New Book !

– by Greg Bentall


So much of popular religion is simply a collection of ancient superstitions and old campfire stories. Even Pope Francis has told the Church that God is not a “wizard.” God is not our ever-present nanny or “fairy godmother” whose task it is to comfort and protect us, and to shield us from any danger, discomfort, or disappointment. So what, then, really is the point of religion and spiritualism in a modern world?

Exploring the concept of religion from an objective, sociological standpoint, “The Comforting Illusion: Lifting the Veil on Organized Religion” aims to somehow reconcile our modern worldviews with ancient spiritual perspectives.

By examining religion’s direct and indirect effects on practically every facet of 21st century society, be they good or bad, “The Comforting Illusion” pulls aside the curtain of our comfortable rituals and compels us to consider the complex facets of a culture that spans millennia.

A Call for Fairness in Sexual Abuse and Harassment Cases

Clearly the “Me Too” movement has ushered in a new age of gender relationships. And this is a good thing as many past practices, once considered normal, are no longer acceptable. But that is not to say that this movement has been without its controversy. While I affirm the right of any alleged sexually abused victim to be heard with all respect and compassion, we must also treat the accused with respect and fairness. We must reject the assumption of “guilt by accusation.”

The sexual abuse issue is again in the news in a way that could cause major political repercussions. Joe Biden has recently been accused of sexual assault related to an incident that allegedly occurred in 1993, or twenty-seven years ago. Biden is now in the impossible position of having to prove a negative, that he did not assault this woman. We cannot allow “guilt by accusation.” Also, we cannot allow a “zero-tolerance” policy to overrule fairness and common sense.

I believe that in the Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, respectively, Anita Hill and Christine Blasé Ford were both credible witnesses. I do not have the same feeling at all about Tara Reade. For one thing, Reade’s story has changed markedly over time. It has grown from an accusation of uncomfortable touching to accusations of a full-on sexual assault

There is a pervasive ambiguity in all human contact. At what point does a simple hug become sexual aggression? Technically speaking, a simple hug could be charged as sexual assault and battery as physical touching occurred.

The pattern of sexual harassment is not only men against women. Men can harass men, women can harass women, and women can harass men. Sexual harassment can be based on an imbalance of power. It is normally assumed that the man is in the position of power and that the woman is powerless. While this may be the norm, it is not always the case. Partly as a result of the current imbalance of power, the normal assumption seems to be that the accused man is automatically guilty. There is a definite gender inequality at work here. We cannot assume that men are always at fault, or that women are always the victims.

There was a time back in the 1980s when I was working at one of my company’s remote offices. I was working with this voluptuous woman. I was sitting at her desk, doing some work on her computer. She came up behind me and cradled my head in her bosom. This contact was not accidental. It made me very uncomfortable. I was there to work not play. Also, I was a married man and did not appreciate her sexual advances. I felt vulnerable. I did not want to have my reputation sullied, or to disrupt the staff relationships at that remote office.

The company had a policy requiring that any sort of sexual harassment needed to be reported. I did report this to my boss. His response was laughter, which was not terribly surprising. I think that most people would have laughed at this, especially back in the 1980s. I never heard about it further. I do not know if my even boss called her boss to discuss the issue. No one takes sexual harassment against males seriously. The common assumption is that men enjoy being harassed (wink, wink, nod, nod).

Had the situation been reversed – had I nuzzled my head on her bosom, or worse, cupped my hands on her breasts, I would have been in very serious trouble. I could have been fired and had my reputation destroyed. I could have also been arrested, or sued, or both.

The rules have changed in the past few decades, I am old enough to remember a time when office banter could sound like this. “Martha, you are looking especially fetching today. I love your outfit and how it fits you! The color really brings out your eyes.” There was a time when women were put on a pedestal, and flattery was the norm. We would find such a comment creepy today, but there was a time, not so long ago, that this banter would have been considered chivalrous.

We must avoid an assumption of “guilt by accusation”. Many men have seen their reputation besmirched in ways that they can never overcome. Victims of harassment have a right to be heard. We also need to respect the rights of the accused as well. We need to investigate accusations as well as we are able. But in many cases, such as in this alleged incident between Joe Biden and Tara Reade, no definitive investigation even possible due to the time lapse and lack of corroborating evidence. In such circumstances we can only look at patterns of behavior, conduct, and decorum displayed by those involved, both the accuser and the accused. It also helps to look at the values expressed by those being examined. We need to look for patterns of behavior that may serve to either substantiate or discredit both persons’ statements.

While I would never want to cast aspersions on all accusers, we still need to recognize that accusations can be made in bad faith or even with criminal intent. The reasons for such false accusations might include, an attempt to extort money from a wealthy celebrity, a strictly partisan attack upon a political candidate or other public figure, a disgruntled employee seeking revenge or a financial windfall, or a person with a grudge to settle.

While every accuser has the right to be heard, we must not lapse into “guilt by accusation.” Also, we need to maintain some balance and perspective. We must never place a Senator Al Franken into the same category as a Harvey Weinstein or a Bill Cosby. We must distinguish between minor breaches of protocol and egregious sexual crimes. We need to allow for human weakness that does not rise to the level of evil doing. Minor incidents should be met with counseling and training in appropriate behavior and relationship building.

We must not make this gender war. It is not about ending the cultural domination of men over women. We cannot judge decades-old behavior by today’s rules, as the rules have clearly changed. We need to acknowledge that these issues are complicated and ambiguous. They are not black and white, but a million shades of gray, and deal with them accordingly.



Today the UK officially leaves the European Union and begins an eleven-month transition period. During this transition period the UK needs to negotiate the terms of its leaving, and to establish a new trading and regulatory relationship with the EU. It took the EU seven years to create a trading agreement with Canada, and the UK situation is far more complicated.

The reason that the UK wishes to leave the EU is to restore its own national sovereignty. The Brits would say that they signed on to the old Common Market, which was a European free-trade area. In the meantime, the Common Market is slowly morphing into a new form of government, essentially a United States of Europe. The UK has never fully integrated into the EU. The UK, unlike most other EU countries, still maintains its own currency and border controls. While it is possible to travel from Sweden to Spain without any border controls, there are still border controls to enter the UK.

Transition Issues to be Resolved

Immigration is one of the areas in which the UK wishes to reassert its sovereignty. At present, any citizen of any EU country can travel or even move to any other EU country. There are millions of EU citizens that now reside beyond their home countries. This is one of the key issues to be resolved. It will effect both UK citizens living and working in the EU as well as EU citizens living and working in the UK.

Tariffs are another issue to be negotiated. Typically, it takes years, if not decades, to negotiate tariff agreements. Upon leaving, the UK will no longer be viewed as a European partner, but rather as a European competitor.

Regulations are an important part of any trade deal. The EU maintains strict regulations related to product quality, public health and safety, labor standards, environmental issues, and a host of other topics. Simply stated, if the UK wishes to maintain trading relations with the EU, then it must accept EU regulatory standards. This becomes a key factor in national sovereignty, and part of the impetus for Brexit.

Border Controls are a critical issue. All good moving into and out of the EU most go through border checks. At present, there are approximately ten thousand trucks carrying goods across the English Channel every day without restrictions. Now, after the transition period, each truck will need to be stopped and inspected. This will create a logistical nightmare. At present there are no facilities for such inspections. One of the short-term issues will be shortages of food and medicines entering the UK. Trucks may be stuck at the border for days on end. The inconvenience to the truckers may severely restrict trade between the UK and the EU.

Irish Border: The Irish border will be one of the most difficult issues to resolve. At present, Northern Ireland is a part of the UK while the bulk of Ireland is an independent nation and part of the EU. The Irish border has seen decades of violence that has now been abated. Any attempt to create a hard border across Ireland will no doubt end in bloodshed. The Irish, both north and south, will demand an open border. The UK government is also demanding of an open border. The EU has demanded a closed border. The only reasonable solution to this issue seems to be that Northern Ireland will eventually leave the UK and become part of the Republic of Ireland.

Financial Services: London is a global financial powerhouse, second only to New York City. No one knows what will happen to the London financial services industry after the end of the transition period. Already, London banks and financial firms are setting up subsidiaries in EU countries. The people of London voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU.

Fishing Rights are another issue to be resolved. In the 1970s the UK and Iceland got into skirmishes related to fishing rights. Now there will be disputes between the UK and EU countries until these can be resolved.

Effects of Brexit on the UK

Dissolution of the UK

At mentioned earlier, Northern Ireland will almost certainly leave the UK and become part of the Republic of Ireland. In Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, there is a growing independence movement. The five million people of Scotland may vote to become an independent nation and continue to be a part of the EU. If this were to happen then there would be another hard border issue to face between England and Scotland. Gibraltar, a British outpost at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, will almost certainly be absorbed by Spain over border issues.

Collapse of Trade and Commerce

The British economy has suffered the effects of Brexit even before it began. The British pound has fallen significantly. Businesses face a quandary of how to invest for an uncertain future. The major British manufacturing categories include beer, soft drinks, gas vehicles, diesel vehicles, and aircraft.

The vehicle industry is facing some severe issues. One of the great advantages of the EU was the free trade of goods across borders. Vehicles are assembled from numerous parts outsourced to various countries. Now, for UK manufactures, each time a part crosses a border it will incur a tariff. Also, any vehicles manufactured in the UK will incur tariffs when sold in the EU. The automotive industry is in a global crisis even without Brexit. Within five years there will be a total transition from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles (EV). Tesla already has a higher market capitalization than the total of Ford, GM, and Fiat Chrysler combined.

Airbus is a company facing a crisis. Airbus is a consortium of the UK and France. This arrangement will become much more problematic at the end of the transition period.

Loss of Labor and Expertise

The UK will need to attract and keep the human resources it needs to operate its various industries. This need includes everyone from key experts in critical industries to agricultural workers. As populations relocate as a result of the chaos and uncertainty of Brexit, good help may become even harder to find.

Sharp Decline in GDP

Because of the disruption of trade, the loss of key personnel, likely collapse of the financial service industry, the further drop of the pound, the UK faces a bleak economic future. It is now, along with Germany and France, one of the economic power houses of Europe. But Brexit will cause the UK economy to shrink, and the UK will become a minor economic force in the region.

Effects of Brexit on the EU

Loss of UK support: The UK is one of the chief contributors to the EU, paying in more than it receives. The loss of this British support will mean that either EU programs must be cut, or that other countries will need to step up to cover the loss of British funding. Neither of these are a likely scenario.

Loss of a Major Trading Partner: The loss of the UK as a trading partner will have a serious impact on the EU. The loss of financial services from London will have a noted effect.

Need to Work Out New Trading Relationship with UK: Much of the time and energy of the EU will be absorbed in working out the new trading relationship with the UK. This will be particularly difficult as the preference of Boris Johnson seems to be for a “no-deal” Brexit. It is possible that the UK will finally crash out of the EU at the end of the transition period with no deal at all. This will create a situation of chaos that will take years, if not decades, to resolve.


Recent History

For the second time in recent history, twice in sixteen years, the Electoral College has thwarted the will of the American voter. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, as did Al Gore in 2000. That is twice in 16 years that the Electoral College has failed us. The Electoral College is an 18th Century anachronism that may have made sense back then. But is the 21st Century it has become a major threat to our democracy.

The 2000 election was determined by 536 votes in Florida out of over 101 million votes cast nationwide for the two leading candidates. Al Gore won the national popular vote by 540,000. Others would say that the 2000 election was really decided by one vote in the United States Supreme Court. There were many errors and discrepancies in the Florida vote count. One key factor was that Patrick Buchanan received 30,000 votes in Dade County that really belonged to Al Gore due to the infamous “butterfly ballot” issue. Even Patrick Buchanan said after the election that those votes were obviously not for him. He then went on to add that he knew of no way that the error could be corrected.

This fact that a hand full of votes in a key state can swing an election is certainly a problem that needs to be fixed. In the 2016 election Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote by some 80,000 popular votes spread across three states. In the popular vote Hillary Clinton topped Trump’s totals by over 3 million votes. As evidenced by the 2000 results in Florida, it would be possible to change the election results by changing only a handful of votes in a key state. This situation leaves us open not only to mistakes such as the butterfly ballot, but to election fraud and tampering as well. To steal an election, it is not necessary to involve the whole country. The illicit result can be obtained simply by manipulating a key state or even key precincts.

Electoral College is full of mathematical aberrations which make for unfair elections.  Wyoming has a population of 563,626 and 3 electoral votes, or one electoral vote for every 187,875 people.  California has a population of 37,253,956 and 55 electoral votes, or one electoral vote for every 677,345 people.  Thus, the vote of a Wyoming resident counts 3.6 times as much as the vote of a California resident.

The Electoral College system disenfranchises those who vote for the losing parties in each state.  If you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas you need not even bother to vote for president. Your vote for president will not even be counted in this winner-take-all system.  The only way to make your vote count is to move your voter registration to a swing state, like Florida, where it just might make a difference. But such shenanigans would be shameful and ought not to be necessary.

18th Century Justification

The name “The United States of America” comes from the Declaration of Independence.  But what the Declaration of Independence really says is, “… the thirteen united STATES OF AMERICA.”  The emphasis was on the individual states and not on a union.

The Electoral College made sense in Eighteenth Century America.  Back then America was much like Europe is today. The European Union is still a collection of nations, even though there is the beginning of a European government. In the Eighteenth-Century colonial America was also a collection of states. In the Eighteenth Century it probably made sense to vote for the president by states.

It was the Civil War that finally fused this collection of states into a nation.  The Spanish American War in 1898 marked the birth of the American Century, wherein we became a superpower, capable of influencing events beyond our borders.

The Electoral College was designed to keep the ultimate control of presidential elections in the hands of the landed elite. As a result of this, electors can use various means to override the choice made by the voters of their respective states. Various states have inconsistent rules that allow electors to cast their electoral votes in ways not consistent with the state’s popular votes. This “override” function was not a flaw in the design, but rather an essential part of the design, which was seen as necessary in the 18th. Century.

The Founding Fathers were exclusively the white, male, landed gentry. The Founding Fathers created not a democracy, but a republic, wherein the nation’s sovereignty was vested in elected leaders. There was a marked distrust of the unwashed masses. While the common people were allowed to vote for their leaders, the ultimate control remained with the elite, the aristocracy. The Electoral College was created specifically to give the elite a level of control over the selection of presidents. It is for this reason that the rules for electors are so loose.

But there is an even darker justification for the Electoral College. Under the Constitution a slave was recognized as three-fifths of a man. The House of Representatives was apportioned according to this formula. The population of a slave state was counted as its free people plus 60% of its slave population. This same formula was used in the election of the president.

In adding up the votes casted for president, one could not just add up the popular votes from each of the various states. Rather, a system was needed to “bulk-up” the vote of the slave states to represent 60% of the slave population even though slaves were not allowed to vote.  The Electoral College already embodied this formula as part of the apportionment of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the easiest and most direct method of bulking up the vote to adjust for the slave count

21st Century Elections

The fairest, most secure, and most democratic means of electing a president would be to abolish the Electoral College and to elect the president by popular vote. This would require an amendment to the Constitution. This would require a vote in Congress by a two-thirds vote in each house. Then, the amendment would need to be ratified by a three-fourth vote of the respective states.

This ratification process raises another 18th Century anachronism, that of treating all states as equals regardless of their respective populations. Wyoming has 564 thousand people while California has 37 million thousand people. And yet the ratification votes in each state would carry exactly the same weight, even though California is 66 times larger.  A related 18th Century anachronism is the apportionment of the United States Senate, but I digress.

In order to ratify an amendment abolishing the Electoral College this would require the approval of 38 states. This would require the approval of many of the small states like Wyoming. All of the small states have a strong incentive to keep the Electoral College in place, as it provides them with a significance increase in their political power that would be lost if the Electoral College was abolished. There could be an appeal to “fairness,” but this might not be persuasive given the shift of power involved.

There is also a budding “back-door” approach to abolishing the Electoral College. If states representing a majority of Electoral College votes, each pledged to grant all of their electoral votes not to the winner of the respective states, but to the national winner instead, then the Electoral College would be brought into harmony with the popular vote. This back-door approach would negate the enhanced political powers of the small states and then make the abolition of the Electoral College achievable.

The Plight of the Palestinians

In the 1st Century CE, the Romans destroyed the second temple and purged all Jews from ancient Israel. The final battle was at Masada, wherein the final remnants of Jewish leadership perished by suicide just before the Romans breached the walls of the fortification. It was not until the 20th Century that the Jews began to return in significant numbers in response to the Nazi threats. In 1948 there was a great exodus of Jews from Europe to Palestine following the end of World War II to seek asylum and to establish the Jewish state of Israel. All returning Jews from around the world were guaranteed a home and citizenship in the new Jewish state.

This exodus from Europe in 1948 meant the forceful conquest of Palestine, and the attack on the Palestinian people. Violence and tension between Israel and Palestine have continued to this day.

In 1967, Israel conquered East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Israel continues to rule over these conquered lands. Israel did not annex these lands, so the Palestinians living there are not Israeli citizens and are not allowed to vote. These disenfranchised Palestinians number some 2.7 million.

The State of Israel treats the Palestinians as stateless refugees and enemy aliens. There is no denying that atrocities have been committed by both sides. The Gaza Strip resembles nothing so much as the Warsaw Ghetto of World War II. Where there is oppression people will struggle and even fight for freedom and dignity.

There are 5.3 million Palestinians living in the region governed by Israel, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The Jewish population of Israel is 5.2 million. This means that the Palestinians are the majority population in the lands controlled by Israel. Additionally, there are another 1.5 million Palestinians exiled to other countries in the region. (WorldPopulationReview.com/Palestine-Population/).

There are Israeli Arabs living in Israel proper who are allowed to vote. However, as Israel was constituted as a Jewish state the Israeli Arabs have little power. There are some 600,000 Jewish Israelis living in illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank who are allowed to vote.

The Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has endeavored to establish illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories in order to deny a homeland to the Palestinian people. In the past, the proposed solution to the Palestinian situation was the “Two State Solution.” This meant that the Israeli controlled territories would be partitioned into two countries, Israel and Palestine. Palestine was to be given considerable autonomy, although Israel always claimed the right to maintain security over Palestine. Now it appears that Israel is no longer considering the Two State Solution. After decades of negotiation such talks have broken down. The creation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank have created facts-on-the-ground that have made the Two State Solution impossible.

The United States has long been an ally and supporter of Israel, but has also sought to advocate for Palestinian rights. President Jimmy Carter is known for his efforts at creating a lasting peace in Israel with justice for the Palestinian People. Unfortunately, those efforts were never successful.

When Donald Trump moved the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, his actions were clearly a slap-in-the-face to the Palestinian people. It was a demonstration that Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and the other conquered territories were both legitimate and permanent. It was a signal to his cohort, Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel had a free hand to put an end to the Palestinian issue in anyway that he chose.

Israel claims to be a democracy. The United States government is its staunchest ally. Yet in truth, Israel is a religious apartheid nation where democracy only applies to the Jews. Netanyahu is a segregationist, not unlike America’s George Wallace. In supporting Israel without seeking justice for the Palestinian people, the United States has abandoned its principles and supported oppression.

If there is not to be a Two State Solution, then the only other method of achieving justice would be a One State Solution. And by this, I mean that Israel evolves into a secular democracy with equal rights and participation for all. But that is not a likely outcome for the foreseeable future.

Gerrymandering — The Usurpation of our Elections

Gerrymandering is a process wherein politicians can determine the outcome of elections by drawing district boundaries in a manner that greatly favors their own party. In 2018, Democrat Doug Jones was elected to the United States Senate from Alabama. In this statewide election Jones won the majority of votes. However, let us assume that instead of a Senate race, this was a race for the seven seats in the United States House of Representatives. If we took the actual votes in this Senate election, and parceled them out by their respective Congressional districts, then the Republicans would have won six of the seven seats, and the Democrats would have won only one. This is the power of gerrymandering. Gerrymandering distorts elections and disenfranchises voters.

Since the Democrats won just over 50% of the votes in this Senate election, one would expect that the hypothetical House election the Democrats should have won three or four seats. Instead they won only one.

We have all seen maps with strange patterns of electoral districts. The term “Gerrymandering” comes from Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry who in 1812 created a boundary for a district in Boston that resembled a salamander.

Perhaps even more that the maps with strange shaped districts, is the table below that shows the intended outcomes of Gerrymandering.

In this table there are 50 “X’s and 50 “Y’s.” Given the equal numbers a fair outcome would be that each party control five of the ten districts. However, by looking at the results, it becomes obvious that Party “X” has Gerrymandered the districts so that it controls eight out of the ten districts. This was done by concentrating the Party “Y” voters into Districts 1 and 2. Districts 1 and 2 might represent, for example, the urban core of the region.

The practice of Gerrymandering is a win-at-any-cost method of controlling elections. It disenfranchises voters and makes a mockery of our right to vote. It is done with corrupt intent as an unwarranted political power grab.

One of the chief purposes of the courts is to protect us from such usurpation of power by unscrupulous politicians. When our elected officials pass unjust laws, it is only the courts that can mitigate the damage. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the final arbiter. Recently SCOTUS ruled on a Gerrymandering case, and rendered one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States.

Rather than declaring the practice of Gerrymandering unconstitutional, as the liberal wing of the court proposed, SCOTUS remanded the decision back to a lower court for further clarification.

The issue identified by SCOTUS was that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring suit. SCOTUS concluded that there was no standing because no one was denied the right to vote for the candidate of their choosing. The horrendous logic of the court left out the fact that even though no voter was denied the right to vote, voters were denied the right to have their vote count.

SCOTUS has recently ruled that Gerrymandering is unconstitutional if it is tied to racial discrimination. The question before the court is now is whether Gerrymandering for partisan advantage is unconstitutional. It is hard to see how anyone with any sense of integrity and fair play would want to allow politicians to engage in any form of political chicanery in order to control elections. This strikes at the very heart of our democracy.

There are several lessons to be learned here. The Republican Senate under Mitch McConnell denied any confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland, who was appointed to SCOTUS by Barrack Obama. This act “stole” a SCOTUS seat from the Democrats and gave it to the Republicans.

We must learn that in our democracy voting is essential. It matters who is in the White House because the president has the power to make nominations. It matters who controls the Senate because the Senate has the power to confirm nominations. And, it matters who controls the state legislatures and governorships because these offices have the power to set district boundaries. 2020 is a census year, meaning that many congressional districts will be reconfigured. It is urgent that we all vote for people who will restore ethics, integrity, and fairness to our government.

Forgotten Facts About Healthcare


1)      Healthcare is not like other forms of insurance. You cannot buy it by the slice. Everyone needs full coverage because no one knows what might happen.

2)      Healthcare can be immensely expensive. Any health care issue can potentially cost one hundred thousand or even one million dollars.

3)      Any form of “medical savings plans” is simply a cruel joke. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck any form of savings is impossible. A more affluent middle class family may be able to save five thousand dollars over five years in their medical savings plan. When and if they are hit by a medical crisis such as a heart attack, traffic accident, or severe disease, their five thousand dollars in savings may not cover even the first day of treatment.

4)      There has to be enough money paid in to the health care system to pay all claims. A sixty-year-old woman may say that she does not need pregnancy coverage. If that is allowed, then a twenty-year-old woman may say that she does not need coverage for “old people’s” issues such as osteoporosis or Alzheimer’s. Any medical care system must find a way to pay for all medical needs for all people. Healthcare is not just about my medical needs, but how to cover the medical needs of the whole population.

5)      Any health care plan will require government subsidies. The only alternative is to let the poor and vulnerable people die. People in nursing homes are there for a reason, and cannot be expected to get a job and support themselves.

6)      Even the healthiest people need insurance. You may be a marathon runner but this does not mean that you won’t get hit by a bus or develop a brain tumor.

7)      The cost of healthcare is not only the cost of the medical premiums, but also includes the deductibles and copays. A “cheap” insurance policy with low premiums is nearly worthless if it has high out-of-pocket costs. Many who complained about the Affordable Care Act went from cheap, nearly worthless policies, to full coverage. That is also a part of the reason that costs increased.

8)      Coverage of pre-existing conditions is essential. With anyone over age 50 you would expect numerous pre-existing conditions. Under recent plans announced by the Republican Congress, some people with pre-existing conditions would be paying in excess of $100,000 in health insurance premiums alone, before counting the costs of deductibles and copays. This is not insurance coverage but a death sentence. 

9)      We need wellness care instead of sick care. Wellness care involves vaccines, early diagnosis, and rapid intervention. Health care plans should focus on preventive care as a long-term investment. Preventive care should be done with out-of-pocket expense to the patients. Even better is to make preventative care free. For example, my Kaiser Permanente provider requested that I have a colonoscopy simply because of my age. This procedure was done without any out-of-pocket cost to me. During this procedure polyps were found and removed, preventing potential colon cancer.

10)   Healthcare should be seen as an investment in our human capital. A strong and healthy population yields productive workers and tax payers. Prevention is infinitely cheaper than emergency intervention and rehabilitation. 

11)   The health care system in most developed countries try to reduce overall healthcare costs by such mechanisms as volume discounts in purchasing. This country has gone to the opposite extreme. When Medicare Part D was pass for prescription coverage, Big Pharma was guaranteed that the government would pay top dollar for every purchase. The purpose was not to provide affordable health care to all Americans on Medicare. Rather, it was done to create a massive subsidy to Big Pharma at the expense of those in need.

The Viet Nam War Revisited

Historian Ken Burns’ new CNN series on the Viet Nam war opens many old wounds as we review its horrible history. We talk about the 62,000 Americans who died in that horrible war, but we never mention the one million Vietnamese who died in that war, and the utter devastation that we released on that part of the world through our bombings and chemical warfare. Agent Orange was an environmental catastrophe. Many of our own veterans were casualties of this. Viet Nam is still enduring the effects of Agent Orange as is evidenced by the cancer rates and birth defects, even among our veterans. And then there was the napalm.

America entered the Viet Nam war to defend the fruits of French imperialism. Also, because our government lied to us, claiming the war to be a superpower contest between the godless communists and the free world. But in truth Viet Nam was more of a tribal war between factions of the Vietnamese people. The corpses were Vietnamese and not Chinese or Russian. And finally we were there to project American power and influence abroad.

While we should always show respect for our military personnel and veterans, those who are willing to serve and even die for their country. But we should never respect or defend our nation’s pointless and often catastrophic militarism that has wreaked havoc around the world. We must always remember that it is the politicians and not the soldiers who decide which wars that we need to fight.

One sad legacy from Viet Nam is that our country has proven time and time again that it has no memory. We have been fighting for 16 years in Afghanistan for no apparent purpose. We have spilled our precious blood and wasted our treasure in an endless tribal conflict wherein we have no legitimate role to play. We cannot even articulate what “victory” would look like and we have no exit strategy.

George W. Bush started a post 9-11 war with the wrong country. Attacking Iraq after 9-11 was like bombing China in response to Pearl Harbor.

He lied to us saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He lied to us by saying that we would pay for the war by taking Iraqi oil. The Bush family wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left our nation broke and divided. He destroyed the Iraqi government and infrastructure and left chaos and disorder in its place. He disbanded the Iraqi army which then became the core of ISIS. How much better both America and the Middle East would be if only we had stayed out of this futile and destructive conflict.

Our militaristic propaganda says that our military is there to protect our freedoms. I find such an assertion to be utterly ridiculous. All too often our country goes to war not for freedom, but to intervene in tribal disputes that need to be settled by the natives, and to impose our values, form of government, and economic system on the rest of the world. We fight to make the world “safe” by making it look more like us.

Ronald Reagan conducted a terrorist “war” against the duly elected government of Nicaragua. But the origins of the mess in Nicaragua goes back to the Eisenhower administration when we sent in troops to protect the United Fruit Company from the local efforts to unionize the workers. In those days it was easy to denounce anyone who stood for unionization, land reform, or economic security for the starving masses as communists. We must never believe that our own commercial interests trump the rights of indigenous people for political rights and economic participation.

We must never believe our own propaganda. We have no right to talk of freedom when unarmed people of color are being routinely tyrannized, brutalized, and even murdered by police officers for no reason. This is what the Colin Kaepernick protest was all about.

We must never equate patriotism with flag waving or outward patriotic displays when many of our own are denied security and full economic participation. We must never say, “America, right or wrong.” We must never assert our moral supremacy, when prisoners in Iraq were subjected to torture and abuse. That part of the Bush wars will always be a stain on our national character.

During the Third Reich, the nice people made the best Nazis. These nice people were not diabolically evil, but like sheep the allowed and even supported the diabolical evil that surrounded them. America must never become a nation of sheep that believes its own propaganda and confused true patriotism with flag waving support.

We must learn to face our nation’s history with honesty and self-reflection. We must begin to learn from our past and seek to build a better future. 




Urgent Election Reform


Elections are the sacred well of democracy. When the waters are poisoned there is nothing left. Without fair and open elections the choices of the people are thwarted and democratic government collapses. When this happens, the government ceases to be the servant of the people, and instead allows the usurpation of government authority by an unqualified but well organized oligarchy. Oligarchs rule rather than govern. Government becomes the tool of tyrants. The United States has in recent years failed to provide fair and free elections.

The collapse of fair and open elections has already resulted in a substantial loss of our democracy. Our country, despite our boasting of being the world’s oldest and strongest democracy, has allowed our basic institutions to crumble. We have gone from “Every vote counts in the election,” to “The election will be decided by who counts the votes.”

There are a series of reforms that are urgently needed if we are to salvage what remains of our democracy. The following is a partial list of those urgently needed reforms.

Abolish the Electoral College

Twice in the past sixteen years the Electoral College has thwarted the will of the American people. This is simply unacceptable. In 2000, Al Gore lost Florida and the election by only some 500 votes out of 103 million votes cast. There was a cluster of errors in the Florida vote count. It is estimated that Pat Buchanan erroneously gained an estimated 32,000 votes that were intended for Al Gore due to the “butterfly ballot” fiasco. There were other irregularities as well, including the handling of absentee ballots. By counting ballots on a state-by-state basis, such irregularities come to the forefront and determine the outcome of the election. But when the national vote is taken as a whole there is a different outcome. Any irregularities are “averaged out” and the winning candidate is the overall choice of the electorate.

In 2016 we had the will of the people thwarted again by the Electoral College. This time it was 80,000 people across three states that would have changed the election outcome. In the end, Hillary Clinton received 3,800,000 more votes than Donald Trump in what turned out to be her losing effort.

The Electoral College perhaps made sense in the 18th Century. At that time the United States was a confederation of states, much like the European Union is today. But by the time of the Civil War, our nation became one nation and not a collection of states. The Electoral College, that vestige of the 18th Century, makes no sense in the 21st Century.

End Gerrymandering

We have gone from voters selecting their candidates to office holders selecting their voters. Our current system of gerrymandered districts thwarts the will of the voters. Elected officials can stack the deck on state legislative chambers and the United States Congress by manipulating district boundaries. These boundaries are normally set by the very state legislators that benefit from manipulating these boundaries. We need to remove the setting of district boundaries from the political process. In California district boundaries are set by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. Since implementation in June 2012, independent studies have confirmed that California now has some of the most competitive districts in the country. Other states need to follow similar procedures.

Support Voter Registration

New voter registration procedures have become a new form of poll tax. Estimates are that hundreds of thousands of citizens have been disenfranchised by these efforts. The burden of these procedures fall disproportionately on the poor, people of color, and the elderly, and those for who English is a second language. We need a new national voters’ rights act to replace the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was essentially struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.

No one could deny that we need to clean up our voter rolls. There is no systematic effort to purge the rolls of deceased voters or those who have moved away. But so far this has not been a real issue. After searches for voter fraud spanning decades, no one has ever found more than a handful of actual voter fraud issues, and certainly never enough to sway an election.

In many states convicted felons have a lifetime ban on voting. African Americans make up 13% of the population, but 38% of the prison population. Voter disenfranchisement due to a felony conviction has a strong racial component. It is possible to disenfranchise whole communities by refusing to allow convicted felons to vote, including those who have already paid their debt to society.

Maintain Poll Access

Every election seems to have issues with voter access to polling places. Amazingly, such issues only seem to occur in selected precincts. There is misinformation as to poll locations or hours. There are shortages of ballots or voting machines that do not work. Too often people in these “selected” precincts must wait for hours to cast their ballots. This is another burden that falls disproportionately upon the poor. An hourly worker might have to rush to vote before work, while a salaried manager could vote at his or her leisure.

The act of voting should not be an ordeal. Instead of a 12 hour election window we should be given an extended time of perhaps one week to vote. We should be able to vote by any number of means. We can invest and do banking online. Calculate and pay taxes online. We should be able to vote online as well. For those without computer access, voting computers could be set up in libraries, schools, offices, or other public places. There should also be mail in options for those who are computer challenged. If we can use our bank ATM cards in Mexico City, or Bangkok, we should be able to vote from anywhere during an election period without difficulty.

Demand Election Integrity

Somehow we need to make our elections work. There have been endless reports of lost ballots, voting machine malfunctions, and absentee ballots that have been lost or ignored. Elections should be determined by the votes casted and not by who counted the votes. Here again is a situation where “selected” precincts seem to have much greater irregularities than the norm. If we cannot trust our state and county officials to conduct fair and accurate elections then perhaps we should have outside parties, such as fiduciary institutions, or CPA firms, to collect and count the ballots.

Voting machines, ballot counts, and any online or mail voting methods must be fool proof. This is our democracy we are talking about. We need to provide the resources and make the effort to insure that every vote counts. “Accidents,” “oversights,” and “unavoidable situations” must not be allowed as excuses. These can be avoided by proper planning, training, and redundancy.

Require Financial Disclosure

We must never again allow any candidate to run for President of the United States without submitting at least five years’ worth of federal tax returns. In the past this has been the custom, but it was not a requirement. Trump was able to avoid this disclosure despite his frequent assurances to the contrary. The president must be free of any conflicts of interest. Without the income tax disclosure there is not even a roadmap to look for possible conflicts. This disclosure must be made at the start of the election cycle so that voters have a chance to review and analyze these documents. For this reason the documents must be disclosed before any names are placed on the primary ballots. California now has such a law. We need a similar rule for congressional candidates as well.

%d bloggers like this: