8/27/2014
THE ENFORCER
GOAFS II: #107
THE ENFORCER
8.27.14
President Obama has regularly
demonstrated his disdain for what it means for America to be nation of laws. A
nation of laws is a community of people bound together by history, tradition,
faith and a written covenant. These are the necessary “habits of the heart”
that are required to sustain liberty. This general form provides liberty within
the law, autonomy under authority and obedience to the unenforceable. This
requires consistent self-discipline at all levels, from the man on the street
to the man in the White House. This kind of liberty has a way of degenerating into
license whenever and wherever the things that bind us together are neglected,
ignored, or despised.
The President
and those in power who hold his progressive liberal views have been busy and quite
successful in the last six years in giving short shrift to the rule of law. One
of the chief offenders is Eric Holder, the attorney General, the man who should
be in the forefront of upholding the rule of law. With him are the tenured
bureaucrats in the Justice Department who been at it for years but set free from
Bush era constraints and encouraged by the present Administration.
I have just
begun reading a new book:
OBAMA’S ENFORCER
Eric Holder’s Justice Department
By John Fund and Hans Spakovsky
Broadside Books, Harper Collins, 2014
I am debating
whether to inflict upon you this small review or a more thorough summary of the
contents of this book. It is well-researched, annotated and well-written by two
very knowledgeable men. Here is the conclusion of the introductory chapter.
The Justice
Department’s motto, contained on the seal of the Department is ‘Qui Pro Domina
Justitia Sequitur.’ It has been roughly translated to refer to the attorney
general as he who ‘prosecutes on behalf of justice.’ But as we will see, Eric
Holder seems to have changed the motto so that it sometimes can be read to mean
the attorney general is ‘he who prosecutes on behalf of his political and
ideological allies.’ Eric Holder is almost certainly the most liberal attorney
general of the modern era, and he has also liberally bent the rule of law and
established internal practices that harm the cause of justice. His tenure at
the Justice Department has been marked by one scandal after another and the abusive
behavior of Justice Department lawyers in unwarranted, ideologically driven prosecutions.
Holder is the
first attorney general in history to be held in contempt by the House of
Representatives for his unjustified refusal to turn over documents related to
what may be the most reckless law enforcement of the Justice Department: Operation
Fast and Furious. He has launched more investigations and prosecutions of leaks
than any prior attorney general, yet has studiously ignored high-level
‘friendly leaks’ by White House officials in the Obama Administration.
Holder has
racialized the prosecution of federal discrimination laws and led an
unprecedented attack on election integrity laws, thus making it easier for
people who commit voter fraud and facilitating the election of members of his
political party. His handling of national security issues has been dismal and
he has filled the career ranks of the Justice Department with political allies,
cronies and Democratic Party donors, in clear violation of civil service rules.
Holder has treated Congress with contempt and has done everything he can to
evade its oversight responsibilities by misleading, misinforming, and ignoring
members of Congress and its committees. Holder has attacked pro-life
demonstrators, trying to use federal power to restrict their first amendment
right to speak, has prosecuted American companies for engaging in behavior
routinely done by government officials, and has on numerous occasions ignored
his duty to defend the law and enforce statutes passed by Congress.
For these
reasons and many others, former career lawyer Christopher Coates, who served in
the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations says that in his opinion, ‘Holder
is the worst person to hold the position of Attorney General since the
disgraced John Mitchell, who went to jail as the result of the Watergate scandal.’
“Eric Holder was born on January 21st, 1951 in
New York City. He attended Columbia Law School. Holder was an associate judge
of the D.C. Superior Court under Reagan; U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.,
then deputy attorney general under Clinton; and for Obama, Holder was senior
legal advisor to his presidential campaign, and is now the first
African-American Attorney General in history.” Wikipedia
Holder came
out of Columbia well trained and highly motivated to help “people of color
truly get the benefits to which they are entitled.” He apparently started off
well. Craig Donsanto, head of the Election Crimes unit within the public
integrity section of the Justice Department, speaking with the authors, summarized
his time working with Holder there in the 1970s and 1980s: I liked him, he was “a
damn good lawyer…young but very bright.” Donsanto was close enough to Holder to
be invited to his swearing in as a Superior Court judge in the District of
Columbia in 1988.
Later
Donsanto expressed his chagrin over the change that came over Holder as the
years went by, particularly how Holder’s approach to the law seemed to change
from an objective, professional one to a much more political one, and he shakes
his head at Holder’s conduct over the past 5 years. What happened?
Two things
seem be accountable for this change. Holder had led a pretty protected life—he
had not really experienced the reality or insecurity of the racism he deplored.
In 1990 he married Sharon Malone—daughter of a well-know civil rights activist,
who had plenty of these “experiences” and who quickly brought him up to proper
grievance level.
The more
significant thing seems to be his finding in Barack Obama a leader who showed
him in word and deed that in a good cause, “the
end does justify the means.” When it comes to the business of transforming
America--damn the constitution, damn the bill o rights, damn the rule of law,
damn the separation of powers, full speed ahead. Perhaps this is the only
demonstrable area in which Obama has displayed any real leadership as
President. Holder and Obama share the same political ideology and worldview.
They have enabled each other and covered each other’s back while converting the
Justice Department into a progressive liberal agenda-driven machine with little
respect for the rule of law, their sworn duties, the separation of powers or
the constitution. The Word below suggests there is really nothing new under the
sun.
God said, “Son of man, these are the men who draw up
blueprints for sin, who think up new programs for evil in this city. They say,
‘We can make anything happen here. We’re the best. We’re the choice pieces of
meat in the soup pot.’”
…“Oppose them, son of
man. Preach against them.” Ezekiel 11.2-4
The Message
Jerry Sweers
GROWING OLD AIN’T FOR SISSIES
Sailing directions for
Pilgrims of the Heart.
Remembrances, reflections and
rants
of an endangered species;
Curmudgensis Americanus Bibliophilius
site: crmudgeon.blogspot.com
email: cmudgeon@windstream.net
8/20/2014
DYSTOPIA
GOAFS II: #106
DYSTOPIA
8.6.14
A half a
millennium ago Thomas More invented the word “utopia,” which we moderns
associate with social or political perfection. In 1515, More borrowed from the Greek
to formulate “u-topia,” meaning “no place” as well as its homophone “eu-topia,”
meaning “good place.” In creating a pun, More was making the point that utopias
may be good, even perfect, but they don’t really exist, probably because they
can’t.
We might be
more familiar (perhaps) with the word “dystopia,” which is the opposite of a
good place—it’s a very bad place, and very bad places definitely exist, often
because of the overbearing efforts of a coercive State. If you are paying close
attention to the news you may even hear this word crop up is describing the
current mess we are in. This word describes a bad place, but one which might
well exist, and often has in history. Dystopian literature is most often
written to describe, warn against, or combat totalitarianism. This is probably
because utopias have a way of degenerating into dystopias.
The most
familiar works of this Genre are “Brave New World” (1932), by Aldous Huxley,
and “1984’ (1948) by George Orwell. You might also recognize later books of
this kind, “Fahrenheit 451” (1953) and “A Clockwork Orange” (1962).
In 1985 Neil
Postman did a fine analysis of the impact of television on human communications
(“Amusing Ourselves to Death”). In that book he compared the dystopias of
Orwell and Huxley this way:
“Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much we would be reduced to passivity
and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley
feared that the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared
that we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared that we would become a
trivial culture…’Amusing Ourselves To Death’ is about the possibility that
Huxley was right.’”
J.J. Tawney,
writing on “The four Problems of Facebook” in the July-August New Oxford Review
agrees with Postman and believes had Postman seen the development of the social
media, he would have said, ”See, I told you so.”
Tawney’s
analysis is quite detailed and persuasive but I will try to try to briefly summarize
the four problems he sees embedded in Facebook (and generally in all the social
media)
The Problem of the Human Person
Fundamental to Christian personalism
is the belief that man is an incarnate soul: he discloses his inner mystery
through his body. Any medium of expression that is removed from bodily contact
functions, obscures the reality of the soul. A Facebook profile can never
communicate the essence of the person. Any resemblance it bears to the soul of
its author is ultimately coincidental and dependent on the interpretation
imposed by the reader—one can never know for sure if the profile is created and
maintained by the person it claims to represent. In contrast, bodily contact
(face to face interaction) could never present such an illusion. Over time,
frequent Facebook users will come to think that “the human person” is that
which can be reduced to and summarize by such a profile.
The Problem of Relationship
The first problem naturally leads to the second. While the
body is capable of drawing attention to the reality of the soul, Facebook
communication obscures the soul, and renders any supposed relationship and
illusion. A relationship is the mutual disclosure of persons. The computer
screen does not open up an authentic space for disclosing the human person, and
therefore does not open up space for authentic relationship. The enormous
number of “friends” one can collect on Facebook is an unnatural deviation from
authentic friendship. Facebook chose “friends” rather than “contacts” to foster
an illusion, not represent a reality. A large number of Facebook “friends” may
give one a warm feeling but the cold reality is Facebook friends have no
obligation to act in a manner befitting authentic friendship. Aristotle prized
the virtue of true friendship, but observed that “true friends are necessarily
small in number.” (As I write this I recall a man I once worked for who called
anyone he had met once, a “friend.” He had a good memory so if he did not see
or think of this “friend” for 5 years, when he did, he would greet and
introduce this person as my good friend.” Should another 5 years pass by he meet
this person once more, the person would be warmly recognized as “ my very good
friend.” If you have ever worked for Christian Organization you will recognize
this as normal behavior for a CEO majoring in fundraising.)
The problem of Communication
The problem of communication follows naturally on the first
two. Many books have been written, especially lately, on this so it is best I
give you the executive summary in a nutshell: The days of artful letter writing are being rapidly replaced by moments
of mad, mechanical writing.
There was a time when the next best thing to face-to- face
communication was a thoughtful letter, written to one true friend in cursive
with good grammar, syntax and spelling. Take a long leap today to a social
media communication. It is a hastily composed sound bite of poor grammar,
syntax and spelling written to many, even hundreds or thousands of people who
in no way can even remotely be considered friends.
The habitual use of this method of communicating soon strips
the person and the process down so far that its users soon cannot distinguish between
what should be private and what should be public. After all, if my “friends”
are fascinated by what I had for breakfast or what I named my new cat, why
shouldn’t the whole world be just as fascinated. This, again, naturally leads
to the final problem.
The Problem of Romanticizing the
Ordinary
The sound-bite mechanism of the “status update” on Facebook
lends itself to romanticizing the ordinary. This leads to narcissism on a
widespread scale and this is probably the worst of how Facebook degrades human
relationships. We come to assume that our “friends” will be interested in our
latest family pictures, what we ate on Friday night, what movie we are watching
tomorrow, and a whole host of other trivial activities.
In a one-to-one conversation, the speaker would receive
instant feedback (verbal or non-verbal) about how interesting his story is. In
allowing completely one-sided communication, Facebook gives us the illusion
that everything we do is interesting. (Look how many people “like” it!) Whereas
Television plays the role of God in the on-sided relationship of
media/consumer, social media platforms allow the individual person to play the
role of God—the very definition of narcissism
I do not deny
that the social media has some limited value in specific circumstances, but I
think, in general, the addiction to social media is a major contributor to the dystopian
decline of freedom in America today. We seem to be plagued with some of both
Huxley (drowning in irrelevance), and Orwell (buried in falsehoods). We have both ‘newspeak” (the murder of babies
in the womb for convenience has been changed from “abortion” to “choice”) and a
thick smog of lies that constantly hides the truth while pouring out millions
of bits of irrelevant data.
On the other
hand, we are living in a corrupt soup of government approved and encouraged selfishness
and depravity in every possible form that is the current equivalent of the
Roman bread and circuses. We have moved from “Jesus, the friend who sticks
closer than a brother” to the ubiquitous smart phone, our new friend who sticks
even closer than Jesus and demands are constant attention.
Jerry Sweers
GROWING OLD AIN’T FOR SISSIES
Sailing directions for Pilgrims
of the Heart.
Remembrances, reflections and
rants
of an endangered species;
Curmudgensis Americanus Bibliophilius
site: crmudgeon.blogspot.com
email: cmudgeon@windstream.net
8/13/2014
ACETAMINOPHEN
GOAFS II: #105
ACETAMINOPHEN
8.13.14
My Childbride
has been on Warfarin (Coumadin) for
number of years to protect her from blood clots developing in her heart
as the result of atrial fibrillation. Aspirin interacts with the warfarin in a
way that makes it hard to maintain a consistent level—so acetaminophen
(Tylenol) is the only over-the-counter pain medicine that she may take for the
various aches and pains of her 80 year old body.
The September
Consumer Reports has an interesting article on Acetaminophen, a drug which,
when over-used, has a deleterious effect on the liver. Almost 80,000 people a
year are treated in emergency rooms because they have taken too much
acetaminophen. The drug is now the most common cause of liver failure in the
United States. Some of these tragedies are caused by abuse, a few by
intentional suicide but most by ignorance of the nature and effects of Tylenol
and other medicines containing acetaminophen.
Recognizing
this, the FDA recently reduced the maximum prescription dosage allowed to 325
MG. But they failed to deal with the 600 over-the-counter medicines that
contain acetaminophen. The OTC drug makers promptly increased the standard
dosage in their pills to 500 MG, labeling them “extra strength. The thing that
they, and the FDA, failed to mention was that clinical tests suggest that 325
MG provides all the benefits that 500 MG provide, with far less potential
damage to the liver.
325 MG pain
relievers almost disappeared from the store shelves, replaced with 500 MG
pills, labeled “extra Strength” and everyone seemed to be happy. The drug
makers got to sell an “improved product,” the users felt like they were getting
more for their money, and only the liver got short shrift. No one seemed to
realize that the boost from 325 MG to 500 MG provided no tangible increase in
pain relief, and hit the liver with 125 MG of unnecessary drug that is not
appreciated by the liver.
Added to this
was the fact that with 600 over the counter products containing acetaminophen,
it became easier to get an overdose by mistake. Take Tylenol Extra Strength,
Nyquil Cold and Flu and Walgreen’s Pain-Reliever PM, all according to the
directions on the bottles, and you get 6600 MG of acetaminophen in a 24 hour
period—this is when the best medical advice is that anything over 3200 MG in 24
hours should be avoided like the plague.
I have just
ordered 1000 acetaminophen 325 MG tablets on-line. At .018 cents each, they are
slightly more costly than five hundred 500 MG tablets from my local Kroger
Store at .015 cents each. Do your liver a favor and switch to 325 MG.
The whole
subject of acetaminophen is complicated by the conflicting goals of the drug
manufacturers who 1)want you take as much of their product as possible while at
the same time 2) want to avoid lawsuits from your heirs and assigns suing them
for your death from liver failure. The bottom line, as I see it as a concerned
user, not a medical professional, seems to be this:
· The healthy liver can only safely metabolize
3250 MG of acetaminophen in any twenty-four hour period.
· A single 500 MG Extra Strength
acetaminophen pill gives the about same amount of pain relief as a 325 MG pill.
· Since your goal should be as few MG’s
of acetaminophen as possible in 24 hours, it makes pretty good sense to take
the smaller dose pills. The 325 MG dosage instructions
say you should limit the number of pills you take to 12 in 24 hours. This is
pushing the line since the FDA says that at 4000 MG you may start to get
damage.
· Finally, start reading the labels on
the over-the-counter remedies you are using and add the amount of acetaminophen
you are getting from them to your daily dose. If you are taking prescription
drugs (some have large amounts acetaminophen), check with your pharmacist to
see how much, if any is included in your daily dosages and add that too.
I have tried
replacing my 500 MG tablets with 325 MG tablets and found no discernable effect
on the pain-relieving effectiveness of the reduced dosage.
Jerry Sweers
GROWING OLD AIN’T FOR SISSIES
Sailing directions for
Pilgrims of the Heart.
Remembrances, reflections and
rants
of an endangered species;
Curmudgensis Americanus Bibliophilius
site: crmudgeon.blogspot.com
email: cmudgeon@windstream.net
