Mitt Frightens Buck

New at Nick's Diner:

Today, when I met my friend, Buck, for our weekly breakfast at Nick's Diner, I realized that he was fired up and that I was going to be doing a lot of listening.

Sara, working her way through college as a waitress, came to take our orders. I ordered my usual "Boston Breakfast," the size of which requires a special permit in most civilized societies, while Buck ordered the "Whack-a-doodle Special" (previously  known as a "California Omelet" until Governor Kasich reminded Ohioans that Californians were all "Wack-a-doodles.) As Sara turned to place our orders, Buck tapped her on her forearm. Turning back, she asked, "Is there something else I can get you?"


"Yes," Buck said. "I have a question for you. Do you know where that attractive tee-shirt was manufactured?" Buck was pointing to her powder blue shirt emblazoned with yellow letters proclaiming "Nick's Diner."


Somewhat confused, Sara replied, "No Sir, I do not."


Standing up, Buck asked, "Do you mind if I look?' He was already reaching for the tag on the collar of her shirt.


"I guess not,"  a blushing Sara whispered.


"Aha, just as I thought. Made in China!" Buck announces, while Sara scrambles to put a considerable distance between herself  and our table.


"You embarrassed her," I chided

"I'm just making a point. We're buying everything from China. I suppose you know that the US Olympic team is wearing uniforms made in China."

"They probably cost less," I suggested.

"Maybe, but only in the short term. In the long term, we are losing good American jobs and our economy will suffer." Sara was refilling our coffee cups before making a hasty retreat. "And now we learn that when Mitt Romney was in charge of the Olympics in 2002, the US uniforms were manufactured in Burma -- a military dictatorship. Can you believe that? But wait, it gets worse. Some genius on Romney's staff tried to explain it by saying it was not Burma, it was Myanmar. These guys want to run our country and don't realize that Burma is Myanmar!"

"Shades of Sarah Palin," I said as Sara served our plates, all the time keeping a wary eye on Buck. The Wack-a-doodle Special must have been quite good; Buck chose to eat rather than  lecture me  about outsourcing American jobs.

As we were finishing off the last morsels on our plates, Buck said: "Speaking of predator capitalists,..."

"What predator capitalists? I guess I wasn't following the conversation," I interrupted.

"Mitt Romney and his buddies, of course.You know, the guys who use other people's money to make money for themselves. They're not like George Romney whose company actually manufactured something useful and employed people who could then afford to buy an American Motors car."

"I wonder what George would think of Bain Capital and the modern hedge funds?" I asked.

"I guess we 'll never know, but I suspect he would question Mitt's need for off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. This is the guy," Buck continued, "who destroyed public records when he left office as governor of Massachusetts. The same guy who refuses make public more than one year's  tax returns. Gotta wonder what he is hiding."


"More interesting than that," I interjected, "is that he can't decide when he retired from Bain Capital. What kind of job is it that one can't remember retiring. Most of us who had real jobs know exactly when we retired. We no longer receive a pay check, but apparently the paychecks just keep coming for people like Mitt."


"Better yet, his staff tried to explain away the problem by saying he 'retired retroactively.' I presume the gal or guy who said that is the same person who thought Burma and Myanmar were two separate countries."


Adding kindling to the fire, I pointed out that Ann Romney's answer to the request for tax returns was: "We've given all you people need to know."

"Typical elitist response," Buck said. "They think they are the 'deciders,'  as George W. Bush was wont to say. And what's this with 'you people'? That used to be plantation language, but I doubt she meant it that way, I think she meant "you people" to mean the other 99% of Americans who are not part of the elite. I find it interesting that the arrogant don't recognize their own arrogance."


When Sara presented us with our checks, Buck said: "I am sorry I embarrassed you earlier. It's just that I go crazy thinking that Mitt Romney could possibly be the President of the United State."


"That was a little embarrassing, but I understand where you're coming from. And by the way, I think you will be interested in a new item Nick is putting on next week's menu. Instead of flapjacks, we will be serving Mitt's Flip Flops, 25 varieties and counting."


 Buck and I now have another reason to load up on calories at Nick's.

Palin Better Than Romney according to McCain?

Since Mitt Romney is refusing to release the majority of his tax returns, some have hypothesized that John McCain chose Sarah Palin rather than Mitt Romney as his running mate in 2008 after examining  Romney's tax returns.. In an attempt to contradict that speculation, John McCain said: " I did not pick Romney  because Sarah Palin was the better candidate." 

Very interesting.

Did McCain think that Palin was more qualified to assume the role of President of the United States than Mitt Romney? Presumably that should be a candidate's primary concern when choosing a running mate.If that indeed was McCain's thinking, what does this say about Mitt Romney? In the course of the campaign, it became abundantly clear that Sarah Palin was not qualified to be the President. Again, what damning praise that is for Mitt Romney!


Of course, there is another possibility - a more cynical interpretation of what McCain was suggesting. Since he said, "Sarah Palin was the better candidate," perhaps he was implying that Sarah Palin was better for his lackluster campaign, qualifications be damned.  She was an attractive female with very little experience and presumably very little political baggage. She was a darling of that group of Republicans known as the Tea Party. If this was the case, McCain is admitting he didn't care about having a qualified running mate, his main interest was to do what is best for John McCain, not what was best for the country.

And then there is the issue of money. Perhaps this was John McCain's main interest. In 2008, the day after he announced Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, his campaign raked in $7 million in one day, Was Sarah Palin "the better candidate" because she fired up the conservative base to open their wallets?

Whatever John McCain meant with this statement, it does not speak well of his 2008 campaign or the 2012 Republican Presidential candidate.

GOP VP Sweepstakes: New Candidates

In an earlier blog, I offered Primary Mitt some suggestions for possible running mates (Rubio, Portman etc.), but now that he has used his Etch-a-Sketch and has become General Election Mitt, I am offering a new list of possibilities. Back then, I suggested Mitt had to avoid anyone with too much personality in order to avoid revealing his lack thereof, but these are desperate times for Mitt. He has to think outside the box and take some chances. Therfore, I humbly offer the following candidates for Mitt's consideration:


Antonin Scalia : This politician should never have been appointed to the Supreme Court. He is a politician; not a justice. He has been using the Supreme Court to espouse his Republican agenda, all of which would be appropriate if he were Mitt's choice for his vice presidential running mate. And then, of course,  President Obama could then appoint a real justice to the Supreme Court. As for his health care insurance, Mr. Scalia could take his present government-paid program with him. He enjoys that insurance; it's just that he doesn't want the rest of us to have it.

Donald Trump: Together, Mitt and Donald would be the ideal vanity ticket. Mitt's judicious use of Grecian Formula on his hair makes the statement, but Donald outdoes him with the died , combed-over look. Other than his vanity and his hair-do, it is doubtful that Donald would bring anything else to the ticket. The Republicans don't need another arrogant, out-of-touch billionaire.

Tim Tebow: What an opportunity for Mitt to attract those Christian Fundamentalists who have failed to warm up to him. Who can resist a photo of Tim in uniform kneeling on the field and praying that God will help him vanquish  his opponents. In addition,  he claims to be a virgin. That's a great talking point. He could possibly  be the first virginal VP candidate. There are also rumors that he is gay -- an appeal to the LGBT voters. In addition, if he and Mitt were the only two people in the room, Mitt could justifiably claim to be the smartest man in the room. But, you say, Tim is not qualified to be the President of the United States. I submit to you that Republicans have not worried about that in the past. Consider George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. The only problem I see with Tim is that he "dissed" Notre Dame Football. That may cost him two or three votes, but the bishops will campaign for anyone as long as it's not President Obama.

Marty Golden: Since the Republicans really need to do something about their "woman problem," Mitt may need a running-mate to mitigate the GOP's blatant attacks on women's rights and health care issues. Perhaps, Republican New York State Senator, Marty Golden is the man  for the job. He wants to hold a taxpayer-funded event for his female constituents called "Posture, Deportment and Feminine Presence." He promises to teach women "the art of feminine presence," which includes tips on how to "sit, stand and walk like a model." and "walk up and down a stair elegantly." Rather than pass the Fair Pay Act to assist women in the workplace, the GOP wants to teach women a course in 1950's etiquette with emphasis on walking like a model. What a great idea. I wonder why no one has done this before.

Dr. Ruth Westheimer: I personally think this could be Mitt's out-of-the-park home run. The GOP is anti-woman, anti-science, anti-sex. In one bold stroke, the New Mitt could turn that around. Dr. Ruth Westheimer, a Sorbonne-trained psychologist and sexologist and host of several radio and TV sex advice shows, could change the GOP image overnight. In addition to being attractive to Jewish voters, she would probably be appealing to the core of the Republican Party which is obsessed with sex and what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. The Wall Street Journal once described Dr. Ruth as a "cross between Henry Kissinger and Minnie Mouse." Can't beat that. An intelligent, highly educated woman with instant name recognition who would be quite capable of serving as President! Perhaps the Romney camp could use a tag line she used to sign off her sex show, "Get some."

I realize the gun-toting Tea Party fanatics would like to nominate Ted Nugent; but, although Mitt likes Ted's support and money, he can't put such a nut case on the GOP ticket. Such a move would be worse than McCain's disastrous choice of Sarah Palin.

Hospital Safety Ratings

Fortunately, to date at least, I have not had the questionable experience of spending much time in a hospital bed, but I realize such visits will be a part of my life in the future. That being the case,  I was very interested in the article, "How safe is your hospital?" in the latest issue of Consumer Reports (August, 2012).


Hospitals were given an over-all safety score with individual ratings in four categories: Infections, Readmissions  (within 30 days of intitial discharge), Communication (staff explains new medications and discharge planning), Scanning ( CT scans that are ordered twice for the same patient, increasing exposure to harmful radiation). In addition CR considered a set of eight adverse events, " including bedsores, collapsed lungs, central-line-associated bloodstream infections, and accidental punctures or cuts during surgery, as well as four post-surgical complications, hip factures, blood clots in the lungs or legs, and the reopening of wounds."


 I have had several friends whose lives were seriously impacted by infections they received in hospitals, and I was particularly interested in that category since the primary cause of those unnecessary infections is carelessness on the part of the the hospital personnel.


All of that being said, This is a list of how the Hospitals in the Toledo area were rated:


Hospital                                 Safety Score           Infections    Readmissions         Communications      Scans
(scale: 1=best, 2= above average, 3= average, 4=below average, 5=worst)  


Flower Hospital             65                      2                 3                   3                           1 
Toledo Hospital             64                      1                 3                   2                           1
Blanchard Valley           63                      1                 3                   4                           2
St. Rita's (Lima)             61                     1                 3                   4                           2
Mercy Tiffin                    58                      1                 3                   3                           4
Mercy/St. Vincent          58                      2                 4                   4                           1
Mercy/St. Anne              56                      5                 3                   3                           1
Van Wert County           56                      1                 3                   3                           4
Lima Memorial              54                      3                 4                   4                           1
St. Luke's Maumee       54                      1                 4                   5                           2
Bay Park (Oregon)        53                      3                 4                   4                           1
Bryan Community          48                      4                 3                   4                           1
Mercy/St. Charles          48                      3                 4                   5                           1
Wood County (BG)        46                      4                 4                   4                           2 
Fremont Memorial         41                      3                 3                   3                           5
UT Med. Center             28                      5                 4                    5                          3 


I found it somewhat shocking that the University of Toledo Medical Center, a teaching and training facility, was at the very bottom of all the Ohio Hospitals listed. I would have expected University Medical Schools to be the leaders in patient safety. Obviously I was seriously mistaken.


I went back through the list and searched for other University Hospitals, and was surprised at what I found:

University Hospitals Geauga Regional Hospital (Chardon)   48
University Hospital Cincinnati                                                    42
University Hospitals Case Medical Center                              41


On the other hand, Ohio State University Medical Center (Columbus) fared better with a rating of 55 -- near the middle of the Ohio group. Also, the OSU Med Center was the only University Hospital to have a better than average infection score.


Someone needs to explain why University hospitals are ranked so low.

(If you were curious about Cleveland Clinic, it was near the bottom with a safety rating of 39. If interested in other Ohio Hospitals  or those of other states, please consult the August, 2012, Consumer Reports article.)


                             
                        

Bishops and the "Catholic Exemption"

The Catholic bishops of the U.S are waging a political campaign under the guise of a perceived threat to religious liberty. In addition to the question of the appropriateness of a religion running and funding a campaign with an obvious anti-Obama overtone, there are other serious issues with such a campaign.


The most obvious issue is that the bishops are raising the specter of a big bad government taking away their religious liberty when in fact they are insisting that they are entitled to a "Catholic exemption." Since they insist on maintaining that contraception is immoral, they do not want to provide reproductive health care benefits to their employees, Catholic or non-Catholic. But rather than deal with the issue of contraception, they are trying to frame it as one of religious liberty.


Why do they avoid the issue of contraception? Probably because they have yet to provide a rational defense of their position. They wish to be "exempt" from the rules because they "BELIEVE" contraception is immoral. These are the same people who, before Vatican II, "believed" it was a sin to eat meat on Fridays. At one point the Catholic hierarchy tried to defend their anti-contraception position by appealing to something called, "Natural Law." Unfortunately for them, one has to take it "on  faith" that a natural moral law such as they describe exists. Therefore, they are arguing that they are opposed to contraception based on a belief which is based on another belief. Granted the bishops are entitled to believe whatever they want, but if they want to dictate their beliefs on the rest of us, they will need a rational explanation. Lacking that, it is no wonder they are trying to restate this as a religious liberty question. As they also seem to have forgotten, Vatican II exhorted Catholics to follow our own consciences.


And then there is the issue of a "Catholic Exemption." They want Catholic institutions, even though they receive public funds, to be exempt from providing reproductive health care as required by the law. The exemption would be based on their definition of Catholic belief. Why just a "Catholic Exemption?" What about a "Muslim Exemption," a "Mormon Exemption,"  a  "Scientology Exemption," or a "Jewish Exemption?" All of these exemptions would be based on what these groups claim to believe. They would not have to offer rational defenses of their beliefs, they would simply have to say they believed this, that and the other. Perhaps the survivalists could form a religion which believes taxes are immoral. A"Survivalist Exemption?"  


Unfortunately we know that all kinds of human behavior has been justified in the name of religion. Wife abuse, polygamy, female circumcision, honor killings and self-mutilation. Society cannot be making "exemptions from the rule of law" because some religious group simply says that this is what they believe.


Perhaps the Catholic bishops will sometime in the future decide that eating meat on Fridays is once again sinful (and considering the current hierarchy's desire to ignore Vatican II, that's not totally beyond what is likely) and therefore public school lunch programs should not be allowed to serve meat on Fridays.


The bishops should return to the Gospels and refrain from playing power politics. Of course, if they did that, they may have to confront the idea of separation of Church and State; for as Jesus said to the Pharisees and Hypocrites: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22)