MH December 23, 2017

There is little or no evidence to suggest that states racing to the bottom of taxation is a run toward national prosperity.

High taxes are better.

Yes. High taxes--with those having a lot paying a lot. High taxes can create a healthy, educated, scientifically/artistically/environmentally advanced populace. (Of course, we'd have to elect smart, decent people to target and activate the cash.)

But that would be "reform."

Decent folks in the Republican party must not capitulate to this administration's grotesque, vicious, greedy, dishonest, corrupt, selfish, ignorant approach to taxation--and almost everything else.


Mitch McConnell's Mug

MH March 22, 2013

Mitch McConnell (Senate Minority Leader) says Hillary Clinton looks as if she's from "a rerun of the "Golden Girls."

Mitch obviously evaluates women mainly on the basis of their looks and reproductive potential.

A person whose face looks like pink bread dough dripping from a counter should perhaps take care with such remarks.

The mug of Mitch begs for a face lift. While in there, perhaps the surgeon could arrange a brain lift.

(Actually, doughboy, those golden girls looked pretty nifty!)

  Laboring at the NY State Legislature

  MH Sept. 14, 2011

According to the Empire Center for NY State Policy, NY State Legislative salaries rank near the nation's top at around $79,500.

According to the NY State Legislative Session Calendar, the 2011 session (Jan.--June) was scheduled for 65 days, averaging nearly 11 days per month for six months.

Gibson Against Environment

Our 20th district U.S. congressman, Chris Gibson voted "yes" on H.R.2021, a bill sporting the slimy, disingenuous title “The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act.” It should be called “The Republican Sabotage-Environmental-Protection-Whenever-Possible Act.”

What should we expect when his biggest campaign contributors seem to be hedge funds, brokers, and giant construction firms--ready and willing to pave the state with concrete?

A few Republicans actually voted against it! (Not our guy.) They noticed that a job on an uninhabitable planet is not going to be very valuable. (If we keep chipping away at environmental protections, our grandchildren will be too busy trying to figure out how to get to another, possibly livable, planet to care about a job on this one.)

I’ve been unable to find any data to suggest that this act would create any jobs. And even if there were some, it is very insulting to voters to suggest that we would choose having a job over and above the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren.

When the 20th voted Chris Gibson into the House of Representatives, did we really expect these cynical votes? Does this person really represent us?

Please Google “H.R. 2021 EPA" and tell me if this makes any sense to you.

We have a lot of wonderful environment around here. Will Gibson cave to his big business masters when local environmental issues arise?

Republicans are aching to kill E.P.A., bit by bit if necessary. They will do anything to direct more money to the people that already have money. Future be damned!

  MH June 28, 2011

Gibson votes to smash economy


2012 Our 20th district congressman Chris Gibson has once again obeyed his Republican masters, dutifully following orders, this time to vote against raising the debt ceiling--thereby promising to smash the American economy if the rest of us won’t bend to Republican will.
  [use arrows to cont.]

It was not enough for Gibson to vote to retain obscene tax breaks for millionaires and for killing Medicare; he has now followed his Republican leadership toward the murder of the nation’s economy.

I hope—no I predict-- that Republicans are going to wake a sleeping giant of American rage.

The Democratic Party must stop trying to compromise with greedy GOP elites, political sheep, and ignorant crackpots.

Come on, Dems! Poke the sleeping giant and elect a majority of intelligent, humanistic, sane Democrats!

(There used to be some intelligent, humanistic, sane Republicans; but, in Washington these days, it is blood-sucking, zombie-time for a Ghoulish Old Party.)






MH 2012


  (Thanks GOP.
  You are truly


MH February 10, 2012

A man has shot a black teenager following a confrontation beginning with publicly aired, very loud rock music. Along with the extensive media coverage of his trial, is anyone asking these questions?

1) Is there a decibel-point (with or without genre-designation) at which loud "music" becomes an
act of aggression at least equal to a vigorous slap in the face, a fist to the belly, a kick to the

2) Does a savage, throbbing bass add to agression and threat in publicly aired "music."? What
about violence-loving lyrics?

3) Would a car full of black teenagers playing very loud Mozart be threatening? Or would it be j
just bad manners and disturbing the peace?
[use arrows to cont.]

4) Would a car full of skinheads blasting martial "music" near a car holding a single black man
be deemed "threatening"?

5) When does "music" cease to be music, becoming simply vicious, threatening, adolescent

Loud music in public places is threatening--even without the presence of a gun--especially coupled with physical proximity and violent words.

I suggest that the answer to number one is "yes." (I'm less sure about the rest.) But loud music can be a weapon of aggression. That's why drums and horns, bagpipes, etc. have been taken into battle. That's why loud rock music has been famously used as a weapon against a religious cult and as torture for war criminals.

Even though music-aggression does not warrant retaliatory killing, people must stop implying that these kids are innocents, open to slaughter merely for playing "music."

The boys passed out something akin to a face-slap, a belly-fist, a shin-kick. They threatened something worse.

  MH Nov. 17, 2012
Tradition can be wonderful. It can distill a dollop of human wisdom or offer some of the many comforts of mindless repetition.

On Thanksgiving, we lean toward an afternoon with the family's gaggle of women in the kitchen, encouraging aromas of roasting meat and gingered pumpkin pies--men in the parlor spouting sports lore. The men argue companionably and imbibe the game.  (They are enjoying unearned male power and brutishness, borrowed from figures on a screen.)

The game. Ah yes.

Too bad that the game bears such a resemblance to Christians in the arena with lions. Footballers, observed by mobs from a position of comfort and safety, allow themselves to be eaten by concussions, cognitive damage, early arthritis, battered knees and shoulders, and unnecessary dementia. They butt heads, crash into one another, and throw each other to the ground--for our "entertainment."

[Use arrows to cont.]

For a few years of high salaries and (if they are lucky) a little fame, most footballers condemn their remaining years to pain, oblivion, dumber cognitive functioning, mended bones, and increased risk of suicide. We willingly sacrifice them for fun, profit, and "tradition."

Unfortunately, the football tradition confirms all that is savage and bloodthirsty in our nature--and lures young children to its ugly values. Not just college and high school kids, but children!

How about a little Thanksgiving Pictionary? Scrabble? Gin Rummy? How about a walk? A song? Maybe we could even talk to one another.

Naw. Too civilized.

OBAMA Influence on Af-Am Male Culture?

  MH Sept. 1, 2012

My daughter-in-law is about to have her first baby. She is a slim, graceful young woman with (at present) a beautiful, enormous belly.

She lives in Manhattan; and she reports that, when she gets on the bus in the morning to go to work, it is invariably an African-American male who offers her a seat.
   [Use arrows to continue.]

Her husband relates that, when the two of them go for a stroll together, often a man strolling in the opposite direction smiles and says "Congratulations!" He is always African-American.

I was delighted with these stories, wondering if it signaled an Obama effect. When I got on the subway to go to the theater that evening, a man (noting my blast of white hair, I suppose) offered me his seat. He was, of course, classy African-American. All Caucasians remained seated.


  MH Sept. 29, 2012
Sex is fun. Especially for males, it seems.

Abused four-year olds and overworked prostitutes may diasgree, but mostly people sign on for the joy of orgasm.

Why then do we create such convoluted, expensive efforts to squelch commerce in it? Read Noy Thupkaew's silly essay in the 9/23/NY Times, which outlines our complicated, mostly unworkable anti-prostitution efforts.
    [Use arrows to continue]

Like others who talk about sex and civilization, Noy is prolix about everything but the most obvious and universally ignored fact: Excessive sex drive is a drag on human progress and connected with a long list of vicious, sometimes murderous human behaviors.

A nice, quick sex-drive-tamping injection for newborns might just solve the whole ugly problem! Simply add it to the required immunizations list.

Too avant for you? (Take note Johnson & Johnson. A whole new sorce of profit.)


  Winter 2012
Ah, another sex pig (this time, a coach from Penn State) is exposed. If you will excuse the expression.

Of course, legal exposure didn't occur until after decades of predatory abuse and cover-up.

Sexual pleasure is a lovely , repeatable pleasure--until it becomes contaminated by power: physical power, buying power, status and employment power, or age superiority. Then it easily becomes predatory.
  [Use arrows to cont.]

Our culture approves. It must--or else there would be less pharmacology devoted to erections, fewer commercials touting them, less locker-room trashing of women, fewer rapes, and fewer cover-ups of abuse.
Although the practice of sex-piggery is often a crime, it is sometimes not even a moral issue. It is often culturally accepted. Let's start there.

Its practice (from Penn State to Elliot Spitzer to polygamist Warren Jeffs to savage war-rapists) is so prevalent and so injurious to civilization (SEE "Excessive..."  WORLD page) that we must stop promoting it; we must stop ignoring its consequences; we must stop feeding it with cultural and religious free passes.

We wink, we smirk, we say that "boys will be boys" when what we really mean is that "predators will be predators."


  MH April 2011 (slightly revised)

Maybe I'm an immigration Scrooge, but it looks to me as if there are only three choices: 1) We carefully control which individuals enter and become citizens of this country, or 2) We go on with porous borders and have an amnesty every couplw of decades. 3) We throw open the doors to all (including criminals, disease carriers, sex traffickers, gang rapists, psychopaths, bomb throwers--along with those "hard-working," good folk looking for a better life). I vote for number 1.

(This writer is such a Rachel Maddow-lefty, liberal, redistribute-the-wealth, gay rights, don't-you-dare-tell-women-they-can't-have-an abortion, racial equality, corporation-regulating, pale pinko-type person, how did I get on the other side of immigration?)

It's just that I can't fathom the logic of open borders. Legals, of course! Illegals, no. In spite of corporation creep (globalization), we are still a nation and probably will remain so for a while. Lots of health, safety, and economic advantages that we hold as a nation are worth protecting.

Even my hero Rachel Maddow talks only about "immigrants." Rachel! There are no such real-life persons as "immigrants." There are only legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. (Honoring this distinction does not make anyone a racist.) The word "immigrant," sans adjective, abuses logic, and tolerates mindless, dangerous and sometimes insincere policies.

[Use arrows to cont.]

Is there any sense in a policy of pretend-borders coupled with amnesty every twenty or thirty years?

We tried amnesty in the '80s. (Didn't that just work beautifully?) Some people, including President Obama, want to do it again. Serial amnesties would seem to encourage those panting at the borders to give illegal entry a try. Sure! Come on in! You'll be "in the shadows" for a while, but sooner or later another amnesty is coming.

Commentators love to toss around the eleven million figure, suggesting that "we can't deport them all." Yet they seem to think we can locate them all, extract various fees and taxes from all of them, and knock on all their doors to see if they are doing their English homework! Ridiculous? Uh-huh.

Not easy, but simpler than that: 1) Seal the borders. 2) Prosecute employers who hire illegals. 3) Locate and deport the few who remain. (Few will remain without jobs.) 4) Revise immigration laws (or enforce) to attract the brains and brawn our economy needs. 5) Carefully screen all applicants for entry and citizenship. 6) Find a compassion route for persons brought here illegally as children and brought up as Americans. (And all their relatives? Naw.)

ISLAM IN AMERICA ("religion" and "culture")

  MH April 2011
Last summer (2010) when all the controversy was raging over a mosque near the site of nine-eleven in Manhattan, Imam Abdul Rauf was much in the news.

Imam Abdul Rauf’s statements made him sound harmless enough. Conspicuously missing from his protestations, however, was renunciation of certain common practices of Islamic culture/religion around the world that are crimes in the United States of America.

These practices may be the real source of American hostility toward Muslims. Maybe it’s not mainly about the location of a mosque---or who or what Muslims “worship.” (“Freedom of Religion” means that you can worship a groundhog if you really want to.)

It may be the rest of the stuff that scares us.

What if American imams were to say out loud…

1) I renounce the practice of wife-beating. (Americans call it “assault and battery.” People who do it are likely to be jailed.)

2) I condemn the practice of genital mutilation. (Here, it is called “assault,” and “child abuse.” Informally, some of us call it “savagery.”)

  [use arrows to cont.]

3) I support the freedom of all adult women to leave their homes whenever they wish without benefit of male-relative accompaniment or permission. To abridge that freedom with physical restraint, threats of violence, or acts of violence is called “kidnapping,” or, informally, “enslavement.” (Americans fought that war already.)

4) I renounce the practice of stoning and “honor” killing. (Americans call it “murder.”)

5) I condemn rape in all its forms. I particularly condemn gang rape and its use to punish and dishonor a woman and her family. (In America, we jail people who do it.)

6) I condemn polygamy and child marriage. (In America, we jail people who practice it—though not assiduously enough.)

7) I condemn marriages that are coerced, enforced by imprisonment in the home, or by violent acts or threats of violence. (That’s “kidnapping,” “enslavement,” “rape.”)

8) I condemn infanticide (Americans like girl babies! And we call killing them “murder.”)

9) I condemn the favoring of male children for literacy and education, and I support the education of all Muslim people. (In this country, we require it. Memorizing a "holy" book is not education.)

Yes, there’s more; but what if the imams were to say just that--out loud?

Aha! Civilized, law-supporting, “moderate” Muslims. Welcome to the neighborhood!

Is it the “religion” many Americans fear and object to—or is it the particular cultural practices that we consider crimes?

Perhaps the term "religion" needs to be defined more carefully. Are the above crimes "religion"--thus deserving of first ammendment protection? Probably not.
   [April 2011 MH]


    [MH 2011]
Before we get all warm and fuzzy about “moderate” Islam—before we get all puffed up about our devotion to religious freedom and the First Amendment, perhaps we should ask Mosque-builders and some of our home-grown religionists about their devotion to the Thirteenth Amendment: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

That applies to women as well as men.

  THE BODIES POLICE Hands & laws off unless   we tell you otherwise!

  MH October 2011
Humanity can hang around waiting for evolution to do its thing on bodies; or we can mess with them, using genetics, laws, culture, religion, diet, surgery, drugs, razors, eye-liner, and clothing. But women's bodies do not belong to men--to politicians, priests, sex-entrepreneurs, polygamists, ad agencies or husbands.
  [Use arrows to cont.]

Messing with clothing is pretty easy. The clothing police of radical Islam have decreed that the body of a woman is so irresistible (precious? obnoxious?) that women must cover all but a few inches of it—on pain of (oh yes!) bodily  injury.


Males in those cultures ought not look at female bodies; but it is permissible, nay, necessary, to beat them, cut away clitorises, and snuff some of them out with honor killings.
Maybe the sight of an ankle, shoulder, breast, or buttock is so irresistible that some men require anti-lust medications. But rather than deal with their own excessive sexuality, males often prefer to dump the burden of their problem on their women. Cover it all up, babe! We’re in charge here!

(Of course it may be just a matter of property. A self-respecting man must keep other men from stealing or borrowing his female body-property!)

It is sad that the brains of females sometimes become so thoroughly cloroxed that they actually accept this burden, naming it “modesty.”
   [Arrows to cont.]
Sounds virtuous.


Tell them, ladies: This is my body. Not yours! Hands and laws off, unless I tell you otherwise!

Nowadays, in a so-called advanced culture, legislation allows a woman's body to perish if she goes to a hospital requiring a life-saving abortion--if abortion is against some hospital personnel's "religion."

And the latest anti-woman travesty would call a fertilized egg "a person," thereby naming most birth control methods "murder."

(Make a baby! Make a baby! The law says you must!)

Wise up, ladies. Don't collude with the forces that enslave your bodies. You are 51% of the world's population.

Tell the forty-niners:

  [See also EXCESSIVE SEX on the WORLD page.]


"Spending" or "Demand'? The country doesn't have a "spending" problem; it has a "demand" problem!

There is NO DEMAND. (People are unemployed and/or in debt. They have no money.)

Corporations and the rich are sitting on cash. They don't use it to create jobs because there is NO DEMAND for what they produce.

Spending cuts and layoffs of state and local workers are creatiing more unemployed and thus LESS DEMAND.

Direct creation of government jobs will create DEMAND (not to mention more taxpayers).

Conclusion: Government should tax the rich and use it for hiring.

  MH 7/2011

Health Services Present & Future

  MH AUG. 16, 2012
If you've ever lain in a hospital bed unable to get help, or been brushed off by a nasty doctor's secretary, or been left totally without diagnosis, or played days of telephone tag to get an appointment or a simple question answered, or if you have waited three hours for a cardiologist (along with two frustrated medical support staffers, forced into idleness), or been yelled at by some hospital employee who seems to be
  [Use arrows to cont.]

shilling for unnecessary emergency-room business for the hospital; or if you have noticed the body fluids on the floor of your hospital room uncleaned for days, or looked at your medical bills--or if you are reading this--you are one of the lucky ones! You are not dead!

You also know how sick, how nasty, how smashed, how cruel to the poor, how under-functional our U.S. health-care system is. (And I use the word "system" loosely.)

Of course there are wonderful outcomes too. And your list of personal horrors is probably entirely different from mine, but they both reflect something unnecessary, unacceptable, and, insomuch as they suggest incompetence, possibly deadly.

What do health "systems" need? Research, knowledge, trained practitioners, of course. Conspicuously missing are checks and balances, and focus on outcomes.

Please SQUAWK BACK about Gawande's article. (It's not "political." It's long. It's controversial. Read it all.)


You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.

Get Flash Player