President Trump Needs A Health Checkup

I have not seen any reporting that President Trump has received an independent health check up since he was elected. Given the vast number of Trump supporters who seem to have trouble distinguishing reality from obfuscations and fantasy, we need to insist that President Trump immediately have a thorough health evaluation by a team of respected health care professionals.

What little I've heard does not suggest that the President watches his diet or exercises. We do have the word of his personal physician that he is extremely healthy, but that is not good enough. Dr. Oz said Donald Trump was healthy enough to be president, but I would like an independent evaluation.

If the President were to have a sudden, serious health event that incapacitated or killed him, how long would it take for conspiracy theories to convince a large numbers of people that the President's enemies had poisoned him? I suspect that would happen anyway, but it might help to have prior, accurate and public medical facts for counter arguments.

The exam needs to be thorough. The President's personal physician could participate, but not lead the team. Any findings of serious illness or potential issues need to be made public and as many details as possible should be released so independent researchers can do their own analysis.

I would also recommend frequent periodic re-evaluations if the President is not leading a healthy life style or serious health issues are found. I don't think we know if the stress that comes with the office will prematurely age President Trump as it seems to have aged some prior presidents.

Given the ease with which the President's supporters ignore facts, I'm very concerned about what might happen if there is a health crisis and no prior documentation to counter conspiracy theories.

Advice to North Korea: Cool It!

When President Trump feels pressured, he commonly tries to change the focus by saying or doing something outrageous.

It is widely thought that President Trump's libelous accusation that former President Obama wire tapped Trump Tower was such an attempt.

Now that the Director of the FBI and the Director of the NSA have testified these accusations are false, what new outrage will President Trump spew to distract us?

North Korea, now is not the time to be confrontational.   We have a leader who may be more unpredictable than yours.

Earth to Trump: Health Care is Hard!

While addressing the Governors this week, President Trump said about health care,

"It's an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated. [DTU]".

Nobody?  One person who obviously didn't know and probably still doesn't know is President Trump.


I've got a few "who knew" questions myself.

Who knew that Donald Trump was so unprepared to be President of the United States?

Who knew that Donald Trump knew so little about health care after campaigning for months to replace Obamacare?

Who knew that Donald Trump would be so unaware of how ridiculous he would look making that statement?

I mean really.  Who knew?

Donald Trump's Fact Free Universe

Over and over President Trump makes outlandish claims that are easily proven false. This happens so often it is safer to assume that anything he says is false until it is proven true.

Why does he continue to make outlandish statements?

My guess is that Donald Trump has lived most of his life in a universe where people never question what he says.  When you live that long in a world where every word you speak is treated like gold, you no longer question whatever comes out of your mouth. 

But alternative facts are only facts in Donald Trump's Universe (DTU).

Much like adding "[SIC]" in a quote to identify an original misspelling, we should add "[DTU]" after quoting a Trump alternative fact.

Trump Lied

Candidate Donald Trump told us on several occasions during the campaign that he would release his tax returns as soon as the IRS audit was complete.

Kellyanne Conway told us today that President Trump will not release his tax returns, ever.

The explanation we are given is that people knew about his tax return issues before the election and he was elected anyway.  Ergo, no one cares.

WRONG! and WRONG!
 
This is another example of Trump's disdain for the truth, disrespect for people who voted for him and a clear signal that his returns contain some really damaging information.

And he probably thinks we will never know what is in those returns.

WRONG! AGAIN!

Would You Buy A Used Car From Him?

President-elect Trump rails against fake news.  Whenever there is a story in the news that he doesn't like, he accuses the media of being unfair or biased or lying.

Of course, this is so ironic since the major disseminator of fake news is Mr. Trump in his tweets, statements and speeches.  His lack of veracity is so pervasive that fact checking is essentially futile.

Many voters voted for Mr. Trump because he would bring a business perspective to the running of the government.  But businesses are typically transactional operations.  They are less interested in making factual statements than in solving the issues of the moment.

We've all seen examples of business people who will say practically anything to make the sale or calm a disgruntled customer.  Whether or not what they say is really true is not their top priority. Anecdotally, think of the reputation of used car salesman.  Another everyday example are the responses of many customer service call people.

So when you listen to the soon to be President Trump or read a tweet or statement from him, think of the used car salesman.  What is he trying to sell?  Is the statement self-serving or factual?  How can you determine if what he is saying is true?

Ego Tours Will Continue

I guess the Trump victory/thank you tour is over.  But of course, it will never be over.  It may have a different name, but Donald Trump will never be very far from an adoring crowd.

I have long suspected that Donald Trump got into the presidential race to burnish his brand.  He didn't really want to be president, but he stayed in the race for two reason.

First, he never thought he would win.  When he started winning in the primaries, he needed to find a way to lose that wouldn't look like he had somehow failed.  Some of his outrageous remarks seemed to be a ploy to get people to turn against him and force him out of the race.  Then he could blame political correctness, liars and the media. That didn't work.  In the end he just couldn't find a way to get out without taking a tremendous blow to his ego.

Second, he loves the attention.  He is driven and energized by cheering crowds.  It is now coming out that he would say things and take positions on issues just because his crowds loved the ideas and cheered loudly.
 
Why else would he glow on the victory tour when crowds would yell "Lock her up!"?  For heaven's sake.  He won.  But humility is not an emotion he has ever needed.  Humility would imply he is not perfect.

The combination, of not finding a face saving way to get out of the race and cheering crowds that fed his ego kept him in the race.


Donald Trump likes to portray himself as this confident, successful person, but in truth he has very low self-esteem.  His constant exaggerations that he is the best at everything is not to convince other people, it is to convince himself.  He needs the cheering crowds to constantly prove to himself he is really not a failure.

Now he has won the presidency, but even that is not enough. His lack of self-esteem is why he must always lash out whenever anyone criticizes him. It is also why he can't accept that Russia helped him win.

The ego tours will never end.

Republicans Take Credit For Obamacare, Sort Of

Marsha Blackburn, Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee, was interviewed on TV a couple of weeks ago.  She was talking about plans to repeal and replace Obamacare.  She made two statements that astounded me.

First, when questioned about the disruption that repealing Obamacare might cause, she said that there were some good features that would be retained.

Really?

After Republicans have insisted that Obamacare was rammed down the country's throat without Republican input or votes, declared to be a complete failure, blamed for all the ills in the health care system and they tried to repeal it dozens of times because it was beyond repair, I was amazed to hear Representative Blackburn say Obamacare has some good features that the Republicans would like to retain.

When questioned further about these Obamacare features that she would retain, she explained with a wry smile, that they were actually originally Republican ideas that were included in Obamacare.

REALLY!

After six years of hyperbole about how bad and worthless Obamacare is, now you want to take credit for its "good" features?

Actually, she is correct.  There were a lot of features in Obamacare that, at one point, could rightly be called Republican ideas.  They only became vile when Democrats included them in the legislation.  The individual mandate, which Republicans still despise, was also an idea conservatives had once supported.

So now that it is their turn to govern, they want to make sure that they, the Republicans, get credit for all the good features they will keep from Obamacare.

There are dirty, low-down, ornery liars and hypocrites and then there are Republicans.

The Russians Made Me Do It!

And the rationalizations begin.

Trump Voters Own Him

I expect that the hard core Trump supporters will never turn on Trump.  I'm sure Mr. Trump was correct, he could shoot someone and they wouldn't care.  I hope I'm wrong, but I fear shooting someone will seem trivial compared to what he  actually does.

I hold every voter who did not vote for Hillary responsible for electing Donald Trump.  They OWN him. They are responsible for very stupid, immoral, unethical or illegal thing he does.  And they can certainly take credit for anything he does well.

And he OWNS the people who voted for him.  They are compelled to explain, defend and support his actions and inactions.  He supported anything people would cheer for.  He claimed he would fix anything and everything to win votes and would do it better and faster than anyone else would or could.

The President-elect is already starting to take back or modify promises.  And supporters are hanging with him; many saying they never believed he would actually do all the crazy things he said we would do.

Sorry folks, we are all responsible the the things we say and do.  People who are now saying they didn't believe everything Trump said are just proving they are low information voters.

If at some point a voter does decide their vote for Trump was a mistake (however unlikely), I think they should take a vow not to vote in a presidential election for a couple of cycles.

Voting for Trump showed a lack of knowledge.  Knowledge about what qualities are needed to lead this country and what qualities Donald Trump would bring to the office.  Trump voters who now realize they made a mistake need to take a while and reflect on how and why they missed all the signs he would be completely unsuitable to be President of the United States.

Trump Twitter Aide

On the news today I again heard the theory that security officials would take away President Trump's phone after the inauguration.  They will take it away just as they took away President Obama's iPhone because it is not a secure communications device.

The thought is Trump will stop his incessant twittering at that point.  Of course that is ludicrous.  The officer who carries the football will car pool with the guy who carries Trump's phone.

Trump will never be more than an arms length from the person with his phone and he'll just dictate his most recent transient thought.

Make Us Proud, Not Cringe

The President-elect has told us he is "like, very smart" and has "a very good brain".

So far I've seen no indications this is true.

Mr. President-elect, actions speak louder than words.

For example, you are not yet President of the United States so shut up at least until you take the oath of office.  And after that, pause and try to use that brain before twittering the next idle thought you have.

People who are actually very smart and really do have good brains know that the mark of intelligence is not how fast you can reply to an issue or how "in your face" your response is or how much cheering you get from a crowd. 

When you become President you represent and speak for our country, not just yourself.  Please make us proud when you speak, not cringe.

Russia Already Has Trump's Number

In a prior blog I noted that President Obama could easily counter birtherism by simply showing his birth certificate.  But it will be much harder for the President-elect to prove Russians did not meddle in our election to help him get elected.

But, the opposite is not true.  It is very easy to prove that the Russians were hacking and leaking secrets to help Mr. Trump win the election.

Very easy.

At least it would be very easy for Russia.  If they did it, they know all the details.  I'm sure they could release enough details to convince 80% of Americans that they were working very hard to elect Donald Trump.  And therefore his presidency is not legitimate.

And the harder Mr. Trump tries to convince us that the Russians did nothing to affect our election, the more ammunition he gives the Russians to blackmail him.

Even if the Russians didn't meddle in the election, even if they have no secret, damaging information about him, Trump is giving them all kinds of ammunition to use against him.

Mr. Trump, even if you don't believe the Russians tried to affect the election.  Do you think they might lie and say they did?   Your presidency would be totally illegitimate. Could your ego handle that? What might you be willing to do to keep them quiet?

Political Karma for Trump

Donald Trump's political ascent has been credited to his absurd and continued questioning of the legitimacy  of President Obama's presidency.

President-elect Trump, in his rush to question the competency of the  U.S. intelligence agencies, has laid the groundwork for questions about the legitimacy of his presidency that will last for the entire time he is in office.

He is very proud that he forced President Obama to produce his birth certificate.  But even when the President showed his birth certificate, that didn't stop Donald Trump from making completely fallacious statements.

There is no simple document that Donald Trump can produce to begin to prove his presidency isn't the result of Russian meddling.

Even worse for the incoming president, his ego will not let him leave unchallenged any suggestion that the didn't win on his own.

That is karma.

We Need A Trump Truth Emoji

Since it is hard to know when Donald Trump is telling the truth, how about a new emoji?

What about a new emoji just for Donald that means "I double down promise this is what I think I believe until it is inconvenient or I get some facts".


I know that is not much of a promise, but it is more than we get now.

What should it look like?

How about a miniature Presidential Seal?  Maybe that would give him pause before he makes outlandish statements.

Forget that.  What was I thinking?

When Is A Campaign Promise Real?

So Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's former campaign manager believes that voters didn't take everything Donald Trump said on the campaign trail literally.

Given Trump's history and his statements after the election, it seems neither did Donald Trump.

Even today KellyAnne Conway still cited a long list of campaign promises she says resonated with voters and claimed those promises are why Donald Trump won.

How does she know which statements he said during the campaign were things we should believe and what were just hyperbole or statements made to win a vote?

If we can't hold him to what he said and promised during the campaign, then we must assume he lied to win the election or he made statements about issues he didn't fully understand. 

Even now people close to the President-elect won't stand behind many of his most recent statements.  Vice-President Pence down plays current Trump statements and asks us to withhold judgment until the inauguration.

Really!


So we and the rest of the world should not believe anything Donald Trump has said or will say until the after inauguration?

Given Donald Trump's political history, I don't think we will ever be sure when he is telling us the truth. 

Zimmerman v Martin – Self-Defense?

I overheard someone stating that the George Zimmerman would never have been charged with a crime if the threat of civil unrest hadn't forced prosecutors to file charges.  This person thought that Zimmerman's claim of self-defense was so obvious that a judicial  review was unnecessary.  That seems simplistic.

Some details have been reported since Trayvon Martin was killed that don't seem to be in dispute.  We also have some reporting on statements Zimmerman has made.  While Ie would hope more details will emerge from the trial, let's analyze what we think we know up to this point and how that might lead someone to believe that Zimmerman should not even have been charged with a crime,

On the night in question, Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain who is carrying a legal concealed pistol, spots a suspicious person walking in his neighborhood.  He reports this to police who advise him to not confront the suspicious person.  Zimmerman ignores this advice, confronts Martin and a fight ensues.  - - - According to Zimmerman, at some point Martin is banging Zimmerman's head on the concrete sidewalk and going for Zimmerman's gun.  Zimmerman, fearing for his life, pulls his gun and kills Martin in self-defense.

Clearly self-defense.

Given the above, above scenario, what if Martin had killed Zimmerman, what would his defense be?

Clearly self-defense. 

Replace the last two sentences in the description above (starting at “- - -”) with, “Martin, having been confronted and fighting with a stranger, discovers the man is carrying a gun and decides he must disarm or disable his opponent or risk losing his life.  Martin kills Zimmerman in self-defense.”

I hope we learn more details as the trial progresses, but it should be obvious from the above discussion that if either man could claim self-defense, it is Martin.  Zimmerman was the instigator.  If he had not confronted Martin, there would have been no fight and no death.

This case raises a lot of interesting issues.  I would like to hear Zimmerman's description of the interaction and exchange between the two men that night.  For example, did Zimmerman tell or make Martin aware he had a gun?  If so, what are the legal issues about when and how he conveyed this information.  What are the legal requirements for notifying an opponent that you are armed?  When Zimmerman approached Martin, did he assume Martin was armed or unarmed? Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law may be invoked, but again, that defense would seem to go to Martin.

Thinking through the issues, if a person legally carrying a concealed weapon, gets into a violent, physical fight in a public place with someone who is unarmed, doesn't any “self-defense” claim automatically go to the unarmed person?  The burden is then on the person with the weapon to prove that their claim of self-defense out weighs the same self-defense claim made by his unarmed opponent.

If Zimmerman could draw his weapon and put it to Martin's chest, he could have paused and said “STOP! Or I'll shoot.” 

Zimmerman may have been afraid for his life, but that doesn't mean his life was in jeopardy.   Losing a fist fight is not justification for shooting someone.  The burden to prove self-defense is on Zimmerman.  Having someone on top of you and beating you is not enough.  Was Martin really going for Zimmerman's gun?  We'll never know, but if you were Martin in that situation, what would you do?

Suppose that Martin had gotten the gun, put it to Zimmerman's chest and pulled the trigger, could he claim self-defense?

Contraceptives and Religious Freedom

The Obama administration is taking heat for a decision that requires all health care insurance plans to pay for contraceptive prescriptions. There is an exception for churches, but not for church supported institutions like hospitals and charitable organizations.

The objection is that this requirement infringes on religious organizations, especially Catholics, who believe any kind of contraception is a sin. The Church objects because they would be "paying" for contraceptives.

I think the rational for the requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives is a women's health care issue. Most women will use contraceptives at some point and it is more likely that they will get contraceptives when needed if they are covered just like vaccinations. Religious institutions, like Catholic hospitals, are not exempted, because many of their employees are not Catholic.

The law would require that insurance plans cover contraceptives, but it does not require any woman to take contraceptives. If no employee used their insurance to pay for contraceptives, problem solved. Why can't the church just use its moral persuasion to convince women to not use contraceptives? Is the Catholic church's moral authority so weak that is must rely on its own version of the law to enforce its religious doctrine?

I appreciate strongly held ethical beliefs, but we live in a secular country governed by a constitution, laws, rules and elections. We all have to reconcile our personal beliefs with those of other people and the law. Why do we have a law that says no federal funds can go to support abortion, but we use federal funds to execute convicted felons? You may see a difference, but if the underlying moral concept is not taking a human life, what is the difference? The difference is that we, as a country, have decided to make that distinction. We all practice moral relativism, including the Catholic church. I'm not sure why they chose to fight this battle at this time in this way.

The Catholic hierarchy believes they should be exempt from the requirement that their insurance plans cover contraceptives because this is a religious and ethical issue. Excuse me, but that makes no difference. We don't allow Mormons to flaunt polygamy laws. We don't allow Muslims to escape punishment for honor killings. I'm sure we could find many examples of religious practices that are no longer accepted in the modern world. Times change. Values change. When I was a kid Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays. Now they can (at least most Fridays).

One argument I heard this morning is that Catholic hospitals provide much of the care for people in this country. I appreciate that Catholics provide this service, but what percentage of any Catholic hospital's cost are provided by the Catholic church? My guess is that these are self-supporting institutions. They may have started as charitable activities, but now they are businesses. Is it really Catholic religious money that goes to pay for employee health insurance?

I suppose I could change my position if Catholic hospitals only employed Catholics. And I would be even more swayed if they only provided services to Catholics. But then again, contraception being a sin, no one would be using contraceptives if these were purely Catholic only institutions so health insurance coverage of contraceptives would be a non-issue.

I heard one comment that said the church would be satisfied if they didn't have to pay for any contraceptives. Contraceptives could be provided if they were fully paid by the employee.
Most medical plans have the employer and employee sharing some portion of medical care costs. Why couldn't the church just state that any payments for contraceptives, by definition, come from the employees portion of the insurance payments and co-payments? Problem solved.

Or try this. If having the employee pay for their contraceptives is acceptable, presumably because the Catholic church is not directly involved, why can't you just push responsibility to the insurance company. The hospital pays an insurance provider to reimburse health care expenses. It the health insurance company pays for contraceptives, the sin is on their heads. Again, problem solved.

If this blog has seemed silly at times, that is intentional, but, seriously, I do not understand this issue. Catholic leaders are outraged over being forced to provide a service they believe is immoral, but most people, including Catholics, believe contraceptives are moral and provide health benefits for women. It might even be considered more moral to prevent a pregnancy when parents are not prepared to adequately care for a child.

If this is such as serious moral dilemma, why do the majority of Catholic women use contraceptives? If the moral authority of Catholic leaders can't convince Catholic women to not use contraceptives, why should we and therefore, the government, accept their moral authority? On what moral basis can they claim to be exempt from providing a health care service that citizens consider to be moral and beneficial and is required of other organizations?

The political line is this is an attack on religion and the First Amendment by the Obama administration. Once again, bull crap. This is a health care issue, not a debate about religious freedom. It might be politically expedient to grant Catholics an exception to the insurance requirement, but it would be morally wrong.

.

Politicizing Choice

After the re-ignition of political/cultural wars this week and inane comments by conservatives on talk shows this morning, I have to vent.

This week the Susan G. Komen Foundation walked into a self-inflicted firestorm by withdrawing its limited financial support to Planned Parenthood to provide breast cancer screening and referrals for mammograms. They then threw gasoline on the fire with an obviously unbelievable rational.

After being hit with scathing attacks on social media, Komen partially retreated. Several Conservatives whined this morning that this was somehow an attack on a private organization's right to spend their money the way they want.

That is not the way I see it. No one is arguing that Komen can't choose to fund Planned Parenthood or not (a cynic might say they have choices). The objection was to Komen's choice to attack Planned Parenthood over providing abortions (which is about 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget) at the expense of decreasing women's access to other health care such as mammograms.

No one forced Komen to make monetary grants to Planned Parenthood, although they have for many years. No one would have made a big issue if Komen had quietly stopped making grants to Planned Parenthood and used that money to provide mammograms some other way. The problem was that Komen tied their decision to a political decision to attack Planned Parenthood and indirectly abortion. And then denied that is what they did.

Komen's initial defense was that they had made a decision to not make grants to organizations that were under investigation and Planned Parenthood was under investigation. Bull crap. The investigation that sparked the defunding is one started in the House by a Republican Representative. Komen can't hide the fact that they made a political/cultural decision by hiding behind a politically based investigation. Add to that several reports of organizations under actual legal investigation that are still being funded by Komen. The defunding was clearly a political decision aimed directly at and only at Planned Parenthood and Komen's claims otherwise were unbelievable.

But to the spark that ignited my outrage, conservative claims that by some logic the attack on Komen is some extension of liberal, Democrat, Obama, whatever, attacks on personal freedom. They claimed that the attacks on Komen were attacks on Komen's right to make their own decisions. They even tried to tie Komen's problems to the Catholic insurance debate (to be discussed later).

Komen was free to make grants to Planned Parenthood or not. They did. Presumably they monitored those grants to make sure the the money was used properly and effectively. Now Komen is free to withdraw all those grants. Most people are not questioning that. But many people were outraged that an organization that asks for donations to provide better health care options to women chose to make a political statement that decreased options. Komen's choice was not based on what was best for women's health. None of the money from Komen went to provide abortions. All people were saying was that if Komen decided to not help Planned Parenthood provide mammograms, we can decide to send our donations somewhere else.

So how do conservatives tie my choice to not donate to Komen for any reason I choose, to an attack on personal freedom? I don't get it.  Sometimes I think that personal freedom is something that only applies to conservatives.

If Komen really thought their position was morally defensible, they didn't have to retreat. That is, if they really reversed their decision. What I heard was that Komen said they would allow Planned Parenthood to again apply for grants. We will have to wait and see if they actually make any grants to Planned Parenthood. Again, that is their choice, but now we know that Komen has another agenda besides breast cancer and people will be watching.

I have a suggestion for Komen. Don't fund Planned Parenthood. Start your own clinics and provide women, many with few health care options, access to the same kind of health care provided by Planned Parenthood. They can even choose to not provide abortions, if that is medically possible.


.

When Does Life Begin?

Given the vote today in Mississippi, here is a blog from 2007. Click on the title below.

Does Life Begin At Implantation?


If Mississippi makes a fertilized egg legally a human, every miscarriage will have to be investigated as a murder.

"Excuse me, mam. I am Officer Jones. I understand from your doctor that you recently had a miscarriage so I am required to ask to some questions. Prior to your miscarriage did you engage in any activities that might put your unborn child at risk? This could include use of alcoholic beverages or tobacco, but it also could include any activity that could be considered unhealthy to a child. Please tell me all drugs, legal and illegal, that you have used from the time of the miscarriage back to a month before you became pregnant....."

Is this really what the people of Mississippi want?