The Militant Moderate

Several times I have been subjected to a currently running television commercial which tells me to call Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe and thank them for their good work protecting seniors in Washington. It tells me how they are looking after my interests, and they are preventing harmful cuts in Medicare. If I were not so nauseated, I would jump to my feet and shout, “You lie! You lie!”

One always feels strong resentment at outright falsehoods told in a bold-face manner, just as if they were true. But further, one’s ire is aroused with the question provoked, “Who do these people think I am? They are insulting me! Do they think I am an imbecile? Do they think I am too dumb to know the truth? Do they really think they can get away with this without be called out?” That outrage is even more offensive than being told a bare-faced lie.

These are the same people who wanted to privatize Social Security. Remember?

Seniors are receiving no Social Security cost of living increase this year, although everyone is well aware that everything touched is costing more – with the temporary exception of gasoline (not our big item). In spite of all this, Medicare insurance premiums are going up $25 a month in January.

A bill to halt that $25 premium increase passed the House overwhelmingly. But Senator Coburn put a hold on the bill to keep it from even being considered by the Senate. Don’t ask me why the Senate has such a dumb rule that allows a single narrow-minded, stubborn Senator to thwart the will of the entire Congress, but they do.

Senator Coburn is taking advantage of that rule to block the consideration of the bill postponing any Medicare insurance premium increase in a year when retirees receive no COLA. Although it passed the House with bi-partisan support, Senator Coburn, in his infinite wisdom and sense of self-importance, is stopping this bill to help seniors.

This is the same Coburn they are now telling seniors to call and thank for taking care of our interests.

Senator Coburn, with his sense of omnipotence, has also taken it upon himself to block Senate consideration of an appropriation for Veterans’ health care. This is the same guy who voted to increase deficits to pay for the war in Iraq and the armaments to fight it, but he says the country cannot now afford to provide proper medical treatment for its returning soldiers because of deficits.

Oklahoma’s two senators have been consistently the butt of Capitol jokes, and our state constantly suffers that stigma of ridicule nationally. Why do we keep sending such people to Washington to represent us? Are we too ignorant to know what we have? Are we are just too partisan to care?

Senator Coburn is mixed in deeply with the “C-Street gang.” At first glance this appears to be just a bunch of congressmen sharing a very large rooming house with a common area. It is located very close to the Capitol. Then it appears that the basis of this rooming house association is that all are fundamentalist Christians. Then it emerges that this place is called a “church,” and so identified for tax purposes.

This “church” has had a book written about it. It is the center of several investigations by news media. It appears from reports that this “church” may be similar to a “cult.” It seems also to be something of a religious fraternity, similar to college -- except for grown people. It is also something of a “secret society.”

They are supposed to be a “brotherhood” of religious, mostly republican, senators and congressmen where they help solve one another’s problems – like getting one out of an adulterous scandal involving Mr. Coburn being the go-between in a payoff. (He first denied this, but later admitted it.) Republican congressional miscreants are counseled in secret in this house under a code of silence. It does not matter that such silence may conceal unethical, or even illegal, conduct in violation of House or Senate rules, as is said to be the case.

This “C-Street House” is part of much larger “church” or cult headed by mysterious figures and governed by mysterious rules. It has been alleged also to be a “political machine” composed of residents and non-residents as well, all ultra-conservative fundamentalists with an agenda. This group is said to have its own priorities. Their agenda is to advance their ideas and religious beliefs through Congress, not accountable to any other religious or secular body. It is said that this fraternal “loyalty” is to be above all others. If so, this is a bit scary.

“C-Street” has just this week lost its property tax-exempt status in Washington, D.C. The goings-on there and the conduct of its occupants, including Senator Coburn, are under investigation by Congress and by other federal authorities. There is inquiry being made as to the entity to which room “rents” were paid, and whether such amounts have been claimed as “contributions.”

Senator Coburn has been tainted by all this, regardless of any personal “do-gooder” intentions he may have had or how much he protests innocence. His “holier-than-thou” approach to government and politics, at the expense of such groups as seniors and veterans, will not work any longer. He dropped his crown.

Since he is no longer any better than the rest of us, he should quit “playing God” in the Senate and blocking legislation needed by millions. And, let’s get those false commercials off the air, so that I can rest from shouting to my television, “You lie! You lie!”

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

There is too much hate, vitriol, and outright hostility in political discourse in America today. Also, there are too many lies and too much deceit. There is too much hyperbole in the rhetoric coming from the right. There are too many signs with hate slogans. There are too many ignorant, artificial linkages of present day proposals with the outrages of Nazi Germany 65 years ago – all with hate connotations.

The misapplications of terms like “red,” “pinko,” “socialist,” and “communist” abound. These are hate code-words. There may not be more than a dozen or so real communists in the entire country, and none are likely in government. “Communist China” is no longer really communist, but rather a capitalistic economy with an autocratic, one-party government. The term “socialist” is rarely used in a technically correct and descriptive fashion, but rather as a political attack word.

It is hard to decide whether it is more scary to think these people are really that ignorant, or if they are simply exercising rhetorical attack hyperbole. Either way it is inappropriate in civilized discourse.

The hypocrisy of those carrying American flags and cheering right wing speakers calling for revolution against their constitutionally and democratically elected government is unbelievable. Party speakers keep using the words “patriotic” and “freedom” amongst calls to become traitors to the democracy they are sworn to serve and protect. Are they too dumb to realize the conflict and offensiveness of their rhetoric, or do they just not care -- if it scores them a political point with their right wing base?

What kind of craziness is there in applauding signs among the rabble saying, “Next time we bring guns”? How can congressional republican leaders speak such vehemently inflammatory language to a rowdy crowd so far out as to be carrying signs with pictures of Hitler’s death camp dead? How about the signs waving down front: “the Red in the White House”?

One would hope that titular leaders of any political party would be a step or two above condoning such uncivil, un-American, and threatening behavior. This kind of over-the-top language has been coming consistently from the likes of Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Apparently they are now setting the style for the party leaders, since these have joined the hate speech approach to politics.

When a crazed mob crashes the doors and trample over security personnel and one another at a Christmas sale, Walmart is successfully sued in court for damages for not exercising sufficient precautionary measures. How is it that those who utter inflammatory hate speech in front of angry mobs are not held to account? How is it that the extremists on talk radio and Fox News channel are not held to account for inciting violence? How is it that anti-abortion groups and radical “ministers” are not held responsible when their inflammatory “baby-killing” rhetoric results in murder?

Although the congressional race in upper New York speaks to the contrary for those rabid extremists in the republican party, God help us, and God save America, if this ever really becomes a populist movement embraced by a majority of our people. Although impressive video, a few thousand from the lunatic fringe, bussed into Washington by right wing political activist organizations, with big corporate support, does not a real grass roots movement make.

One would like to dismiss this movement as being from a bunch of “ditto heads” and “right wing kooks,” thus not a serious threat. But since when does free speech include yelling “fire” while standing before a crazy bunch of arsonists with torches in their hands. These are not ordinary, rational people. At best they could be termed “a rabble with a mob mentality.” That kind of a mob cannot be controlled once they are set off.

Do we really think we can continue to inflame passions of suggestible people and not cause violent and irrational behavior? It is easy to see in the results of the rhetorical hyperbole about abortions. Some fools decide they are doing God’s will by going out and shooting doctors down in church.

It is difficult to argue with some republicans. If crossed, they go immediately into a tirade. Everything is emotional to them. Perhaps it is so with some democrats as well. But we should be able to exchange views in a rational and civil way. If we don’t learn to do so, we are headed to national civil strife, violence, and bloodshed.

In commenting that some people are difficult to reason with, this writer is reminded of a conversation with a college dean who taught an adult Sunday School class in a fundamentalist church. He recounted his efforts to have class discussion of some controversial topics and issues. He was frustrated, he said, because one class member insisted on always being right. When cornered and asked for reasons for her views, she always said, “God told me!”

The dean remarked that this threw cold water on his efforts for an open and rational discussion. And, so it does with our discussions of some issues. In other cases, partisans simply resort to name calling. “That is socialist,” they will say – not because it is a correct label, but because of its negative connotation. If anyone believes that, then the discussion is over.

So it is with any discussions about the looming, problematic social and economic shadow of ever-increasing disparity in income and wealth in this country. This festers out there on the edge of the awareness of most people. Waiting to reach a critical level of awareness, it forebodes serious future conflicts and troublesome upheaval. We are headed for certain trouble.

But if one mentions the problem, or looking for avoidance solutions, then the bugaboo of “redistribution of wealth” and “socialism” is brought forward – effectively killing any real consideration. One should not mention that our tax and trade policies the last 25 years have been essentially “class-warfare” on the middle class worker in our society, moving us toward a society of “haves and have-nots” and economic feudalism.

We cannot go on with our rhetorical violence and closed-mindedness, lest it gradually or suddenly descend to actual violence. It is hard to believe that any political leaders actually want this, but it is in their talk. How else can we judge?

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

While undertaking the physically challenging task of pushing a shopping cart through the lengths, depths, and widths of the vast domain of our local Walmart store, this writer sought to separate himself momentarily from his shopper-in-chief and to pause in the relative comfort of a two-person bench.

Already on this bench was an elderly man, dressed in the style of a retired working man or an area farmer, also pausing during his occasional obligatory tour of the consumer delights in Walmart. I said to him, “Do you mind sharing this bench for a minute?”

He answered cheerfully, “No. Sit down and rest yourself for a while. That is what I’m doing.” And, he moved over and shifted his shopping cart for me to sit with my cart in front of me. He then told me, using the common colloquial language of our region, that he was a disabled Korean War veteran. He indicated that touring that store on foot was a bit difficult for him.

He said, “I have permanent injuries to my feet and legs from a bad experience at the Chosen Reservoir.” I indicated that I remembered that event quite well, a fact that seemed to please him greatly. After identifying myself as a World War II veteran, I remarked that I had thought at the time that strategically we were taking quite a risk in marching right on up to the Yalu River and the border of China.

He agreed, saying that, “We were outnumbered there by 600 to 1, and they came in on us there in the dead of winter. We fought and retreated from the Chosen Reservoir through the sleet and snow for a hundred miles. It was 40 degrees below zero. That’s how I got these bad feet and legs.”

I wondered silently why this Korean vet had not obtained one of those battery powered carts that Walmart keeps up front for persons with ambulatory difficulties. Then I realized that he didn’t have one of those carts for the same reason that I did not – pride. There we were, two old guys, too proud to drive one of those electric carts. But we were not too proud to pause for a moment on a bench and rest.

We shared the view that the store should have a lot more benches around throughout the store so people could stop for a few minutes and rest before proceeding on their shopping tour. He remarked to me, “They should have more handicapped parking, too, and other people should stay out of those spaces.” I agreed.

Then he told of running some high school kids out of a handicapped parking spot outside by threatening to turn them in for a $60 fine. Yes, indeed, he was still a scrappy old war veteran.

We then went on to talk of present day geopolitical military strategy and foreign policy for a few moments. I asked him if, as a Korean War veteran, he agreed with keeping 30,000 American troops in and around Seoul, South Korea. He said, “No! We lifted those people up, and we helped them get started. They have come a long way. They can take care of themselves now. We have no business staying there.”

We agreed on that point – we should be bringing our troops home and letting others fight their own battles.

Then my shopper-in-chief returned to get me to proceed with the marathon exploration through the nooks and recesses of a temporarily disordered store to find items for which she had coupons and for other treasures and necessities. He reached out his hand to me as I prepared to leave, and we shook hands with the sincerity of two kindred old souls who had momentarily made contact in the maddening swirl of organized societal life. No names were exchanged, but we became acquainted nevertheless.

I shall remember this man, and the others like him, who went dutifully, although not necessarily willingly, to Korea to fight a war when admittedly they understood little about the geopolitics of containing communism.

I recall also a good friend, who barely escaped death as a belly gunner on a B-17 during a crash landing on return from a mission over Germany. He was called back again for service in Korea. I recall a high school classmate whom I had welcomed as he came into boot camp at the naval training station where I was stationed in 1944. He was called back because he was in the active reserve. A close relative, who had sloshed through the winter mud in the Italian Campaign to victory in 1944, was called back and sent to Korea as a member of the Oklahoma National Guard.

Then I recalled well how I had been given little chance of finishing my first year of teaching in 1949-50, because I was still a member of the U. S. Naval Reserve. But I escaped that experience, probably by having gone to inactive status a year or so earlier.

That old soldier, my partner on the bench at Walmart, deserves a great deal of respect from the rest of us – more than he gets, I’m sure. Few of us still alive have experienced the awful ordeals of war such as that terrible winter retreat from the Chosen Reservoir. But such are the stories of misery, matched only by the stories of heroism, which have come down to us from our past wars.

Those who have actually experienced these life and death dramas of past wars are rapidly departing from our human landscape, some say at the rate of a thousand a day. It was an honor to have shared a few moments with that old Korean vet.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard

There was a shockingly strange and simple statement made this past week by a leading professional in the health care field. The president of the California Nurses Association said plainly and clearly: “Everybody on Capitol Hill knows what the solution to health care reform is!” That got the attention of this writer.

This nursing leader went on by saying that although everybody knows the solution, there is a lack of willingness on the part of Congress to do anything about it. She attributed this to the millions of dollars of political contributions from the insurance industry and the activities of their lobbyists at the capital.

This lady pointed out that the premium dollars paid by the consumers were being siphoned off to pay armies of lobbyists handing out millions of dollars around and among senators and representatives. They (members of Congress) are not working for the people, she declared, they are being bought by insurance company dollars accumulated through not paying claims of the ill and by putting sick people off coverage.

Citing the deplorable condition of the health care system, which she said nurses know and see the effects of this on patients, she thought it obscene that Congress was fiddling around with minutiae about plans while patients suffer and the uninsured are dying. She cited 43,000 deaths a year because of lack of treatment due to no insurance.

So, if everybody on the Hill knows the solution to our current health care mess, just what is that?

To this nursing leader it was quite simple: “Medicare for everybody.”

Many of us have wondered this same thing, “Why not something similar to Medicare for everybody? Why not just a free and open option for everybody to continue their own health insurance or switch to a government sponsored program with a schedule of benefits similar to Medicare?”

This would certainly seem to be the simplest and best plan. It is a plan that nearly everyone knows about and is not that hard to comprehend in form and detail. The costs of various medical procedures, products, and services have already been set at an affordable rate, not the exorbitant rates billed by hospitals.

Anyone who has had any procedure performed in a hospital lately knows the obscene rates at which services are first billed. This writer had an outpatient service done recently which was billed for $3,000. Medicare paid only $110.

Although some providers complain about Medicare payment schedules, nobody loses money. Hospitals are spending large advertising dollars to attract patients, including Medicare ones.

Paying for medical services at the billed rates would bankrupt the rich. But the rich have insurance companies negotiating rates for them, and Medicare sets its rates. The uninsured have no advocate. They are billed. They are sued. Their property is attached. Their wages are garnished. Or, they declare bankruptcy. Often there is little other choice than the latter.

There a number of facets of the opposition to decent and affordable health care at reasonable rates which this writer has great difficulty in understanding and accepting.

It is hard to understand how politicians, either for personal greed or for the sake of pure politics, are so corrupt that they will oppose something so desperately needed by the people – when they know the solution.

It is difficult to understand how those who proclaim religious and moral beliefs the loudest can ignore a moral imperative, such as people dying unnecessarily and sick people suffering, mistreated or untreated.

It is difficult to understand how those who declare themselves to be conservatives can oppose changes to reduce human hardship while introducing efficiencies into the system, markedly reducing health care insurance premiums for themselves and their employees, and helping businesses survive competitively. The dodge of opposition by calling this “socialized medicine” is rank sophistry, which must plague even a calloused conscience.

What is wrong with Democrats? Why don’t they step out and do exactly what they know to be right? Are they corrupted by money also? Are they fearful of a backlash from right wingers at home? Where is their statesmanship?

How can our “representatives” in government just ignore polls which show their constituents favor a public plan by a majority of 64% on up to 73% in different polls?

How much has to do with the proposed surcharge in income tax rates of 3% for those making over a half-million a year? Is this really the varmint in the woodpile?

In the end, sooner or later, we must come to the realization the plain and simple solution is indeed the best for all. Everybody, insured or uninsured, should be given a choice. One of the choices which should be available to all is a premium driven form of Medicare operated under the same kind of federal rules.

To use a common expression: No one should die because of the lack of health care coverage, and nobody should go broke because of sickness. It is that simple. So is the solution.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Some of those who are the most prolific advice-givers are the least qualified to be dispensing guidance. So it is with this writer, whose credentials in press relations could be called into question.

This writer recalls that sometime early in his 25 year tenure as a college president, he attended a breakout session at a national conference on the topic of press relations. He recalls well the admonition of that experienced speaker: “Don’t get into a fight with a newspaper unless you own one.” It was akin to Mark Twain’s advice not to battle with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.

This advice must have been received a while after a certain incident in the writer’s early career, or else this writer flagrantly failed to follow it. Just prior to leaving home to attend a banquet of the local chamber of commerce, he looked at that day’s evening edition of the town news. There on the front page was an attack on the college on some matter of local controversy with city fathers. Anger swelled.

That anger had not abated when this writer took the speaker’s rostrum, waved the local newspaper at the crowd, including its publisher, and termed it the owner’s “yellow scandal sheet.” He said to the folks there that maybe he should apologize for the college cluttering up the east side of their nice town and causing problems.

This was definitely not the epitome of good public relations, although raves were immediately received from college personnel and many local friends. Somebody needed to call the paper and the local government to task, they said, for mistreating the town’s major economic and cultural asset.

Curiously enough, there was a bit more local sensitivity after that. The newspaper owner and I later became friends, and his lovely wife served a very helpful term on the governing board of regents.

Nevertheless, this writer would not normally recommend this as an avenue toward good press relations, although now and then a private talk with press people may help alleviate any growing tensions.

In the case of our president, one should not expect any change in the negative treatment of him by Fox “News,” regardless of any positive overtures or straight comments from the White House. Fox is indeed a network driven by political ideology. It is not going to change if treated with finesse. It will continue to feature negative news and commentary about the Obama administration and democrats in general, no matter what. Fox has shown itself to be anti-government, if the administration is democrat, by promoting and sponsoring anti-government rallies. That is NOT a news network.

What does the president lose if he “alienates” a non-news network of continuous negativity and personal attack? How can a network which features vicious personal and political attacks become more unfriendly than it already is?

This writer rarely watches Fox “News” more than a minute or two at a time, except when he is an unwilling part of a captive audience in public places such as doctors’ offices, hospital waiting areas, and fitness centers. He considers the usual Fox network programming to be offensive, and he has been known to request that the channel be changed.

The President is correct, of course. Fox is not a news network, but it is a video journal of “perspective” as he said. It has been sickening when Fox hypocritically claims itself to be “fair and balanced.” News, often slanted, is interspersed within daytime programming, but the prime time is devoted to right wing attack programming.

It is also true that during the evening hours MSNBC programming has a left-of-center ideological stance. Their early morning seems to the right-of-center, while mid-day programming seems to be normal news coverage. But MSNBC lists its evening programs as “a perspective on the day’s news and events.” That is honest.

Except for Lou Dobbs, and maybe other gaffes, CNN is the most “fair and balanced” of the cable news networks. It is in fact worrisome because it compulsively offers two sided arguments about everything. It cannot put on a news report, or its own network news analysts’ comments, without some kind of rebuttal included from one or both parties. It becomes a constant, tiresome, annoying harangue. No wonder they are losing viewers.

In spite of popular criticism from the right wing, the mainstream network television newscasts seem to be the most fair in their coverage and presentations. PBS is remarkably educative without being obnoxious.

Even the newscasts from area television stations sometimes seem to be stricken with editorial bias in selection of content, in the language with which issues or scenes are described, and similar subtleties. Then, too, we are afflicted there with features like “my two cents.” But at least those two pennies worth are labeled.

Somehow we need to find a better way of presenting the news of interest in this country. Perhaps we should go back to the concept of well-run, journalistically professional newspapers where they keep their editorial comments on one or two pages and boldly labeled so.

The reader of an ethically run newspaper can then skip the editorials, which are properly allowed to be politically biased, silly, or just plain annoying. He/she can proceed to read news that is normally properly and fairly collected and presented without bias or selection.

Surely someone can devise a television format for cable network “news” that emulates that conceptual framework.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Red and green, red and green,
The prettiest colors to be seen,
Until upward we search and gaze
Into sky of blue, and purple haze.

Red and green have such a pretty hue,
But not the same as azure sky of blue,
Up above the wispy clouds of white,
A hue of blue, a sight for pure delight.

Reds and greens surely catch the eye,
Created by either man’s or nature’s dye;
But nothing to match the turquoise bay
Before an island shore under tropic ray.

Reds and greens are the colors of life,
Vibrant, happy, without a hint of strife;
Not as the deep, dark blue of angry sea,
A frothy hue, the breath of death to be.


Dr Edwin E. Vineyard
2009

Please allow this writer to be one of the many voices in Oklahoma, and others across the nation, to declare imperatively: “FREE BOBBI PARKER! Stop the incessant, harsh, continuing persecution (prosecution)!”

For those to whom the name may not be familiar, Bobbi Parker is the wife of the assistant prison warden at Granite who allegedly helped Randal Dial, a trustee prisoner, escape from custody. She allegedly drove the car out the gates with Dial hidden inside. Dial had been working in an art shop in the Parker garage in a residence on the prison grounds.

It was speculated and discussed widely at the time whether Mrs. Parker was a willing participant in Dial’s escape, or under threat and duress. Some thought there was an illicit love affair, and this made for juicy gossip. However, no charges were filed against Parker until long following the time when she and Dial were found 11 years later in Texas.

Insufficient evidence was present to file charges within the necessary legal time limits of the actual offense, if any. Prosecutors were pushing the statute of limitations again before filing charges after she was found. In the meantime, she has adjusted back into her family and holds a paying job.

The only other witness in the case (Dial) gave a dying deposition that she was an unwilling participant in his escape. He said that he had a hold on Mrs. Parker then and through the years by claiming the power to harm her husband and children. True or not, she and Dial are the only ones who know.

For all the rest of us, it is mere supposition based on the fact that she left with him and then stayed with him. We don’t really know.

This writer has numerous questions. Why are charges filed now? Who is Mrs. Parker harming or threatening now? What danger is she to the public? How do we know she was not forced to leave with Dial? Was her family threatened then and afterward by Dial, as he said? Was she a victim of Stockholm’s syndrome? Who is helped now by this prosecution? Who is being hurt by this prosecution?

There are some similarities between the Bobbi Parker case and the recent finding of the 11 year old kidnap victim after 18 years. Like Parker, that girl must have had opportunities to escape. Why did she not do so? Just as in Parker’s case, we do not really know why. Stockholm’s syndrome may be argued in both cases.

In Parker’s case, a remarkably understanding and forgiving man has taken her back unto his bosom and her two children have participated in reintegration physically and emotionally into a tight knit home. She has a job. Why do we want to disrupt all this for an expensive prosecution and possible incarceration at public expense?

Of course, one answer would be a prosecutor who is looking for his/her 15 minutes of fame on the state and national stage. But another could be the kind of prosecutorial mind-set which seems to permeate our justice system.

Too many prosecutors appear to think that their role is prosecution, regardless of guilt or innocence of the defendant, or the expense and human hurt it creates. Some have been heard saying, “I don’t determine guilt or innocence, I just prosecute to the best of my ability and let the jury decide who is innocent and who is guilty.”

Forgive us for saying so, but that is a simple minded attitude. The prosecutor is an officer of the court, and thus a part of the justice system. After all, the goal of the whole process is “justice.” If that can be decided at the prosecutorial level, with full consideration to all persons, to society, and to the issues involved, then that is the level at which justice should prevail.

Another simple minded view is that of “crime and punishment,” i.e. all that is of concern is that the guilty be punished. Too often the writers of our laws have been so concerned that they appear hard on crime that they have written in harsh punishments, three strikes laws, and mandatory sentencing, plus 85% rules on time served. For the same reasons, judges have sometimes been too concerned with public opinion in sentencing offenders to harsh penalties for minor crimes or those associated with alcohol and drugs.

In the final sense, it is we who are at fault. We voters have elected our prosecutors, our judges, and our lawmakers with a view that violators “be locked up and the key thrown away.” We have demanded punishment which may or may not fit either the crime or the circumstances. These people, along with our law enforcement personnel, are our “public servants.” They do what we say we want. Oklahoma is a “backwater” state.

One author, long ago and hardly remembered (although quoted in this writer’s master’s degree thesis in 1951), said: “Justice un-tempered by mercy is cold and harsh, and has no place in our human society.”

We have a Department of Corrections. Do we really mean “corrections,” or do we equate “punishment” with “corrections?” We used to talk a lot about “rehabilitation,” but now that term seems largely reserved for celebrities who get into trouble because of alcohol, drugs, or some similar cause. They go into “rehab,” and we think of that as a subterfuge. That’s too bad.

Rehabilitation is really quite a proper and appropriate concept. We used to have the idea that prisons (reformatories) did that. But our prisons have become little more than secure, but squalid and dangerous, warehousing services for a growing segment of our population. We pay county jails and private prisons fees just to warehouse prisoners that our state penal system is too overloaded to take. What kind of mess is this?

If “corrections” or “rehabilitation” are to occur, we need a different goal for our prisons. We need programs designed to do that, rather than just “incarcerate.” We send too many non-violent offenders to prisons, and we keep them there too long. While there, they receive little or no treatment.

Starting with those of us in society itself, we need to make different demands on our law makers, and different demands on those who serve in our system of justice. We must rid our Capitol of hypocritical demagogues. Those who have become calloused to human considerations should seek different careers. When constantly exposed to the dregs of our society, it is easy to form attitudes which are difficult to rise above in considering the possible changeability of human behavior.

But we must rise above our current practices! Setting Bobbi Parker free would be a start.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

As an octogenarian, this writer does not follow all the current slang employed by the younger set in describing the conduct of others. Back in the olden years, we had a saying about people whose behavior clashed with our commonly held code of social acceptability. We would say, “He has no class!”

One thinks that it might be well to drag out this descriptive term, and apply the connotation which it carries to current conduct. We have seen so many examples of rowdy, boorish, vulgar, unsportsmanlike, uncivil, bully, and just plain asinine public behavior recently. It is time to call such conduct what it is, and to call the perpetrators to accountability as “having no class.”

Certainly we have seen some really bad, “no class” behavior from segments of our population recently.

This comment is not directed now at the verbal brawls of the summer town hall meetings, although those examples would certainly qualify as standouts for the “no class” designation. We are not referring now to the diatribe of lies and distortions by political pawns of the insurance industry about health care proposals intended for the welfare of citizens of this country. However, that political misbehavior would certainly qualify as “no class.”

President Obama, showing great class, went to Europe attempting to aid with the American city of Chicago’s bid to host the Olympics, while also having a face meeting with General McChrystal from Afghanistan. The Olympics would have been a tremendous boost to that struggling metropolis, and it would have been good for America. The award went instead to a city in Brazil, no doubt deserving in some way other than fielding teams of competitive Olympians or supporting past events.

At this news, videos show crowds attending a conservative political organization gathering cheering and deriding the failure of our president to accomplish a goal which was evidently already decided before his entry into the game. The opposition’s national committee chair and dozens of members of his party showed their glee to the public. Their conduct said, “Anything bad for Obama is good for us – even if it hurts the country.”

We have a term to apply for those who cheer a loss of an American president of the opposition party in a positive effort to benefit the country or any segment thereof internationally. They have no class! Further, they could be dubbed as exhibiting unpatriotic conduct.

We have just seen the surprise international honor of the Nobel Peace Prize come to an American, who happens to be the elected leader of our country. Do all Americans rejoice, as might be expected, for such an honor? No, there were no cheers for our president from the opposition party, only derision and belittling of the man and of the honor itself. That response came from the titular and other leaders and members of that party. It is appropriate for us to say, “You have no class!”

Further, we would like to extend that label to all those political and news pundits who questioned, “What has he done to deserve this honor?” they questioned. “This award was for not being George Bush, who was disliked and hated abroad,” they said. “This was given on the forward expectation rather than things already done,” they said.

We would like to extend the designation, although not quite as severely, to all these pundits, “You have no class! You are supposed to be intellectuals, and this is all you can come up with?”

Harsher terms might be employed for those talk show hosts, AKA party leaders, who have used the public airwaves to deride the honor extended to our president. Picking up negatives from the extremist Muslim group, the Taliban, Mr. Limbaugh declared his agreement with those now killing our troops in Afghanistan. With something beyond his usual pomposity, he derided Mr. Obama, the Swedish Nobel committee, and declared our president had won the world’s favor by degrading his own country.

To Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, their friends, and ditto-heads, “You have no class!” Your public statements tell us that you think, “Anything good for Mr. Obama is bad for us – even if it honors our country.”

We wonder whatever happened to all those campaign posters that said, “Country First.”

Personally, this writer would in no way question the awarding of the Nobel Prize to our president, even though it was a surprise to all of us. He challenged himself to name another person who deserved it more. Although admittedly a bit short on worldwide knowledge and experience, this writer cannot think of another person who would have deserved it as much.

Since Mr. Obama first came on the national and international scene, even while still engaged in running for his party’s nomination, he began to revive the world’s hopes of something different and something new. He brought hopes of a new era in international relations.

With the emergence of this nation’s more restrained and respectful policy approach to other countries, and the absence of bullying and threatening, “axis of evil” accusations, and “cowboy diplomacy” of the past, Mr. Obama brought a season of good will and optimism about the world’s future. It is difficult for us to see how any other candidate, within either political party, could have brought these positive changes so quickly. Nor could any other world figure have done so.

With his personality, his rhetoric, and his progressive actions in diplomatic outreach, Mr. Obama has changed the international climate already. He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize as would no other.

He has class!

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

This writer once gave a lecture to about 200 college freshmen entitled: “Things You Are Against.” As an introduction to that talk, he said something like this: “We have heard many times how our lives are defined by the things which we are for. I will tell you today that others can tell a lot about your character, and just who you are, by the things you are against.”

It is important now and then to sit quietly and assess ourselves by thinking about what kinds of things we are against. What makes us angry? What disgusts us? What arouses our negative emotions? What upsets us? What irritates us? What bothers us?

Since this is a journal of social, economic, and political commentary, we shall focus principally upon conditions and events in that general sector. What bothers us about political, social, and economic dynamics in this country?

Although we do not want to become bogged down in numbers or statistics, one fact just read again this day bothers me. I was reminded that the richest 1% of the people in this country have more wealth than the lower 95%. Say what you will, and call me names if you wish, but that condition is morally wrong and incompatible with a democracy such as ours. It sets the stage for an upheaval.

Even in the most extreme form of meritocracy, as capitalism wrongly defines itself to be, such a condition is abhorrent.

Our situation in distribution of income is almost as shockingly unfair. Given that some might perform more skilled and technical services than others, and some carry higher risk and greater responsibilities than others in the business and industrial sector, it is morally wrong when the CEO of the organization makes 700 times the wages of the average worker.

It is abhorrent that we have lived through an economic period when that ratio between executive pay and worker pay has increased by 2,000%. It is clear the conditions in this country have favored the rich to get richer in comparison with the working classes. This is not a fair playing field.

It is aggravating to me when the political demagogues of this country succeed in fooling the masses and influencing generations with such a fallacious uttering as: “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem!” Only ignorant or narrow-minded, opinionated people really believe that smoke and mirrors fallacy.

However, from thence came lasting reductions in the progressive income tax for the highest earners, cutting the tax rate in half, and the start of our largest deficits and huge annual increases in the national debt. A product of this attitude toward government came as deregulation of the business and financial sector. That deregulation led to rampant abuses, soft insubstantial economic growth, and artificial calculations of substance to the detriment of all of us.

The American people and the economy of this nation (and the world) were put in jeopardy by the freewheeling, risk-ignoring, irresponsible conduct of those in leadership in our financial sector.

This led to the necessary expenditure of tax payers’ funds in bailing out the Wall Street giants, who were “too large to fail,” because of after-effects on our whole system. This expenditure was near $1 trillion. That was followed by almost another $1 trillion in economic stimulus funds being put out to save jobs and to prop up failing state and city governments.

It has been clear that this situation came about as a result of deregulation, and it can only be straightened out and prevented from re-occurring through government regulation. The leaders of those businesses we saved are now spending big money to bribe Congress into rejecting the administration’s proposed regulatory legislation. Now that irritates the heck out of me, and it should irritate all taxpayers.

It is even more irritating that members of our Congress have so little integrity as to be susceptible to such immoral maneuvering and monetary corruption. Those who then try to justify this stance on some false principle of free enterprise and non-regulation, are hypocritical and doubly disgusting. This is the equivalent of their turning their back to us, and then dropping their pants in our face.

Leaders of the political party of deregulation, the favorite of those who have put us all at risk and subjected all of us to big losses personally, and great expense to taxpayers, now stand aside in the role of the cynics and accusers of the new elected leader for the spending steps necessary to solve the economic mess they left behind as their legacy. Again, we detest this hypocrisy.

In passing, a current irritation is the outcry of those who have expected to taxpayers to buy their pimped-up electric golf carts for them. Had there been any such intention, no bill would have ever seen the light of our legislative chambers. Many of us even question subsidies for electric cars, and we certainly did not intend to buy souped-up golf carts for the country club set.

But, more exploration of this subject must await another day and another column. There are lots of other things that bother us.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate.

In the recent past we have been an outspoken advocate of health care reform. We agree that the present situation is abominable – overly expensive, insufficiently accessible to all citizens, and full of greed and corruption. We agree with most of the ideas of the president for remediation of these intolerable conditions.

However, we are NOT in agreement with all the ideas being proposed by those in Congress, particularly the Senate. When Senator Baucus came out with his “plan,” it made the Militant Moderate shout: “Stop the train! Let me off!” Where are those town hall meetings, I want to object loudly.

Please don’t try to do this reform in such a way that it will not offend the insurance companies. Giving them more clients and increasing the profits which they gouge from their premium payers is not our goal. The Baucus ideas are a “bird’s nest on the ground” for predatory insurance companies.

If we can’t do something right, then for gosh sakes let us NOT do something else wrong in health care.

The prescription drug plan, passed under the last administration was a give-away to pharmaceutical companies. Yes, it did help seniors, but it helped the drug companies more -- at the expense of Medicare. Nobody with business sense would deliberately leave out mass bargaining by the government for drug prices and encapsulate in law a prohibition from re-importation of American drugs cheaper abroad.

This was plainly and simply a sell-out to the pharmaceuticals. Now, under the Baucus plan, we would create a new group of captive new clients for the insurance companies to harvest at taxpayers’ expense.

The private option, called Medicare Advantage, passed under the last administration under which insurance companies are paid extra to recruit Medicare enrollees and sign them up for similar benefits administered by the insurance companies is another rip-off for the Medicare system. It costs the Medicare fund 13% more for every senior who is enrolled in the private insurance plan. This comes out of the trust fund provided by Medicare taxes and Medicare premiums paid by other seniors.

This is a dumb thing for the government to be doing, and it is obviously a rip-off from Medicare and taxpayers -- just handed to the insurance companies. But “privatization” was the big theme song of the Republicans. They tried to privatize Social Security also. Remember?

It would indeed be good to cover another 45 million Americans with health insurance coverage of some kind, but to just hand these over for insurance companies’ profits with Uncle Sam covering the tab is ridiculous.

That Baucus plan would do nothing to reduce the exorbitant costs of health care, to introduce efficiencies, nor to set a bargaining floor for premiums and provider payments that a public plan alternative would do. Insurance companies would just have it all handed to them. They would have no incentive to bargain with providers on behalf of their consumer clients as long as they make their profit anyway. Premiums would continue a fast rise.

There are many who suggest that the millions in campaign donations funneled to Republican leaders, and to some Democrats like Mr. Baucus, influence their proposals for “reform.” The facts are there. Make a guess.

Wouldn’t a free choice plan including one called something like Medicare II, separately accounted and funded but with similar coverage and discounts, really make a lot more sense? This would be true especially for people over 50, who would be paying insurance company premiums 5 times the 30 year age group under the Baucus plan?

Mr. Baucus, if you are now the engineer of the train, and if you are determining the direction it will go --- then, “Stop This Train! I want off! I want to catch a train going another route.”

Mr. Obama, give us a free choice plan throughout, so that we can choose a public, Medicare-like plan if we prefer that to private insurance company offerings and rates.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard – AKA The Militant Moderate

“I want my country back.” This plaintive outburst of a woman at one of those rowdy town hall meetings in August still concerns this writer. She seemed quite emotional. It was puzzling.

The logic of this woman’s self-proclaimed misery may be difficult to discern. From time to time one is prone to ponder this woman’s dilemma, and to wonder what inner turmoil could lie behind that woman’s words. The video clip showed her in the midst of those shouters and rude haranguers. She sounded off in a loud, assertive, emotional manner in the meeting. Since then we have noticed those words on signs carried by protestors.

What is missing that makes this not her country any longer? Who has stolen her country? If this is an outcry against change, as it seems to be, then what change? What change makes one so emotional – political, economic, social, religious, or what?

For some time we have heard outcries from religious fundamentalists that “they” have taken their country away. Their complaint is not having officially sponsored prayers in classes or at formally scheduled school events. Of course, they don’t phrase or think of it that way. It is just, “They took prayer out of our schools.” These same people think that Christianity is guaranteed by the Constitution, while “freedom of religion” actually guarantees that there will no official compunction to worship in any prescribed way. Sometimes, simple is not simple enough for simpletons.

Unfortunately, there are those out there on the right wing fringe who encourage paranoia about the banning of religion. They say “God” and Christians are being persecuted. They circulate false rumors and e-mails about taking “in God we trust” off coins, “under God” out of the pledge of allegiance, and other similarly weird ideas – wrongs they attribute to Democrats. They do not always appreciate being corrected.

That is one issue that has brought out a lot of emotion. The abortion issue is another. The rhetoric about “baby killing” has worked many religious souls into an emotional lather. Some take guns and murder doctors.

Somehow the inherent freedom of women from government enforced pregnancy, child-bearing, and child rearing seems to have been lost somewhere. Too bad. Weren’t we appalled not so long ago by Serbian soldiers raping Croatian women to force them have “Serb” children?

How about taxes? For most of us taxes are just an onerous part of life, about which we complain and occasionally say a few bad words. Normally we do not cry or become emotional about paying our taxes.

There are some nowadays who seem bent on trying to make us feel persecuted by taxes. This is confined primarily to Republicans who object to paying taxes during Democrat administrations.

While they did not object to deficits of $1.6 trillion resulting from tax-cuts for the wealthy, nor the $1.2 trillion spent on an unnecessary war, somehow they now object to a lesser deficit putting money out to consumers, cities, and states for priming the pump to start up an economy left on the brink of disaster by the last administration. Some of these people come from the group that has health insurance, and they oppose health care reform because they are afraid they might have to pay a tax on theirs in order for the uninsured to have similar health security.

The “tea party” extremists believe that government is an enemy, and they get people all worked up emotionally. That group has become seditious and unpatriotic in its rhetoric. Mix this with a few gun-toting nuts and you have an armed insurrection. Do we not understand this?

Q. Who is paying the freight to promote “tea parties?” A. Wealthy persons and corporations who are enjoying lower tax rates while middle class and lower class burdens increase. Latest stats show that in Oklahoma, the wealthier are paying a much lower percentage of their income for state and local taxes than the middle and lower groups. (The primary reason is high sales taxes and low income taxes.) Oklahoma ranks 42nd in tax burden as a percent of income, yet we have all those weird people out protesting. Our tax-cutting legislature is killing public services in Oklahoma.

Although the notion is repugnant to most of us, some may feel their country has been taken away because a person of color is president. We overhear remarks of that nature, and about the number of black or Hispanic people now in government positions. Some have questioned whether a Congressman from South Carolina would ever have yelled insulting accusations at a white president appearing before a session of Congress.

President Carter has joined others in saying openly that the intensity level of the health care and anti-government activists has a racial basis. Sadly, these observations appear to be correct.

Indeed our country is changing. It is always changing. Some changes are progressive in nature, but nevertheless difficult for some people to take. Most people in our nation wanted change, and Mr. Obama promised change. We elected him. Why should we be tolerant of the false and character impugning attacks being made on him and on the agenda of change that he promised? We wanted our country back from those who drove us to ruin.

This country needed change. Most people want change.

Some people do not want change. Those with vested interests in the status quo do not want change. Some of those have no ethics and no morals. Some have very little love for their country if it is not run to serve and to please them. Some want to exploit the rest of us for profit. Those most prosperous among us too often have little concern for the less fortunate. Many of them consider government an ally in doing business their way, and they pay for that help by campaign donations and through lobbyists. These consider the government an enemy if it regulates their activities, takes back tax subsidies, or threatens their corporate or personal favors.

Those who do not like government prey upon consumers, who are dependent upon government for protection. Sometimes they fool ordinary people into becoming their allies. Without these deluded ones they might lose power.

Many of us would indeed like to have our country back – one that is free of lies, distortions, and nutty conspiracy theories. We’d like a country ruled by a process of civil democracy. We would like our democracy uncorrupted by money and corporate powers.

Yes, we too would like to have our country back.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

This writer was never a fan of Viet Nam era war movies. Perhaps that is because he was never a fan of the Viet Nam war. That whole period seems to have been a sordid, ugly time in our lives and in the life of our nation. Young men were dying without really ever having a cause for which we could unite and believe.

I saw the highly acclaimed film “Apocalypse Now,” back during its early release time. I was not impressed. In fact, most of the film seemed to be very much a jumble of confusion and mixed messages. It was neither a patriotic war movie nor an exciting adventure film. It was a drab, confused array of scenes and mumbled conversations that defied comprehension.

I have often wondered just what the point of that movie was supposed to be. I know what it meant to me. It carried the message that war is a dark, dismal experience, full of pain and gore, and that often it has little meaning for those in the middle of it. In which case, those fighting often come up with their own sense of meaning, which begins with staying alive and surviving.

I have often wondered if the movie had an intended “moral” to it, other than its depiction of war as an ordeal in receiving and inflicting terror. I have my own notion as to the moral of the film. It hit when the renegade American colonel character played by Marlon Brando came into the drama.

He was the leader of a renegade army of his own, answering to no higher brass and not playing by any civilized rules of war. The Vietnamese feared him. He was cruel beyond imagination, stopping at nothing in fighting, capturing, torturing, and killing the Vietnamese – soldiers or civilians.

There was a conversation between the Colonel and the young American officer, still struggling with his conscience and the activities of war. The Colonel’s brief lecture was Machiavellian in nature, as “the end justifies the means.” That is, in war all actions taken to win are justified. There are no rules. (It is similar to the same justifications now offered by Mr. Cheney for torturing prisoners.)

The Colonel pressed his point that in order to win against a cruel enemy, one must become even more cruel. The enemy must fear you. The young officer then raised a question, “But if we become more cruel than our enemy, then who has won?”

The Democrats face such a dilemma in this country today as they face foes who show little sense of decency, civility, or morality in the conduct of politics.

Democrats have endured bullying by angry, shouting, gun-toting mobs, They are accused of being Nazis. Their proposals to help with health care are used to ignite all kinds of lies and suspicions. The president’s pep talk to school students has brought out unbelievable accusations of indoctrination of children with socialism (or even homosexuality and abortion by some). Programs to rehabilitate the economy have met with some success, but are loudly condemned. Democrats have as yet passed no taxes, but rather a reduction for average payers, and yet they are accused by angry, seditionist “tea party” crowds of raising taxes and running up outrageous deficits. Preachers are shouting, “I hate Obama!” and publicly praying for him to die.

Republican leaders declared that if they could defeat Obama’s health bill, they could ruin his presidency. They have joined powerful lobbyists and rich corporations in this effort. It matters not that the people need it.

Sometimes it would be easy to understand if Democrats started shouting back, if they went out in force and pushed those unruly mobs out, and if they carried guns and brought things to a fight or a “Mexican stand-off.” What if Democrats started shouting back at loud-mouths dominating the conversations on TV talk shows? It would be easy to understand if there was a huge effort to coordinate a boycott of all sponsors of Limbaugh’s program and such programs on Fox News. It would be easy to understand if Democrats formed pickets and demonstrations outside radio stations carrying Limbaugh, and outside the Fox studios and program sponsors.

It would be easy to understand if Democrats started calling lies what they are, if they started calling those who believe them “dummies” and “crazies,” and if they started called the tellers of falsehoods “liars and hypocrites.”

But then the question arises if Democrats fight back in these ways, have they sunk to the same low life behavior of pond scum, such as practiced by actors in the opposition? Are we in a new apocalyptic age, with no compass of “right” and “wrong?”

The answer is “No, not necessarily, but close.” If democrats use unacceptable, inappropriate, dishonest, or unethical methods, then they become similarly culpable. If they simply and plainly counter and rebut what is said and done, if they “call out” the perpetrators of lies and unethical conduct, and if they forcefully advocate their own ideas and programs -- they are engaged in appropriate tactics. If they tell the truth as best they discern it, they are okay.

During the President’s speech before joint houses of Congress, one Republican, in a breach of ethics and conduct, rudely disrupted with a shout, “You lie.” Such conduct is bad enough from an ignorant lout, but from a Congressman it is despicable. Worse than that, this lout was stupidly wrong in his assertion. Ignorant and stupid people should keep their mouths shut, and should never be elected to Congress.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Recently a very nice column appeared in the Enid News, written by a talented staff columnist. It recognized the passing of Senator Kennedy in a warm, yet analytical fashion, remarking about the civility of the Senate in which those from opposing parties had historically functioned in the conduct of national business.

In the course of his treatise, he cited the election of 2000 when the Supreme Court decided the presidential election, and he dwelt on the point of the acceptance and smooth changeover of government under highly emotional circumstances. This was indeed a remarkable thing, considering the skullduggery which had transpired leading up to that point.

Proving a point I always made when teaching educational psychology -- namely that people do not necessarily learn what they hear or read, but do learn that which the stimulation causes them to think – this writer could not help but think about what it might have been like if that presidential shoe had been put on the other’s foot.

What if the Supreme Court had been made up of five Democrats and 4 Republicans? What if Al Gore’s brother had been the governor of the state of Florida? What if Kathleen Harris, the director of elections in Florida, had been an active partisan Democrat? During the hanging chad malfunction and the manual recount of votes in Miami-Dade, what if information on the raucous protests, shouting and disorder in the hallways showed the hallways filled with identifiable staff persons of Democratic congressmen and Democratic Party employees? What if this shouting and disorder in the halls had ostensibly caused officials to stop the recount -- keeping those votes from going Republican?

What if a democratically controlled Supreme Court took away the legal jurisdiction from a Republican majority Florida Supreme Court before the votes had been properly counted? Out of such a situation, what if Al Gore had been named president by that Supreme Court?

After the actual Supreme Court decision, flawed as it was, Mr. Gore quickly conceded the election. He went public immediately asking all his supporters to respect the court’s verdict. Mr. Gore seemed quite concerned with the preservation of the Union, and that no precedent of disorder or any challenge outside the legal system even remotely be considered.

Again, what if Mr. Gore had won in that bizarre scenario? Could we have expected the same gracious manner and actions from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their crowd of advisers and supporters? Think about that!

Would Republicans accept losing under such conditions with only a smattering of outcries about a stolen election?

While Democrats considered Mr. Bush’s first term as an illegitimate presidency, the anti-war demonstrations and cries for impeachment came in his legitimate second term for offenses in office. Nobody was leading “tea parties” against taxes, although a burden had been shifted off the wealthy to the rest of us. No one called for rebellion or secession from the union because the deficit was run up by an unnecessary war and those selective tax cuts. Nobody wore guns to protest with Nazi hate signs.

Noting such Republican tendencies and their penchant for conspiracy theories, their belief in ideas about the mysterious birth place of Mr. Obama, suspicions of him as Muslim, accusing Obama of plotting to kill off old people -- then might one not expect quite a different response from Republicans? The current paranoid Republican flap, led again by right wing talk shows, about Obama giving a motivational talk to school kids tells us: “Yes.”

Comedian Argus Hamilton’s recent column noted that while Democrats tend to look at the glass as “half-full,” Republicans say, “Somebody drank half my glass!” Republicans have also been known to circulate the rumor that: “Somebody pushed Humpty Dumpty off that wall. Then Obama’s health care plan rejected Humpty because he was too old.”

And, what mental process makes people so motivated to support predatory insurance companies? What have they been told? What are they thinking? Without a public option, who will be the big winner in all this battle? And the answer is --- the gouging, cold-blooded insurance companies. They will have bought and paid for the right to gouge us through their donations to interest advertising groups and from their lobbyists to congress people from both parties.

We have witnessed disorderly and threatening behavior, the “tea parties” against taxes not yet levied (actually lower), the hate speech and gun-toting, and the touting of insurrection and secession, all by Republicans or organized, supported, and defended by them. This has happened in six months of a new administration overwhelmingly elected with a known platform.

How could we ever believe the Republicans would have accepted the controversial 2000 election in the same gracious manner as Al Gore and his followers? No, they do not accept election of an overwhelmingly popular candidate. Through their use of money and media, they have managed to convince large numbers of Americans that the agenda they voted for is somehow bad, socialistic, and downright un-American.

Of course, much of this is due to enactment of necessary solutions to actual economic problems inherited from the last administration. There is also the matter of accumulated deficits from tax cuts and lavish war spending. Given a clean slate with no huge inherited problems, most of the Obama agenda might have already been passed. The diversion of the economy has taken time, attention, and energy away from proposals to change the future of the country and its citizens.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Mr. Obama, just get us out! Get us out of Iraq! Get us out of Afghanistan!

There is little being accomplished by keeping over 100,000 troops and a large corps of civilians in Iraq. Those people really do not want us there. Their legislature is referring the matter to a public vote. Why wait around?

It would be better to leave now rather than under the terms of the agreement made by Mr. Bush, which keeps us there another year and a half. They seem to have their own internal religious fights to wage. There is no point in our being in the midst of those.

Some may say that it is sobering to Iran if we have an unoccupied fighting army close by their borders. We don’t really plan on invading Iran, do we?

The problems in Afghanistan are not as much different from those in Iraq as we might tend to think. We went there to get Bin Laden by taking sides in a civil conflict. The Taliban government had given Bin Laden safe haven while he plotted against us, and they refused to turn him over. We joined with the northern regional rebel forces to put the Taliban out of power.

But both the Taliban leaders and Bin Laden took refuge in the wild country of Pakistan, from which the Taliban continues to harass our occupying forces. It is their country, not ours. We are occupiers, not really welcome there.

If the Afghan people do not care enough about their freedom to do their own fighting against the Islamic fundamentalists, then that ceases to be our problem. Their present government is corrupt. Their elections are rigged. We should not keep wasting ourselves in that war of occupation.

It seems increasingly evident that our principal reason for being there – to hunt down and kill Bin Laden – has become subordinate to fighting with the Taliban. Maintaining a base in Afghanistan for pot-shots from drones at Bin Laden and his cronies holed up in Pakistan may be of some value. But that idea should be re-studied. There are other ways of taking pot-shots from afar, if we have the intelligence to aim them.

It seems as though we are again off course. Some call it “mission creep.” Mr. Obama does not appear immune to the afflictions of Mr. Bush. We did not go to Afghanistan to occupy their country, nor to take care of their governance problems for them. That is their business, and we should get out of there shortly and leave it in their hands.

We have not adopted the Afghan or Iraqi people for welfare projects, and we can not afford decent care for our own people right here in the U.S.A. If we have not given up the notion of nation-building by now, we should do so.

The United States should plot its future without occupying land and facilities around the world, and without keeping large military forces lodged in foreign lands.

Our 30,000 man force in South Korea is not sufficient to deter an attack by hordes from the north, but it is instead a liability in case of such a new war. They could be captured in a situation much like Bataan and Corregidor in World War II. They should not be exposed to such vulnerability. Prosperous South Korea can defend itself.

If we stop involving ourselves in ground wars in the Middle East, we will no longer need facilities in Germany – nor the forces stationed there throughout the cold war. We have widened NATO commitments right up to Russia’s front door. That is neither wise nor necessary. There is no support here for war with Russia if they invade obscure nations in central Europe, especially territories of the former Soviet Union.

There is a mood in this country for disentangling ourselves from foreign conflicts and foreign alliances. We have had our fill of sacrifices for fights in Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our own national security must be directly at stake. There will always be a safe haven somewhere from which our enemies will plot against us. We cannot occupy them all.

We possess the technology to make pin-point strikes from afar on those who threaten us. An earlier missile attack on Bin Laden’s camp came within an hour or so of doing what we have not been able to do since. Let us use our technology as we did then and in Kosovo, and improve our intelligence.

Postscript: Since writing the article above, a Post/ABC opinion poll has been released. It seems that 51% of the people do not believe that the Afghan war is worth fighting. Only 24% support increasing troops there, while 45% say troops should be reduced. Only 47% say they support the war there. Mr. Obama should take note that 70% of democrats say that Afghanistan is not worth American blood. It appears that the Militant Moderate is much more on target than anticipated earlier.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Having just seen and heard a promo from an Oklahoma City television station for its news anchor saying that he was “born and bred” in Oklahoma, one pauses to ponder just what that means.

The first reaction, even from an Oklahoma native, might be: “Oh, my gosh, I hope he is not advertising himself as a red-neck.” To many, even natives, bragging about being a “born and bred” Oklahoman, or a Texan, has come to mean that the person eschews culture in any classic sense, and that he/she espouses a rural, cowboy, rough and ready, independent, hard living, anti-intellectual, anti-academic, uncouth life style of one who thinks it is fun to butcher the English, sprinkle in epithets and four letter words, and lift his middle finger and bully any who cross him. Too bad. Hope not.

Historically, in polite circles of the middle class, such behaviors were thought to show a lack of gentility and breeding. Gentlemanly conduct was highly encouraged in middle and upper class families, and the lack of such thought to indicate “poor breeding.”

Nobody in this writer’s family tree was an aristocrat. One governor of Texas 75 years ago doesn’t count. But I was once lectured in the kitchen of my grandfather’s house by an uncle. He told me that the families from whence I sprung were considered to be “good stock.” That meant that they were honest, reliable, respected people, not given to excesses. Family members were expected to by ladylike or gentlemanly in speech and conduct.

Now, how is it that anyone could conjure up that other kind of image from just a simple statement of being “born and bred” in Oklahoma? If we don’t know, we ought to try to figure that one out. That image, right or wrong, has been holding Oklahoma back for decades.

But we Oklahomans are somewhat schizophrenic, i.e. we have a communal split personality. Some of us are quick to invoke the reputation of our Dean McGee Eye Institute or the success of our Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation. Others rarely get past their infatuation with Toby Keith and/or the Sooner football team.

Too infrequently do we rise above the latter.

However, the rowdy conduct and bad behavior demonstrated around the country in recent “town meetings” must quickly lead us to the defense of Oklahomans. Rude and boorish conduct is common across the nation. Nobody has the right to look down on us. Rather, we may well be considered polite and gentile by comparison. That’s good.

We remember well Governor Dewey Bartlett’s efforts to remake the image of “Okie” into something positive. He tried hard. This writer has a couple of his personally awarded “Okie” certificates and pins for forgotten accomplishments. During all his days as Lieutenant Governor, George Nigh took as his goal the remake of the popular conception of Oklahoma into a positive image, and he continued that effort as chief executive. Even though having limited success, both should be commended.

But, again, has anyone taken a look at our congressional delegation lately? These are the people we chose to represent us. What style of Oklahoman do they represent? Of course, they would tell us that it is the hardworking taxpayers of the state. Is that so? Take a look at their positions on issues affecting the common people.

Indeed they do appeal to our everyday working folks, yet they represent the interests of the economically elite. If challenged, they will quickly come out with the argument that these businesses create jobs. They forget to mention many are at low wage, non-union levels. But then, heck, jobs are jobs, aren’t they?

Then who does represent the interests of the common person, whom we like to characterize ourselves to be? We would be ashamed to find that it is often those effete, intellectually elite Eastern liberals that we so readily condemn. But while indeed those may hold up for the rights of the working class, to which most Oklahomans belong, they often do not represent our geographic and economic interests.

The challenge to Oklahomans is to put people in Congress who are the brightest and most knowledgeable among us. We must choose for intelligence and grasp of depth of issues, and stop choosing those who ply us with worn-out clichés about family values and such, yet behave no better than anyone else, and know little of the issues except to mutter simple party slogans over and over.

Our two senators are often the butt of national humor. Not good. Probably the most able and politically savvy of our delegation is Rep. Tom Cole.

We need to choose people who will represent the interests of the voting class, rather than the donor class. Those best representing the common people have often come from the privileged classes economically and socially. Acting and talking like most of us doesn’t necessarily qualify one to represent Oklahoma, nor does repetition of the clichés of the religious right.

While our representatives may be “one of us,” they should be more able than most of us.

Oklahoma was better served by national oratorical and debate champions like Senator Josh Lee and Speaker Carl Albert. We were well represented by Rhodes Scholars like David Boren. Congressmen Jim Jones and Mike Monroney were tops in their profession. Senator Robert S. Kerr was a successful businessman, but also a populist in his beliefs. Nationally, the Roosevelts and the Kennedys have been good examples of the elite with a social conscience.

Oklahoma can do better than it has been doing lately.


Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Sometimes one has cause to wonder if all the civil disorder, going under the pseudo title of town meetings, is really about health care at all. Some of the anger demonstrated by rowdies uses references to health care, mostly gained from lies and disinformation spread by republican and right wing sources. But much of it is just plain anger at government.

We saw this anger at government in the earlier “tea parties” coordinated by anti-tax groups and funded by billionaires. It is that same emotional hostility that is filling our television screens when they are given a stage and cameras in the format of farcical town meetings.

But we are seeing the undertones of a much more ominous threat than disrupting meetings about health care. Essentially these are anti-government demonstrations, full of the hate and hostility. One hysterical woman screaming and crying, “I want my country back,” leaves a haunting impression on us. Did she really think her country had been stolen, or maybe just hijacked by atheists and people of another color?

More came to light in another meeting when woman went down, stood, pointed her finger, and shouted at a senator that they had taken prayer out of the schools, made “baby killing” legal, and she “wanted her country back.”

It seems that these people are being driven by all their frustrations, real or imagined. The leaders of the religious right wing of the republican party, with the aid and assistance of party leaders, have drummed into their followers the evil and sins of their own government, made them feel victimized, and suggested that their anger is righteous and justified.

It is the righteous anger and hate rhetoric of the anti-abortion crowd that has led some of its members to feel justified in violence, and even murder itself. If people are told day after day that these doctors are killing babies, then it is not long until some kook kills a doctor. The murderer of Dr. Tiller, one Scott Rowder, is a hero to some, now receiving visitors, phone calls, and mail every day telling him he is right.

One demonstrator outside a town meeting wore a T-shirt with the slogan worn by Tim McVeigh when he was captured after the Oklahoma City bombing. It quoted Thomas Jefferson saying, “The tree of liberty must be watered now and then by the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Furthermore, this advocate of violence was wearing a gun and carrying a sign labeling the president as a Nazi.

Jefferson would no doubt turn over in his grave to know his words were being used in fueling insurrection against the American government he helped found. Most of us understand that Obama is not King George III.

We have seen any number of those placards with Nazi swastikas and pictures of the president with a Hitler mustache. Again, these paranoid people are trying to connect our president, and his efforts to save the country from economic chaos and to bring decent health care to millions, with a repressive Nazi regime that threatened the entire civilized world.

One might think that these signs had only to do with the unbelievable notion that President Obama was going “to pull the plug on Grandma” or maybe on Sarah Palin’s parents and handicapped child. That is doubtful. Some may be stupid enough to believe those lies, but surely not so many.

No, again it is something more sinister. It is anti-government emotions run amuck, fed and stoked by party media and political and religious demagoguery. Strangely enough, their arousal in our minds of the Nazi parallel fits their own conduct, rather than that of a democratically elected humanitarian administration. Does anyone recall Hitler’s “Brown Shirts?”

As if the well-financed anti-tax, anti-government forces, and the Christian right wing were not enough to be scary to thinking citizens, there’s more.

Some are suggesting that there is a racial motive underlying the emotionalism and paranoia which seems to float among those defying any and all proposals for progress of the Obama administration. This writer is not ready to go there just yet.

However, the carrying of signs with the “N” word is disturbing. Pictures of the president with the swastika on his forehead and the Hitler mustache are “hate” expressions. Is it not just another step for some gun-toting nut to attempt an assassination “to save the country?”

A related phenomenon is the resurgence of the civilian militia movement. Gun enthusiasts and the conspiracy theorists among us have been touting the threat of President Obama “coming after your guns.” Of course, he has said nothing about that, but guns and ammunition have been flying off the store shelves. A present shortage of ammunition has been caused by the run on store supplies.

There are stories of new militia units, paramilitary groups, springing up here and there around the country. Evidently these people think they are threatened and may have to fight somebody. One would suppose that might be the government, law enforcement, liberals, or maybe persons of color and immigrants. These are the conspiracy threats felt by these paranoid people.

The last surge in organized militia and related anti-tax and anti-government activities was halted when the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by associates of such groups. Some who refused to pay taxes were jailed. This brought these militia types into disfavor and suspicion by the general population. People began to realize how dangerous that hysterical, anti-government paranoia can be.

We have forgotten too quickly.


Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

The last contribution of the Militant Moderate was entitled “Unruly Mobs Chill Democracy.” The truth of that one has been borne out in the days since it appeared. Disruptive mobs have continued to silence attempts at town meeting discussions scheduled by democratic congresspersons.

Disorderly conduct, rudeness, bullying, and threatening tactics are always wrong, no matter who the actors are. Some of these efforts to hold meetings have degenerated into brawls bordering on violence. Some in Congress have received death threats. Wrong is wrong.

When there was disorder in the early Christian churches, caused by individuals exercising at will their claimed God-given or inspired talents, the Apostle Paul wrote, “God is not the author of confusion.” Some have interpreted that as “God is not the author of chaos.” Further, one cannot find in our history where disorderly meetings with everybody shouting at once were ever praised as the American way of conducting public affairs.

Interesting enough, it is an element within that political party which has constantly touted itself publicly for its Christian values and its super-patriotism which is causing these disruptions of an orderly process of information, questioning, and answering about an important issue in our democracy. Along with the recent sex scandals among their super-pure, this hooliganism is another behavior short of their own shining self-image.

This rowdy group does not come to the public forum to learn and exchange information about the health care proposals in Congress. They come with minds made up how bad it is, replete with bizarre ideas. Just where did they get all that conclusive knowledge and misinformation?

The Militant Moderate served on the board of directors for a health insurance company for nine years, the last seven as an officer and chairman. He served fifteen years as chairman of an insurance purchasing cooperative buying health insurance for more than a dozen colleges and universities.

With that considerable background, the Militant Moderate is not sure that he yet knows or understands all the different proposals being floated in Congress. How did these hooligans get their great knowledge?

They heard it from their party leader, Rush Limbaugh, on talk radio, and from people like Glen Beck and others on Fox News channel. Why do we say that? Because after Rush Limbaugh says that President Obama is a Nazi, they show up with Nazi signs for their confrontations. If Rush says that Obama will save Medicare cost by euthanizing senior citizens, then they shout those accusations. They are unruly, potentially violent ditto-heads.

While these unruly disruptions of democratic political processes may or may not be orchestrated by the party itself, neither are they denounced. It is quite evident that they are coached and bankrolled by certain party supporters.

A leading political pusher is Rick Scott, now the director of an organization called Conservatives for Patients’ Rights. It provides a meeting schedule and strategies on its website. Scott was head of Hospital Corporation of America until that company went defunct in the rounds of a $1.9 billion fine for Medicare fraud. Since then he has been in various corporate and lobbying efforts. Is this the kind of guy you’d trust for your information?

Who is the lead man of the infamous Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax movement coordinating “tea parties” and other anti-government demonstrations? Who bankrolls the coordinative work of this political group that inflames hostility of Americans against their own government? This person is none other than Fred Koch, head of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the nation. Koch is also the nineteenth richest man in the world.

What does a man like Koch have in common with the average citizen in studying taxes and deciding who pays? How is his company viewed by royalty owners all over northwestern Oklahoma? Some say they must hassle his company constantly and watch to prevent cheating. Koch lost a court fight not too long ago involving business practices.

Why does Koch want to defeat health care for the people? It seems simple – avoiding taxes. And, that must be why he bankrolls an anti-tax group.

Sarah Palin has chimed in with support for these radicals on her website with the observation that she does not want to see her elderly aunt or her Down’s child hauled in before “Obama’s bureaucrat death panels” to judge whether they are worthy of keeping alive. She has again demonstrated her ignorance of public affairs, in this case the health care legislative proposals.

But here again, look at the signs these disorderly people carry, and listen to their strident, emotional shouts. Some of these have reference to being threatened by government euthanasia. Who in their right mind would even think that there would be any such thing in the bill?

People like Limbaugh and Palin have deliberately distorted one innocuous provision which allows doctors to be paid for counseling patients who want help with making out their living wills. Doctors do that already, but Medicare does not now allow payment for that service.

Most people are smart enough to understand that provision if informed, but Limbaugh and others like Beck and Palin deliberately mislead people, work up their emotions, and have them disrupting meetings for political gain. The movement is bankrolled by organizations with special interest money.

And, there you have it. These unruly mobs of misinformed, but outraged citizens are being used as pawns in a political and financial battle.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Orchestrated unruly mobs of misinformed, angry, right wing republicans are successfully frustrating efforts of members of Congress to hold informative town hall public meetings with constituents. Armed with pamphlets and talking points printed off republican web sites, these sign-carrying, shouting barbarians come to public meetings to disrupt and not to discuss.

Literally, we have seen nothing like this since the Viet Nam war protesters of the 1960’s. Even then the protests were mostly outdoors in public streets and public places, not during efforts to hold a deliberative meeting on the subject of war and peace.

These misinformed, loud, rude people come to meetings to shout and carry signs making false charges against health care reform, desperately needed by so many in this country. Maybe it would be different, I am not sure, if these folk were right. But it shouldn’t. Disorderly, disruptive people are violating the law and they should be arrested and hauled into court. It was so with the war protesters who got out of line, and so it should be with these wing-nuts.

This is NOT democracy in action. The actions of these crude, crazy people constitute the trashing of the democratic processes. They did not come to hear or to discuss in any orderly fashion. They came to disrupt with disorderly conduct. They are an angry mob.

What turns ordinary people into an angry mob? We saw some of it in the so-called tea parties arranged by republicans to protest taxation and rouse the emotions of ordinary, unthinking people. Fill such a group with enough lies, make them feel threatened or victimized, and then foment their emotions to the point of irrationality. Give them a script. This is their formula.

We should have seen this coming with health care. All objective views show this nation’s health care system broken, riddled with greed and class discrimination. Even the providers themselves, doctors and hospital people, see the need for reform. Millions have no health care insurance. Millions more have insufficient policies that are subject to the whims of HMO’s or insurance companies’ administrators and interpretation of the fine print.

The current system is to unwieldy and too costly for our businesses and industries to provide expensive employee coverage and still compete globally. It is so costly that premiums are rising and deductibles are increasing, putting a pinch on workers whose insurance costs have been increasing eight times the rate of their wages.

The ones really threatened by reform are the insurance companies – not their insured.

The insurance companies support republican leaders, certain other republicans, and some conservative democrats with huge campaign contributions in order to delay or defeat health care efforts in the Congress. The also pay for trash advertising telling lies and threatening old people, insured people, and branding health care reform efforts as a socialist government take-over of the whole health care system. Not so.

Some scripting is noticeable in these unruly crowds of right wing activists. Their signs include the lies told them about euthanasia of the elderly, bureaucrats’ decisions vs. doctors, socialized medicine, rationing care, and the government take-over. On all of these, the activists are tools of the insurance companies against the welfare of people like themselves.

But, very importantly, there is another kind of sign – “Don’t tax us to give health insurance to others.” This tells us all of this commotion is tied to the right wing anti-tax movement within the republican party. Some of the same raucous “tea party” people are involved, their signs and their shouts are similar. This is the base of the movement.

The republican party must accept responsibility for their hooliganism. Their leaders not only condone but encourage these rowdy, bullying tactics. This must make some ordinary, decent, rational conservatives feel ashamed. They should do something about it, or start a new party of their own.

The utter disdain for either truth or courtesy by these people is beyond belief. We would not think such to be possible in a civilized society. These people show no signs of civility, and thus would have to be termed uncivilized -- even socially barbaric in a modern sense of that term.

Have we really come to this?

Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Dark, slimy creatures on occasion creep from the toxic political swamp pits to prey upon the unsuspecting, innocent turnip patch kids. This is such a time.

A colorful phrase has been attributed to those who are gullible, naïve, unsophisticated, or just plain stupid. Usually it is used in a defensive manner, to wit, “I didn’t just fall off a turnip wagon, you know.”

Sad to say, America is full of turnip patch kids who just came to town and fell off the turnip wagons. How else may we account for their gullibility to lies, distortions, scams, con games, and other political gimmickry?

Never was there a time when there has been more slick, slimy types emerging from the political swamps to prey upon simpleton citizen victims. Maybe simpleton is a harsh word, but politically naïve turnip patch kids abound among our voters. They represent a lush market for the lies and distortions of political hacks and crooks.

For a supposedly educated citizenry, we display an inordinate sum of gullibility for every lie and distortion that comes along. Conspiracy theories are our thing.

Some of us believe in flying saucers, and that there is an alien body stored in New Mexico. Some of us have for years been convinced by some mysterious sources that Americans never landed on the moon. All this was just a big theatrical hoax perpetrated on the country and the world by our government and the media. Hearing this for the first time fifteen years ago, this writer could not fathom such. But it is going around again.

We have a group now called the “birthers.” Since before the election they have been claiming that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, but rather Indonesia, Africa, or some other such place. It does not matter that his birth certificate has been publicly displayed, nor that officials from Hawaii vital statistics have stated over and over again that the records are complete and accurate.

Some people would rather believe some sort of malicious rumor than acknowledge the truth in front of them. Even worse we actually have republican senators and congresspersons who refuse to correct lies, rumors, and distortions that they know full well to be wrong. We have seen this occur in candid TV cameos this week.

In fact, in some instances republicans have deliberately spread falsehoods from the rostrum of their chambers. This week a republican congresswoman said before the TV cameras in the House Chamber that the new health bill would result in “government bureaucrats killing old people.”

This writer has been told the last few days by other seniors that the new bill will deny medical treatment to seniors. These ideas are termed “euthanasia” by neglect or by rationing. This new round of euthanasia rumors is ostensibly the result of speculation that treating old people will not be termed cost effective. Also, this may have come from efforts of the last ten or twenty years to have “living wills” executed so that personal preferences may be followed in terms of extensive, drastic life support procedures.

A Republican National Committee advertisement is running on television now with a new version of Harry and Louise actors. The story line is that the man is being refused his needed surgery by a government bureaucrat while he is being forced to pay for Planned Parenthood and for abortions. Another ad claims the bill will take away your choice of doctor, usurp your doctor’s choice of treatment, take away your present insurance, support senior euthanasia and other distortions. What slime!

Independent media researchers of the bill are reporting that there are nine falsehoods and distortions in these two latest republican ads. “Would you say, “There ought to be a law about such?” Apparently, free speech includes the freedom to lie.

To their dishonor it seems that some politicos know no shame when it comes to defeating something which is being pushed for the public good. One cannot but believe that most intelligent people will be offended by such advertisements. The problem is those turnip patch kids, gullible enough to see, hear, and believe lies to the detriment of their own good.

The insurance companies are putting up big bucks to defeat the health care bill. Big bucks! Unfortunately, the Republican Party, in its zeal to defeat President Obama on anything, has joined into an axis of evil alliance with the insurance companies to rob the American people of decent health care they can afford.

Many senators and congresspersons have already been bought off by insurance company campaign contributions and personal favors from their lobbyists. Blue Dog democrats have been tainted with the swamp slime of fund raisers sponsored recently by health care and insurance lobbyists.

Now the media blitz is being turned directly on the turnip patch kids who are most vulnerable to such toxic tripe from the political swamp.

Sadly to say, and sadly for the citizens of our country, they are gaining ground among the gullible.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

We are frequently advised by issue advertisers to write our congressman or senator about such and such a point. The newsletters we receive, both welcomed and unwelcomed, urge us to write our representative or senator. We have become accustomed to this sort of thing nationally.

As a matter of practicality, it normally makes little sense for a citizen in Enid, Oklahoma, to write his senator or congressman. Why? It is because all of ours already have their minds made up on nearly every issue, and nobody but their party leadership will change their position. If you write a letter, you get a response utilizing their version of their party line.

Regardless of its uselessness, this writer does on occasion write a letter to his congresspersons.

Several years ago when President Bush and the republicans were pushing to privatize Social Security and invest our money in the stock market, I wrote a letter citing the distortion of statistics and scare tactics being employed and detailing reasons why privatization was a bad idea. In return, I received two-page form letters ignoring my points and giving me again the faulty statistics and faulty reasoning to which I had objected.

That Social Security issue is exemplary of the various issues about which we are told to write our congressperson. It is a useless activity because our senators and representatives do not listen to any opinions contrary to their party line.

Further, our congresspersons do not effectively represent consumers and average citizens. They represent pressure groups with axes to grind and money to lubricate the process. They represent the donor class of citizens. They represent voter blocs of single issue, special interest people with a desire to bend government for their own gain.

The average Oklahoma citizen with no pressure group or lobbying affiliation, and with only a few dollars to drop in the campaign collection boxes, has little representation in Congress. Our pleas will turn no heads nor reach any receptive ears.

But please allow the drawing of certain exceptions to the rule just laid out.

If I am a hard-shell conservative with right wing tendencies, my congresspersons are representing me well. If I am a rich businessman, desirous of maintaining tax loopholes, dispensations, or other ways of avoiding taxes, then our congresspersons represent me well. If I am a member of their party, and remain so in spite of obvious disregard of my personal interests, then they represent my views. If I have never stopped to think and analyze political agendas and actions, and was born into or sold the party line in the past, then they represent me.

But if I am a fiscally conservative but socially progressive citizen, nobody represents me. If I am a citizen with a social conscience who believes in caring for others in need through government, then nobody represents me. If I am one who doesn’t scare easily by use of terms like “socialist” or “liberal,” but who is concerned about the issues themselves, then I have no representation. If I am a “populist,” who puts common people first, then I am not represented.

It is doubtful that anyone has ever made a study of the above characteristics and the proportions of those represented and those not, but one might well suspect that something over half of the people living in Oklahoma have no real representation in congress – despite the vote tallies.

Finding this a probability, it gives cause for concern about democracy in our state and nation.

Money and special interests have corrupted our political system. Considering what a candidate must do, and how much of himself he must sell, in order to raise campaign funds, it is remarkable that we have an electoral system that works as well as it does.

But we could do better, and we must do better.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Spokespersons for the Republican Party, aided by their media pundits, have made great efforts to make Americans think that the Obama stimulus plan has failed. Is this true? If so, then what is the republican alternative plan for the solution of the economic recession that has gripped this nation?

In answering these questions let us begin with a recent media flap over a statement of Vice President Joe Biden in which he “spilled” the truth. “We, along with most economists, misread the seriousness of the situation last January,” he said. “It was a lot worse than we thought.”

Republicans jumped all over the “we misread” portion of this honest statement labeling it as an admission from the Obama administration that they bungled the handling of the economic emergency and the stimulus package. Biden was pictured as making a major gaffe. Maybe he did – he told the truth. That is foreign to some.

But if we put certain observations together, we come up with some understanding of the problem:
(1) The situation was indeed worse in January than either economists or the administration thought.
(2) The stimulus package was only half as much as economists thought was needed, and only three-quarters of what the administration requested. The reason – Congress would not pass a larger measure because republicans wouldn’t help.
(3) Only about a quarter of the stimulus money has actually been spent.

The job loss rate has been slowed. Unemployment has not increased as fast. Markets have gained back some ground. State governments have been saved. Oklahoma filled a catastrophic $630 million budget hole with stimulus funds from the package that our republicans continually criticize.

Until republicans began their hoopla about the stimulus failing and the doomsday talk of the increases in the national debt, consumer confidence was coming back. To some degree the republican talk must bear some responsibility for any failures in the working of the stimulus package. It is difficult to be positive when so many are so loudly shouting that the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Of course, their leaders have said they wanted Obama to fail.

Addressing republican charges about the deficit as an aside, it would take two stimulus packages the size of the one passed to equal the national debt added by the unnecessary Iraq War. It would take two and a half stimulus packages to equal the debt created by the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Those listening to the outcries of republicans should put these costs into perspective.

All things considered, it is too early to judge whether the stimulus has been successful or a failure. What is success? It is not too early to say that it has indeed been at least a partial success, as per the afore-mentioned results.

Now, what have the republicans offered as an alternative? Good question. Somewhat belatedly, they offered tax cuts. Tax cuts also cause deficit problems. So, what kind of tax cuts? Who benefits from those proposed? These are significant questions.

Tax cuts offered by republicans are these:
(1) A tax credit (write-off, not income deduction) for businesses investing in new equipment and facilities. This means the government really pays for these improvements. Businesses profit.
(2) Accelerated depreciation for current investments, meaning all these could be charged off income at a faster rate than now allowed. This means that the government loses tax money. Businesses profit.
(3) Doing away with corporate income taxes. Again, this means bigger profits for corporations.

The idea is that old disproven “trickle down” idea again. Tax cuts have a mild, but not sufficiently effective, stimulus to the economy. Economists and past experiences have disproven that voodoo plan. By far the greatest stimulus effect comes from placing money somehow into the hands of average consumers directly.

There might be better ways of putting money into consumers’ hands directly than the Obama administration’s efforts through infra-structure projects for jobs, aiding states in maintaining education and social services, “green” initiatives, and the like. If so, then the detractors of his plan need to come up with such ideas, not the old disproven notions of the past.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

No matter what your political views, it is difficult not to feel a little bit sorry for Sarah Palin. She has been in over her head, and she has not handled it well. She is not fully coherent in her speech and sounds confused.

Our would-be Vice President of these United States has been having a great deal of difficulty governing one of the smallest ones. Not only is she not ready for prime time, she has not been ready for the midnight shift. She is not doing well enough in the bush leagues to merit a major league call.

Of course, Sarah Palin does have a certain charm, and like one of our last presidents, she might be fun at a party. But let’s not get into a really serious discussion, or give her any complex assignment. She talks a lot about point guards, pit bulls, mavericks, and such. She also talks about being a fighter, but she can only handle the give and not the take.

Sarah quickly becomes a victim when countered. She has been characterizing herself this way ever since the latter part of the election. The Katy Couric interview, the thing about charging the clothes, trooper-gate, Tina Fey, seeing Russia, the ethics complaints, and all such have just been nasty, dirty enemies attacking her. She says that the “mainstream media,” which means all except Fox and the Murdoch papers, have mistreated her.

Well, one does tend to feel sorry for her, that is until one remembers that she came into the national political game calling herself a pit bull with lipstick and unabashedly attacking her opponents with lies and half-truths. She seemed to relish her role until things began to come back at her.

News people began to check her background and her record. Although a brief record, there were already ethical and legal allegations against her. She dismissed these then, and does so now, with a naïve nonchalance.

If any public official in Oklahoma, state or local, had made the travel claims for one’s self and family, or collected per diem at home as she has, that person would be off to prison, or maybe just hanged. Either she did not know what was legal and what was ethical, or she did not care. One or the other would be an indictment against her suitability for public office.

Although Sarah Palin does have that certain charm, it does not speak well for those Americans who take her seriously as a person ready for high office. This has been difficult for thinking people to understand. What does it say for that 20% or so who still consider her a potential presidential candidate?

Sarah Palin, the pit bull fighter, has quit as Alaska’s governor after just over half of her term. In a less than coherent, rambling statement she “explained” her reasons. It was the harassment of ethics and legal complaints and legal bills. It was the need to be a mother and family person. It was the mistreatment of the mainstream media. It was not be a lame duck during the second half of her four-year term, and the good of Alaska. It was to be free to do good for the people of Alaska outside of government. It was a need to be free to speak her mind.

It is difficult to discern her real reasons from listening to her talk, but we can make some guesses. We will proceed to do so.

First, the ethics and legal complaints are potentially serious and could lead to her ouster from office. All these will not go away, but could be diminished. Second, she cannot stand the heat from political controversy, and she is a bit lost in the seriousness of her present job. She wants to escape from it.

But there is a more significant reason to which she alluded in only an oblique way.

Sarah Palin is a hot ticket right now. She draws attention; she draws crowds. She is smart enough to know that the limelight fell upon her suddenly, and that it could dissipate rather quickly. If she doesn’t go out now and take advantage of her status, the opportunity may be lost by the time she is free of office. She cannot make the big bucks for personal appearances while she holds office.

Sarah will soon be available to book for corporate and organizational events for a fee of perhaps $25,000 or more. It is the same kind of motivation that led Blake Griffin and Adrian Peterson to jump from collegiate to pro ranks at the end of sophomore and junior years in college. It is the cornerstone of the capitalistic system – money.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Headlines in the newspapers this week read: “California Issues IOU’s.” We are told that in meeting its obligations in salaries and other bills, California is issuing IOU’s because they do not have the money in the treasury to pay checks. Since that cannot be done in state government in Oklahoma and most other states, this becomes a news-making anomaly of our times.

(In the case of an Oklahoma shortfall in revenue, the state agencies are automatically reduced by that percentage unless the legislature meets and decides otherwise. We cannot run budget debt in Oklahoma; borrowing is only through bonding.)

These “IOU’s” are technically called “warrants.” That means they may be presented for payment when and if there is money in the treasury to pay them. Warrants usually carry a modest interest rate.

While warrants may be new to most, they are not beyond the personal experience of some of us who worked in the public schools many years ago. When this writer was employed for the first time in public schools as a junior high principal back in 1949, we received warrants instead of checks.

These warrants were boldly labeled NON-PAYABLE across the top. Of course, this tended to shake up the newcomers a bit.

The superintendent carefully explained to us that these were warrants and not checks, and that meant the school district might not yet have enough anticipated tax collections to pay those. He assured us that there would indeed be enough money there to pay us. He explained that we could readily cash them at the local bank for the full amount, but that some other businesses might not take them or would charge a discount off their value.

These warrants carried a 6% interest rate, and the local bank collected and held them. Eventually the bank was paid the amount plus accumulated interest at a competitive rate. Warrants were a way of financing public business in reasonable expectation that taxes would be coming.

During the Great Depression, warrants were used extensively. Frequently, the taxes coming in were not sufficient to pay the warrants. In those days, banks or well-to-do investors would buy up the warrants at a deep discount to compensate for the risk.

The losers were the salaried people and vendors who served the schools. The discounts were on their salaries and bills. Thus, a teacher with a contract for $75 per month might actually receive only $50 with no later recourse. On the other hand, the bank might eventually receive their $50 plus an amount not exceeding the face value plus interest. It depended on the taxes actually collected that year as a percent of that needed to pay all the bills.

The warrant system may not be the rule now in schools, and warrants are so sound that they have been viewed as checks. But the history is there, right in our own state.

Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Both Judge Sotomayor of the appellate court and the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court may be right, or at least partially so, in their rulings on the New Haven firefighters case. Each was working within a different legal context.

Readers will recall that the case involved eight white firefighters passing a promotion exam and no minority personnel passing. The city then threw out the test results as a criterion for promotion and promoted nobody. They did so in fear of a lawsuit by non-whites based upon previous high court decisions ruling that no test or criterion may be employed that has a disparate effect in limiting opportunities for racial minorities.

When the firefighters appealed, they did not question the validity of the test as a measure of firefighters’ knowledge and skills. Instead they accepted its validity and claimed their eight parties to the suit were discriminated against purely because of their race. So, quite significantly, that was the issue.

When the three judge appellate court, including Judge Sotomayor, considered the case, the city’s case for disregarding test scores and not promoting whites was based simply on the issue that applying the test results would have had a disparate effect on minority candidates for promotion and continue an under-representation of minorities in the upper echelons of the firefighters department.

The appellate court ruled correctly and in compliance with prior Supreme Court decisions. They followed precedent as required by legal principles.

Lower courts are pretty much bound by prior decisions of the Supreme Court. Past decisions are considered to be the last previous word on the proper interpretation of the statutes and the Constitution by the Supreme Court, which is the only legal authority that has the final say.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court is not necessarily bound by previous decisions of past editions of the Court. The Supreme Court will indeed normally follow its own precedents, but it is not bound to do so. The Court will, on occasion, take a new and independent look at a legal issue and come down with a different ruling.

This was the case in the firefighter’s law suit. The Supreme Court had previously ruled against admissions, hiring, and promotion decisions based upon criteria which, when applied, had a disparate effect on minorities. This became the rule of law.

The town council of the city of New Haven, with good legal advice, foresaw a discrimination lawsuit by minority firefighters, none of whom had passed the promotion test while eight whites had passed. They correctly determined this to be a losing case for them under prior Supreme Court rulings if all promoted were white and none a minority. Based upon high court precedents, they were correct.

The Appellate Court and Judge Sotomayor sided with that same legal precedent, as did two others of her court and the minority of four against five on the Supreme Court.

The Court majority chose to set a newer precedent. Basically, that ruling is that the city of New Haven could not deny promotion to individual members of the group of eight passing the test based upon racial protections for the minority members. In other words, the constitutional right of equal protection of the law granted under the fourteenth amendment could not be subjugated to the good of a minority, i.e. discrimination against individuals in the majority in order to improve minority representation is no longer acceptable.

This is a landmark decision. It is one that many have had cause to wonder that it took so long. Individual rights are not to be sacrificed to correct past discrimination against a group. We will differ from one another in how we view this decision, but there is no doubt that it will take a significant place in legal precedent.

Strangely enough, another highly relevant issue was raised by nobody in the court system other than Justice Ginsberg in her minority opinion. There she raised the question: Was this paper-pencil test really a valid measure of leadership potential for firefighters? But, as we say, that is another matter.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Perhaps a better title for this piece would be: “Health Care as Interpreted by One Dummy to Another.” Unlike many of our republican friends who are already opposed to a new health care program without knowing its form or substance, we are trying to sort out the facts of the issue and of the legislation which has been proposed. Much of that is still in flux, of course.

First of all, we can’t afford NOT to have vast changes in our health care delivery system in the United States. Our system is killing us.

Our health care is more expensive than health care in other developed countries, and it delivers a lower quality of care to our total citizenry. It is the most inefficient system in the world. It is NOT superior.

We have 47 million Americans without health insurance. These are working people whose employers do not provide a health insurance benefit, and/or who work for wages insufficient to afford insurance.

The expense of our health care system is higher because so many uninsured and under-insured cannot pay their bills. The cost of everybody’s health insurance is higher to cover the costs for the uninsured. This is a form of indirect tax. Have you looked at your premium lately?

The expense of our health care system hampers our industrial competition in the global economy.

We cannot afford not to have a genuine overhaul of our system. Band-aids will not do. And, it will cost money. Eighty-five percent of our people believe our system is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rebuilt.

Both democrats and republicans have offered solutions. A cost estimate has been made for proposals by democrats. No cost estimate has been proffered for the republicans’ proposals.

Since the republican proposal, supported by the insurance companies, is seemingly simple, although vague, we can examine it first.

Essentially the republicans propose to extend the status quo, except to make “affordable” private insurance available for more people to purchase. Subsidies would be provided to make it more “affordable” to some. They offer no way of paying for these subsidies, but candidate McCain has said previously that it would be paid for by taxing everybody’s employer provided health insurance. Experts contend that it may be more expensive than other proposals, drives up costs, and would require other taxes as well.

Other than this, the only republican position has been to oppose anything that is proposed by democrats, especially any proposal that would offer a government option in competition with profit companies. It appears they are more interested in the insurance companies than their voter constituents.

Republicans excuse this pro-company, anti-citizen position with scare cries of “socialism” and deficits. Cost estimates for the democrat program run around $1.3 trillion over ten years, about the same as the cost of the unnecessary war in Iraq. It is less than the $1.8 trillion cost of tax cuts for the rich. Doing nothing may cost more.

We are familiar government-run programs for federal employees, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, and the Indian Health Service. Actually government-run Medicare is 19% cheaper than the same benefits in the private insurance option to seniors, hopefully to be closed soon at a savings of billions per year.

As a current (premium-paying) beneficiary of Medicare, and a paying member of the State Employees’ Medicare supplement insurance, this writer can attest these do NOT have the problems that critics attribute to government-run, “socialist” programs.

The House democratic plan currently proposes a comprehensive health insurance program which would cover 95% of the people. It continues Medicaid to those presently qualifying, and it offers a subsidy for those above that poverty level on up into lower-middle income levels. Its health care provisions would be basically that of present Medicare, including insurability for those with history of sickness.

Payments to providers would be along a similar schedule as Medicare. This government-run benefits plan would result in a savings in health care costs of 25% to 30% over the current system, and slow future rising costs.

The proposal would require employees to be enrolled in some plan, or be assessed a payroll fee of 8% to go toward insurance coverage costs.

Democrats say that they will provide for funding, which will have start-up costs and then be self-sustaining. They note billions will be saved by cancelling the subsidies for private insurance alternatives to Medicare. Other changes in Medicare and Medicaid can save billions more.

Democrats are opposed to the taxing of all employer health benefits. Instead they propose to tax only those enriched, gold-plated tax-exempt benefits above the basic level. Such are provided by some companies to higher income staff. Workers with income levels over $250,000 might have their benefits taxed.

Without a government-run option, any health reform plan is likely to be unaffordable and impractical. If the scare tactics of the republicans and their cries of socialism are persuasive, or the advertising campaign sponsored by the insurance companies (with your premium dollars), are successful in swaying opinion – the health care issue will be become comatose again.

A poll this week showed that 72% of the people support a government-run option like Medicare for all. Interestingly enough, 50% of the republicans surveyed were supportive, and 90% of the democrats.

We will all be losers if the Democrats fail to get on board, take charge, and push this program through, along with a method for paying the costs.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

The murder of Dr. Tiller, gunned down in his own church by a religious fanatic, has brought the touchy political issue of abortion back to people’s attention. Perhaps assisting this focus of attention is the appointment and probable confirmation of a new Supreme Court judge who just might support the legal precedent of a previous high court decision that goes by the title of Roe vs. Wade.

That prior court decision made abortion legal in the United States on constitutional grounds. The religious right has been chipping away in one way or another at that decision ever since. Their political tool has been the Republican Party, aiding and abetting their attack on women’s rights in every way possible.

Republicans, in turn, have used the religious right by stirring up emotional ballot issues to bring out their votes for the party. How often have we seen one of those issues put on the ballot in critical general elections recently?

The abortion issue is one of freedom, purely and simply.

First, it is an issue of women being free to manage and control their own bodies. We have laws against sex crimes to avoid violation of women’s bodily and personal integrity and their freedom of non-consent.

The government does not tell a woman when and how to become pregnant. How outrageous that thought! Then why should the government intervene to tell a woman whether she should stay pregnant and have an unwanted child for which she must be in servitude.

Who are we to interject the government into such a personal matter as a pregnancy or its termination?

Secondly, the abortion issue is one of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. When the government succumbs to the will of the religious right, and begins to put the tenets of their beliefs into law, then this becomes a violation of the separation of church and state. It is clearly the legal “establishment of religion” as prohibited in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

When the government begins to take the specific beliefs of a religious sect or group and put these into law for everyone, this brings the First Amendment into consideration. If these tenets come from a radical fanatic group, it may be ever the more egregious.

It should be clear that putting tenets of religion into law is improper, illegal, and hazardous to personal liberty – even if those tenets are subscribed or voted by a majority of citizens. This infringes on individual rights, nevertheless, and thus is prohibited by the Constitution.

The Constitution is the guarantor of individual liberty.

Edwin E. Vineyard

Hate speech consumes much of the time on our airwaves and electronic media. Well, maybe it’s not all hate speech, just constant inflammatory rhetoric. We have seen again recently the violent results of such a constant barrage of inflammatory words.

One is caused to wonder if there has ever been a time in the history of this nation that we have been so divided and fractionalized on so many fulcrums with as much hostility. Much of this is engendered by wild, irresponsible speech now when technology makes communications almost instantaneous.

Perhaps there have been periods in history when there was division, but usually issues were simpler. In the revolutionary period the patriots and the Tories resorted to violence. Then there were the Federalists and the Anti-federalists with new laws against sedition (free speech and publications). Jacksonian democracy brought conflicts between the commoners from the west and the propertied classes of the east. And, of course, there was the great Civil War replete first with name-calling and a terrible hatred, and followed by a massive loss of lives and devastation.

One could go on to cite many issues and historical periods of conflict. But at no time have we had such a daily harangue of criticism, allegations, divisiveness, and hostility unloaded on the American population from one basic constituency.

There is a daily assault by the Republican Party on the government leadership and the members of the other party. Their consistently negative, caustic speech and constant criticism of the president and all democratic efforts are dividing the country. It makes bi-partisanship impossible. Some political harangue might be expected, but for gosh sakes, give it a rest!

One could say that these political attacks are coming from the right wing of the Republican Party, but there is now every indication that is the ONLY wing in that party. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Newt Gingrich, and Mr. Boehner, all critics-in-chief, are their leaders. With others seeking to emulate those, and none repudiated by regular party members or congressional people, then what else is left of the GOP but right wingers?

Republicans are known for inflammatory rhetoric. They have coined such terms as “death tax” for the traditional inheritance tax. They bandy around terms like “socialist” to describe any progressive proposal. They term abortion of embryos and fetuses as “baby killing.” They admit no fault and no errors of their own, past or present.

It is sad that we have our own form of the religiously fanatic Taliban ranging far and wide in this country. Members of fundamentalist churches have been led by their leaders to consider women’s reproductive freedom as “baby killing.” They then broaden that definition to the use of waste embryos in scientific research for treatment of injuries and disease. They regard all Muslims as evil, and Mr. Obama as the “Anti-Christ,” Muslim, and not a legal president.

There is no end to the political venom which comes from the hard right. There is an element in the country susceptible to such fanaticism and false information. It bursts forth in terrible ways.

A highly respected doctor was murdered in his church last week by a religious fanatic emboldened by the constant barrage of hate speech. When will we learn that domestic terrorists are developed and incubated by media rhetoric? They have their own groups with an undercover network for further cultivating hatred. This murderer, and other supporters of his cause, thought he was doing a heroic deed. Need we wonder why?

Mr. Obama gave a speech in Cairo hailed all over the world as “ground breaking” for peace. He outlined a blueprint for peoples of different races and religions getting along together through mutual respect and moral conduct. But his speech drew immediate negative responses from two groups – the Republicans and Al Qaeda. Wouldn’t you guess it?

Those left in the Republican Party are mostly a bitter and hateful bunch.


Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

The Darth Vader of the Empire of the American Galactic Era (otherwise known as the Bush Imperial Administration) has returned. Banished into outer oblivion in the last clash of titans (known as an election), Darth has returned with vengeance. It is almost as if he were Satan arising from the burning pit into which he was tossed.

The evil scowl still present on his countenance, Dick Cheney continues his attempts to frighten the American people who rejected him and his cronies just last November. Frantically he tries to defend the evil that he and his gang perpetrated not only on the American people but also the world.

Can we not rid ourselves of this man? Why are we giving him free air time to spew his venom upon us? Why? Is it “the news media” who seem to like any controversy, the nastier the better. Or, is the answer related to that reasoning which pays Rush Limbaugh millions of dollars to fill us daily with his bilious utterings?

He tells us that we are not as safe now as we were when he and his cabal were in governing power, and that we will become increasingly unsafe if we undo any of his misdeeds which turned the sympathies of a part of the world against us and invoked hatred from the other part.

No, we were never safe with Cheney and Bush in control. They were there on 9/11, ignoring a specific intelligence warning several days before that attack. They were confused and inept, just as during Katrina. Then they bullied their intelligence to give poor Colin Powell some cooked up data to go to the U.N. to justify a war against Iraq.

They could never find the “weapons of mass destruction,” but they resorted to torture of Arab captives to try to come up with a connection some way between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Then they cooked up some obfuscating legal memos from underlings to try to make torturing of prisoners legal. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo became symbols of prisoner abuse to the entire world, and a recruiting poster for terrorist organizations.

Had not the misdeeds of the Bush administration against prisoners been attached to the reputation of Guantanamo world wide, Mr. Obama would not be faced with the necessity of closing down that facility. Take away its aura of evil, and the encampment at Guantanamo might well be a model solution for holding legally and properly incarcerated prisoners taken in the jihad of terrorists against us and western civilization.

Too many of those now at Guantanamo have been held on false or flimsy charges and little or no evidence. Some of the evidence on perpetrators has been obtained by torture, thus not admissible in any fair court.

It is no credit to the American public that some 35% appear to be swallowing Darth Cheney’s three false premises – that illegal torture was necessary, that it was successful, and that anything is okay if done for a good cause. Cheney is Machiavellian, so watch out for his shotgun! Heaven help us if we sell out our basic values so readily.

Mr. Obama’s revision of the military tribunals, giving prisoners rights previously denied, may be the proper thing for some prisoners. Others for whom we have little or nothing admissible should be returned to authorities in their own nation or region. The Saudis have been effective with such. The hardcore terrorists remaining should be tried and put into our federal maximum security prisons.

It is too bad that the facility was misused and abused by Cheney and his crowd. In the type of world conflict we find ourselves entangled, there is a need for a detention center of that nature for persons taken in combat situations.

Now, could somebody tell Darth Cheney to go back into his undisclosed location under his galactic rock?

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

This writer had the pleasure of attending the NOC Alumni Banquet last week. The pleasure was principally that of seeing three of his former “NOC kids” honored as Distinguished Alums. All three were students during my era as president. They were outstanding students, and they have proven themselves to be exemplary citizen leaders.

Ed Kelley, now editor of the Daily Oklahoman, was a sports writer and the editor of the college’s Maverick newspaper. As the student editor, he was highly serious about his journalistic endeavors and demanded the same of his peers. We did not worry about the newspaper, knowing that it was in responsible hands. He sent his sports work directly to area newspapers.

As a sportswriter, Ed Kelley (from Perry) had a colorful style. I have joked many times about the flourish of his language. I have illustrated this by noting that if Ed were writing about a basketball game, he did not write, “The Mavericks met the Mountaineers in a critical game….. .” Instead Ed might write, “The Mavericks charged onto the court with fire in their eyes and their jaws set in rugged determination to best their arch-rival …… .” This may not be entirely correct, but the point is that he had style.

Ed went on to graduate from the University of Oklahoma and began his career with the Oklahoma Publishing Company. He has done a rich body of work there, including a stint as Washington correspondent, and is now editor of the newspaper of widest circulation in the state. He has done well.

Karen Long (from Enid) was a national championship debater. Paired with Gary Hulse (now an Enid businessman) they formed an unbeatable combination in junior college competition and won university contests as well. They brought home so many championship trophies that we actually had to buy two new display cases for them.

Karen was a bright, spunky, pretty, blonde girl with a pleasing personality. Although she could be a formidable adversary in debate, she was quite easy and pleasant to have around. Her time in college was the period of student activism, and many colleges were experiencing difficulties that we did not allow to develop at NOC. But I have often thought what a tussle it might have been if Karen had been one to try to lead a student rebellion.

Karen went on to become an attorney of considerable note and distinction. While she was the attorney for the O.E.A., she assisted Attorney General Jan Cartwright in successful execution of a lawsuit bringing fairness to the income and distribution system of the Oklahoma School Land Trust. The results benefitted NOC to tune of tens of thousands per year.

Karen now works in a large law firm in Tulsa handling school related cases, normally with public schools as clients. She has done tremendous leadership work in setting up and obtaining consensus on criteria for satisfying Title 9 requirements. She has written the most authoritative publication guide for schools in this legal area.

Kay Farrell (also of Enid) was one of my “kids” at NOC. Kay came to us as an adult student in nursing. She excelled in her academic science work, as well as her nursing courses. Kay participated on our state championship College Bowl team. Kay was always an “upper” to be around. She encouraged fellow nursing students, in what is a demanding, and almost cruel, grind in training. It is stressful to students and faculty laboring under an unyielding pressure of the RN examination at the end of their program.

As a faculty member, Kay showed these same qualities. She was academically competent and appropriately empathetic with students. Other than completing her advanced degrees and returning to NOC as a faculty member, Kay went on to teach for NWOSU. She was then on the nursing faculty at the Health Sciences Center at the University of Oklahoma. She still maintains a part-time status with OU, while exerting community service leadership in Enid.

I recall that at her commencement at NOC, Kay requested that our commencement speaker be allowed to present her diploma. That was none other than Bert Mackie, her neighbor in Enid, our good friend, and Oklahoma State Regent for the System at that time.

These honorees were kind enough to give me more than my fair share of the credit for their personal academic and career success. After all these years, it really does feel good to be appreciated.

Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

More than 50 years ago, H. L. Mencken wrote: “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.” Mencken also wrote: “No one in this world has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”

While one might chafe a bit at the cynicism of Mencken’s humorous truisms, it would be difficult to dispute their validity.

Perhaps one might say: “Never overestimate the intelligence of the American voter.” Or conversely, “Never underestimate the ignorance or the gullibility of the American voter.” Time and again we have observed this to be true. The question before us: Will this prove again to be the case with President Obama’s agenda of change?

This amateur pundit has written several times about the infinite capacity of the American voters, and Oklahoma voters in particular, to vote against their own best interest as citizens and consumers. Regularly voters go to the polls and elect public officials who do not serve them or their peers, but openly take positions and sponsor measures detrimental to the welfare of the common citizen. This continues to be the case.

It must be difficult to understand that the working person’s interests and those of the wealthy are not always congruent. It must be difficult to comprehend when politicians are serving their donors rather than the public. Even when faced with the ever-recurring facts, people fail to comprehend the power of lobbyists in comparison with the power of the voters.

The average voter, who normally is a worker, will vote for candidates who offer “workers’ comp reform” as a subterfuge to undermine his own rights in favor of his employer. The average citizen-consumer may have his suspicions of lawyers nurtured and expanded to the extent that he will vote for people who will fix the laws to deny him his day in court when wronged by businesses, medical providers, or insurance companies.

Does anyone remember Harry and Louise? These were the conversational TV ads sponsored by the health insurance companies that scuttled President Bill Clinton’s universal health insurance initiative. The gullibility of the American voters to such attack advertising sponsored by those with monetary interests adverse to the public interest is alarming.

Since President Obama is seriously pushing the health coverage part of his agenda, there are already advertisements of the same nature as Harry and Louise appearing on television. Sponsored by the insurance companies, these ads attempt to frighten the public with the notion that a “government bureaucrat” will be interfering with the decisions of the patient and the doctor.

Actually, it is now the private HMO or health insurance company bureaucrat who is interfering most with the doctor and the patient’s treatment decisions. Who has not seen those horror stories or even experienced such frustrations personally?

There is another quote from H. L. Mencken which says: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Such were the tactics used by the past republican administration after 9/11 to justify pre-emptive foreign wars, to keep the American people placid while their civil rights were compromised, and to justify torture of captives against the law of the signed Geneva Convention.

Now we see over and over the specter of socialism raised to frighten people about Mr. Obama’s efforts to save the economy, change a tax system which favors the rich, and bring needed health insurance coverage to the millions of uninsured. The monetary supporters of the republicans are escalating their efforts to picture Mr. Obama to the voter as a big spending profligate, ruining the country by taxing the rich and the corporations who move their jobs and their bank accounts out of the country.

In this state and all over the country, the public needs to wise up to what is transpiring in the political arena. Average voters must look out for their own interests. Those with money to donate to campaigns and put lobbyists in Capitol halls are unlikely to be trying to benefit the common person.

The political game has been one of symbiosis of moneyed special interests and politicians. That game needs to change.

Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate