Of course we are not speaking of a TV series, a New Jersey Rocker, or an owner of a major league baseball franchise. That kind of leaves us with our star attraction, pictured above.

It is really so much simpler than what all of us have been working ourselves up over. “What is simpler?”, you ask? Why the appeal of Donald Trump to certain elements of the electorate.

Never mind the racist, xenophobic, and misogynistic undertones—or as some allege, overtones of Trump’s campaign for President. Never mind his long slate of accomplishments…three wives and four bankrupticies. No, what these voters are looking for is simply a boss. After all, as much as he has been criticized for actions independent of Congress (as have many of his predecessors) President Barack Obama lacks the absolute power over his realm that Trump exercises over his dominion.

But the image of Trump as a boss who gets things done seems to be very stromg with the public. The source of that image? Mostly Trunp himself, whose bluster in the campaign to date at heart consists of him telling people he will do what he says with no substance to how he hopes to accomplish this.

And, of course his legacy as host of a contrived and manipulative “reality” television series, The Apprentice, on which he was the contrivingest, manipulatingest element of all does nothing but enhance his boss image. After all, who would not want to pit several contestants against each other in rigged competitions so that, even if all performed admirably and the margin of difference between the teams was negligible, one of the team members would hear the dreaded, “You’re fired” at the end of each episode. Great televison, bad business practices.

(Full disclosure—I viewed pretty much all of the first season of The Apprentice, a few episodes of the second season, and have sporadically seen snippets of a few episodes since, especially as it morphed into The Celebrity Apprentice)

In these public endeavors Trump had no Board of Directors to contend with, let alone a recalcitrant Congress, only the sychophantic comments of long time associates/aides or adoring children.

The potential voters who have demonstrated a willingness to vote for someone perceived as a no-nonsense, accomplish at all costs boss are wallowing in self-delusion.

Deporting all illegal or undocumented immigrants is an impossible, budget busting no-go financially and as a matter of practicality in simply rounding up all the folks eligible for deportment and observing their lawfully guaranteed procedural rights, a pipe dream of the first magnitude.

And building the Mexican wall? Puh-lease!

In foreign affairs he would have the U.S. virtually bludgeon other nations to submit to our will. “ISIS, be gone!” “China, take your part of our National Debt and wipe it off your books to repay us for your financial sins against the U.S.”  And so on and so on.

Some people lie to themselves by rejoicing in Trump’s unilateral approach to politics. But upon his inauguration on January 21, at 12:01 p.m. a giant alarm clock (perhaps designed by Ahmed Mohamed?) will clang his supporters into the reality of the real political world, just as ordinary alarm clocks, on Monday morning awaken the working world from their weekend reveries.

And just as commuters find that road construction has persuaded everybody to take the usualy less-traveled shortcuts that are now clogged, so wil Trump believers find the shorcuts their idol has promised them are also clogged, but in this case due to Trump closing the main arteries that usually serve so well.

Neither Congress, the Supreme Court, nor other world leaders are “at will” employess dispatched on a whim. They will not be Apprentice applicants cowering before him, but rather strong leaders with their own power bases and paychecks not signed by The Donald. Gary Busey they ain’t.



We are rapidly, or maybe not rapidly enough, moving towards the 2016 Presidential election. The house pictured above is the residence the announced candidates aspire to inhabit. But what about their current residences? How do they compare?

We are blessed by this article which gives us pretty pictures of the house or houses owned by some of the candidates, but limited to only Trump, Bush, Clinton, and Sanders.


I have not been able to obtain photographs, but I am assured by reliable sources that the following descriptions are accurate depictions of their living spaces for some of the other candidates.

Mike Huckabee—a little warren within some evangelical church, away from the riff-raff whom he has time for only to deliver his latest irrational screed. Inside his personal area the walls are plastered with pictures of various acts of sado-masochism performed by him with waitresses from Hooters. Oh, and a portrait of Soupy Sales.

Rick Perry—His house is built to emulate the Allan B. Polunsky Unit in West Livingston, Texas which contains the state’s Death Row. Inside, Perry’s great room contains plenty of loungers with wrist, waist, and ankle straps and IV poles ready to deliver his guests’ beverage of choice.

Scott Walker—-Surprisingly he lives a very ascetic life in a bare bones home. After all, even in these times it’s difficult to fully furnish and decorate a house without objects that were union made. Obviously he has no car.

Rand PaulDesigned by renowned architect Howard Roark Paul’s home has a small but comfortable library which holds only the works of Ayn Rand…oh…and the Gideon Bible he brought home from his last national Ophthalmology Convention, aiming to use it for guidance when advising Kentucky County Clerks on their job duties.

Ben Carson—A comfortable but not ostentatious home in which his favorite room is the one where he displays mementoes of his life. Among thse are a brain preserved in formaldehyde complete with electric stimulators he can operate for old times’ sake, a sonogram of the pre-aborted fetus he later used for stem cell research, and an unused booklet of Food Stamps from his childhood.

Michael O’Malley—He lives in a house that formerly housed one of those crab shacks like you find dotting the Maryland shore. He maintains a supply of wooden mallets, a stack of old newspapers (each containing a report of one of his speeches) used to cover the wooden picnic table where his family dines, and a to-the-ceiling pile of O’Malley For President bumper stickers that no one has accessed his web site to request.

Rick Santorum—Since his unpublicized divorce and remarriage, he had to move into his new spouse’s dog house.

Chris Christie—Has houses all over the country. You can recognize them by the Dunkin Donuts logo outside.

Carly Fiorina—Her house is an nondescript suburban block and brick building, miles from public transit, part of which she leases to the local unemployment office serving laid off tech workers.

Jim Webb—A 3476 sq ft Virginia Colonial, indistinguishable from most of his neighbors save for the electric message sign in front displaying a continuous loop reading “I AM NOT THE JIM WEBB WHO WROTE THAT ATROCIOUS SONG MACARTHUR PARK. There is currently a class action by his neighbors pending in which they seek damages for the ear worm they cannot get rid of.

Jeff Boss, Harry Braun, Lawrence Lessig, Robby Wells and Willie Nelson (not the singer) , a bunch of unknowns seeking the Democratic nomination, who reside jointly in a suite at the Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum in Weston, West Virginia.

Bobby Jindal–He used to live in a home resembling the Taj Mahal, but Trump evicted him for nonpayment of rent after he gambled all his money away in the building’s casino.

Ted Cruz—Rumored to reside just outside Winnipeg.

Marco Rubio—Lives very modestly in the rear of a Cuban sandwich shop in Miami’s Little Havana.

John Kasich—Currently living in the Ohio Governor’s mansion in Columbus, but preparing to move to a mountainside cabin on Denali. when his term expires.

Lindsey Graham—Once his objective of attacking Iran to end its nuclear program is acheived, he is going to retire from the Senate, and move into the penthouse condo he has already purchased overlooking the grandest boulevard in downtown Tehran.

Considering our options, would it be possible to change the locks at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. before January, 20, 2017?



Republican Presidential candidates for 2016 have one thing undeniably in common. They all pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and replace it with lollipops and rainbows…er, lower premiums and lower costs and more freedom. These candidates have been asked repeatedly for specifics of their plans and sidestep the questions with more general, meaningless statements.

Well Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin, has finally put the pedal to the metal and produced an outline of what he proposes to do to replace the ACA.

To preface my introduction to his plan let me just assert that

  1. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect, and
  2. There are ways available to address any flaws without tearing the entire law apart, and
  3. Any fix or replacement must be based on the facts of the current situation


Here is the first paragraph of Scott Walker’s plan.

Washington’s failed approach to health care is hurting the American people. Big government created a health care system built around Washington, not hardworking families. This backwards approach drove up health care costs and reduced access to medical care for far too many of our neighbors, friends, and family members.

Each sentence is a lie.

Washington’s failed approach to health care is hurting the American people

On the contrary, the uninsured rate has dropped dramatically and there have been real positive consequences of the law.


Big government created a health care system built around Washington, not hardworking families.

Again false, That is the equivalent of the often made claim that the ACA was a “government takeover of health care.” And that, my friends, was the Politifact 2010 Lie Of The Year And do not dismiss Politifact as a source because Walker himself takes advantage of it in support of his ideas, which you will see.


This backwards approach drove up health care costs and reduced access to medical care for far too many of our neighbors, friends, and family members.

To this I can pretty much only respond, HUH?

More lies

The list of ObamaCare failures is long. Democrats have long promised affordability with their big-government health care plans, from HillaryCare to ObamaCare. But instead of lower costs and expanded coverage, ObamaCare has caused insurance premiums across the country to spike as the cost of Washington’s new regulations and taxes are passed to the American people. The Heritage Foundation found from 2014 to 2015, average premiums for young people increased by approximately 14 percent in Iowa and 19 percent in Ohio and Minnesota. Families in Kansas and Louisiana saw increases of almost 14 percent.[1] We will likely see even higher premium increases in 2016 and beyond as ObamaCare’s insurance company bailouts phase out. Probably the most cited ObamaCare failure, and Politifact’s 2013 ‘Lie of the Year,’ was President Obama’s repeated claim that if you liked your existing health care coverage, you could keep it.[2] So while both Obama and Hillary Clinton made promises that their health plans would allow Americans to keep their existing coverage, millions of people were pushed out of their preferred health plans and restricted access to the doctors they wanted to see.[3] ObamaCare has also punished employers with costly mandates and red tape, hurting growth and job creation. Another ObamaCare failure is the way it went about expanding coverage. Where ObamaCare expanded the number of people with coverage who previously were not insured, it did so mostly by pushing people into Medicaid, a program that was already overburdened.[4] And many of the people who received insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges had in fact been previously insured, but got knocked off their private health plans. Others switched coverage because federal subsidies only flowed if they signed up for ObamaCare’s prescriptive plans. As a result, billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on downgraded health policies.

Let me make some points here.

  • The Heritage Foundation can find whatever premium increases it wants, but these increases have been predicted since day one of the law and, guess what, the average actual increase for premiums from 2014 to 2015 was ZERO


Now, of course an average of zero does not mean there were no increases but that there were both increases and reductions. And the article cited notes the reasons behind the relative stability of health care premiums across the board including the benefits derived from the standardization of plans under the ACA. But other factors include geographical differences, the number of insurers in the market and other variations.

Likewise the predictions for hikes in 2016 are based on proposals not actualities. Again look to the Commonwealth Fund for guidance.


  •  “ObamaCare’s prescriptive plans”,

I am not certain what he means. All the ACA does is require health care plans to now contain prescritption drug coverage, though not necessarily for all drugs, whereas previously they did not have to.


  • Where ObamaCare expanded the number of people with coverage who previously were not insured, it did so mostly by pushing people into Medicaid, a program that was already overburdened.[4] And many of the people who received insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges had in fact been previously insured, but got knocked off their private health plans.

The Department of Health and Human Services reports that 11.7 million Americans signed up for coverage through the exchanges in the 2015 enrollment period ending in March and

As of March 2015 HHS reported a total of 16.4 covered due to the ACA between the Marketplace, Medicaid expansion, young adults staying on their parents plan, and other coverage provisions.

So Medicaid enrollees are nowhere near a majority of the newly insured. Even if that were so, the states that accepted the expansion of Medicaid are saving money.


However, the states that refused to expand that program are experiencing greater costs to care for the uninsured.

Nationwide, the cost of caring for uninsured people in non-expansion states between now and 2024 is projected to reach $266 billion if no new states decide to expand Medicaid, according to a report in April from the Kaiser Family Foundation. If all states decided to expand, that cost would drop by a third.


  • millions of people were pushed out of their preferred health plans and restricted access to the doctors they wanted to see.

First of all, the number of people who may have had policies cancelled appears to have been grossly overstated.


But do you know the only group that specifically was mandated to lose their coverage under the ACA? No, you probably don’t, but it was Congress, together with certain staffers who were kicked out of the coverage they had had. And that coverage was simply participation in the same menu of plans available to all federal civilian employees. That is why, when Ted Cruz lost his spousal coverage when his wife left Goldman Sachs, he was forced to purchase coverage from one of the ACA exchanges. Yes, Virginia, there is a mandate for Congresscritters to participate in the exchanges. A mandate, incidentally, I believe to be both totally political and stupid.

Because I find the source, FOX News, to be amusing in this context I’ll present a viewpoint expressed there.


But in an overall sense the ACA is a scapegoat for any cancelled policies. If insurance companies had enough introspection they would paraphrase Cassius

The fault lies not in the ACA, but in ourselves.

You see…and really this is not revelatory, simply a reminder…prior to the Affordable Care Act insurers could cancel policies for any damned reason or none at all. Just peruse this article from 2007 before the ACA was a gleam in Barack Obama’s eye.


And private health care plans frequently change the providers they allow access to. See this look at the UPMCHighmark steel cage match in Pittsburgh.


Now to the essence of Walker’s plan, his five points.

1. Repeal ObamaCare in its entirety.

We heard you already, Scott!

2. Ensure affordable and accessible health insurance for everyone.






Part A is a pipedream and Walker’s ideas as to how to accomplish this are nebulous and sketchy at best. And it ignores the reality that in this century health care costs and premiums for coverage have seen steady, sometimes very large increases, with and without the ACA, but the rate of growth of both has slowed since the law was enacted.

Part B, A footnote accomopanying a chart showing suggested levels of subsidies states

so there would be no intrusive oversight by the IRS and no accountant needed to determine the credit amount.

Pray tell who administers or tracks these subsidies if not the IRS. And he wants to put honest accountants out of work? I have friends who would be hurt.

Part C Here’s more on health savings accounts and pros and cons.


One note I will add is that in Part B Walker claims his simplification of subsidies will lessen IRS influence, but HSA’s appear to reuire high IRS maintenance to ensure compliance with the law.

Part D This may be the only part that has some merit in that presumably there would be more competition for the health insurance premium dollar. But the same was said about permitting banks to operated across state lines and look at what Dr. Franken-deregulate-Stein has created.

Part E The devil is in the details. And these details have a strong resemblance to Satan. For, instead of simply requiring companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions, he forces them back into high risk pools with limited coverage. No thank you.

3. Make health care more efficient, effective and accountable by empowering the states.



In this part Walker highlights Medicaid and declares it so broken only the states can fix it. Balderdash, Run by the states eligibility reuirements are set so unfairly that many desperately poor people have no chance of becoming insured, and thus will tax resources as noted above.

For instance in the U.S someone is considered to be below poverty level if their income is no more than $11,770 for one person, $15,930 for 2 persons in a hosehold and  $20,090 for a family of 3. But states that did not opt for the Medicaid expansion do not allow eligibility for those above a certain percentage of the federal poverty level. In Alabama, it is 13% for parents and 0% for other adults.


In other words In Alabama a household with 2 parents and a child, earning barely more than $2600 per YEAR means the parents cannot receive Medicaid (though the child may be eligibe for CHIP).

Think about that. Can states be trusted to take care of their own? Or only a small proportion of their own.

As to returning regulatory authority to the states, again this is a fallacy because they still exercise the majority of regulatory authority over insurance companies. Indeed, the differences between state actions in this respect are another reason why premium rates differ so greatly.

Along the way he asks that the current funding means for Medicaid, shared by the state and federal governments, remain in place with some tweaking of the formula with states getting block grants from the Feds. However, in states with no expansion, they are right now tied to the old levels of federal participation which rarely exceed 50% of Medicaid costs, whereas those falling under the Medicaid expansion get 100% paid by the feds until dropping to 90%. A much better deal than now.

4. Increase quality and choice through innovation.





While at least A B and C have some merit on the surface, Walker’s approach is oversimplistic. As to Part A, group plans, these already are very common for members of groups like unions or fraternal organizations or even members of credit unions or those having other affinity relationships. The one basic limitation is that the persons eligible for such policies have some affiliation with each other besides the mere fact of seeking group insurance. Indeed, besides health coverage one can get auto or life insurance or pretty much any kind of insurance. Since so many Americans belong to affinity groups I would guess the extent of this type of coverage may be reliant on knowledge and desire of groups to pursue such measures.

Wellness incentives are already included in many private insurance policies. Does he want the government to mandate such coverage or merely command people to stay healthy?

Long term care coverage can be very important to individuals or even couples. But from what I can find on the topic, it does not really appear that the practice is over-regulated. In some cases there is next to no regulation. But Tax Qualified policies, because they do not tax benefits, of necessity must follow IRS regulations. Here is a good overview of such policies and practices.


Part D is a complete lie. That is tort litigation is not a prime mover of medical costs. Best estimates that the total cost of the effects of medical malpractice are slightly more than 2% per year.


But what does that mean exactly? According to the study cited here perhaps 10% of the total figure  is for what is paid out in judgments and settlements, nearly $6 BILLION a year. But that money was paid out because doctors did something wrong.That was not mere generosity on the part of malpractice insurers. In addition defense attorneys cost those insurers almostt 20% of those payouts. But defense lawyers get paid no matter the outcome.

But the major thing wrong with this point is that it is based on myths, which are dispelled here.


For instance various sources put the number of yearly deaths due to medical mistakes at 100,000 or more. That is close to 4% of all deaths in the country. That’s an awaful lot of malpractice yet only 1 in 8 victims of such treatment files suit. So it is bogus to argue there is excess litigation when the opposite is true.

Now Walker and his cohorts will assert that excessive damages are frequently awarded, especially for pain and suffering, but this, like many opinions, depends on whose ox is getting gored. Rick Santorum has pushed for limits and still advocates the same but when his wife lost a baby and undoubtedly experienced pain and suffering, to which he testified on her behalf, she got an award over the limits he wants for everyone else. (Not being intimately knowledgeable about her case, I believe the award is nowhere near out of bounds.


5. Provide financial stability for families and taxpayers.

Hey! Who can argue with that goal?

As a result, all of our citizens in poverty have gained access to health insurance through our state’s Medicaid plan, BadgerCare – a first in Wisconsin history. And our reforms are providing everyone in the state access to health insurance, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation

Never dare The UMOC to check your claims of others’ approval. In fact, not everyone in poverty in Wisconsis has access to coverage but many of the ones who gained coverage through the Medicaid waiver links to BadgerCare must now pay premiums for that coverage (unlike regular Medicaid enrollees) and can lose eligibility for enrollment for a period if they fail to pay these premiums.

In 2012, Wisconsin received approval to apply premium payments to TMA adults above 138%FPL with a 12-month restrictive re-enrollment policy as a penalty for failure to pay premiums.  In 2012, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) studied the effects of the increased and expanded premiums implemented on TMA individuals above 138% FPL. This study found that between July 2012, when the premium provision was implemented, and December 2012 over two thirds (69%) of the 18,544 individuals between 133% and 150% FPL had left the program. About one in five (21%) of that population lost coverage due to failure to pay within the initial six months.


Now early on in this plan Walker justifies his desire to rid the world of “Obamacare” with this statement.

It should come as no surprise that many pillars of ObamaCare can be traced to “HillaryCare,” Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care plan. And the proposals in Hillary’s “American Health Choices Plan,” released during her 2008 presidential campaign, provide a useful link between her 1993 plan and her present-day ideas.

I smile at the irony. You can get a glimpse of Hillary’s plan here, in the assessment of the Heritage Foundation, a reliable go-to source for WAlker.


The Affordable Care Act does NOT resemble that at all. What it does resemble is a health care plan brewed up by that same Heritage Foundation that was introduced into the Senate in December of 1993 by 21 mostly Republican co-sponsors that also was the basis for the plan Massachusetts adopted when Mitt Romney was Governor. Now, was that 1993 plan, submitted in opposition to the Clinton plan, identical to what became the ACA? Of course not, and truth be told, it never came to a vote and other GOP Senators vehemently opposed it.


The core part of both the Republicans HEART plan and the ACA was the individual mandate which, of course became such a point of contention in debate and in litigation when the law passed. Sure there were significant differences.

This article expounds on the genesis and evolution of the GOP plan.


Have I been harsh on Scott Walker? Or rather on the health care plan he has submitted for public scrutiny? Oh, Geez, I surely hope so. I’m a scrutineer from way back. But this plan is deserving of all the snark and skepticism I can muster because from the get go it fails to honestly and objectively assess what impact the Affordable Care Act has had on health care after 5+ years of implementation.

I stated at the outset that the law is flawed. However, Walker chooses to evade discussion of the real flaws and instead focus his attack on the bogeymen created by Republicans and other opponents of the law, together with the same sound bites, debunked allegations, and outright lies that have characterized this eminently debatable issue since the first inklings of what the law was to be emerged in 2009.

Do I unequivocally support the entire ACA? Hell NO! While it does some great things and millions of people are reaping its benefits, at heart is still does not achieve what its main goal purports to be, and that is ensure every American has access to health care through a system of insurance.

As Bernie Sanders and others remind us to a steady drumbeat. the United States is the only major industrialized nation without universal health care.

We can argue the best means to get to that Nirvana, that paragon, but we still waste far too much time arguing if this is a desirable goal at all.

Disappointingly far too many of our politicians would sooner have us at the mercy of private enterprise…oh, yes, that institution that has never harmed one hair on our collective chinny-chin-chins. perish the thought!

All the more dejecting because a simple solution is right before our eyes.

Once more to the ramparts exclaiming…MEDICARE FOR ALL!




A few days ago Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush gave an interview in which he stated, among other things, that Americans need to work harder and longer.

Those are not his precise words nor are those words standing alone.

Here is the exact quote:

My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours” and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.


And since that statement drew a firestorm from the left, Bush clarified his remarks

If we’re going to grow the economy, people need to stop being part-time workers, they need to be having access to greater opportunities to work.


Either way Bush ignores the realities of the American work force and adopts the typical CEO approach to workers that is more at the heart of our economic troubles than any of the nonsense he spouts.

I will address him directly.

Well, Jeb, let me admit you into the world of reality. I know it’s scary but you’re a big boy, you should be able to handle it.

You see, Jeb, truth be told, Americans work harder at their jobs, and are far more productive, than probably any other collection of workers across the industrialized, corporatized world. And yet…and yet…the corporations that employ them do not already reward them for this productivity. Oh, a company will benefit from this productivity, turning out more widgets at a lower cost sold for a higher price generating record profits for the company, but guess where that profit goes almost exclusively.

I’ll give you a moment to ponder.

OK, time’s up. here’s the answer. Jeb, I’m sure you know many corporate heads and higher ups, have hob nobbed with them or consorted with them in your various jobs—those same jobs which have made you personally a very rich man by the way—no need to worry about your family’s health, or the costs of dealing with that at least—and which have provided you an enormous, steady, not paid by the hour income.

That profit, Jeb, goes almost exclusively to the people who are already rich and who did not have to work an hourly job to achieve those riches. How is that so? Well it is so because those rich people have the money to influence lawmakers to allow them to become even richer. The system, as well you should know, seeing as how your dear brother George was such an advocate of its very processes, keeps seeking to put more money into your pockets through a web of lax or no regulation, perpetual begging for lower taxes, maintaining the ability to earn huge sums that, if taxed at all, are taxed below the rate typically paid by one of these hourly workers you implore to work longer and harder, and…to top it all off…actively seeking to deny the financial rewards that should inure to the people who have produced those riches for you.

Work longer hours? Work full time instead of part time? Tell that to Walmart and its ilk that deliberately keep many employees below the level of full time so they do not have to pay benefits. Or pay overtime when their job responsibilities might occasionally stretch their hours beyond forty per week, all in service to the employer.

Or how about this, Jeb? Working full time…a forty hour week…at $10 per hour, which is a higher pay rate than the majority of them earn…still leaves them below the poverty line, severely so if they have children which the majority do.

Add to that the wage theft committed by corporations, again like Walmart…though it is not alone…who sneakily find ways to not even pay their employers for the time they have worked. Multiple successful class action lawsuits to recover these stolen wages do not lie, Jeb.

I’m breaking up with you, Jeb, not that we ever went steady in the first place. But, unlike in real life romances where the person declaring the split says, ” it’s not you, it’s me”, speaking definitively on behalf of all American workers acting as one, in this case Jeb, it is not me, it is YOU.



After a very pleasant Fourth Of July observed with my sons, daughter-in-law, her family and a number of friends, I returned home late in the evening to relax and savor.

While browsing the TV listings I saw I was in for a bonanza if I could keep my remote trigger finger limber enough and if the TV commercial gods were willing. A trilogy of movies was scheduled that demonstrated how three very diverse movies may yet have a thread of commonality woven into them.

On Movieplex I noted that the John Goodman vehicle King Ralph was due up. That is the film in which the entire British royal family suddenly finds iteself accidentally electrocuted. In need of an heir the minions investigate all the genealogy records and determine that Ralph Jones, Goodman’s character, is the closest living person with even a dollop of royal blood.

Ralph is an ill-dressed, ill-mannered, and ill-talented lounge crooner in America and the person charged with finding the heir, played by Peter O’Toole, together with another underling, persuades Ralph to go to England and get his due. Much silliness ensues of course, with Ralph falling for a commoner, narrowly escaping an arranged marriage with a Norwegian princess, committing both diplomatic coups and faux pas, and facing off against a conniving member of the House of Lords with his own designs on the Crown.

Along the way Ralph realizes his sober, serious, and thoughtful side and, after making a triumphant deal with an African potentate to build cars and ease British unemployment, Ralph surrenders his throne with a stirring speech and passes the crown to O’Toole who, it seems, also has royal blood but did not have the confidence to place himself in position to be King but now, thanks to Ralph, knows he can handle the job.

Next up was Moscow On The Hudson, my favorite Robin Williams movie in which he plays a Russian saxophonist with the circus who defects from the Soviet Union during a tour to New York City. He temporarily lives with a black man originally from Alabama and his family, the man having been a security guard in Bloomingdales where Vladimir (Williams) declared his defection.

His adjustment to freedom is mixed, getting the good looking Italian immigrant girl and getting employment as varied as peddling silly eyeglass doohickies on the streets, a hot dog cart vendor, a busboy, and a taxi and limo driver.He misses his Russian family. Vlad encounters many other immigrants from many countries, including his immigration lawyer from Cuba.

He becomes dejected and discouraged about America when his girl breaks up with him and he eventually is mugged just inside his modest apartment building. Frustrated and angry he meets up with hs lawyer and they go to a diner where other immigrants are working and/or eating when the sound of fireworks gets their attention. It seems it is the Fourth of July, The individuals from different corners of the world begin reciting the Declaration of Independence, “When in the course of human events….” one folowing another with the next sentence or phrase. He returns home to find his former girlfriend, who had become naturalized, willing to finally move in with him.

Our third and final entry is the spy thriller, Three Days of The Condor featuring Robert Redford as a CIA researcher who returns to his office in NYC from lunch only to find all hs co-workers murdered and himself a target. At some point he contacts his boss, played by Cliff Robertson, and plays cat and mouse as it seems Redford, AKA Condor, inadvertently uncovered a rogue CIA unit with nefarious intentions in the Middle East, possibly seeking to start a war.

Needing a safe haven Redford kidnaps Faye Dunaway, holds her hostage in her own apartment, binding her at one point, and then, as so often happens in real life, the two make passionate, memorable love. There comes a violent fight in the apartment with the mailman, who, it appears, wants to provide special delivery of some deadly bullets into Redford. Naturally our hero prevails and he later has another threatening situation with hired assassin Max Von Sydow, tasked with eliminating  some dangerous elements within the CIA, obviously reincarnated from his exorcism duties of a couple years earlier. Them Swedes are tough!

The denouement is really no denouemet at all as Robertson acknowledges the existence of the rogue faction but essentially throws his hands up in resignation. This being the CIA, who knows? We are abandoned to uncertainty as Redford presumably will return to Dunaway awaiting her breathless announcement of “My sister AND my daughter

Now shame on you should you not have already detected the common thread nor seen the application of the title to this discussion.

Each of the three movies represents in fictional entertainment form the three aspects…the good the bad and the ugly…of American character.

Moscow On The Hudson clearly is the good. Though its immigrants have not teemed across the border without documentation as worries so many in our political culture, they have the same desire for freedom embedded within their souls though more likely to have immigration laws and policy and quotas on their side, as well as political asylum being their “Get Out Of Jail Free” card when they did not arrive by conventional methods. Yet the immigrants (Illegal or undocumented or whatever) who are today so routinely maligned and denigrated for the most part have the same hopes and dreams as the ones in the film. They want freedom, a better life, an opportunity to better themselves.

The most precious scene aside from the Declaration recitation aforementioned is the one in which Vlad’s girlfriend and about fifty others take their oath of citizenship after appropriate study and passing a test far too many Americans born on this soil would fail miserably. The beaming black, brown, yellow, red, and white faces, on the fresh citizens are touching and inspirational.

If ever a movie boasts a postive image and portrays the honest desirability of America herself, with a few unavoidable flaws thrown in, it is this one.

Ralph, on the other hand, at least initially is the “bad” side of America. Arrogance and ignorance are both readily on display in the person of Ralph and sheer inexcusable vulgarity is never that far beyond his possible reach as one of his first impusive acts is to visit a strip club. One of the dancers, who aborts her act just as she is to actually bare her ample breasts (Damn! I hate when that happens.) manages to charm Ralph and turns out to have more class than some of the pretenders with proper attire and twee manners.

Their off and on romance includes an incognito visit to a London McDonalds, surely the lowest crudest point of Ralph’s reign. He does prove that not even a king can get a special order at MickeyD’s without a huge hassle.

His own awakening, tinged with nobility of the not “to the manor born” type reveals a better side of Americans, the ability to express some humility when faced with reality that negates the braggadoccio and false pride. In the end the British are the more enlightened ones, Ralph is made a Duke, and he and his sweetie live happlily ever after as he sings “Duke of Earl” as the credits begin rolling.

The ugly, by default but also by merit, is Three Days Of The Condor. It exposes the ugly, often indecent side of the necessary evil of America’s intelligence apparatus, recently markedly reinforced through revelations of the spying capabilities of the NSA as well as provisions of the Patriot Act. Odd, is it not, that the story plays out against the plotting of mayhem in the Middle East, an area that still preoccupies our foreign policy establishment that quite definitely and remorsely has not learned from its prior and perpetuated mistakes in that region which are haunting us and will continue to haunt us for decades to come.

Implicit in this intertwining theme is the faux notion of American Exceptionalism. I deem that notion false in that it has been applied frequently among craven politicians to excuse all thse crimes that we as a nation commit whether directed inwardly by denigrating the poor or outwardly by virtue of its endless military misadventures and its far too often unmerited air of superiority.

Yet Moscow does represent that image, depicting the allure of America to peoples from all corners of the Earth. Their reasons for leaving their homes vary wildly but they each saw something that led them to the adventure of their lives. On the other hand Ralph is the extremely irritating but ultimately harmless Ugly American who nonetheless leaves a bad impression of his fellow citizens in his wake and by almost any definition is decidedly unexceptional.

Then Condor is the sneaky conniving, duplicitous scheming personification of America’s sad tendency to seek to im pose its will and garner its wealth where it is not needed and even less welcome.The residue of remaining resentment against our aggression still welters around the globe preventing the United States from maintaining the moral superiority we dream we are entitled to and, if ever justified in the least, has long ago been squandered as if we were a collective prodigal son not yet returned from a 65 year binge of sloth, drunkenness, and debauchery.

We need more Moscow, perhaps can tolerate a little Ralph, and need severe reforms to put Condor totally in the past.



On June 25, 2015 the Supreme Court upheld the provision for subsidies in the Affordable Care Act regardless of whether the insured procured their insurance coverage through their own state exchanges or were forced into the federal exchange as their own state’s demented leadership refused to establish an exchange.

This ruling makes clear the winners and losers in this ongoing battle over trying to legislate the availability of health insurance for millions of Americans previously denied access, whether due to pre-existing conditions or lack of affordability.

WINNER————–Chief Justice John Roberts whose concise, common sense opinion sliced through all the nonsense of those who brought the lawsuit out of spite, not out of genuine concern the law was harmful. Of course that brought the enmity of conservatives, some of whom (okay a really tiny portion of whom) believe the Good Justice was blackmailed or worse.


LOSER—————-Justice Antonin Scalia whose sputtering dissent, with phrasing like “interpretive jiggery-pokery”, reminds one of a pillar of the community found with his pants down in the local whorehouse amongst a bevy of belles but who would have you believe he was about to lead them in prayer.

WINNER————-President Barack Obama whose signature legislative accomplishment has survived yet another insidious but withering attack from the forces of politics, not of righteousness.

LOSERS————-Republican candidates for their party’s Presidential 2016 nomination who collectively and figuratively had pie shoved in their faces as again their predictions for the demise of the ACA were dashed on the rocks of futility with reactions ranging from the ridiculous to the ridiculous, nothing sublime remotely within their capacity to bloviate. Several shared their opinions via Twitter which proves once again twitter is for twits.


WINNERS………..American Citizens who now have reason to feel more secure in the knowledge that it is less likely they will face either financial ruin from receiving health care when they are not insured and that the availability of such coverage will inure to their physical and mental benefit…even in terms of saving lives… by being able to obtain treatment. 

Gee, imagine that, a federal law that actually is good for the lives of ordinary people.

Economist Paul Krugman highlights the way the law is working after only two full years of implementation.


……….The Affordable Care Act is now in its second year of full operation; how’s it doing?

The answer is, better than even many supporters realize.

Krugman cites, among other positives,  the expansion of coverage to as many as 15 million Americans,  Also

The newly insured have seen a sharp drop in health-related financial distress, and report a high degree of satisfactionwith their coverage.

Too, instead of a budget buster as the rampaging elephants would have you believe, it has helped in lowering the federal deficit and, if repealed, the deficit would rise again.

Krugman does not deny there are some difficulties, but not insurmountable ones. So long as a number of states refuse to expand Medicaid (placing a huge burden on state and local taxpayers, see http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/6/24/not-expanding-medicaid-can-cost-local-taxpayers) millions of the most desperate are still denied coverage.

He further speaks of premiums, which is a contentious issue, no doubt. However, the Commonwealth Fund found that the average increase in premiums for coverage under the ACA from 2014 to 2015 was ZERO.


Now average does not mean no increases for anyone anywhere. Anecdotal evidence of large premium hikes are plentiful, especially in internet forums. And even the study above reports substantial increases in some states with lower costs in others.

Which brings me to my real point about WINNERS LOSERS.

So long as health insurance coverage in the United States is in the hands of private, mostly for profit companies, together with the ability of individual states to thwart the purpose of the Affordable Care Act and in light of the vagaries of state laws, insurance regulations, and insurance commissioners, there will be WINNERS and LOSERS in the game of health inusrance coverage and thus health itself.

The health and welfare of our citizens should not be subject to gamesmanship with keeping score a regular and necessary part of it.

This nation needs to wise up and create a system with true universal coverage. This could be achieved through a single payer system as our successful Medicare program could be expanded by making everyone eligible. That is my personal preference.

There are also hybrid systems such as in Australia with mandated coverage for all supported by general revenue taxes, a levy equivalent to our Medicare tax, and private insurance for some.

To me the chief flaw built into the ACA is that it is vulnerable to wanton attacks for purely political purposes, none of which have had either the intent or the ability to actually improve health care coverage in this country.

Of course the saddest part of these attacks is that the assailants simply do not care what harm they cause.

We can acknowledge that no system can be perfect. But our current system, even with the successes of the Affordable Care Act is still far below perfect.

Now, as we adjust to the reality of the ACA it will becvome ever more evident that we have a ways to go.

Let’s make WINNERS of the vast majority of our citizens and consign the LOSERS who oppose a better healthcare coverage system to the back pages of history where they belong.WINNE




In the wake of the recent murders of nine black worshipers in a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a young professed racist, there has arisen a clarion call for removal of the Confederate flag flying on the grounds of the state capital in Columbia.

I deliberately used this image of the Confederate flag because even if you grant that it is flown as a symbol of the South’s heritage from the Confederate army, that heritage is something not to be honored, but to be deplored. Whether the ensign was an offical rperesentation of the Confederate States of America or not…it was the battle flag of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia…what it stands for is anything but admirable.

Southerners, and there was a man interviewed on NBC News at a cemetery for Confederate soldiers, will state that it honors the brave soldiers who died. I will not dispute the bravery or deny recognition to the horrible tragedy of the men lost to a senseless war. But the man on the news seemed to be pissed off that the Ku Klux Klan had appropriated the banner, thus associating it with hate. He averred that these men died “defending their state”.

Nonsense. They died participating in a war that was the most blatant and broad act of treason ever perpetrated against the United States of America.

The United States Constitution, Article 3 Section 3 reads in part

 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them,

If ever a clear case of treason could be made one need look only to the events of April 12, 1865 when the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor and subsequent events and battles until Sunday, April 9, 1865 when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his armies at Appomattox.

Those men took up arms against their nation and levied war on it for four years. It was not “The War of Northern Aggression” as some attempt to assert. It was not a war for states’ rights as is commonly pleaded. It was plainly a war against their own nation, treason be damned.

The Constitution provided many ways for any grieveances or concerns the people conducting this treasonous act could have addressed those issues, but they chose treason.

The American Civil War was indescribably destructive and demeaning no matter which side one fought on.And the South, the Confedarcy, clearly was defeated and the treason staunched.

As punitive and oppressive as the Reconstruction Acts and other steps taken to reincorporate the secessionist states into the nation as a whole…and they were harsh indeed…the victors did not summarily execute the traitors as they had every right to do under existing precedents.

But merely losing the war wasn’t enough for the rebels. They had to embark upon a path of self-destruction for the next one and one-half centuries though it most frequently assumed the form of treating the black Americans in their midst as less than human. Jim Crow laws, the Ku Klux Klan, denial of voting rights, and various other tools of the racist trade were implemented, overt and subtle, to carry out this War of Southern Aggression on A Race Deemed Inferior.

All too often, just as they had rallied under the Confederate flag in battles led by Robert E. Lee, they also rallied under that same flag in battles led by hate and discrimination and rapacious desire.

What may arguably have once been a banner of morale easily morphed into a banner of immoral behavior.But that banner would have no meaning whatsoever were it not birthed in treason.

(As an aside, what we think of as the Confederate flag was never formlly adopted by the Confederacy, though one design that was adopted had that stars and bars design in the upper left corner with the field of the flag being white. Its designer, William T. Thompson, described this as a “white man’s flag”, with the white field representing the superiority of the white race.)

Oddly the Confederate flag now on the capital grounds in Columbia, previously over the Capitol itself, did not appear there until 1962, coincidentally in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement. It’s argued in some quarters that this was done in direct defiance of the federal governemnt’s efforts to enforce existing law and court rulings that favored blacks and opposed discrimination. Treason Light, if you will.

It is clear that this flag is a symbol of racist hate. Those who fly or display it may be ignorant of its true meaning but the old saying is that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Neither is ignorance of racist meaning…most particularly when that racist meaning has been brought to your attention for years.

This symbol was born in treason and spawned the illegitimate offspring of racism and hate. After several generations its appallingly repugnant prodigious progeny must be eliminated.






With apologies to Alfred Lord Tennyson…though admittedly not vey sincere apologies.

Half a mile Half a mile
Half a mile onward
All in the Valley of Iowa
Rode the six Hundred
“Forward the candidates
Charge for the votes”
Into the valley of Iowa
Rode the six hundred

“Forward the candidates”
Was man or woman dismayed?
Not though the candidate knew
They all had blundered
Theirs not to reason why
Climate change to deny
Theirs but to lie and lie
Into the Valley of Iowa
Rode the six hundred.

Reporters to right of them
Reporters to left of them
Reporters in front of them
Volleyed and thundered
Stormed at with “why the hell
Can’t you treat the poor well
Condemning them to death
While you are rich as hell?”
Rode the six hundred.

Flashed all their white teeth bare
“Repeal Obamacare”
Claiming the world ain’t fair
All the world wondered
Why are you blowing smoke
Your platform is a joke
Doctor and Mogul
Sold us a pig in a poke
All rotted and rendered
Then they rode back but not
Not the six hundred

Now reporters to right of them
Polls to left of them
Voters in front of them
Volleyed and thundered
Stormed at with “what the hell!
We’re glad your egos fell”
Your ideas we quell
That came through the Valley of Iowa
Tell you go to hell
All that was left of them
Left of six hundred

When can their nionsense fade
O’ the wild charges they made
All the world wondered
Condemn the charge they made
Condemn this odd brigade
Ignoble six hundred.



A cult following is a group of fans who are highly dedicated to a specific area of culture. A film, book, musical artist, television series or video game, among other things, will be said to have a cult following when it has a small but very passionate fanbase.

One of the most famous of cult movies is Rocky Horror Picture Show which depicts a group of selfie posting mountain climbers caught in an avalanche.

Pulp Fiction is a compilation of tales about practical uses for the innards of oranges, none of which actually work.

Our televison sets have been the receptors of many such shows that became cult classics such as The Ernie Kovacs Show  which surprisingly had no one named Ernie or Kovacs associated with it.

Recently we have witnessed a spate of final episodes of TV cult classics.

Mad Men was concerned with the creation of a satirical magazine in the 1950’s, while Breaking Bad  was a documentary series about the members of an orthopedic physicians’ practice in Ottumwa, Iowa.

The Sopranos had as its theme a female a capella chorus assuming management of a strip club in New Jersey.

The Colbert Report had as its host Bill O’Reilly’s lesser known brother who had a knack for emulating his brothers declarations word for word but somehow they sounded funnier.

The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson starred a Scotsman who took the job away from a white American male. But as soon as Ferguson became a U.S. citizen himself his job was outsourced to Indonesia where a group of pre-teens split the 75 cent hourly salary. But hey! At least dark skinned people and females are being utilized.

Of somewhat older vintage the final episode of the Jerry Seinfeld Show caused critics to long wishfully for the snow globe sensibilities of St. Elsewhere.

On Cheers, where the only name everbody knew was “Norm!”, the lights went dark as Sam Malone was revealing to Diane Sawyer that he was now, offically, Samantha Malone.

Alas, one such cult series will probably not be accorded a final episode to celebrate the ones preceeding it.

I speak, of course of 19 Kids And Counting or as it is now known 19 Kids And Counting While Four Daughters Silently Scream In The Night. This is the Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar clan, living its way through our TV screens, thjough failing to show the immaculate conception details that bring ever more kids.

That program qualifies as a cult classic not only due to its cult following but…because IT IS A CULT!  Sort of like viewing the Manson Family in action but far more disturbing to watch.

Think it’s not a cult? Well look at this check list of the characteristics of cults provided by Janja lalich and Michasel D. Langone, both PhD’s.


The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.


The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members


The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.


The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.


The group is preoccupied with making money.


Now it is difficult to envison anyone named Jim Bob as a charismatic leader, but in Arkansas anything is possible, I suppose. After all, some old geezer there became a billionaire selling shoddily made foreign goods to unsupecting masses.

How the molestation by son Josh of his sisters stayed unrecognized by his parents for so long is a mystery. After all,during those Monopoly games on family games night, since there were not enough of the usual tokens to go around, weren’t Jim Bob and Michelle suspicious when Josh used a pair of girls panties? Of course their Monopoly games were also notable  for the younger kids being berated when they inevitably went bankrupt for being either lazy or black…or both.

That this all played out on TLC (The Lurid Channel) is not surprising What also is not surprising is the defense of the evangelical right…and FOX News, offered in support of the Duggars.

Gotta go. I need to get ready for Reefer Madness tonight. Not the movie.



When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I Corinthians 13:11  (KJV)

Like many kids in the 1950’s my friends and I often played “King of The Hill“, a game in which one of the players seeks to gain and maintain control of the high ground within a limited area.. Of course to do so, the winner needs to ensure her rivals go tumbling back down the hill, the other kids facilitating the champion by eliminating each other as they scramble to reach the top.

For too long, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has been playing the game on the world stage. In doing so America is undoubtedly stronger than any of its rivals individually but to gain and maintain this superiority it must far too often spread its resources far too thinly to effectively accomplish all its goals.

As we stand atop the crest challenges come from every direction and there is no practical way to dispatch them all without serious damage to ourself.

Yet, we persist in trying.

The United States, through its many adventures, overt and covert, obviously is in denial that, because it outlasted the Soviets of the Cold War, it is THE supreme nation on Earth. Indeed, our leaders seem to believe we are entitled to this supremacy.

It is time to put away childish things.

Michael Klare explores this issue in this essay on TomDispatch.com


In “Delusionary Thinking in Washington (The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower)” Klare discusses the trends in American foreign policy, more precisely the trends in exerting American military power to effectuate that policy, in the past tewnty-five or so years.

He quotes both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as to their vision of America in a post Cold War world and, though Bush 43 first formulated his vision as a peaceful one in 1999 early in his campaign for President, that vision obviously morphed into quite something else once he assumed office. (Some would argue the peaceful vision was only a  smokescreen but that argument is for another time.)

To Klare this “delusionary”  thinking extends across the aisle as he credits only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders as totally removed from it among the D.C. lawmakers and power brokers.

He notes that other powers, big and small did not simply  kowtow to the undeniable singular supremacy of the United States as its superpower rival met its demise. General Colin Powell acknowledged this fact when he declared

We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here,’ no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe.

Klare is both wary of and dismissive towards the more bellicose version of this notion of American supremacy mostly coming from the right, but does not spare President Obama.

President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country’s strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision.

Klare is not alone in his analysis even coming from a conservative perspective. Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M writing in The American Conservative in 2010 made many of these same points

Though the path Layne takes to make his point diverges in many ways from Klare’s his conclusion is

U.S. decline means that in the 21st century the United States will pay a high price if it endlessly repeats its mistakes.To change our foreign policy—to come to grips with the end of the Pax Americanawe first need to chage the way we see the world.


And I see no change in this view at all.

Too, the idea of American supremacy is pretty laughable on any level. This century has already witnessed the utter inability to unilaterally exert our will by force no matter how antagonistic nor how much we spend on our Department of War and all the physical and technological might at our command.

And yes, the current Department of Defense needs to return to its original name of Department of War. After all, we keep seeking ways to dominate others, not protect ourselves. As I recall the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution reads in pertinent part

…provide for the common defence…

not “prepare for war at every opportunity”.

Instead of seeking to exert power over others, I want our military resources devoted to ensuring no one else exerts power over the United States.

To do so, echoing both Klare and Layne, our philosophy towards foreign affairs needs to change.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 127 other followers