LA COMEDIE INHUMAINE

As you all know, the great French writer Balzac's magnum opus is a compendium of short stories and novels entitled, "La Comédie Humaine.'.Although the French comédie refers here more to a play then to a comedy, that is, Balzac's writings are like a stage on which French society is realistically depicted.  The English word, comedy, also seems to apply, since realistically depicted people with their vanities and weaknesses are not without comic qualities, often tragi-comic ones.  It is in both senses of the word that I am writing this little essay entitled La Comédie Inhumaine.  I will discuss a minor episode that has to do with political correctness and the relentless jockeying for power that characterizes current American politics.  Although it is a minor episode, I do believe it gives insight into our current sorry state of affairs.  I call it "The Inhuman Comedy" for two reasons: it is not without its comic aspects, and, sadly, the jokes are all on us.

The Super Bowl, which will take place in two days as of this writing, has became famous not only for its spectacle of athletes but also for its spectacle of commercials.  Companies pay a fortune for their ads and really do their best to be creative, and sometimes, like Flacco in last year's Super Bowl--yes I'm from Baltimore--splendidly succeed.  Apparently, General Mills will broadcast on Sunday their biracial version of the famous Cheerios ad in which a cute, very young kid lectures her waking father of the need to take care of his heart. The cute kid is carrying a large box of Cheerios, and the father, overwhelmed by the sincere concern of his child, will be eating Cheerios for the rest of his life.

In response to the ad--it is not new-- a minor employee of MSNBC, a cable station known for its progressive views, tweeted the following:

Maybe the right wing will hate it,  but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/biracial family.

The Republican leaders of the RNC (Republican National Committee) were outraged--really outraged.  The co-chair of the organization, Reince Priebus, insisted that the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, apologize both publicly and to him or he would do .his best to assure that no one from the RNC would have any further direct contact with MSNBC.  Such a boycott would be detrimental to MSNBC, a station which definitely has progressive views, but, like any other news organization, attempts to cover all sides of the political spectrum.  It was a very aggressive reaction on Mr. Priebus's part, and he undoubtedly meant it.

Mr. Grffiin, as one expects today when power is at stake, gave a treacly apology:

The tweet last night was outrageous and unacceptable.
We immediately acknowledged that it was offensive and wrong, apologized, and deleted it.  I personally apologized to Mr. Priebus and to everyone offended.  At MSNBC, we believe in passionate, strong debate about the issues and invite  voices from all sides to participate.  That will never change.

There is a famous line from Conrad's Heart of Darkness, "Oh, the horror, the horror!"  I will paraphrase it here with, "Oh, the cant, the cant!"

I really doubt whether Mr. Griffin "immediately acknowledged" the offense.  I am almost certain, being a life-long student of La Comédie Humaine, that this tweet wouldn't have resulted in any action on his part if Mr. Priebus hadn't made such a fuss.

The cant was, as one might guess, not limited to progressives.  Here is how Mr. Priebus accepted Mr. Griffin's apology:

With increasing frequency many of your hosts have personally denigrated and demeaned Americans...

Hmm. It's all right to question the patriotism of progressives, but apparently not right to assert that there 'might"--the tweeter used the conditional-- be more racism on the right than on the left.

Do you really need proof of that?  The Cheerios ad is not new--the biracial version first appeared in May of 2013.  The YouTube site was  bombarded with horrible racist comments.  So many of them that General Mills disabled the comment option.  (There were many "lkes" too.)  Do you really believe that the political affiliation of those racists were evenly distributed among Republicans and Democrats?

The wording of the tweet, "Maybe the right wing will hate it..." was of course too broad.  But if the tweeter had written, "More than a few on the right will not like it, but everyone else, etc.," the tweet would have been an all-too-accurate depiction of current political reality.  Yes, the tweet was exaggerated.  The tweet was arguably improper.  The tweet was poorly worded and made a cheap attempt to put an entire group down.  But was it really outrageous to insinuate that the Republican Party might have a problem with minorities?  I think not.  (I do think, however, that the far too cutsy tweet with its somewhat gratuitous dig at Republicans borders on the idiotic.)

Here is an excerpt from a statement by another RNC official:

We appreciate Mr. Griffith's admission that the comment was demeaning and disgusting...

I think he does protest too much.

Disgusting?  If that is applied here, isn't that demeaning that word? There are many issues to which I think the word much better applies: the abuse of boys by priests, the rape of a 51 year old Danish woman in India, the lack of gun control in the United States, the attempts to sabotage universal health insurance in the United States, etc. All those things disgust me.  I do not think the MSNBC tweet comes even close to merit that strong word.

Something else I find offensive, if not disgusting:  Mr. Griffin, to cover his rear end, fired the hapless MSNBC employee who sent the tweet.  If someone in a position of real power does something "disgusting" he or she often gets away with it.  Not so for those at the bottom of the hierarchy.  Mr. Griffith can boast that he is so impartial that he got rid of an offending employee.  The issue of the immorality of firing someone at a time of high unemployment doesn't even come up.   I don't know the full situation, so I won't call his behavior disgusting, but it might come close.


Why do those in power act so stupidly?  The answer is simple: to maintain their power over others and, if possible, to increase it.  Let's first examine a purely financial aspect of power that pertains to our subject.

General Mills placed that biracial ad because they believe they could sell more Cheerios as a result.  Their analysts realize that the animus towards interracial marriage has decreased greatly.  They would not risk their money if they weren't convinced of this. Companies follow trends, they do not set them when their finances might be threatened by doing so.  If this isn't obvious to you, I will give a brief example

I was raised in the 40s and 50s in an exclusively white community.  Nearly everyone assumed members of other races were not quite as human as the white race.  This was a near universal belief among whites at that time.  Whites, who still compose the majority of consumers, did so to a far greater degree then.  We needed to be taught that racism existed in the mind and is not justified by reality.  Now, I ask you, do you think the makers of Cheerios would have released such an ad then, when it was most needed?  I'm sure there were General Mills executives at the time who realized how destructive racism is.  I'm also sure they wouldn't let decency trump the love of cash.  Yes, it is a good thing that General Mills has devised such an ad for modern audiences; in 2014, however,  it is as "heroic" as the tweet is "disgusting."

Regarding political power,  the situation is obvious.  Mr. Priebus realizes that his overwhelmingly white party has to reach out to others to survive.  Otherwise the hope to increase the power of the Republican Party will be in vain.  I think that this is the key to his outrage.  On Mr. Griffith's part is the realization that the ratings for MSNBC are much lower than  for the conservative rival, Fox News; he realizes that he must appear impartial and open to attract more viewers.  This is the key to his willingness to eat a supersized portion of humble pie.

As an old man without power, I am definitely more free to say the things I want to say.  But I am still cautious.  My blog is fairly widely read; I do not want to give false impressions to readers, say,  in China or Poland, about issues and topics I think are important.  I am thus amazed--perhaps the old word, flabbergasted applies--about all the incautious and inappropriate tweets, Facebook comments etc on the internet--What is the matter with these people?  Do they really think a tweet is private?  Why don't they examine what they write before making it public?  Don't they know words have consequences?  Especially these days when people are ready to jump at each other's throats?

La Comédie Inhumaine, the constant jockeying for power.  A good image for our current political  dysfunction is that of two moose banging heads together in Sarah Palin's Alaska.  True, ultimately everything, including human behavior, is part of nature.  But human behavior is supposed to be better than that of belligerent moose.  Ha! Ha! Ha!

UNCLE SUGAR FROM ARKANSAS

1.

I am a white man with gray hair.  That puts me into a unique demographic group, the most conservative voting block in the United States.  If whites were the only ones who voted in the past election, Romney would have carried every state except--irony of ironies--the state where he served as governor, Massachusetts.  If only old white men voted, the margin of victory would have been greater.

I admit it! Some of the  forces that socially constructed American white males in the mid-twentieth century undoubtedly did their best to shape me, too.  It might not therefore be surprising, that, as I age, I do feel somewhat more conservative than I did in the past.  Examples: I believe in personal responsibility.  (OK, I also believe that personal responsibility especially applies to those who are rich.)  I support the legalization of marijuana and the continuance of legal abortion, but I am not a fan of either. And yes, I support capitalism--yet realize, human beings being what they are, that it must be regulated. I also believe that Justin Bieber should be deported to Tanzania.

I am hoping that I might even in good conscience be able to vote for a conservative candidate before I die.  That candidate, however,  must give me reason to believe that his/her policies would benefit the American people more than the opposition's.  By the way things are going now, I'd better not die soon.

2.

Reince Priebus, the co-chair of The Republican National Committee, realizes that the Party, if it is to survive, must become more broad-based.  It must reach out to blacks, Latinos, and especially to women--as the other co-chair of the RNC, Sharon Day, pointed out, women are not a minority but constitute 53% of American voters.   (Good, said the would-be conservative in me.  Not so fast, said the more dominant inner progressive--If you would obtain more votes from these groups you will have to propose policies that address their concerns.  A PR campaign is not enough!  Women, blacks and Latinos aren't stupid--they know where their interests lie. )

During a recent RNC meeting, several people spoke. Then it was Mike Huckabee's turn.  The former governor of Arkansas comes over as a very likeable man.  Yet this is what the apparent Southern gentleman said in regard to the Obamacare requirement that insurances must provide contraception (with limited exceptions.)

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take that discussion all across America.”

When I read this, the conservative in me was silenced.  The inner progressive was silenced, too.  All I heard for a while was the Jew in me saying over and over, "Oy Oy Oy Oy Oy!"

The statement is misogynous, mean-spirited and just plain crazy.  

First of all, Obamacare does not provide anyone with a prescription.  In this case, it requires that when a doctor prescribes contraception for a woman, insurance companies must comply with the doctor's orders. 

Second of all, coming from someone who states that he is advocating for women, Huckabee viciously insults the entire gender.  He refers to his country in this case as "Uncle Sugar" an urban term for a pimp.  And you know what that turns women into --Women who can't be denied contraception when their doctors order it are whores?  Oy, Oy, Oy, Oy, Oy.

Third, the ignorance of the statement is astounding.  I as a physician have prescribed contraceptives for women who were not sexually active. in order to regulate their periods; I have also prescribed birth control in severe cases of acne.  In short, there is quite a list of conditions when contraceptives are indicated other than to prevent pregnancy.

Four, further insults and ignorance.  He believes that women who wish to fill a prescription for contraception "can't control their libidos or their reproductive system without the help of the government.  (Sorry, I'm all Oyed out on this one.) We've already mentioned that it's not the government, but doctors who prescribe contraception.  Now let's discuss the libido part.

(Before I do that, I would like to make a fifth point, the anticlimax: as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee passed legislation that requires employers  to provide contraceptives to Arkansas women whenever medical providers prescribe them.  The Uncle Sugar of Arkansas!  How many times should one Oy! Oy! for that?)

Mr. Huckabee, you're a grown man, you must know that sex more than occasionally occurs. Human beings, obviously, have lacked contraception until recently.  And, until recently, many women died in childbrith, and even more children did not survive childhood.  Nature assured that women would have multiple pregnancies so that a few offspring would survive to propagate the species.  Times have changed, Mr. Huckabee.  Do you think it's responsible for men and women to produce ten or so children in an age where nearly all who are born survive not only childhood, but live to experience old age?  How could women have careers if they were pregnant all the time?  And why is limiting the number of offspring an issue of women controlling their libidos and not men doing the same? And is it merely a question of controlling libidos?  Do you deny, Mr. Huckabee, that people can have sex as an expression of mutual love? Do you not believe that responsible love includes deciding when to have a child?

If this is the strategy of a self-proclaimed soldier in the war for women, I would hate to imagine the enemy.

Huckabee's speech was, in short, malevolent and crazy.  And many Republicans knew it, so there is hope.  (I would like to believe that some of the many Gentile equivalents of Oy! were going through the minds of many conservatives as they heard Huckabee's speech.) The next day, this is what Priebus told the Washington Post: "I don't know what he was talking about. Sort of a goofy way of using some phrases. Not the way I would have phrased it."

So, if I live to a hundred or so, I just might be able to vote for a conservative candidate after all.  (Only, of course, if Obama's Death Panels allow me to survive.)

THE DAY I SANG IN A DOMINICAN JAIL

                                                                                                                                  January 16, 2014                                                                                                   
1.                                                

                                              
My friend Anita and I were heading back to the capital of the Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo, from where we would fly back to Baltimore the following day.  We had spent ten days mostly in the little but delightful town of La Descubierta, near the Haitian border.  Anita spent two years in the area as a Peace Corps volunteer twenty-four years ago, and returns periodically.(She must have done a great job--she can't walk anywhere in the town without somebody joyfully shouting, Anita, Anita!)  On a clear, warm day, January 16th, we took public transportation to the somewhat bigger town, nearby, Neyba. Our plans were to visit an orphanage and,later,one of her Dominican friends, who is halfway through serving a ten-year sentence in a  Neyba jail.  Eduardo, the director of the little orphanage, was delighted to see Anita and me, and had a Dominican lunch which consisted of plantains, rice, beans, yuca and other savories.  Then we left for the jail, about 3/4 of a kilometer away.
The jail, a two-story concrete structure, painted bright green, was run by the Ejercicio Nacional, the Dominican National Guard.  We had to go back to the orphanage to leave our cameras and other belongings.  We weren't allowed to take even our dark glasses or hats into the jail.  A rather obese woman in fatigues copied all our details from our passports, which were to be kept in her care during the visit.  Then we went into separate rooms, one for men, one for women, to be searched.  Anita was strip-searched twice.  Maybe because I am older, or, as I suspect, the male guard, who wore civilian clothes, was less strict, I was cleared with a perfunctory tap over my wallet, tucked inside my pocket.  I then received a stamp on my forearm and was ready for the visit.
Once we entered the prison, men, some of whom were teenagers, were standing everywhere, blocking the extremely narrow, dark corridors.  We found our friend in his room, which was about eight feet long and seven feet wide.  It was as high off the ground as a bunkbed on a train.  I had to climb up a ladder built into the wall; it consisted of ridiculously narrow wooden slats, about three inches wide.  My friend had no trouble climbing into the room; I needed a little help from one of the prisoners.
Needless to say I felt a little uncomfortable and very claustrophobic. 
Anita, however, was very much at ease.  The prisoner, a robust man in his 50s, and Anita were delighted to see each other and talked about many things.  Al fondo de mi corazon, he said, yo se que soy innocente.  His room was very well ordered; clothes and toiletries, etc, were all in their place.  I sat on a little wicker stool in the narrow corridor beside the bed; he stood next to me facing Anita, who sat on the bed.  One small window with iron bars let in adequate light.  A portable radio was in a prominent place; neatly stored tapes were everywhere.  He noticed that I was wearing a T-shirt with a grand piano on it and thereupon asked me whether I could play piano; I said yes.  He plays guitar, but guitars are not allowed inside the prison.  He also said he sings.  He played several tapes of Hispanic ballads--all of them  contained only accompaniment by piano and a variety of other instruments; they were made for singers to use when no instrumentalists were available.
What a lovely voice! A warm, full baritone; his voice was always on pitch; his phrasing was impressive. . He was much better than all the popular singers I heard--(Recorded music is played very loudly all over La Descubierta--nearly all of them bachatas or merengues). He sang about five songs.   I was instantly put at ease, forgetting everything but the music.Prisoners gathered in the narrow passageway. I suspect that he provides their principal entertainment.  After that, I asked him if he knew one of my favorite songs, Silencio.  Yes, indeed;.we sang it together.  Man, I really got down, singing in full voice without the slightest inhibition.  (I rarely, but increasingly less rarely, sing.)  
We communicated the way musicians communicate for whom music is not merely entertainment, but the very center of life.  The prisoners enjoyed it almost as much as we did.  Anita was amazed; it was a peak experience, as she told us, for her too.
After our visit, one of the prisoners very kindly made sure that I didn't fall on my way down.
Before I left the prison, I said to him, Que tendriamos sin musica?  He replied, Nada, nada.  (What would we have without music?  Nothing at all.) We gave each other a long hug.  We declared that we had just become friends for life.
The song we sang is one of my favorites.  I heard it for the first time in Wim Wender's extraordinary 1999 documentary, The Buena Vista Social Club.  It is sung in the film by Ibrahim Ferrer and Omara Portuondo, two outstanding Cuban singers.  The song was written by the Puerto Rican composer, Raphael Hernandez (1892-1965.)  The singers, once very popular, were now in their 70s.  It is a very emotional intense performance.  Ibrahim has a lovely voice and phrases the words poignantly.  How well both of them know how to slow things down and take liberties with the meter for emotional effect!  Since I first saw the movie, I have listened to several recordings of both singers.  I don't know of any other singer who can slow things down to great emotional effect better than she can. (Most singers sing this song entirely too fast.)
The words also have a special significance for me.  They are as follows:
 

Silencio
Duermen en mi jardín
Las blancas azucenas^[3]
Los nardos y las rosas
[Y]^[4] mi alma, muy triste y pesarosa
A las flores quiere ocultar,
Su amargo dolor.
No quiero que las flores sepan
Los tormentos que me da, la vida
Si supieran lo que estoy sufriendo
Por mis penas, llorarían, también.
Silencio, que están durmiendo
Los nardos y las azucenas
No quiero que sepan mis penas
Porque, si me ven llorando, morirán.
Porque, si me ven llorando, morirán.
Porque, si me ven llorando, morirán
Silence
Sleeping in my garden
The white lilies
The nards and the roses
[And] my soul, very sad and heavy,
Wants to hide from the flowers
Its bitter pain.
I don’t want the flowers to know

    The torments life sends me

If they knew what I suffer
With my pains, they too would cry.
Silence; let them sleep,
The nards and the lilies
I don’t want them to know my sadness,
Because, if they see me crying, they’ll die.
Because, if they see me crying, they’ll die.
Because, if they see me crying, they’ll die.

 I've read an interpretation that this song, about flowers with very pronounced fragrances, "leads to the conceit that the flowers are as sensitive to our emotions as we are to their scents."  This may be a possible interpretation, but it is not mine.  The deeper meaning of the words as I see it is that the flowers are the young children of parents facing enormous difficulties.  They want to protect their children, keeping their suffering away from them as long as they can.  They well know that in the long run this strategy is not going to work.  It reminds me of Buddha's father who tried to keep suffering away from his son forever. (That didn't work either.)

This interpretation, for me at least, gives this song its special poignance.  As a pediatrician, I have seen many parents, hit very hard by difficulties, doing their best to protect their children.  Even in my brief stay in the Dominican Republic, I have seen some people to whom the words of this song apply .  I must admit that I am no different; I have been through several rough patches, and, as they say, growing old is not for sissies. In a certain mood, when no one else is at home but a fly on the wall, I play this balero over and over on the piano.

The Ferrer/Portuondo recording is on YouTube; I am now preparing  a (very amateur) recording of it myself.

The last thing I expected was to be moved to tears of joy  in a Dominican jail.  Once in a while, predictably, the unpredictable happens--when is such an occurrence likely, you might ask?  As Fats Waller famously put it, "One never knows, do one?"

Addendum:  I have recorded my version of the piece and have uploaded it onto the blog.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO THE NEW ROSA PARKS!

I knew that "Duck Dynasty" was a TV show, but knew nothing more than that.  When the star of the series made headlines as a result of his notorious interview with GQ magazine, I was curious.  I was informed by my son that the program was a reality show about a rural family from Louisiana.  The patriarch of the family, a sixty-seven year old man named Phil Robertson, said some very controversial things regarding blacks and gays.

Here are some of the things he said about gays:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina--as a man--would be more desirable than a man's anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right."

Here's what he said about blacks:

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field. ...They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’ — not a word! ...Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Acceptance of homosexuality viewed as one of the lower rungs of an evil ladder that secular people have chosen to land on on their inevitable descent towards bestiality and worse; blacks viewed as having been content, downright happy, until the Sixties turned them into uppity blues-singing malcontents.  Mr. Robertson's statements are, of course, bigoted, but I believe he is not aware of it, which makes them perhaps even worse.  My purpose here is not to  comment on his views; many good journalists have done that already--the bigotry is obvious.  My subject here is the Zeitgeist's role that led to both the wide-spread reaction of journalists and to the firing of the Duck Patriarch.

2.

The wonderful German word, Zeitgeist, spirit of the times, is attributed to Hegel, although he never actually used it.  He did often speak, however, of "Der Geist der Ziet" which means the same thing as Zeitgeist, albeit stated less eloquently.  It is the central part of his philosophy.  For Hegel, it is not so much the individual that makes news; the times, which create the individual, is the real protagonist.  He has a point, as we shall now see.

3.

Robertson's statements are--or at least used to be--quite commonplace; they are certainly not rare, even today.  I have heard priests of the Catholic Church argue that if gay marriage is legalized, legalizing bestiality might soon follow--an allusion to that evil ladder again. The myth of the happy slave is--or at least was--entrenched in white American folklore.

The difference is that large numbers of people--at present I would estimate that they are the majority--would view Mr. Robertson's statements as bigoted.  This is, of course, the achievement of the Zeitgeist.  What was once mainstream is now backwaters.  

Mr. Robertson's backwater views got him fired. The A & E network, which broadcasts "Duck Dynasty," put him on "indefinite hiatus."  If you are an idealist, you would probably think that the network executives did this on moral grounds.  I doubt it.  I think they just realize that the Zeitgeist is very much opposed to Mr. Robertson's views; they were afraid of the bottom line: loss of revenue.  What supports this view is the fact that A & E had warned Robertson not to speak openly about his beliefs.  They obviously knew or at least suspected what those views were. As long as he kept his mouth shut, advertising revenue would continue to make this an inexpensively produced yet very profitable show. 

Just as evolution works slowly, the Zeitgeist does not reach everyone at the same time.  The Zeitgeist's gradual transformation of society is consistent with the persistence of pockets of antiquated views.  I will give an example.  In order to put votes from those who inhabit such pockets into his pocket, here's what a Republican running for Congress recently wrote in an e-mail:

"In December 1955, Rosa Parks took a stand against an unjust societal persecution of black people, and in December 2013, Robertson took a stand against persecution of Christians," Bayne said in an email to supporters.

This outrageous statement is beneath comment.  I will make some use of it, though; crap, after all, can be put to use as fertilizer.  


4. The Zeitgeist and Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks was born in 1913.  On December 1, 1955, she was sitting in the "colored section" of a bus in Birmingham.  The "white section" was filled; the law was that in such cases, a black must give up his/her seat in the colored section to a white person.  A white demanded that she do just that. She refused.  She was arrested, had to pay a fine, and lost her job as a seamstress.  She also became a hero--the modern Civil Rights Movement traces its beginnings to her defiant act.  She was a good, courageous person.  (Look at her face; it radiates kindness and decency--in contrast, I think, to Mr. Robertson's.) She has been declared by Congress to have been "the first lady of Civil Rights" and "the mother of the freedom movement." (Congress, with pressure from the Zeitgeist, how you have changed!)

If Rosa Parks acted just as courageously twenty years before 1955, however, no one would have heard of her.  She would have been thrown off the bus, arrested, fined, perhaps jailed or even roughed up by the police, and that would have been the end of it.  It is the Zeitgeist that turned her defiance into an ultimate success.  Large numbers of blacks, joined with large numbers of whites and people of all races and creeds, no longer would tolerate backwater treatment of black citizens.

We tend to think that individuals shape history.  It is actually the Zeitgeist which changes the chemical solution of society, as it were, thus causing important individuals to precipitate into prominent representatives of Zeitgeist views. Without the Zeitgeist's changes, these individuals would have remained inert.

Even a demagogue like the one who compared Robertson to Parks is required by the modern Zeitgeist to pay homage to the mother of the freedom movement.  Imagine what he would have said about her  if he had been her contemporary! 



5. The Zeitgeist and the War Against Christmas

Extreme conservatives believe there is a war against Christmas.  According to many of them, the shibboleth of insidious secularism is  "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." This is of course silly from a religious point of view.  If Jesus of Nazareth returned today he would have a lot to be angry about; I doubt whether he would make much fuss about whether or not people wished each other a Merry Christmas. (As a Jew, he probably would prefer Happy Hanukkah.) However, although I think these conservatives are dead wrong in their belief  that secularism inevitably leads to evil and loss of spirituality, I do think they have a point.  Since the Enlightenment, the Zeitgeist has been causing an apparently unstoppable march toward secularism.  Examples abound.  If a musician as talented as Bach were alive today, do you really believe he would be writing cantatas for the Lutheran church?  If Aquinas and Augustine were alive today, do you think they would be writing theological tracts?  They most likely would have turned out to be top-notch scientists.  Conversely, if Einstein lived a thousand years earlier, could one envision him as not being a pious Jew poring over the Torah?  At one time, it was perfectly consistent with intellectual integrity to literally believe what the Bible said.  The Zeigeist has made that almost impossible, and its work in the direction of secularism is far from over.

A conservative friend of mine recently posted a message from the Tea Party.  It contained an outline of a nativity scene with the following caption: "Why do people say "Happy Holidays" at this time of year?  Would you say "Happy Holidays" on the 4th of July?  Of course not!  So don't say it now.  It's Merry Christmas.  Deal with it."  It is the Zeitgeist, however, that is dealing with it.  Its trend toward secularism and multi-culturalism continues apace. This includes ever increasing gender equality and equality for gays and others who have been treated unfairly.  (But only those that the current Zeitgeist deems to have been treated unfairly, mind you; the Zeitgeist is only beginning to realize how cruelly animals are being abused. I have no doubt that the Zeitgeist of the future will put an end to much of this and will view our current treatment of animals to have been horribly barbaric.)   

Increasing numbers of people no longer believe that "United States" and "Christian" must go together.  Christians must realize that Christianity can no longer claim universality, not even in this country where the majority are at least nominal Christians. This is why many view "Merry Christmas" as a universal greeting to be too restrictive and opt for "Happy Holidays." Whether one chooses to deal with this or not, the advance toward secularism will not be reversed.  Each individual has a role to play in life; it is the  Zeitgeist however that is the author of the play. This author is becoming increasingly secular; might as well deal with it.

I have nothing against people wishing me a Merry Christmas.  Even though I sometimes dislike aspects of the Christmas season such as the crowds and the incessant playing of annoying holiday music, I do love the lights at a drab time of year; I do love the holiday spirit.  I must also confess, as a non-Christian, that Christmas is a secular holiday for me--I don't make much fuss about it.  But I respect, sometimes even envy, those who do.  So let me end this essay, in keeping with the spirit of the times,  by paraphrasing Jose Feliciano, the composer and performer of one of the most annoying Christmas songs of all time:

Feliz Navidad!  I want to wish you a Happy Solstice, I want to wish you a Happy Solstice, I want to wish you a Happy Solstice, from the bottom of my heart!

HAVE YOURSELF A MERRY (LITTLE!) CHRISTMAS

I usually think of the Christmas season the way I think of knee pain; I remain completely unaware of it until it's there and I have no choice. (Though both are sometimes minor irritants, I happily admit that the holiday season is, at least for me,  usually more pleasant than knee pain.)  Today, two weeks after Thanksgiving, I had no choice.
My wife and I set out for the mall today, as is our wont on Saturdays.  We usually don't shop, but go there to buy groceries at Trader Joe's, maybe go the the library, as we did today, or eat at Nordstrom's, which we also did today.  It was very crowded; we had a lot of difficulty finding a parking space in the immense mall garage.   The spot we found was quite a distance from the grocery store.  Meshuggene Goyim, I grumbled to myself. That feeling quickly passed. The crowds indicated that the economy, despite lunatic efforts by Republicans to weaken it, is finally growing stronger.  I must confess that I felt uplifted--after I found a parking space, that is--by the impending holidays.  Festive lights and decorationas at the darkest time of year are just what those combatting the threat of wintry etiolation need.  Even Christmas songs in moderation can make me feel, well, jolly, although if I worked in a place like Trader Joe's where Christmas music is played continuously during the holiday season, I would go nuts. I don't go nuts because I celebrate the season in a low-key manner.
Although our family endures only a minimal amount of holiday stress, it is apparently a widespread problem.  Heart attacks significantly increase during the Christmas season, a good indicator that there is underlying stress.  The purpose of this little essay is to give some advice to those whose blood pressure is likely to rise at this time of the year--what works for me just might work for you!
Contrary to a popular misconception, Santa  has nothing to do with suicides.  The yearly peak in the suicide rate occurs in the spring, presumably because a depressed person is likely to become more desperate when an expected spring boost in spirits doesn't arrive.  It is thought that the suicide rate doesn't increase at Christmas because people get together, and getting together is beneficial even when one does not get along well with relatives and friends.  Stress, however, is rampant during this time.  People overshop, overbake, overeat and undersleep; far from perfect, they try to create a perfect Christmas experience for themselves and their families. Perhaps Buddha is the best guide here: the root cause of mental stress is inordinate desire.  Desire to have the Perfect Experience.  Desire to be admired.  Desire not only to give, but to receive in abundance.  Desire to be Super Mom--Oh, there are so many desires!
Recently my wife and I watched on YouTube the underside of jolly holiday vignettes: people rudely pushing each other to get the latest toys; in some cases, they were actually slugging and tackling each other.  We couldn't imagine ever wanting to possess a Fleebertie, or whatever the latest must-have gadget is called, that much. Have we forgotten that what is important in life are relationships, not things?  You betcha.
As mentioned previously, we had to park quite a distance from Trader Joe's.  We don't mind walking, but not when laden with groceries.  So my wife went to get the car on an upper level of the garage, while I waited on the lowest level.  The garage traffic was bumper-to-bumper.  Here I am, breathing carbon monoxide for Christ, I grumbled.  Then I struck up a conversation with a woman waiting beside me.   She laughed as she recalled when someone had stolen her parking space, years ago, at the mall.  Not only had she been there first, but she was actually backing into a space when the guy zoomed in from the side.  He simply said, "Too bad!" and left.  We laughed.  I told her about the parable of the cow in the parking lot.  When we discover that a human being has stolen our parking space, we can get furious.  But if we discover that a cow has wandered into our parking space, we remain calm.  In both cases, the parking space is gone, but one's reaction is different. Perhaps we should stay calm and treat rude humans the same way we would treat placid cows--even though they may act more like bulls!  If we did, the people who make blood pressure medications might have to go out of business--Too bad!, I said. We laughed again.  When my wife finally came, the woman wished me a Merry Christmas and I wished her one back.  I had had no expectation of having a pleasant chat in that awful garage, which made the encounter even more enjoyable.
I think the reason why I'm happy during the Christmas season is that I have really low expectations.  I don't expect Christians to completely  follow the example of a non-Christian like me--they of course shouldn't--but I am convinced they would have a better and deeper Christmas experience if they calmed things down a little.  Maybe a lot.
Our family does, by the way, get together on Christmas day.  We are, though, a group of mostly born-again (and again and again and again) Hindus. My wife's sister, Shyamala, puts up a (dinky) Christmas tree beside which we exchange (dinky) presents.  And we have a great time.

I hope you have a great time this holiday season; I hope you deeply realize throughout the year that you are the recipient of the greatest gift of all  Have yourself a merry little Christmas!

Addendum:  Here is a dinky arrangement I made of a famous song.

Rezension: Jakob der Luegner von Jurek Becker

Jurek Becker
Jakob der Luegner
Surkamp Taschenbuch, 1982
c Aufbau Verlag, Berlin, 1969

Wie kann man die noetige Hoffnung um zu ueberleben in aeusstersten Zustaenden behalten?  Wenn man als Krebspatient dem Ende naht, oder wenn man sich verwahrlost in einem Altersheim befindet, zum Beispiel?  Wie normale Menschen in einer nicht normalen Lage diese Hoffnung behaelt ist das Thema von Jurek Beckers sehr gelungenem Roman, Jakob der Luegner.  Hier handelt es sich um das Leben in einem Ghetto, von Nazis unzirkelt, wo selbst die kleinste Hoffnung fehl am Platz scheint, aber ist doch um so wichtiger.

Jakob, ein einfacher Mann, der in gluecklicheren Zeiten in derserlben Stadt Kartoffelpuffer, das heisst Latkes, herstellte, ist im Grunde lebensfreudig.  Aber er ist nicht blind; das Ghetto ist ein Gefaengnis.  Selbstmoerde nehmen zu.  Es kommt nicht selten vor, dass jemand auf der Strasse verhungert liegt.  Die Nazis sind brutal, und tun mit den "Drecksaecken" was sie wollen.

Eines Abends wurde Jakob von einem Offizier aufgehalten und ins Gebaeude der Gestapo geschickt, weil er nach 20 Uhr auf der Strase war.  Eigentlich war es noch nicht 20 Uhr; der Offizier wollte ihn nur aergern.  Im Gebaeude hoerte Jakob zufaellig ein Radio.  Es wurde berichtet, dass deutsche Truppen gegen russische Truppen ungefaehr 250 Kilometer entfernt von der Stadt, worin das Ghetto liegt,  gerade gekampft haetten. Ein mueder junger Nazi, der weiss, dass Jakob nichts getan hatte, schickt ihn ohne Weiteres nach Hause. Spaeter um einem Freund Hoffung zu geben, teilte Jakob ihm mit, dass die Russen naeherrueckten und nur 250 Kilometer weg waren.  Jakob erklaerte ihm, dass er diese Nachricht an seinem versteckten Radio gehoert haette.  Wer ein Radio hat, wird aber mit dem Tode bestraft.     Der Freund verpricht, das Geheimnis zu behalten.  Er ist aber geschwaetzig und kann die freudige Nachricht, dass die Niederlage der Deutschen und die Befreiung des Gehettos vielleicht unmittelbar bevorsteht, nicht verschweigen.  Bald glauben es viele.  Die Einwohner fangen an zu hoffen, und wollen neue Nachrichten.  Die Selbstmordrate sinkt. Aber am Ende des Romans  muss er gestehen, dass er gelogen hat, und was eigentlich bevorsteht ist die Fahrt nach Auschwitz.

Wie gibt man anderen in einer hoffunungslosen Lage Hoffung?  Die Antwort des Romans ist klar: man luegt.  Aus Guete vielleicht, aber nicht destoweniger: man luegt.

Becker erzaehlt wie ein Dichter: alles mit Untertreibung geschildert.  Er betont den Alltag, so viel das moeglich im Gehetto ist: ein Kind, zum Beispiel, deren Eltern ermordert wurden, nimmt Jakob in seine Wohnung auf.  Ein anderes Beispiel ist sogar eine Liebesgeschichte--die Liebenden waehnen noch, mit der Hilfe von Jakobs Nchrichten, dass sie eine Zuknunft haben.

Der Roman enstand zuerst als ein Drehbuch; aus diesem Grund gibt es etliche Szenen, die wie aus einem spanndenden Film springen.  z.B.: Jakob moechte wahre Nachricten bekommen, um die Last seiner Mitjuden erleichten zu koennen.  Er hat eine Idee.  Die Deutschen verwenden Zeitungen als Klopapier.  Jakob scheicht in das Steinhaus, das Soldatenklosett.  Waehrend er einige Seiten sammelt, klopft ein Soldat an die Tuer.  Der Soldat glaubt, dass es um einen Deutschen auf dem Klo handelt.  Jakob bereitet sich fuer den Tod.  Aber sein Freund, Kowalski, sieht alles aus der Ferne.  Er tippt einen Stapel Kisten um, wonach ein grosser Krach entsteht.  Der Soldat laeuft Kowalski wuetend entgegen, und schlaegt brutal zu--Jakob benutzt die Gelegenheit, unbemerkt zu verschwinden.

Das Ghetto enthaelt Leute aller Gesellscaftsschichten, da die einzige notwendige Charakteristik um verfolgt zu werden war Jude zu sein.  Die meisten im Ghetto aber waren Durchschnittsmenschen.  Ausnahmen waren Dr. Kirchbaum, der voher ein weltberuemter Kardiog war, und Schmidt, ein ehemaliger erfolgreicher Advokat, der vergessen hatte, dass er teilweise juedischer Herkunft war, bis ein neidischer Kollege ihn verleumdete.

Eine unvergessliche Episode im Buch handelt sich um Kirschbaum.  Eines Tages klopfen zwei Offiziere an seine Tuer.  Kirschbaumm und seine Schwester glauben, dass das Ende kommt.  Aber sie wollen "nur", dass Kirschbaum mit ihnen kommt, dem SS Kommandanten zu helfen, der eben einen Herzanfall gelitten hatte.  Der Nazi Stabarzt hat sein Bestes getan, aber umsonst.  Als er erfaehrt, dass Kirschbaum, dessen hoher Ruf ihm bekannt ist, im Ghetto wohnt, laesst er ihn holen.  Auf der Autofahrt zum SS-Kommando nimmt Kirschbaum Tabletten, vermutlich gegen Sodbrennen, und bietet einige auch den Offizieren an.  Am Ende der Fahrt, faellt er tot aus dem Auto; er hat sich vergiftet.

Der Erzaehler der ganzen Geschichte, einer der Wenigen im Ghetto, der die Nazizeit ueberlebte, besucht einen der zwei Offiziere, die Kirschbaum zum Kommando brachten, nach dem Krieg..  Dieser war viel weniger grob als der andere Offizier.  Er besizt jetzt Entnazizifierunspapiere sogar.  Er hat jerzt eine Familie und erweist sich als ein guter Vater.  Seine Tranformation von Nazi zum guten deutschen Buerger ging anscheinend reibungslos zu.  Graesslich!  Hier ist noch ein Beispiel von Beckers Untertreibung: der Erzaehler bleibt stumm.

Das Buch enthaelt eine interessante Baumsymbolik.  Man bermekt sie kaum, auch hier ist Untertreibung im Spiel.  Der Erzaehler hat eine tiefe Beziehung mit Baeumen, so faengt der Roman an.  Fuer ihn hat ein Baum im Grunde drei Aspekte.  An erster Stelle ist ein Baum die ganze Natur im kleinem.  Er ist unerklaerbar.  Baeume stellen aber nicht nur die Schoenheit der Natur dar, sondern auch ihre voellige Indifferenz.  Der Erzaehler fiel von eniem Baum als Kind und verletzte sein linkes Handgelenk; so endete seine Hoffnung auf eine Karriere als Violinist.  Und Baeume werfen Schatten, einige in Form der Menschen--auch Teile der Natur--die unglaublich boese sein koennen.  Die Nazis haben Channa, die Frau des Erzaehlers, im Schattein eines Baums erschossen.  Diese drei Aspekete eines Baums, naemlich die Schoenheit, die Indifferenz and das Boese formen den Hintergrund der Geschichte die folgt--und endet.  Als der Erzaehler schaut durrch das Guckloch im Wagen auf dem Weg nach Auschwitz, sieht er Birken, Weiden und Kiefer vorbeihuschen.  Schoeinheit, Gefahr und Indifferenz--der Baum, wie das Leben, ist hoechst zweideutig.  Der ganze Roman liegt gleichsam in seinem Schatten.

Der Autor Jurek Becker, 1937 in Lodz geboren, war schon als Kind nach Sachsenhausen deportiert worden.  Seine Mutter wurde ermordet.  Gluecklicherweise ueberlebten Vater und Sohn.  Der Verfasser wohnte in der DDR; nach West-Berlin musste er aber als Dissident umziehen.  Er erlebte die Wende; er starb 1997 an Krebs.

Ein sehr gelungener Roman ist Jakob der Luegner; er erhebt und zerdrueckt zur selben Ziet.  Ein Klassiker, meiner Meinung nach.  Andere aber teilen diese Ansicht nicht mit. Als ich neulich in Deutschland war, suchte ich den Roman in vielen Buchhadnlungen; er fehlte allen Regalen.  Schade.


  

Do You (Still) Have My Back?

Yes, Mr. President, I still have your back.

                                            1. Introduction

That's the question (and my answer) that I recently received, part of a fundraising letter from Democrats.org.  On the envelope I was asked if I still supported Obama.  The letter began with a check-off box indicating Yes, Mr. President, I still have your back!  There were no other choices; the only other boxes to check were to indicate the amount of a hoped-for donation.

Along with the letter came a little bumper sticker,  It states in blue type: I've Got His Back,  This slogan was used in the presidential campaign.  The difference now is that the word "still" is inserted (in red) between the first two words.   Uh-oh, Mr, President, your presidency is in trouble; it's currently in the worst state since you were first elected president in 2008. What happened to Yes, we can?

 Obviously you and your supporters have had to watch your back since a hysterical, hyperpartisan opposition has been relentlessly trying to stab you there since you were elected. Yet major wounds to your presidency have been self-inflicted, such as those resulting from failing to adequately inform the public what you have done and what you are doing, thus allowing the Republican disinformation efforts to be more effective.  The disastrous rollout of your signature legislation, the much needed Affordable Care Act--problems which you should have anticipated and prevented--has caused major damage..  Republicans are no fools; they know that once health care is fully enacted, people are going to like it.  It is a delicate time now; health care reform is in danger, and it is partially your fault that it is.  

                                             2. The Voyage of a Political Life

The health care debacle has taken you to a new place in your political career.  I would like to illustrart that career now, with the help of Thomas Cole's series of paintings entitled, The Voyage of Life. 

                       Stage One: Political Infancy                                                   

You came from nowhere, symbolized in the painting by a dark cave.  (That's you as a happy infant in front of your guardian angel.) Raised largely by your mother, you were smart and showed great promise.  You went to Harvard and graduated in the upper ten percent of your class.  You studied law and became the editor of the Harvard Law Review.  Quite a distinction.  After that, you had a successful stint as a community organizer in Chicago.  Right from the beginning, you were helping the poor and middle class, a noble and lasting characteristic of your personality.


                                                    Stage Two: Politics

A great career has been launched!  You ran for the senate of Illinois and won, and served as senator from 1997-2004.  You sponsored and supported many bills, involving ethics and health care, etc.  You sponsored and got passed the first law in the United States that requires videotaping of police interviews in potential homicide cases.  What is striking about your stint as state senator was how well you worked with Republican legislators; much of the legislation you advocated received, with some give and take, bipartisan support.   You were obviously going places.  From 2005-2008 you served as one of the two U.S. senators from Illinois.  You opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and did not vote for it, unlike Hillary Clinton.  You were involved with much legislation, one of which bears your name.  You sponsored the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2006.  You conducted a poll to see if you had the support to run for presidency; you were certainly an underdog, but you took the chance.  And it paid off--Hillary Clinton's campaign was not run nearly as well as yours.  You inspired the young, and ran a very digitally sound campaign.  You received the nomination, and won.  Yes we can, you told enthusiastic throngs.  We will put an end to politics as usual; we will work together with Republicans and usher in a new age of cooperation and achievement.  You received a terrible legacy from President Bush, whose disastrous policies created the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Although you were vociferously opposed by Republicans from the beginning, you achieved great things.  Here is a partial list: millions of jobs have been created during your presidency; you passed a much needed stimulus program; you saved the auto industry; you eliminated bin Laden; you ended the war in Iraq; you passed new fuel efficiency standards which will eventually cut auto emission by about 50%; you reduced the deficit; reached an accord with Iran regulating the development of nuclear weapons--all truly stellar achievements.  You are the first president since Roosevelt to receive the majority of the popular vote in two elections. Let's not forget, of course, your signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, which--at last! provides health care to all.

                                         
                                                    Stage Three: Approaching the Rapids

                                                             

In 2010, the Democrats lost control of the House, thanks largely to their having gerrymandered their districts.  (The Democrats actually received a majority of the votes in the red states.)  Since then opposition has been fierce.  The mad hatters of the Tea Party took over the Republican Party and refuse to compromise on anything.  You've been called many thing,s including a socialist, a Nazi,  a communist, a Muslim, etc.  Filibusters are to be used judiciously to assure that the minority party has a voice; the Republicans used it to a really unprecedented degree to oppose you on everything.  (Fifty percent of the filibusters in the entire history of the United States have been used against you.  You would not be able to fill any positions if the senate had not been forced by your irresponsible opponents to change the legislation regarding the use of filibusters.)  Your popularity has plummeted.  The latest poll registered doubts even about your honesty.  The downward spiral has been caused in large part by the failure of the computerized exchanges to deliver, a failure that has come at a very critical time in your presidency.  Will you be able to backpaddle and be towed against the current by a more competent staff?  Will you be able to return to calmer waters?  Is this the beginning of stage four?
 

                                                     Stage Four: The End of Your Career

Here we see an old man in a broken vessel.  His Guardian Angel shows him the light above.  Perhaps it is heaven; perhaps it's just a light under which he can write his memoirs.  Old age is a symbol here; you have lost your power and are no longer of any consequence, even though you might only be in your fifties.  The Republicans have been trying to get you to this stage since you were elected president.  The Tea Party would have won if you came prematurely to this stage; to celebrate your defeat there would be a lot of Republicans--especially John Boehner--drinking more than tea.  They might have a good chance now to repeal the ACA, thus nullifying your legacy and causing the American people significant suffering.  This is indeed a possibility, since the public has not felt the beneficial effects of universal health care as yet and are woefully ignorant on the subject.  Stage Four is not inevitable any time soon.  Even a bad man like Scrooge received a vision and changed his life around.  You, a good man, can change around the difficulties you--and we--are in.  I am confident you will be able to do so.


                                            3. Why Do They Hate You?

I can't remember any time in my lifetime--and I am not young--when political opposition has been so hateful and destructive.  As Rush Limbaugh, a fanatic Republican commentator, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader--both speaking for the majority of Republicans, I'm afraid-- stated,  their primary objective is to see to it that Obama fails.  Not to see America prosper, mind you, but to see to it that our president fails.  Everything that the president tries to do is thus vociferously opposed.  A huge disinformation campaign is in effect, and it has been quite successful.  Any yes that is achieved is despite a right-wing that automatically says no.  Why this fanaticism that is so harmful not only to the country but to Democrats and Republicans as well?  (The tantrum-like temporary shut-down of the government did not benefit the Republican party.)  What is the reason for this unprecedented destructive partisanship?
Racism is often cited as a reason, and no doubt this is partially correct.  But I don't think this is the main reason why Republican leaders oppose Obama.  I don't think the Koch brothers would have any problem breaking bread with Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes.  The real reason, I think, is that Republican oligarchs are terrified by the prospect of a successful Democratic president.  The Republicans are a minority party--most Americans are not filthy rich--they fear that their power will be diminished by a party that sees the horrible inequality of our country as a problem.  The two recent presidents that significantly raised the degree of opposition to hysteria are Clinton and Obama.  Note that both of these had/have centrist policies; Clinton for instance required those on welfare to work; Obama for instance has significantly decreased the national debt and has not increased programs such as SNAP, the food stamp program, which, despite the severe economic downturn, has actually been cut.  Despite this centrism, Republican fear that if any Democrat is successful, the days of unchecked oligarchy are numbered.  This is obvious in their fanatic opposition to Obamacare, the plan for which was first developed by a Republican think tank;  an almost identical version of it was implemented in a state by a Republican governor.  Since they are a minority party, the Republicans must trick a not too sophisticated electorate to vote for them if they are to remain in power.  They will find areas where slander will be the most effective; they are really good at this.
With Clinton, it was adultery.  They knew that adultery in a president would cause no scandal in France, but not so in America.  (Prior to Clinton's presidency, politicians were more discrete--Kennedy, Roosevelt, etc had committed adultery also.) So they caused a scandal that had nothing to do with Clinton's ability to govern, and almost ruined his second term.  Mission (almost) accomplished!
With Obama--perhaps an even greater threat to them than Clinton--things were different.  They knew that this upright family man did not have a mistress in his closet.  So they got him on race, not so much because they were racists themselves but because they knew racism was still widespread in America.  The race card would help them trick voters to vote against their own interests, so they played it.  "Barack" to be sure is not a common name in Kansas; they deepened their propaganda against him as a member of a minority by conflating that otherness with the otherness of a supposed foreigner.  The Birther Movement was born.  Once he was deemed "the other" that is, not a true American, it was easy to accuse him of being a socialist, a communist or even a Nazi.  Some of these scandalous accusations had grass-roots origins, but at the very least have been supported by large swaths of the Republican hierarchy.  Some examples of this extremism: one Republican congressman stated that he felt sick just by standing near Obama.  During the shutdown "negotiations," one GOP House leader told Obama outright, "I can't stand to even look at you."  The atmosphere is obviously poisonous.  What has Obama done to deserve this other than the fact that he is black and is working hard for the sake of all Americans?
Your signature legislation may be in danger, Mr. President.  We will briefly discuss how this came to be and how you can turn things around.  First a few words why universal health care is so necessary.

                                      4. The Obvious Case for Universal Health Care

While waiting to get my haircut, I overheard the conversation between a customer and the barber.  The customer was a middle-aged white man from the working class.  He stated that Obamacare is a disaster; premiums will go up--way up--for everybody; the takeover of health care by the government will lead to death panels; the American people are stupid and have been manipulated into trading in their freedom for governmental slavery, etc.  The barber, a middle-aged Korean woman, agreed completely.  When he had left and it was my turn, I gently tried to present her with some facts to the contrary.  She clammed up completely and I gave up.  If this is a typical situation, Republican propaganda has been markedly effective, and the President has done a bad job in informing the public of the truth.  I'm afraid both are true.

The necessity for universal health care has been discussed at length in many articles, so I will only present one slide that says it all:

The United States is an outlier.  Every advanced country has health care; nearly all spend half or less than what we spend on health, yet our country has worse outcomes.  (Mortality rates are obviously the most important indicator of the success of health care delivery.)  Take one example, Italy,  The vertical axis indicates that peopl;e live much longer there than they do in America.  The health care costs per person are less than half of what we pay.  We, in fact, spend almost 18% of our GDP on health care; most other countries, as the chart clearly indicates  pay less than half of what we do per person,--and  with better outcomes.  If all this is true, and it is, how can one imagine that health care costs will not be brought down by the Affordable Care Act?

                                                    5.  Obama's Problem

In Time's cover story of the December 2nd, 2013 issue, entitled "Broken Promise" I read that, as a candidate for the presidency in 2007, you said, "Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the President is to go in and run some bureaucracy.  Well, that's not my job.  My job is to set a vision of 'Here's where the bureaucracy needs to go."  How wrong this is!  We didn't elect you to be our Presidential Adviser, but our president.  If a president develops policies wise as Lincoln's but has the political savvy of van Buren, there will be extreme difficulties in implementing those policies.  And implementing them is the bottom line!  Who cares about good laws that are never enacted?  Look, the presidency is  a hard job.  No one can have all the skills needed.  But if you're basically a great policy wonk, yet lack both desire and skill to push your visions into laws, you must see to it that you have people around you who are able to do so.  In that same article was a devastating assessment from Elaine Kamarck, from the Brookings Institution: "The President has never surrounded himself with people who have deep experience in managing government."  You admitted, Mr President, in your Nov. 14 news conference, that you were, among other things, ignorant that there were significant problems with  the national health care web-site.  There is no excuse for that, Mr. President!  It has put your legacy in danger at a very critical time.  Another consequence of your aloofness is that nobody is afraid of opposing you on Capital Hill.  Do you think Lincoln, Roosevelt and Johnson would have gotten their signature laws passed without seeing to it--even sometimes with intimidation--that they could obtain the necessary votes?
Although the news is bad now, it is far from all bad; I still am confident that you will succeed with the health care law, despite the precipitous decline in the polls both for you and this law.  You are too intelligent not to learn your lesson about how government works.  Even better, the health care law is showing signs of success.  Medicaid continues to expand on target in those states where Republican governors have not sabotaged this aspect of the new law.  California, with 38 million people, making it larger than several European countries, is well on target.  Important here is to note that prior to the law, California had many uncovered residents.  A large number are young, and they are signing up in unprecedented numbers--which is of crucial importance if the program is to be successful.  State exchanges in several other states are working well, too--notably in Kentucky and Washington.  The national web site is functioning better now, and improvements will continue to be made, I have no doubt about this.  Yes, there will be problems.  Some people, especially if they work part-time, might lose their coverage from their employers and might have to settle for more restrictive policies from the exchanges.  Some people, especially wealthy young people, will have to pay more.  But prices will undoubtedly follow the pattern established in the rest of the world and come down.  People will have to abandon cheap, shabby policies for better ones that might cost a bit more.  There are generous subsidies to help out the majority of Americans to pay for coverage.  Best of all, the national shame of having over forty million people uncovered will finally come to an end.
But you have shot yourself in the foot and now must swim upstream, bloodied in a river full of piranhas.  Get yourself some help, and you will be successful.  The American people are depending on you!
I will end this essay with The Parable of the Fastidious Woman.

6. The Parable of the Fastidious Woman

Once there was a woman who grew medicinal herbs in her garden.  They did not grow easily and she worked tirelessly because she knew that the herbs could cure an illness that was the plague of many.  After  much effort, she harvested a sufficient quantity of the priceless plants.  She put them in a basket to deliver them to the people that needed them--But there was a problem.  The sick people lived on the other side of a very polluted stream.  There were no bridges.  She would have to wade across the foul stream, if she wanted to help--and that was her fervent desire.  She approached the bank of the stream, but couldn't walk any farther.  She was too fastidious.  She thought for a while, and came up with a solution.  She went to a neighboring town and hired people who were not afraid to get dirty.  They bore her, high above their heads, across the stream.  She delivered the herbs to the sick, after which she was brought back to her garden, where she continued to grow a variety of herbs for the sake of many.  One day she noticed a group of healthy people waving to her from across the stream.  She gave them her best smile.