DUKE DEFEATS WISCONSIN: WISCONSIN GOVERNOR BLAMES OBAMA

Reacting to Wisconsin's loss in the NCAA championship game, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker immediately blamed the outcome on President Obama, according to an exclusive interview with Rolling Stone magazine. 

"The referees are unionized," Mr. Walker reminded us. "Need I say more?

Senator Rand Paul, (R-Ky), Mr. Walker's rival for the Republican presidential nomination when asked for comment replied, "The First Amendment says 'Keep government out of religion,' not 'Keep religion out of government.'" 
When asked to explain  the relevance to the basketball game, the union movement or really anything else, Mr. Paul, who is in New Hampshire, said, "And I intend to ask the Kentucky Derby Commission to restore the crown to Dancer's Image." 

Dancer's Image, a New Hampshire horse bred in North Hampton, was stripped of his 1968 crown after his owner, Mr. Peter Fuller, contributed the Derby purse to Martin Luther King's Southern Leadership Conference in the wake of Rev. King's assassination.

"I just don't know how Mr. Paul can play politics with sports," Mr. Walker retorted. "After all, it's obvious where Mr. Paul is coming from, having seen Kentucky's undefeated season go down in flames to, guess who? The University of the Great State of Wisconsin!"

Full Disclosure: Mad Dog wants to clarify he has not done any fact checking on this story, but he does hold a degree in journalism from Rolling Stone University.

Iran Nuclear Deal: Litmus Test for Crazy

Chamberlain Waves Munich Accord:
Never Trust a Treaty

"We are not stopping them. We do not have an administration that wants to stop them. That's what everybody seems to have trouble realizing or admitting here. We do not have an administration that wants to stop Iran. It's just the opposite in fact. There's a reason that Iran's running rampant. It's that nobody's stopping them. I take that back. The French are trying to. Imagine that. The French are bigger hawks than we are. Of course the Israelis are trying to stop it."

--Rush Limbaugh

He Knows All

One thing about this Iran Nuclear negotiation, whatever its merits or dangers may be, it has provided us with a test for crazy in this country.
I cannot hope to understand this proposed deal, depending as it does on so many hairy technical issues; you may not need to be a rocket scientist to understand it but it would help to be a nuclear scientist.  The thing is structured on being able to trace the elements needed to make nuclear weapons from mining uranium to placing the thing in a war head.  The very complexity of the process, apparently, aides in detection. In order to get a bomb, the Iranians cannot simply dig a hole in the ground, build a construction site and work at it--they need things which provide a trail to follow.

But there are some Americans who know, even at this intermediate stage, what the Iranians intend to do which is to fool us and get the bomb. 

The Iranians, or at least some Iranian officials, have not helped by saying things like, "Israel is a one bomb country. That's all we need to wipe it off the map."

And the old men who still rule Iran are revolutionaries, apparently driven by the hot passions of ideology, despite the demographics of the nation, of which 50% of the population is under the age of 35 and cannot even remember the revolution.  This means the numbers are shifting in the direction of people who want to live in a real country, not some revolutionary eutopia.

But, here in the USA we have people who have made no effort to learn what is being negotiated; they simply KNOW President Obama is making a huge mistake, AS HE ALWAYS WILL, and he is the next Neville Chamberlain, signing on with a madman and waving the document as proof of success.

If Mr. Obama is for it, then, ipso facto, it must be a bad thing, a dangerous thing, something which will result in the destruction of Israel, and the continue decline in the power of the United States, and place us at risk for nuclear annihilation from Iran. (President Obama did point out we have a $600 billion dollar defense budget compared with Iran's $30 billion budget and they are unlikely to attempt to defeat us in a war.)

If you are wondering about someone who you are thinking about asking over for dinner, just ask this person about the nuclear deal. If they erupt with a stream of invective, you will know you  have to look elsewhere for a dinner companion. 

If we have any hope, it may be in the younger generation in Iran. During the Iran/Iraq war, my secretary came running back to find me: It seemed we had inadvertantly scheduled an Iranian and Iraqi patient too close together and they were sitting out in the waiting room and she expected World War III was about to erupt and I had better get out there and stop it. When I got to the waiting room, I found them chatting amiably in Farsi, having a wonderful time. 

This Gets Them Crazy

One thing about the Iranians, they are wild about wrestling. The most excited I ever saw Iranians was at a wrestling match when the Iranian team was in town. That got them worked up. Israel, the Great Satan, not so much. 

US vs Iran 

Maybe if we just wait them out, the old revolutionaries will die off and we can deal with the younger generations. Our own crazies, we will have to continue to watch.

INDIANA'S FREEDOM OF RELIGION LAW: When The Service Is Speech

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

--First Amendment, United States Constitution

When a restaurant owner refuses to serve a couple at a lunch counter because they are Black, we can all see that is wrong, on many levels, not the least of which is it violates various Constitutional guarantees. We've settled this long ago: You can't claim you've heard the voice of God telling you Blacks are bad and you ought not allow them in your restaurant or in your hotel. If God has told you that, then you'd better find another line of work, in the United States.

When a businessman who makes wedding cakes refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, that is little different from the restaurant owner; the business is open to the public and offers a product and if its owner withholds this product from some class of people because he doesn't like them, because he finds homosexuality offensive or he claims his God is speaking to him, telling him to have nothing to do with homosexuals, and to not bake them cakes.  Well, then it's case closed. The cake maker is violating all sorts of American values and using God as his excuse. I strongly suspect God would find this most offensive.

Gail Collins will make mince meat of the wedding cake guy.

But when the service is speech, we have a different matter, as a Baptist minister pointed out this morning on NPR.

What, after all, is the minister supposed to say at the wedding?  He could simply stand up and speak the words, "And now, by the power invested in me by the state of Indiana, I pronounce you man and man," and then turn on his heels and leave the stage and collect his fee.   But the two  grooms (or brides) and the assembled guests ordinarily expect some words from the minister conducting the ceremony, blessing the couple, extolling the idea of marriage, placing marriage in the grand scheme of God's will, what have you. So this would strike some people as a withholding of service. Depends on what you expect the preacher to say.

Can the government compel the minister to say any of this stuff, if the minister believes, for whatever reason, this is not what he believes, not what he wants to say?

Of course, in a practical way, no law currently can compel the minister to say anything, and you wonder why any couple told by a minister, "Look, I wish you well, but I cannot say, in public, I approve of your marriage," why any couple  hearing that would say, "Well, but we want you to preside over our wedding anyway." 

If the couple sues the minister for violating their rights by not saying what they want him to say, could any jury find for the plaintiff couple? What right has the minister violated by refusing to speak? What right has the couple to force the minister to speak the words they want to hear him say?

I have to agree with the minister: He ought not be compelled to speak, i.e., to perform the wedding service, saying all the things which are part of that.

I cannot see that Indiana actually needs a law to protect any minister's  right to not speak--it's already protected. 
I do not see how we can compel speech. The First Amendment means we are free to speak or not to speak.

OBAMACARE: WHO CONTROLS THE NARRATIVE ABOUT HEALTHCARE?

Every day someone tells me he has been screwed by Obamacare: The costs of his medications have risen; the MRI machine was so loud it made his ears hurt; his flood insurance went up; he got a smaller refund on his income tax; his daughter's cheerleading team cannot afford to go to the national competition in Oklahoma City this year. It's all Obamacare, or at the very least government. Government has replaced Satan as the catch-all for what ails us. 

Where does this come from? You know very well: Mr. Limbaugh and fellow travelers including but not limited to Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner and all those Republicans federal and local, all reading from the same hymn book. They have seized control of the brains of the masses. They rule the waves, the airwaves that is, and they have as much penetration into gray matters as Big Brother ever dreamed of.

Paul Krugman recently illuminated how wrong Republican doomsday sayers have been about Obamacare, which they have been trying to convince us is a disaster.

He is correct, of course, Obamacare is way better than what we had, despite its bizarre complexity, a chimera of private health insurance and public funding which is a reflection of the way our government works: All the players are payers and as long as everyone gets his cut, the bill becomes law.

So people like my self-employed son in Brooklyn now have really good health insurance for half what really terrible health insurance used to cost him. That means if he gets sick, he may not drag the entire family, his parents and everyone, down into bankruptcy.  So, as far as payment systems go, it has been a success. 

But American healthcare is structurally disordered, and no Obamacare or any system of payment has yet steered its boat away from the rocky hazards toward which it is sailing.

Older doctors have always carped about how the system is going to pot, but there are signs this time their criticisms of current trends are on the mark now.

The structural problems are:
1. Doctors are motivated by profit and profit is generated by fee for service which drives the system into ever expanding services in search of fees.


2.  The English, decades ago, figured out how to use generalists and non physicians effectively. We have not learned from the Brits nor from anyone else who might be doing medicine better than we are,  because, in  our hubris   we have convinced ourselves we have  the "best medical system in the world." That declaration might make John Boehner feel all proud, but it means we have not learned from others. 

3. Innovation, which once came from university medical schools, now comes from profit centers, from drug and device companies and the kind of innovation which emanates from these profit driven sources  is not likely to benefit the public health, no matter how much it improves the bank accounts of those corporations.

Someone once said, "Medicine is too important to be left in the hands of doctors." Our problem currently may be that the hands of the doctors are nowhere felt now, and in their place are the hands of the bankers, the MBA's, the politicians and the entrepreneurs. Not that these people have nothing to offer, but whose hands should be on the steering wheel?

At root, it's a problem of values. The high energy, hard edged entrepreneurs, who think that the world, all parts of the world, ought to be run by dollars look at public health as a soft and fuzzy and inefficient ideal of commonweal and they want to apply principles of natural selection to doctors and patients.  They want "lean and mean" and they abhor socialized medicine and look at healthcare in Britain, Sweden and all those "welfare state"  European nations as failed programs. The Europeans know better: They look at our system and see a system that fails 90% but serves 10% admirably.  

The inner city clinic I ran for 13 years  in Washington, D.C. provided low cost care to people who could not afford to see doctors, during the 1980's and 1990's as a quid pro quo mandated by the DC government. The hospital from which it ran was in a swanky part of town, a maternity hospital which delivered the babies of the affluent. Well, the DC government said, if you are going to make money in this territory, you have to pay the rent.

That, of course, was, as Mr. Limbaugh would say, is just another example of the nanny state taking from you and me and the hard workers and giving to the undeserving slackers.  

Does Ms. Clinton, or any other Democrat, save Elizabeth Warren, have an answer for this? 

Torn: Liberals and Labor Union Militancy

Woody Allen has a famous line:  "The crucial moral dilemma is you are walking by an icy river and you see a man drowning. Would you jump in to rescue him? Of course, in my case, I can't swim, so it's not an issue."

This is essentially the problem for liberals who see members of labor unions drowning in a sea of  icy indifference. Roughly 80% of the American public has no connection to labor unions and likely no real sympathy. John Q. Public, when he thinks of a union worker at all, thinks of that union worker only when he is inconvenienced by a strike or when he sees a picket line.  For the most part, most Americans walk across picket lines the way they walk by Salvation Army collectors on the street, eyes averted.


For my grandfather, who was born in the 19th century and who came to the United States for a better life, only to find he had to fight for that better life, the labor union was an unalloyed good.  Nothing the union did could be wrong. His morality had the clarity of the absolute. The workers were always right, and the owners were venal, selfless and at best indifferent to the suffering of the masses; at worse the owners were heartless, ruthless, destructive, little better than the slave owners of the antebellum South. 

In his day, women working in a shirt factory burned to death because the owners locked the doors to the work shop and a fire at Union Square killed scores of them, some leaping to their deaths to avoid the flames.

Union membership has declined precipitously and public sympathy for unions, always crucial for support of strikers, has evaporated.  Wisconsin voters supported their strike breaking governor and supported a "right to work" law, which is, in fact, a union busting law.

Workers Strike for The Boss They Trust

One exception to all this was the almost unique case of Market Basket, where union workers, believing one boss was good to them, struck to support him in opposition to his hideous cousin, who clearly intended to gut the company, take the money and run, leaving the workers, the stores, the customers to burn.  In what other case had workers actually struck  to support a boss?

The problem is, in the 21st century, the sons and grand daughters of the early 20th century union workers are now reaching management positions in multinational corporations and they find themselves having to fill in as strike breakers, when union workers go out on strike.

My own brother-in-law, a solid, liberal Democrat, worked his way up through the ranks of welders making airplane engines at GE.  The type of welding these guys do is nothing like Rosey the Riveter, but more like a college physics lab.  Once he reached a management level, he was respected and liked by his staff because he knew the job from the bottom up. But when they threatened strike, he knew he would have to stand in and do the jobs of his former mates, or lose all he had worked for. And he had kids in college.

To whom did he owe his greatest fealty: His co workers or his family?

When the nurses at a hospital where I had patients on the wards went out on strike, what was I to do? Cross the picket line and undermine the nurses, or leave my patients unattended in their beds? 

To whom did I owe my greatest allegiance?

These choices are not easy.

The Crime of Being Japanese American

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the American government responded by seeing the Japanese-Americans living in California as suspicious, as people of uncertain loyalties.  The American government rounded up American citizens whose only crime was having been born to people who had immigrated from Japan, and threw them into concentration camps.  

Would I have refused to obey the orders to transport those people to the camps if I had been a career Army officer? Would I have become the martyr, done the grand gesture, even though I knew it would not help prevent a single unjust imprisonment?

We are torn because there are good arguments on every side.  

My grandfather would have argued, I risked everything for the workers; you should do the same. But he did not have a mortgage or kids who were in college. His kids went to the almost free City College. But he would have said he still had rent to pay and risked eviction and starvation. He supported a family.  In his case, his co workers had no other choices and no social security or unemployment insurance or re training programs. 

It does seem today's workers have more options and when they lose their jobs, they are less desperate, but that may be only because memories are short or because we are not in the place of today's workers. Many liberals have moved up the socio- economic scale to, if not the ownership class, to the management class, but they look back over their shoulders and they remember where they came from. That can cause some agony. 

The truth is, when the government and big industry array themselves against the workers, the workers cannot hope to win.  Standing with the workers, as a manager would likely be a sacrificial lamb moment.  Nobody in authority would change his mind--they just fire you. What good does that do the workers?

John Oliver Saves New Hampshire From Itself

"New Hampshire, where 'Live Free or Die' is a legitimately difficult choice." 
--John Oliver


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nObupsG0Lf4

If this link does not work for you, just go to youtube and enter into search:  John Oliver, Red Tail Hawks, New Hampshire.

The world will little note, nor long remember what Mad Dog has said here about Renny Cushing's effort to nod in the direction of some 4th graders, but it can never forget what John Oliver did to the New Hampshire legislature. 

I am wondering why Mr. Oliver, Mr. Stewart and CNN do not have a field office in Concord. It has got to be as rich a lode as Fox News. The dimwit density has got to be at least as thick as Fox News. 

We need a live feed from Concord to Comedy Central.

House of Cards:The New Hampshire Illusion

"House of Cards" took 4 episodes to get interesting this season, but now the candidates are in Iowa and New Hampshire and the cold states have heated things up big time.

I have to keep reminding myself this is fiction, but the way the staffers and the politicos speak sounds very real to my ear. Granted, I never worked on the Hill, but I certainly heard this kind of talk, as you do when you go to dinner parties, the swimming pool, the gym and all the places you run into people who do work on the Hill. It's more than those wonderful shots of the city and the waterfront which open the show--the voices, the phrases, the culture sounds authentic. 

What I could not  know living in  Washington, was what happened when the politicos got out on the hustings.  What HOC shows you is how the Washington people view the folks in the trenches in New Hampshire. The strivers are testing out lines, the way comedians test out their material, to see what works, to field the embarrassing questions in a small groups before they have to answer these questions in front of a large national TV  audience.

Having spent most of my life in Washington, DC, the only President I ever met in person was George H.W. Bush, and he was Vice President at the time. Up here in New Hampshire, I stand on "visible presence" lines, holding signs with people who've had Obama over for coffee, who have chatted with  Hillary and all the people I could only read about, when I lived in DC. I heard about these figures all the time, but never actually heard them in person. Here, people have direct conversations with the candidates. So you might think New Hampshire folk play a special role in the political life of the nation.

And they do.

But I don't think it's quite the role we'd like to believe we play up here.  We are not so much shaping events as being sampled and weighed. We are not selecting future leaders; we are acting as focus group subjects, as the candidates move on to hone their images and messages.  If we like Claire Underwood as a blonde, well then, we see Claire go blonde, but we are not changing anything substantive. We are constantly being "played" by people whose only real conviction is the conviction they have to be elected, they have to win.  Whatever it takes to get us to say, "I'll vote for you," is what they will say. None of it really means anything to the people who want to be winners. 

Rand Paul may believe in minimal government and Hiliary Clinton may believe in more government, but in the end they will have to compromise enough for the distinction to be without a difference. 

We can chat with the players and think we are backstage, getting a feel for them, but they are never really off stage when they are with us.  They may, at best, try to learn who we are, what matters to us, but they are not going to let us know what they are thinking. 

And if we go door to door and have conversations with our neighbors, we are likely the only ones affected by this exercise. The movers and shapers from Washington are not being changed by our opinions. 

And we are certainly not selecting or culling; we are only a ripple in the pond, not a wave carrying the boat along.

As the story line sweeps HOC along this season an unexpected theme emerges: Personal feelings matter.  Established institutions only constrain, but do not shape how people really feel or behave

There are three parallel stories, relationships: There is Claire and Francis Underwood, who are a "fusion" of power, and their very modern love starts to corrode them. There is Tom, who is writing an authorized biography of the President while bedding his chief antagonist in the media, but when he gets too close to the truth about the Francis/Claire relationship, he is thrown off the bus. And there are those two thoroughly driven, ruthless and absorbing people: Jackie (the ambitious Congresswoman, who marries the "right" man but who longs for Remy, the wrong man) and Remy, who is a consummate professional, who routinely sets aside his personal feelings to serve and protect his boss, until he can do neither.

When Jackie finally shows up at Remy's door, it is the first time over the three seasons you see any one doing the "right" thing, following her heart, and what she is doing is a violation of her obligations, vows and career.

We can learn something here in New Hampshire from "House of Cards." We can be earnest and we can educate ourselves on the issues and we can discuss them with our neighbors and we can blog and we can vote. 

But we cannot know the people we are voting for, not from what we are seeing here. 

For that, we have to  speculate and imagine.