The Enid News and Eagle, Enid, OK

Retired Northern Oklahoma College president Dr. Edwin Vineyard Sr. is the author of the Militant Moderate. He is the author of two textbooks, has held several educational and business posts, and he is a recipient of state and national leadership awards. Dr. Vineyard says, “For most of a long career in public life, it was necessary to exercise restraint in commenting on political matters. Since retirement, I have enjoyed the freedom to do just that.”

Oklahoma U.S. senators are insulting

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

November 24, 2009 10:49 am

More entries >>>

You lie

November 23, 2009 02:04 pm

More entries >>>

Too much hate

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

November 13, 2009 02:40 pm

More entries >>>

A visit with a Korean War veteran

While undertaking the physically challenging task of pushing a shopping cart through the lengths, depths, and widths of the vast domain of our local Wal-Mart 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 Wal-Mart. 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 Wal-Mart 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 Wal-Mart, 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.

November 10, 2009 01:05 pm

More entries >>>

Everybody knows

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.

November 03, 2009 03:31 pm

More entries >>>

Press relations

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

October 26, 2009 11:43 am

More entries >>>

Free Bobbi Parker

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

October 19, 2009 08:57 am

More entries >>>

No class

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

October 12, 2009 08:34 am

More entries >>>

Some things bother me

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.

October 01, 2009 01:42 pm

More entries >>>

Stop the train! Let me off!

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