Archangels: Rise of the Jesuits

In the Vatican Museum, Helena Visconte and her young son discover the dead body of a Jesuit priest who is the victim of ligature strangulation and mutilation. Her husband, Michael, a member of the "Specialists" police unit, is asked by the Jesuits to find the killer.

In the course of his investigation, Michael discovers more than he wants to know about the Vatican and its financial connections, but most importantly he learns  the victim was a very successful hedge fund manager for the Vatican.

The problem for Michael and the reader is: who can be trusted?  As a reader, I continually suspected the wrong character(s).

Perhaps the real interest of this book is that, although it is fiction, having seen so many Vatican financial debacles, one is tempted to confuse fact and fiction. In addition the reader is left to wonder about the author's portrayal of the Jesuit community and the closed society that is the Vatican. Interesting, but peculiar.

Janet Tavakoli, who is a renowned financial expert, has created two characters, Michael and his wife, whom readers will want to encounter in a sequel.  Looking forward to more Vatican shenanigans.

“There is an old saying: In America everything is allowed, except that which is forbidden. In Germany everything is forbidden, except that which is allowed. In Italy everything is allowed, especially that which is forbidden. But in the Vatican, everything is forbidden, even that which is allowed.” (A quote of one of the Jesuit characters.)

Major League Baseball, Really?

Monday, August 5, 2013, Major League Baseball suspended thirteen players for using PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs, probably HGH - Human Growth Hormone). Twelve of the players agreed to a 50 game suspension. Alex Rodriguez is appealing his penalty of a 211 day suspension. Prior to this, Milwaukee Brewers's Ryan Braun agreed to a 65 day suspension. At this time, MLB has 13 players who have admitted cheating.

Yesterday and again today, I am hearing baseball players, managers, front office personnel, league officials, and some sports writers and commentators trying to put a positive spin on this by saying: "This is a great day for major league baseball. We caught the cheaters and with these suspensions players will not dare use PEDs in the future."

That is bull excrement! It was not a good day for baseball. Thirteen players admitted to cheating and they will all be playing next season, or if their teams make it to the playoffs, they will be participating. What is so "great" about that?

In fact, we heard similar garbage back in the days when McGuire, Sosa, Clemens, and Bonds were charged with using steroids. In fact we were hearing baseball's talking heads pointing to Alex Rodriquez as an example of the new baseball player who was doing it the right way. Oops! It was bad for baseball then and it still is now.

Another fact which no one mentions is that MLB did not catch these guys cheating. Players and team management did not call out the cheats. They were caught by the press and a disgruntled employee of Biogenesis. All MLB did was to say how shocked they were and hand out penalties when all of this evidence was dropped on their desk. If it had been up to MLB, these guys would not have been caught.

And that raises another good question: how many more players are using HGH? Only those doing business with Bosch's Biogenesis company were caught. I find it difficult to believe that his establishment is the only one pushing PEDs. If there are other players with other sources, what are the chances MLB will catch them?

Not one of the thirteen suspended players tested positive on a MLB drug test. Apparently the test is only useful for baseball's propaganda purposes. Obviously the players have figured out a way of beating the test. How many players who use PEDs will be playing in the playoffs and the World Series?

As a fan I will never be able to believe a baseball player who speaks of "those of us who do it the right way."

Yesterday was not a "great day for baseball."

And then there is the National Football League which does not even bother to test for HGH. Are we to believe that those giants who can lift a mobile home and run like a cheetah have done it "the right way"?

GOP's Putinesque Attack on Democracy

"Smells Familiar"

They refer to the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but the current Republican politicians (and that includes the Republican justices on the Supreme Court) are attempting to dismantle our democracy. And make no mistake about it; theirs is an all-out, extremely well financed assault. They are attacking in local and national media outlets, city governments, state legislatures and courts, federal agencies, the House of Representatives, the US Senate and federal courts.

As our country was being created, the founding fathers were careful to protect a minority from being steamrolled by the majority, but back then they did not foresee a corporate-financed minority party attempting to abuse those precautions. Quite frankly they probably could not imagine future Americans attempting to curtail the basic tenets of democracy. True, the founding fathers made compromises to create a new independent,democratic United States, but in the first sentence of the Constitution, they laid out lofty principles to guide us through the years ahead. Unfortunately, most current Republicans have ignored that first, most important sentence. They get the part about providing "for the common defense," but few remember the very next phrase, "promote the general Welfare." As  my good friend, Buck, has said: "When they read that phrase, they interpret 'general Welfare' to mean General Electric and General Motors."

The most obvious Republican attacks on democracy are their blatant attempts to suppress the vote. One would think that the more people who participate in the voting process, the better the democracy. Apparently the GOP has decided that as a minority party representing some specific vested interests, they cannot win if democracy is all inclusive. In a moment of honesty, Mitt Romney admitted as much when in the 2012 election he made his famous 47% remark.

In that 2012 presidential election, Republican governors and legislatures tried to cut down the number of days set aside for early voting, reduce the number of Saturdays and Sundays available in order to keep people working two jobs or long hours from voting, require IDs that poor and elderly citizens do not have. and intimidate Latino voters.

And there is no question that these maneuvers were designed to skew the election in the GOP's favor. In Pennsylvania, the Republican House Majority leader, Mike Turzai,  admitted that the voter ID "is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania...."

And then SCOTUS chief justice John Roberts and and his fellow Republicans on the court threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, "which subjected the voting laws in states and jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to Justice Department scrutiny..."(Dionne). Republican politicians in these states were giddy with the possibilities that this decision offered them.

Shortly thereafter, the most egregious attack on voter rights occurred in North Carolina where the Republicans are passing a laundry list of voter suppression measures that Vladimir Putin would be proud of.

In addition to prohibiting the use of student IDs as a recognized form of identification -- an attempt to keep college students from voting, they have added the following:

• The end of pre-registration for 16 & 17 year olds
• A ban on paid voter registration drives
• Elimination of same day voter registration
• A provision allowing voters to be challenged by any registered voter of the county in which they vote rather than just their precinct
• A week sliced off Early Voting
• Elimination of straight party ticket voting
• A provision making the state’s presidential primary date a function of the primary date in South Carolina
• A provision calling for a study (rather than a mandate) of electronic candidate filing
• An increase in the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 (the limit will continue to increase every two years with the Consumer Price Index from the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
• A provision weakening disclosure requirements for "independent expenditure” committees
• Authorization of vigilante poll observers, lots of them, with expanded range of interference
• An expansion of the scope of who may examine registration records and challenge voters
• A repeal of out-of-precinct voting
• A repeal of the current mandate for high-school registration drives
• Elimination of flexibility in opening early voting sites at different hours within a county
• A provision making it more difficult to add satellite polling sites for the elderly or voters with disabilities
• New limits on who can assist a voter adjudicated to be incompetent by court
• The repeal of three public financing programs
• The repeal of disclosure requirements under “candidate specific communications.”

Not only are such laws an affront to our democratic principles, it smacks of racism. These voter restrictions remind one of what segregationist Southern lawmakers did in the past, and now the Roberts' Supreme Court has given current Republican lawmakers the go-ahead.

It's not just a matter of voting rights. The GOP positions on a variety of issues follows the same anti-democratic path: immigration issues, student loans, the corporatization of the media, and breaching the separation of church and state.

It is no surprise that many throughout the world disregard our calls for democracy and equal rights. We have a major political party doing their best to restrict democracy and limit equal rights here at home.

Royal Baby

Prince ????

Anglophiles from hither and yon are all a-tither and a-twitter  at the news which said "Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, was delivered of a boy child." The little fella is third in line to become King of all England.  (I'm not sure why they feel the need to say "all" of England, but maybe they want to make certain  the Falkland Islands are included.)

Although many questioned the media coverage of the little guy's birth, the event or non-event depending on your perspective, dominated Twitter. The forty-character wits were, during the birth, tweeting about the infant "crowning." Some pre- and post- partum comments were:

Henry Beams: "Breaking News: Not since Moses parted the sea has broken water attracted so much attention."

Ryan Bellenville: "When Kate's water broke, it was actually champagne..." (I presume the implication is that a royal baby is encased in something other than just plain water.)

David Wild: "I don't care if the #royalbaby is a boy or a girl. I just hope it's healthy. And not a Kardashian."

But now that the birth is behind us, we can turn our attention to the 2013 Man Booker Longlist for Fiction which was announced yesterday in London. Too hasty, my friends. The Royal Family knows how to keep the attention focused on themselves. As long as they haven't named the baby, they can keep media speculating and waiting. And let's be clear; I have nothing against the Royal Family. Their only job is to provide the media with newsprint and photo ops, and they are damn good at it.

Thus, the name game begins. Fortunately, we are just talking about his first and middle names. Royals, like Elvis, need only a first name. If you have occasion to address the little tyke, you will refer to him as "Your Royal Highness Prince ????? of Cambridge." If, when the royal baby is older and is stopped by the bobbies, he can use the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Some "experts" think "James" is a likely choice of a name. I'm not an expert, but I can tell you with some certainty that the royal baby will not be named: Vladimir, Barrack, Mohammed, Hussein, Benjamin, Shawn, LeBron, Trig, Newt, or Mitt. I'm not saying that Kate and William are not capable of thinking outside of the box, but let's face it, they are in a box they cannot escape. Naming the boy "Prince Juice of Cambridge" would put the queen in the royal cemetery.  

Saints, Papal and Otherwise

Papal Saints

Far be it from me to say it, but many a wag I know would suggest that the phrase "papal saints' is an oxymoron. And the fact that Pope Francis has decided to expedite the canonization of two recent pontiffs causes an eyebrow or two to be raised.

For Francis, who appears to be quite media savvy, this may be one of his significant public relations coups. Catholics love their saints, therefore give them some new ones even though they also happen to be former popes -- a process that appears "a little self-congratulatory." (Michael Sean Winters, 7/8/13)  And the fact that he is canonizing two popes (John XXIII and John Paul II) who appeal to different factions of Catholicism is a real coup. Canonizing John XXIII by himself would have irritated the conservative element of the church no end, but throw in John Paul II into the mix and everybody has their ice cream.

Does that sound a bit political? Well, don't forget that the process of having someone canonized is much like a political campaign. It takes organization, contacts in high places,  and money. If you don't have those, forget about having Aunt Rose canonized although we all know she is a saint. The papacy is in a much better position to get one of their own canonized.

And then there is the question of how many canonized saints the church needs.

I have on my bookshelf a German book from the 1880's entitled Leben der Heiligen (Lives of the Saints) that I received from my German grandmother. The book is four and one-half inches thick and requires a weightlifter to remove it from the shelf. I have never had the time to count up the number of saints in this volume, but most of them are unknown. Take for example, "Der Heilige Konrad, Bishof." His bio is marked in our book because "Konrad" was a popular middle name in our family, even though most have never heard of him.

But the question remains, how many saints does a church need?  Other than politics or public relations, what difference does it make?

I did notice that there were far more male saints than female -- a fact which surprised me since I have known more women than men who have lived saintly lives. On the other hand, I have noticed that the presence of testicles is not a great predictor of pious behavior. 

The demographics of sainthood aside, a more important issue is: why do we have saints and what is their purpose? When I was studying the Baltimore Catechism, I was told that Catholics do not worship saints, but pray to them in an attempt to have them intercede with God on our behalf. They are in effect heavenly lobbyists (that too has the ring of an oxymoron).

But that hardly explains the need for the Church to canonize saints. I was also told I could have a personal relationship with God. If that's the case, why would I not pray directly to God? Why take the circuitous route of praying to Saint Konrad? Do I really need a lobbyist?

That raises another question. Do the various saint/lobbyists have different levels of influence? If I pray to Saint Peter, will he have more influence than St. Konrad? Or does St. Mary Magdalene have more influence than St. Peter? And what about my mother or father (I am sure they are saints)? It seems to me, they would be better intercessors than some guy I never knew.

Is there such a process for "decanonization"? If, through research,  we learn that a canonized saint from the 1500's participated in genocide, can the church revoke his/her canonization?

Also, why is it there were so many more saints in the early days of the Roman Church than there are today? Was it easier to hide one's dark side in those days before universal government surveillance?

The best aspect of saintology is "patron saints." They are "heavenly advocates of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, clan, family or person." (Wikipedia). If you are Irish, St. Patrick is part of who you are. If you are a "lost cause," St Jude is your man. If you are a lover, St. Valentine is looking out for you. 

I wonder; does a "patron" saint have special lobbying powers for his/her constituency  If so it is important to know who is the best saint for job at hand. If you are British, St.Patrick may not be your best bet.

And then there are some of the lesser known patron saints. Are you familiar with:

• St. Adrian of Nicomedia -- patron of arms dealers. (Has to be a favorite of the NRA.)
• St. Clare of Assisi -- patron of television
• St. Columbanus -- patron of motorcyclists
• St. Amand of Maastricht -- patron of barkeeps (John Boehner's favorite)
• St. Blaise -- patron of cowboys and John Wayne
• St. Barbara -- patron of saltpeter workers (no comment necessary)
• St. Isodore of Seville -- patron of computers and the internet*

It will be interesting to learn the specialties of John XXIII and John Paul II.

*I have no idea how these holy advocates became patrons of these things. You will have to research that on your own.

Catholic Church's Image Post Francis

Is there a "Francis Effect"?

The image of the Catholic Church appeared to improve after the new pope, Francis, began talking about the poor, rejected some of the regal trappings of the papacy, and even promised to purge the Vatican and the Vatican Bank of criminals; but, unfortunately for the new pope the sins of the past continue to arise.

Recently we learned that, contrary to his denials, Cardinal Timothy F. Dolan, the head of the US Catholic bishops and presumably one who made a run for the papacy, has been lying about illegally transferring funds  ($57 million) to a cemetery fund to protect the money from being used to compensate victims of clergy sexual abuse. A letter he sent to the Vatican explains exactly what he was doing, although he fails to inform the Vatican that such an action is a crime.

And, then, there is Boston where Cardinal O'Malley  prevented the Austrian priest, Father Helmut Schuller, from speaking at a Catholic parish. The reason? Father Schuller advocates ordaining women and making celibacy for priests optional. So much for openness and dialogue. One has to consider the irony here. A priest who suggests non-doctrinal change in the church is not allowed to speak in a Catholic parish while in the not-too-distant past priests who had sexually abused children were delivering homilies and celebrating mass in parishes throughout the diocese.

(For those of you in the Midwest who are interested in hearing Father Schuller, he will be speaking in Cleveland on July 25 and 26, Detroit on July 26, and Cincinnati on July 27.)

 On top of all this, there is the birth control fiasco. The US Bishops, headed by Cardinal Dolan, and some politicians like Rick Santorum, are going out of their way to make a political issue out of an irrational belief that the use of birth control is immoral. Although they are entitled to their beliefs and are presumably following their own consciences, they wish to impose their beliefs on others who happen to work or teach in a Catholic institution. Catholic and non-Catholic employees of these institutions are rational adults, are capable of following their own consciences and are offended by a church trying to tell them how to have sex.

Not only do the bishops want to tell their employees what to believe, they have gone so far as to turn the concept of religious liberty upside down. They argue that because in the United States they cannot impose their beliefs upon their employees, the church's religious liberty is being usurped. Such logic would have St. Thomas Aquinas scratching his tonsured head. Of necessity, freedom of religion implies freedom from religion, as several founding fathers pointed out. 

Using their convoluted logic the US Catholic Bishops are seeking a "Catholic Exception" to the Affordable Health Care Act. Perhaps it's time they stop playing politics and start acting as humble priests ministering to the impoverished, abused, sick, and downtrodden.

It should occur to the US Bishops that a majority of the Catholic faithful hold Catholic nuns in higher regard than the hierarchy because the nuns are out in the trenches carrying out the Church's Christian ministry. The last time I saw a bishop in a soup kitchen was as part of a photo op with a national politician. But, perhaps I am mistaken; the hierarchy may have recognized the religious women are better ministers than they are and they are therefore attacking these women on "dogmatic" grounds in order to take them down a notch. Who knows? Perhaps many of the US bishops are just confused about their role as good shepherds.

Kasich Cabal Put's it to Ohio's Middle Class

"Gang of Seven"

While they are still in office, Ohio governor, John Kasich,  and his Republican cohorts in the Legislature  are making an all-out effort to redistribute wealth by taking from the middle class and giving to the the wealthy and empowering private corporations while emasculating government agencies.

And why are we surprised? John Kasich and many of the Republicans who came to power in 2010  are puppets of the Koch brothers and are proposing and passing legislation written for them by ALEC, a Koch creation which writes corporate-friendly legislation for state Republican politicians to push through their legislatures.

The latest example in Ohio is a last-minute (one of their tactics) tax-cut plan which is part of a new $61.7 billion budget. The Toledo Blade describes the plan as one "that would reward their party's wealthy constituents while imposing new burdens on middle-class, working-class, and poor Ohioans."

The Ohio GOP tax plan is very simple: raise the Ohio sales tax rate in order to slash the income tax. In addition, it would scale back future local property tax rebates to compensate for the money lost as a result of the income tax cut.

This budget, and similar state budgets based on the Koch Brothers' model, is the latest assault on the middle class and working class Americans, and is a continuation of the redistribution of wealth initiated by the Reagan Administration.The graduated income tax is based on the ability to pay; a sales tax is the meat cleaver approach to taxation -- tax everyone the same regardless of their ability to pay. If a working mother wants to purchase a new blanket for her infant daughter, she pays the same rate as Donald Trump does when he purchases a yacht the size of some small countries. It takes no genius to understand that reducing the income tax and raising the sales tax is moving our wealth from the middle class to the wealthy class. But don't the wealthy deserve it? After all, they threw tons of money at Kasich and the other GOP politicians. (Today GOP is not the Grand Old Party, it is the Good Old Pawns, or perhaps, the Good Old Puppets?)

As the Cincinnati Enquirer said of the state budget:

"This new $2.6 billion tax package will increase the sales tax to 5.75 percent [...] This means every time you go to the store and buy necessities for your family, your bill will be higher so that wealthy Ohioans can get out of paying their fair share in taxes. The state of Ohio should not be funding income tax cuts for the rich with tax increases that will disproportionately hurt the middle class."

And, as usual, the GOP  budget socks it to senior citizens. The budget limits homestead property tax exemptions to senior households that earn less than $30,000 a year. God forbid that middle class senior citizens get a break. It's all about moving their money to the wealthy class.

In addition, we now learn that these all-knowing white males slipped in unconstitutional restrictions on abortions at the last minute. (What does that have to do with a state budget, you may ask. Absolutely nothing, but it does reveal the arrogance of the Kasich Cabal: we do it because we can.)

Most recently we learn that they also slipped in a  juicy carrot for their big business contributors. Buried in the state budget somewhere is a provision that "local cities and townships can now meet  secretly behind closed doors to discuss economic development deals with businesses...." (The Toledo Blade, 7/8/13)  So much for openness and transparency! Ohio is now open to back-room deals that the citizens will never be informed of.

Apparently,  the Ohio GOP strategy is quite simple: we are going to to assuage the evangelical Christians zealots by throwing them a carrot or two (the abortion provision) but the main game is to do the bidding of the Koch Brothers and our wealthy contributors.

A Variant View of US Open at Merion

After Buck and I played golf this morning, we went to Nick's Diner for lunch -- where else? two old coots are not going to venture into a new place that has a "California menu" which means that they manage to include avocados in every offering, be it eggs or sandwiches.  Not that we have anything against California, but Buck and I want to know what we are eating and "Paradise Delight" is not going to do it; we are not going to eat papayas and pomegranates for breakfast or lunch -- that's not what normal people do.

While waiting on the first tee at 8:00 AM, at Ottawa Park Golf Course, I made the mistake of asking Buck what he thought about yesterday's conclusion to the  US Open at Merion Golf Club. "No way," he said. "I'm not discussing that while we're playing. I'm tired of you trying to get into my head and getting me off my game."

"Believe me," I said. "Being in your head is the last place I'd want to be. I'd be horrified  by the echoes as a few simple thoughts rattled around in that empty cavern."

"Nice try," he said. "You and your juvenile jibes are not distracting me from from my game. I am now putting on my game face, and I'll not be distracted."

"Your game face looks exactly like your regular face, except it has the "deer-in-the-headlights" look that Phil Michelson had yesterday."

Needless to say; I had gone too far. On the next eighteen holes, Buck deprived me of my money and what little golf dignity I once possessed.

After we were seated at "our table" and  our waitress, Sara, had taken our orders, I asked. "Now is it okay to discuss the 2013 US Open Golf Tournament or are you having unresolved issues?" (I love to throw that psycho-speak babble at Buck.)

"The only issue I have is getting something to eat. And, now that I think about it, why didn't we go to a tavern where I could also get an adult beverage with my lunch?"

"It's one o'clock," I said. "You can have an 'Arnold Palmer.'"

"That's not a drink. If you doubt me, ask John Boehner."

"Okay,"  I said. "Now I want to hear your opinion of this year's US Open."

"I'm glad you asked," he said. "The US Open is run by a bunch of dweebs who have no connection with the real world. They think they are doing golf a favor by setting up a course in such a way that the world's best golfers cannot break par. What's the point? I can set up a course in my grandfather's pasture field with the same result. It's no big deal to let the rough grow two feet tall. And the greens. It doesn't take a great 'architect' to design washboard greens that are unputtable. And then they place the pins next to a monster sand trap or a water hazard."

"Perhaps," I said. "The USGA is trying to protect history. Maybe they don't want modern players destroying the accomplishments of the old timers."

"But, what they are doing is similar to track-and-field officials lengthening the 100 yard dash by ten yards. It's idiotic. If Bobby Jones needed a one iron to hit his 'iconic' shot and Justin Rose can do the same with a four iron, why not recognize Mr. Rose's achievement or acknowledge the improvement  in golf equipment?"

"Well," I said. "At least the USGA is encouraging golfers to play at a faster pace. That has to be a good thing."

"Right. They run all those commercials to encourage duffers like you and me to play faster, but they have done very little to force the pros to pick up the pace.  If you and I spent as much time as the pros to decide on a shot or a or a putt, our buddies would never play with us."

"True," I said, "but at least NBC moves from player to player so that viewers are always seeing golf."

"Glad you mentioned NBC. They should be banned from televising sports, especially golf. How many times do they have to show us old photos of Bobby Jones' one iron shot? How many times are they going to refer to it as 'iconic'? And, using those damn wicker baskets on  steel poles instead of flags on  flexible pin markers -- what's with that? If that had been such a good idea, every course in the country would have them. Yet NBC has to do a story about them every thirty minutes."

"At least NBC has a knowledgeable commentator in Johnny Miller," I offered.

"And he's another reason NBC should not be permitted to televise the US Open. He may have been an excellent player in his day, but his know-it-all attitude is difficult to take. We don't give a damn how he would have played a shot back in the day. Let us see how Justin, Phil, Rory, or Bubba plays a particular shot. If we want history, we can read a book."

As I drove home from Nick's, I was questioning why I had spent several hours watching the Open. At the time, I thought I was enjoying it, but after listening to Buck, it seemed much less entertaining.

Obamaphobia and US Health Care

"Johnny Boehner and the House Republicans continue to hold irrelevant votes to undo Obamacare. The votes are meaningless but they continue to waste time and money pulling off these ridiculous stunts," said Buck as he pounded on the table at Nick's Diner.

"And then," he continued, "there are the Republican governors who are opting out of the federally funded expansion of Medicaid. Easy for them since they have top-of-the-line health insurance. Too bad for the poorest people in their states. And these rejectionists are governors of some of the poorest states in the country. One would think that any governor would want to improve the lives of the state's citizens, but not these GOP governors. They suffer from Obamaphobia."

"Can't say I'm familiar with that disease," I said.

"Well it's been around since 2008," Buck continued. "It is characterized by an intense and irrational fear of anything pertaining to President Obama. If the President proposes something, the sufferers of this disease automatically oppose it. If Obama offered to give these phobic governors a brand-new Cadillac, they would refuse it, either because they would fear it would explode the first time they turned the key or because they would imagine that Obama would somehow benefit."

"Sounds like that saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face," I said.

"Exactly. But, in this case,  the problem is the GOP governors don't suffer; it's the millions of poor who will pay the price."

"Speaking of price. Can we afford Obamacare? How are we going to pay for it?" I asked.

"Do your homework, Sonny Boy, before you ask something stupid like that. You're beginning to sound as uninformed as Michele Bachmann. The truth of the matter is that most of the experts who have studied it have concluded that Obamacare will save money. Your Republican friends talk about the devastating deficit, but when presented with Obamacare and its money-saving effects, they turn their backs. And that is one of the corollaries of Obamaphobia. Those Republican politicians only started talking about the deficit after Obama was elected. When George W. was president they were willing to spend money like drunken sailors."

At this point, our waitress removed our plates, but Buck was not finished venting. "We are the wealthiest nation in the world and we pay far more for health care than any other nation. Therefore you'd think we provide the best health care in the world. But the sad fact is that we don't. Other countries provide much better care at a significantly lower cost. Go figure."

"I don't have an answer for that, but I do know you are correct about the cost," I said. "Two months ago I was having chest pains and went to a hospital emergency room. After doing a whole series of tests, they concluded that my heart was fine, but they insisted on admitting me overnight 'for observation,' and then the next morning they gave me a stress test. It showed no problems, and I was released that afternoon after being in the hospital and ER for less than 24 hours. Several weeks later I received a bill that was nearly $17,000. Fortunately, my insurance company paid all but $50, but I'm still amazed by the total charge."

"Not to be too sarcastic," Buck said, "the doctor who had you admitted probably got a bonus. He was making money for the large corporation that owns the hospital, and the more ER 'admits' he chalks up, the better for him."

"Nothing like the corporate profit-motive to corrupt an industry based on noble objectives."

Can't-do Republicans

The United States has always been a progressive, "can-do" nation. Presented with a problem, we will work to solve it. Our ancestors saw the vast frontier as an opportunity and moved forward, building canals and railroads. No obstacle was insurmountable. We have always moved forward whether it was with electricity, interstate highways, space travel, medical advances or computer technology. Our ethic was progressive, and our attitude was: "We can do it." We did not turn and run when confronted by malaria, polio, cancer or AIDS; we became engaged in efforts to defeat and eradicate these dangers. The "can-do" attitude is entwined into our national fabric.

At least, that has always been the case. Unfortunately in recent years one of our national political parties is becoming the "can't-do" party. To them, progress is anathema. When confronted with a problem, unlike Americans of the past, this new breed of Republican is of the opinion that "it can't be done."

"Can't-do" Republicans are telling us that this nation can't:

• support job creation programs
• keep its commitment to its retired workers
• care for its elderly and sick
• provide a substantive education for its youth
• promote science and research
• care for its veterans
• facilitate everyone's right to vote
• establish a just minimum wage
• provide emergency assistance to hurricane victims
• require background checks for gun owners
• fill vacancies on federal court benches
• allow scientists to pursue unfettered stem cell research 
• maintain and rebuild the country's infrastructure

It has been said that if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. These "Can't-do" Republicans are definitely trying to take us backward  while the rest of the world is making a concerted effort to move forward.