jeffreymark

A FEW THOUGHTS CONCERNING TIGER WOODS

I play golf. I love golfers. I love professional golfers because they often embody all the characteristics we admire in gentlemanly athletes. Many professional golfers are men's men. Unlike strong men from contact sports, golfers exhibit gracious, kindly dispositions. Women like that in a man. So, indeed packaged in the golfer comes the complete man's man. 

Then there is Tiger Woods, a golfer out of sync. One must admit he possesses an athletic adroitness second to none in the game. Yet, his surly disposition undoubtedly thwarts our attempts to fully embrace him as a member of the gentleman's club. We simply don't like the guy. That's why we always enthusiastically cheered for Phil Mickelson every time he and Tiger went head to head. Mickleson incarnates a personality we expect to witness in a prototypical golf champion. He always smiles even when the chips are down. We think he loves life. 

Tiger Woods certainly is not the first golfer we merely tolerated. Long ago another champion named Ben Hogan captured our respect while shunning our affections. Hogan, however, developed his public aloofness through natural tragedy. His father committed suicide right before his eyes. Such a cataclysmic event would completely emotionally emasculate a lesser man. And, Hogan overcame his public introversion through another tragedy. A near fatal car wreck offered Hogan the chance to smell the roses. 

Today's endorsements and hero worship catapults us to a new level. We admire those who live in million dollar homes, wear $20,000 Rolex watches, and drive custom made Escalades. We live our lives vicariously through their public display of opulence. Affability and graciousness matter little in our postmodern media saturated society. Even men's men from the most gentlemanly sport on earth sometimes fail to grasp the transcendent qualities needed for clean leaving. The women, however many there may be, in Tiger's sordid life, cleverly entered a relationship with him knowing full well the consequences and financial rewards. Gold diggers no doubt, who live in a shadow world. Fame and fortune possesses a tremendous penchant for impairing a sane man, jerking his chain, and taking him to a moral abyss where he formerly dare not go. Sometimes a person like Tiger must hit the proverbial bottom before he can look up and see a blue sky. Hopefully, like Ben Hogan, God may use Wood's tragedy to save his soul.

Nevertheless, we who create these modern idols must shoulder some responsibility for outcomes. Last year I published a piece in the same vein commenting on Barry Bond's disappointing us with his use of steroids. One need only substitute Bonds with Woods to see the big picture:

...we created this monster and many more like him. We, with our demand for high flying thrills a minute; we with our Roy Hobbs science fiction delusion; we who live in an empty, self-seeking orgasmic-a-minute culture; yes indeed we gave this man permission to dazzle us with his Louisville Slugger wizardry. Barry Bonds only responded to our desires. Fans assured him through the box office that he carried a $15 million per year price tag on his head. That kind of money retards character development in any human being, much more so in a young adult like Bonds. Why should he care about his fan base? He can alleviate any discomfort he may feel with the narcotic called luxury. He and hundreds like him answer to no one and bow only to themselves. We fans ought to weep for ourselves. Opportunistic free capitalism provides Americans with a plethora of choices. High dollar celebrities merely offer a snapshot of the larger American character landscape. Indeed Americans have spoken. The once highly esteemed public service professions now take a back seat to celebrity worship. The Barry Bonds saga reminds us of this sad state.

HEALTH CARE-A PHYSICIAN'S VIEW

I do not comment often about health care. In fact, I state quite often I am an Economics 101 illiterate. I do, however, appreciate and listen to conservatives who study the issue like Godfather blogger Hugh Hewitt. The Don Hewitt posted a provocative piece from a retired physician on his website today. The posting sounds a sort of Clarion call to the non medical community, exhorting them to wake up now and defeat public health care or face the consequences of employing amateur physicians-a scary thought. I posted the entire piece below because of its compelling nature:

I’m an Internal Medicine sub-specialist in Infectious Diseases retired from Academic Medicine, now in medical publishing (at the rip ole age of early 40’s).  I have been listening to your show each evening.  Thank you for focusing exclusively on health care reform.  My upfront disclaimer on what I’ve “done to fix things”: I have contributed to Docs4patientcare, but I have gone above & beyond the call of duty by announcing on my Facebook that you are doing an excellent job with your interviews, and telling everybody to listen to your show.  Yay for me.

You have done well so far in airing the current problems that physicians have with Medicare (& Medicaid) reimbursements. One of your surgeon callers adequately described that an in-house level III consult is worth $70 (of which overhead & taxes take ?), and few physicians can be motivated to get up at 2 a.m. & drive to the hospital, stay for half the night, for roughly $35, no matter how altruistic. 

To play devil’s advocate, I’d like to point out what my liberal non-physician friends say when the cuts in reimbursements are discussed:  “Well, if your income of $185K goes down to $150K, then you’re still making $80K more than I am, so I think you can survive…” (From a strictly philosophical position, there are so many things wrong with this statement that I don’t know where to begin.) But, let’s focus on the pragmatic.  Average Joe doesn’t understand the debt to income ratio incurred by physicians (with debt taking many forms, not only financial). And society has done a great job of stigmatizing physicians as being money-grubbing entrepreneurs who don’t give a damn about patients, such that Average Joe actually feels almost liberated when reimbursements are cut.

I want to point out that current medical students today incur more than $125,000 for 4 years of med school (if they go to a cheap state school). This figure does not include college. The repayment schedule for my debt ($100K, because I graduated in the 1990’s) is $700/month and extends until I’m 65 years old. As a subspecialist physician, I trained for 14 years to do what I do (4 college 4 med school 4 med/peds residency 2 fellowship).  While my friends and neighbors were becoming teachers and loan officers and hair stylists and restaurateurs and claims adjusters, I was going to school learning how to take care of old folks, babies, and AIDS patients. Not only did I incur debt, but concurrently, I deferred income for almost a decade. So, while my friends were buying homes and having babies, again, I was learning to take care of AIDS patients.  

All of this was my choice, and I do not regret that choice. But let me be clear: medical students will not continue to make these sacrifices for peanuts. They will not.  And the Americans who now sit idly by, watching politicians abscond with their health care—all for ideology, will one day wake up to a health care system run by nurse practitioners & physician assistants because they are cheap. And I don’t say that to disparage NPs & PAs. But a Master’s degree does not rival 14 years of training to understand complex disease.  And If you’ve got bacteria growing in your blood or you’re having a heart attack, you don’t want “adequate” care.  You want fantastic care—that only 14 years of training gets you. In no other profession—not teaching, not law enforcement, not journalism—are people expected to make these kinds of sacrifices—financial, familial, emotional, intellectual.  No other profession.  If you want future doctors, you’d better invest in them, because no person is going to go through all this for minimal salary.  They’d be stupid to do that.  And medical students might be a lot of things, but they aren’t stupid.

Thank you for calling attention to these matters,

CM

PS: as one final shocker, I’d like to tell you the salary I had a subspecialty trained Academic ID doc.  As Assist Professor, my salary was $90,000/year, for which I was expected to teach, conduct research, & provide patient care.  I worked 80-100 hrs/week.  My NP who was employed at my HIV clinic, who worked 3 full days/week, was salaried at $80,000.

RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM

The compelling classic author Ayan Rand influenced modern day capitalist. I never read her works, but I certainly want to know more about this phenomenal genius. In November Reason TV will present the ideas of Ayan Rand, along with interviews.

RACE BLACKMAIL

This past election I marveled at the American people whose infatuation with prospects of a black president, swept otherwise calculating people overboard into a sea of unbridled emotion. A more leftist slanted individual recently told me, "We pretty much had to vote for Obama." Say what? No one held a gun to my head. I saw no leftist thugs at my voting booth. A legion of voters allowed frontier politics to impel their sense of guilt and appeal to their pioneering spirit. The first black president. ( actually Bill Clinton beat him to the punch) Let the party begin. Never mind facts; forget about Obama's ideological associates. Hear no evil, see no evil and thus no evil exists. 

Star Parker, black syndicated journalist for Sripps Howard News Service, calls out such people in her latest commentary:

What is pathetic is the gutless, ill informed, and misguided businessmen and businesswomen, from all walks of American life, who are ready to cave to race blackmail at the drop of a hat. Like racists of the past who bought bigoted claims about blacks to rationalize their racism, so NFL team owners showed zero interest in investigating claims and allegations made about Limbaugh. There was zero interest in the fact that Limbaugh never made most of the provocative statements attributed to him. Zero interest in investigating if the few remarks that Rush did indeed make that might be construed, as incendiary was indicative that he is racist. And no interest to see if Limbaugh actually ever did anything that might be considered discriminatory.

This pathological society needs bold prophets in the spirit of Martin Luther King to stand up and ask both liberals and moderates (liberals in sheep's clothing) questions concerning values and core beliefs. Have business owners sold their soul for a mess of temporal pottage? Do we shape our beliefs and actions according to any sort of historical framework? Perhaps Ms. Parker may set the tone for such prophets.

BRAINIACS OR MANIACS ?

Leftists often muse at their own sense of self importance and deeply desire for the world to place utmost faith in their adolescent utopian dreams. Furthermore, leftists spend their time touting their Ivy League credentialed intellectuals as the nation's sole saving grace. And intellectualism often stands as nothing more than misguided socialist idealism. FDR's administration institutionalized the phenomenon with the incarnation of a new godhead entitled New Deal. Roosevelt's program came  complete with socialist/communist walking on water virtues. World War II sent New Deal brainiacs into a whirlpool. Following 60 plus years of thrashing about in the sea of humanity, socialist brainy types have been reinvigorated by FDR Jr.-President Obama. Conservative man of letters Thomas Sowell eloquently draws a contrast between brainiac idealism and mature wisdom received through aged experience. He proceeds by briefly examining Hitler's superior intellectual prowess:

Make no mistake about it, Adolf Hitler was brilliant. His underlying beliefs may have been half-baked and his hatreds overwhelming, but he was a genius when it came to carrying out his plans politically, based on those beliefs and hatreds. Starting from a position of Germany's military weakness in the early 1930s, Hitler not only built up Germany's war-making potential, he did so in ways that minimized the danger that his potential victims would match his military build-up with their own. He said whatever soothing words they wanted to hear that would spare them the cost of military deterrence and the pain of contemplating another war. He played some of the most highly educated people of his time for fools-- not only foreign political leaders but also members of the intelligentsia. The editor of The Times of London filtered out reports that his own foreign correspondents in Germany sent him about the evils and dangers of the Nazis. In the United States, W.E.B. Du Bois-- with a Ph.D. from Harvard-- said that dictatorship in Germany was "absolutely necessary to get the state in order."

Sowell's wise counsel reminds me of the Old Testament's King Solomon. As son of the great King David, Solomon sought to continue building an extravagant utopia for himself. The young idealistic men of his day encouraged his extravagance. Older, wiser men advised him otherwise. Solomon listen to the youthful idealists instead of the experienced gray hairs which eventually lead his nation into a slow, but steady decline. Perhaps George Will offers us some saving grace when he suggests that the purpose of conservatism is to keep idealism in check. 

LEON PANETTA GETS IT RIGHT-SORT OF

Nancy Pelosi's pretentiously initiated brouhaha and self inflicted political wound concerning the CIA received a measured, partisan, yet reasonable response from director Leon Panetta. Pelosi's increasing unpopularity impelled her to spew immature poisons concerning the Bush administration's handling of intelligence.  CIA director Democrat Leon Panetta puts a more mature spin on the issue, one that implicitly defends Pelosi:

In our democracy, effective congressional oversight of intelligence is important, but it depends as much on consensus as it does on secrecy. We need broad agreement between the executive and legislative branches on what our intelligence organizations do and why. For much of our history, we have had that. Over the past eight years, on specific issues -- including the detention and interrogation of terrorists -- the consensus deteriorated. That contributed to an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information.

 Panetta then follows with a mildly contradictory defense of the Bush administration:

The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after Sept. 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of Sept. 11. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong.

Subsequent to his hack defense of the Speaker and his contextual analysis of President Bush's intelligence policies, Mr. Panetta offers an adult solution to the adolescent bickering so prevalent in this Administration:

Intelligence can be a valuable weapon, but it is not one we should use on each other. As the president has said, this is not a time for retribution. Debates over who knew what when -- or what happened seven years ago -- miss a larger, more important point: We are a nation at war in a dangerous world, and good intelligence is vital to us all. That is where our focus should be. The CIA has plenty of tools to fight al-Qaeda and its allies. Unlike the effort I canceled in June, our present tools are effective, we use them aggressively to go after our enemies, and Congress has been briefed on them.
When President Obama visited the CIA in April, he told agency officers, "I am going to need you more than ever." The men and women of the CIA truly are America's first line of defense. They must run risks and make sacrifices to acquire the intelligence our country needs for its safety and security. Having spent 16 years in the House, I know that Congress can get the facts it needs to do its job without undue strife or name-calling. I also know that we can learn lessons from the past without getting stuck there. That is what the American people expect. The CIA is ready to do its part. The nation deserves no less.

I do indeed disagree with Leon Panetta's politics, but I applaud him for a response that keeps him on his partisan track while at same time supports the men and women of a noble agency and seeks to move liberals forward with an issue than can ill afford to fall into the hands of selfish political jockeying. 

LIBERALISM A HOUSE OF CARDS

Now that we no longer have George Bush to kick around (Dems are still trying but the attempt is dying on the vine) the public seems increasingly aware of liberalism's bankrupt political ideology. Bill Kristol claims that liberalism's rise the last four years represents an interlude from Reaganism instead of a liberal intonation:

The stimulus hasn't worked. Cap-and-trade and health care reform are in trouble. The can't-we-all-get-along foreign policy isn't leading to a more peaceful world. And the administration seems to have no idea what to do about Guantánamo.
Congressional Democrats are nervous. Even Obama's media base is concerned. At the end of last week, three leading Obamaphiles offered their lamentations. "The fact is, Obama may be blowing a major opportunity for reform," worried Joe Klein. "There's now a real risk that President Obama will find himself caught in a political-economic trap," warned Paul Krugman. "Failure. Overwhelming, amazing failure," was David Brooks's take on the administration's effort to deal with health care inflation--something the president is (according to Brooks) "fervently committed to reducing."
Why such long faces? Because they realize that, despite the financial meltdown on the Bush administration's watch and the errors of omission and commission by the GOP over the last decade, the American public hasn't fundamentally rethought their turn in 1980 away from big government liberalism.
Gallup reports, "Thus far in 2009, 40 percent of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate, and 21 percent as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004." This despite two decisive Democratic election victories in the intervening years. Gallup also reported that 39 percent of Americans say their political views have become more conservative in recent years. Only 18 percent say they've grown more liberal.
Similarly, a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll had Americans favoring smaller government with fewer services to a larger government with more services by 54 to 41 percent--a slightly more conservative result than in 2004. As Michael Barone summarizes the situation, "Americans seem to be recoiling against big government when it threatens to become a reality rather than a campaign promise."

If Kristol pegs the climate accurately, Republicans can use this opportunistic moment to spawn a continuance of the conservative revolution. They must, however, find a way to rally around leadership. At this point Republicans really do stand as the big tent party. Whereas Dems inherently intimidate and bully nonconformists into submission. Big tents house lots of opinions and lots of opinions can get a bit cacophonous.

 Past political conservative leaders such as Newt Gingrich and the Gipper, keyed off of two natural human motivators. First of all they engendered a tremendous sense of pride and hope for the future by zealously appealing to our great national heritage. Both made us feel good about our spiritual ancestry. These men vicariously sounded forth our forefather's cry for liberty and appealed to our recent father's overwhelming destruction of fascism. 

Second, both Gingrich and Gipper judiciously set forth major, yet limited fundamentals of conservatism. They steered us through the muddy waters of multifarious jots and tittles by shining a narrow, highly visible light of conservative's core. This also explains Sarah Palin's continued popularity among conservatives. She incarnates conservatism's basic principles. Where Gingrich philosophizes, Palin functionalizes. She makes conservatism work. I'm not endorsing Sarah Palin here, if indeed she needs a future endorsement. I'm simply illustrating a point about conservative values. And true conservative politics by nature chases away the moderate little foxes who threaten to destroy the vineyard.     

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVE LETTERMAN

Yesterday I mentioned the fantasy world Miss USA lives in stands as an unreal existence for most Americans. David Letterman too, lives this Disney Land existence full of a materialism so extreme it brings out the perverted nature in otherwise sane individuals. If David Letterman lived like a Commoner he might be ok. But, his easy lifestyle inoculates him against many of the harsh disappointments and realities most Americans face each day. Therefore, he has no need to grow up. And why should we expect him to. Instead we should push the channel changer on the remote. Judging by his ratings many have chosen to do just that. So, why give a rat's a#$ as to what he says and thinks? We care because star struck adolescents dream of one day figuratively sitting in Letterman's chair. To get there, one assumes they should adopt Letterman's public disposition. Sex, hatred for "neo-cons," and cutesy dehumanizing humor provides the path, in a young person's mind, to the Letterman world. Thus, I offer Michelle Malkin's stinging letter to Dave Letterman:

Dear David Letterman,
Will you teach your son to talk about women and girls the way you talk about Sarah Palin and her daughters?
You called the married 45-year-old mother, grandmother, and Alaska governor “a slutty flight attendant” on your national TV talk show because she happens to be a tall, beautiful, and dynamic public figure who doesn’t look, walk, or talk the way you think she should.
You joked on national television about Palin’s teenage daughters “getting knocked up” by professional baseball player Alex Rodriguez or solicited by the prostitute-addicted former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer because it’s acceptable in your social and professional circles to sneer openly at the children of politicians you despise.
You admitted that your attacks on Palin’s family were in “poor taste,” but cackled while acknowledging your sophomoric judgment.
You expressed moral indignation at being misconstrued, yet you purposely omitted the name of which daughter you were mocking.
Fourteen-year-old Willow was the one who accompanied Gov. Palin during her trip this week, not 18-year-old Bristol, whom you now claim was the target of your feckless smear – a smear you still insist is perfectly defensible. Look at yourself, Dave. Look at how lame your excuse-making was on your Wednesday night show:
“These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl. I mean, look at my record. It has never happened. I don’t think it’s funny. I would never think it was funny. I wouldn’t put it in a joke…”
Tell us, great comic genius, how tacking on another four years to the target daughter makes it funny? We unenlightened dim bulbs who live outside of Manhattan’s boundaries don’t get the joke.
Will you be able to explain it to your son?
Face it: David Letterman, late-night entertainer-turned-partisan hack/hitman has a deranged obsession with Sarah Palin and her family that has crossed into rank bigotry and hatred. If the CBS network cares about basic standards of decency on public airwaves and if it cares at all about bolstering its shrinking audience, the network honchos will get Letterman a therapist pronto.
Over the past year, Letterman has displayed his sexist, elitist stripes in jibe after jibe aimed at Palin. Taken cumulatively, Letterman’s mockery is about much more than expressing contempt for the popular GOP governor. It’s a handy device to deride a broad class of working-class and middle-class women he holds incontempt:
“You know, she reminds me, she looks like the flight attendant who won’t give you a second can of Pepsi. No, you’ve had enough. We’re landing. Looks like the waitress at the coffee shop who draws a little smiley face on your check. Have a nice day.”
“She looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway. She looks like the nurse who weighs you and then makes you sit alone in your underwear for 20 minutes. She looks like the Olive Garden hostess who says, ‘I’m sorry, your table isn’t ready yet.” She looks like infomercial lady who says she made $64,000 a month flipping condos.”
“[S]he looks like the lady at the bakery who yells out ‘44! 45!’ She looks like a real estate agent whose picture you see on the bus stop bench. That’s who she looks like. She looks like the lady who has a chain of cupcake stores…”
In November 2008, Letterman told tanking CBS News anchor Katie Couric that he was “aroused” by Gov. Palin.
In March 2009, Letterman attacked Bristol Palin and snickered about her being“knocked up” again.
You know, David Letterman reminds me of the lecher at the school bus stop.
Or the aging creep lurking in the dirty magazine section at the 7-11.
Attention, CBS: Get him help now.    

CONFESSIONS OF A LEGAL ILLITERATE II

Yesterday cartoonist Michael Ramirez inspired me to launch a blog post that implicitly includes empathy in the same category with a self righteous sort of moralism. This moralism is indicative of our national character or lack thereof. Legal blogger John Hinderaker offers us a glimpse of the true meaning of empathy when used in a liberal/political context:

Barack Obama famously says that a key quality he wants in a Supreme Court justice is "empathy." As many commentators have observed, "empathy" is really a cover for lawlessness. But it's actually worse than that, because empathy, as that term is used by Obama, is inherently selective.
Does Obama mean that his nominee will have empathy for the unborn? Well, no. He doesn't have in mind that kind of empathy. How about empathy for taxpayers and small business owners? No, that isn't exactly the right sort of empathy either.

Religious terminology carries a meaning antithetical to its political counterpart. Hinderaker brilliantly reveals this truth to us. Empathy, open mindedness, and compassion for the liberal all refer to codewords suggesting forced conformity of thought and seeks to turn the presupposed old outdated moral code on its head. The open minded among us according to liberals will eventually accept the liberal narrative complete with empathy for the less fortunate among us who exhibit bad behavior i.e. pro abortionists, homosexuals, petty thieves, social radicals, and illegal immigrants. 

Empathy when used in a religious context separates compassion from moral judgments. One can       empathize with those who self destruct while at the same time making a moral judgment complete with ethical retribution. 

CONFESSIONS OF A LEGAL ILLITERATE

Since I know relatively nothing about formal legal matters, the only way I can make judgments concerning newly appointed Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor is consult the conservative lawyers I trust. Hugh Hewitt suggests:

They should and must ask the nominee serious questions about her judicial philosophy, especially on the subject of a color-blind society and the law's presumed blindness to the race, gender, ethnicity and religious background of those who appear before the courts or the larger government.  There are other areas as well where an extended series of questions --numerous, short questions from the senators (no Republican Bidens please) and long answers from the judge-- will prove riveting while providing an education to the country as to the difference between President Bush's nominees and President Obama's first selection.

Paul Mirengoff expresses similar concern over her racial philosophy:

Sotomayor's suggestion that, other things being equal, Latina judges can decide cases better than their white male counterparts hints at a special circumstance, since it entails a view of judging that arguably is antithetical to existing norms. Sotomayor should be examined carefully on this question. If she does not walk away from her prior statement, then (coupled with her positions on race-based preferences) the Republicans may have (a) a basis for asserting the existence of an extraordinary circumstance and (b) a tenable political basis for obstructing this nominee.

Beldar seems a bit apprehensive:

Based upon what I know of her so far, in U.S. Circuit Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Obama seems to have passed the "minimum objective qualifications" bar. This is no surprise, no more than the fact that this is a blatantly racist and sexist selection made to appease the Democratic Party's loathsome identity politics. However, Karl Rove made a good point on one of the Sunday talking head shows this weekend when he pointed out that the Obama Administration can't possibly have vetted her (or any of the other finalists) nearly as thoroughly as the Bush-43 Administration had vetted Roberts and Alito, so I reserve the right to change my opinion if some significant disqualifying facts pop out now that she's under everyone's microscope.

Apparently, Judge Sotomayor seems a bit enigmatic.  I don't like that. Conservatives ought to pin her down during the confirmation process to some sort of consistency that reveals her true core. Our profound checks and balances saved us from the Soviet style socialism Franklin Roosevelt thrust upon this nation during the Great Depression. In my opinion Obama, with his intrusion of the private sector and intimidation tactics particularly related to Chrysler, hauntingly resembles FDR politics. Students of history may recall FDR used the National Recovery Act to fix prices especially with the steel and auto industry. When Henry Ford refused to comply with the NRA Roosevelt intimidated Ford and suggested Americans stay away from his automobiles. The conservative Court eventually, thank God, ruled the NRA unconstitutional, but not before countless individuals were handed jail terms. Once again the Supreme Court may serve as our last best hope against Obama's bold attempts to remold the American character.