of the six cannot die. It must go on from generation to generation, parents MUST tell their children and their children's children for all time.

Further, the world and Christianity in particular must own up and NEVER forget its assistance in the transmitting the necessary preconditions and dogma for the greatest murder in this history of man. The Vatican MUST be held to account for its part in those beliefs forever as should EVERY religion who holds these ugly tenets. Those bishops who still hold those disgusting beliefs should NOT be allowed "back into the fold". To the contrary they should be RE-EXCOMMUNICATED until they recant those beliefs which
have been in part responsible for the murdering of millions.

Just cut and paste it and send it on.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/20/bishops_vexing_beliefs_have_deep_roots/