Unearthed from the archives here is the curious death of Dr. Foster, a young and promising Manhattan physician. Was his sudden breakdown and mysterious death in 1942 linked to the suppression of a revolutionary medical discovery by Nikola Tesla.
Some might consider one of my hobbies to be a little eccentric. I like to go through the old newspapers and find odd news or snapshots of long-forgotten drama. To me, it's fascinating how often you find little treasures or peculiar mysteries that have long been buried in the past.
While the following post is not technically a "political" issue, I thought it was interesting enough to pass along. I will admit that there is a great deal of speculation involved and possibly there are no connections to the events in the post.
The Foster Mystery
With that said, hop into my time machine and we will return to January 1942 to investigate the death of a young Manhattan doctor.
Doctor's Mystery Death
Opens 3 Investigations
Son of Late Boro Pastor Had Fractured Larynx, Autopsy at Bellevue Reveals
( January 19, 1942) A triple investigation was under way today into the death at Bellevue Hospital, Manhattan, of Dr. Allyn King Foster, Jr. 37 of E. 96th St. Manhattan, son of the late Rev. Dr. Allyn King Foster, pastor of the Washington Avenue and Marcy Avenue Baptist Churches.
The doctor was taken to Bellevue last Monday after a policeman had found him without hat or overcoat in a dazed condition at W. 56th St. and 6th Ave. Manhattan. His office was at 136 E. 57th St. Manhattan. He was placed in the psychiatric division. It was said that because he was uncooperative" forcible feeding had to be resorted to several times. He died Saturday evening while a friend of his family was arranging his transfer to another hospital.
Wife Asks Autopsy
Dr. Foster's wife, Elsa, requested an autopsy. As a result of the findings by Assistant Medical Examiner Philip Goldstein, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner ordered an examination. Assistant District Attorney Jacob Grumet of the Homicide Bureau of the New York County prosecutor's office, started an inquiry.
A third was begun by police of W. 54th St. Station, the precinct in which he was found., and by the police of the E. 35th st. Station, the Bellevue precinct, because of the possibility of his having been injured in the hospital.
Larynx Fractured
It was stated that Dr. Foster was found to have a fractured larynx, foreign matter in his bronchial tubes, and evidence of asphyxiation. Police said a fractured larynx was frequently an indication of a mugging- a holdup in which one bandit, standing behind the victim, throws an arm around his throat, choking him and forcing his head back while a second goes through his pockets.
Born in Cornwall, N.Y., Dr. Foster was educated at Brooklyn Poly Prep. Colgate University, Rush Medical School of the University of Chicago and interned at St. Luke's Hospital. He was a junior assistant surgeon in his outpatient department, assistant surgeon at Broad Street Hospital and clinical assistant surgeon in the outpatient department of Laying -in- Hospital.
So to sum up, a young Brooklyn doctor is found on the streets of Manhattan, wandering lost and incoherent. It's a little unusual that alcohol or drugs are not mentioned. At least it was not reported. Added to that, no injuries were reported at the time. Prior to that moment, there had been no sign of mental issues according to his widow. Police pick him up and he is placed under observation at a mental facility.
There, five days later, he is found dead.
While the cause of his death suggests either hanging or strangulation of some sort, that possibility is never expressed in the newspaper item. Additionally, (and rather, surprisingly) the possibility of suicide is not mentioned, suggesting that it was obvious that he did not hang himself.
Most of us have at least heard of the Seth Rich story even if we are not too familiar with the details. I never really looked into it too much.
There were too many other stories that served as examples about just how low Trump and the right-wing news outlets were prepared to go to slander Hillary Clinton.
Yet, in the wake of what we have learned in the last year, it is worth a second look.
Murder on the Street
On Sunday, July 10, 2016, at 4:20 a.m., a young man named Seth Rich was shot in the back by two assailants. As he made his way back home from having a night out, Seth Conrad Rich was chatting with his girlfriend. He was nearly home when gunshots rang out.
He was found lying on the ground only a block from his apartment.
It's getting increasingly more difficult to decide what is science fiction and what is the real world. I stumbled across a couple of stories that might give us an unpleasant foreshadowing of things to come if things keep going the way they are now. One note of caution, however: this kind of speculation is not for the paranoid.
Discover Magazine has a story ( Seeing Crime Before It Happens ) that could have been snatched from the Philip K. Dick novel, "Minority Report.
Egypt provides us with an example of why blasphemy laws make a mockery of the war on terrorism and extremist ideologies.
The right to question authority, in the Western-styled liberal democracies,to challenge the established view or to reject religious dogma is just something we all take for granted.
It comes with living in a free society. It's a fundamental liberty for all human beings that, when it comes for example to religious beliefs we are free to obey the dictates of our own consciences.
In Egypt, however, those who dare to openly express doubts about their faith risk the threat of state-approved violence and legal prosecution.
The Gaber Case
If the reports are true, then the October 2013 arrest of Sherif Gaber, a student at Suez Canal University in the northeastern city of Ismailiya, was utterly surreal.
It involved armored cars surrounding his home in the middle of the night. Was he, you might ask, some kind of religious extremist plotting an attack? Was he a jihadist ready to blow himself up for a distort interpretation of his faith?
No.
His crime was only that he was a non-believer, an atheist. For expressing his skepticism, he was charged "for insulting Islam and promoting atheism."
After twin bomb blasts rocked the Turkish capital on Saturday morning, many Turks are shell-shocked. and wonder how much worse will things get.
Although the entire Turkish nation is in deep shock and mourning, for some of us this horrendous attack in Ankara yesterday didn't really come as a surprise.
The viciousness and the scale were however hard to comprehend.
Violence, Tragedy and Insecurity
The double bombing at a little after ten on Saturday morning was the deadliest terrorist attack that Turkey has seen, Nearly 100 lives were lost and with hundreds more injured. There are, reports now say, something around 160 presently undergoing treatment at hospitals. The death toll is expected to rise since 65 of the injured are in intensive care.
There were no claims of responsibility for the attack.
Sometimes you heard stories that defy belief and here's one dandy example.
Missouri resident Niakea Williams was called by Walnut Groves Elementary School to let her know that her son, Micheal, was having a medical emergency. Her son suffers from Asperger''s Syndrome and suffers from periodic panic attacks.
Arriving at the school, Williams was buzzed in- since school staff recognized her- and immediately went to her son's aid. Williams then proceeded to help her child, calming him down from his episode.
You might think this alone is every parent's nightmare but then things took a rather surreal turn. One source explains:
The principal entered the classroom and informed Williams that she had violated the school policy by not signing the guestbook. Indeed, Williams was in a rush to help her child and did not sign the guestbook, so she told the principal that she was willing to sign the guestbook. But that didn’t satisfy the principal.
Unbelievably, Julia White, the principal for Walnut Grove Elementary decided to call the police and put the school in lockdown for 12 minutes. A strange decision since the situation was under control and there was no threat to any of the pupils, teachers or staff.
When the police arrived, Williams was told that, since she had not been authorized to enter the building, she was therefore trespassing and would be arrested. This, despite the fact that the school had themselves allowed her entry.
What with
the impeachment hearings and the non-stop insanity emanating out of Washington, you will be forgiven if you haven't been
keeping up with the constitutional crisis unfolding in Israel. Most of us
would agree that we have enough on our plates, especially during Thanksgiving. The events in Israel might seem far away and trivial. However, they could well be a
portent of what's to come in the US if Trump loses the 2020
election.
Journalist Chemi
Shalev, writing for Haaretz, observes that Israel is currently in a state
of chaos with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holding his own country hostage
in his " unrelenting effort to avoid criminal prosecution" after being charged with fraud and breach of
trust.
Yesterday we reported how one Russian governor decided that the best way of handling the national economic crisis was by banned the use of the word "crisis."
Such a backward idea, right?
Well, Americans shouldn't laugh too hard at those crazy Ruskies. Bloomberg recently reported that a similar effort in Tennessee to silence discussion that local government approves of.
No Expectation of Privacy Whatsoever
Earlier this month, the town of South Pittsburg, Tennessee, near Chattanooga, passed a resolution that prohibits anybody professionally connected to South Pittsburg, from “publicly discuss[ing] information about other employees and/or volunteers not approved for public communication” on social media. This includes employees, volunteers, and contractors.
The resolution also wags a finger against posting anything on a personal Facebook page or on Twitter that anybody might consider either defamatory or libelous. The policy states that citizens "should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever."
It applies to all city elected representatives, appointed board members, employees, volunteers, vendors, contractors and anyone associated with the town in an official capacity who uses social networks. The policy says those persons can't post anything negative about the city, its employees or other associates.
The officials said that the tough policy was necessary because over the past year, their work has been "hampered by criticism and lies on social media."
Mayor Jane Dawkins defended the action, saying that this was "not a new concept."
Nobody is arguing that. The question is whether it is legal or wise.
In September 2009, American novelist, journalist, and a veteran war correspondent Scott Anderson wrote this:
It is a riddle that lies at the very heart of the modern Russian state, one that remains unsolved to this day. In the awful events of September 1999, did Russia find its avenging angel in Vladimir Putin, the proverbial man of action who crushed his nation's attackers and led his people out of a time of crisis? Or was that crisis actually manufactured to benefit Putin, a scheme by Russia's secret police to bring one of their own to power?
What makes this question important is that absent the bombings of September 1999 and all that transpired as a result, it is hard to conceive of any scenario whereby Putin would hold the position he enjoys today: a player on the global stage, a ruler of one of the most powerful nations on earth.
The riddle he refers to has, today, been largely forgotten by the world press. Yet, understanding what happened in Moscow in 1999 may be a vital question that Americans need to think about.
Recent remarks from one member of the super-wealthy class comparing the treatment of Jews to how the 1% is being treated by progressive stirred a lot of controversy. That should have been expected.
The Nazi comparison was deeply flawed but another historical period- the time just before the French Revolution- might be a lot closer to the mark.
Recently venture capitalist Tom Perkins raised a bunch of eyebrows after comparing the so-called persecution of wealthy Americans to the Nazi campaigns against the Jews. As high level executive in many computer and technology related companies Perkins' net worth has been estimated at $8 billion.
In an open letter to the (News Corporation-owned) Wall Street Journal,
Perkins said:
"Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich.'
Progressive war? And he did not stop there.
"This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent 'progressive' radicalism unthinkable now?"
Progressive radicalism descended from Nazism? Really? What kind of education did this man get? Home-schooling?
American exceptionalism is a useful tool when it comes to claiming the higher moral ground. However it comes with serveral pre-conditions and mandates. One of those is a higher sense of moral development. We must be -at least in some way- a bit better.
However, when it comes to our treatment of the homeless, the elderly, the sick and the need, where is our moral superiority?
The great can protect themselves, but the poor and humble require the arm and shield of the law.
Back then, it was like stating the obvious.
Over a hundred and fifty years later, in November 1977, former Senator and vice-president. Hubert Humphrey said:
"..The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life- the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
If, as one philosopher said, compassion is the basis of morality, then what does it say about the present state of morality in government today.
Has our government passed that moral test?
Is that even a criteria for public policy anymore?
When did it stop being important?
When Charity is a Crime
Thirty-three US cities have enacted policies banning the feeding of homeless. Daytona Beach, Florida, Raleigh North Carolina, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and Birmingham Alabama have all recently fined, removed or threatened individuals and private organizations found breaking the laws.
As one source notes:
According to a report co-released by the National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, during the past seven years Gainesville, Fla., began “enforcing a rule limiting the number of meals that soup kitchens may serve to 130 people in one day;” Phoenix, Ariz., “used zoning laws to stop a local church from serving breakfast to community members, including many homeless people, outside a local church;” and Myrtle Beach, S.C., “adopted an ordinance that restricts food sharing with homeless people in public parks.”
In a Daytona Beach incident, a couple who ran a Christian outreach group for over a year were fined for giving free food to the homeless.
In all, police officers ticketed six people, including four volunteers who helped the Jimenezes on Wednesday – one of them, a man in a wheelchair who recently escaped homelessness and participated “to pay it forward,” Debbie Jimenez said. The fines levied by authorities total $2,238.
Police officers also warned that all members involved were permanently banned from the park. If they ignored the warning they would be arrested for trespassing — on public property, no less. As one reporter said, "The right to peaceably assemble has been declared null-and-void for charity workers."
The excuse the officials gave was that not all of the homeless people are mannerly or clean while in the park. Living on the street tends to take the GQ and Gucci out of its victims. They also point out that some homeless people have mental health issues and substance abuse problems and criminal records.
It's an ironic statement, as we shall see.
Charity has always been considered one of the fundamental virtues of the Christian faith. Famously, the New Testament in the Gospel of Matthew relates the parable of the good King who admonished his ministers for their pettiness and selfish.
‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
The punishment for helping only the well-off and powerful to the determent of the needy? The King cursed them, "into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Pretty harsh.
Both St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wrote that charity united us to God and that the habit of charity extends not only to the love of God but also to "the love of our neighbor."
Many Christians would say that love for your neighbor- whether rich or poor- is the key principle of the religion and any law that forbids individuals from assisting the needy is, in fact, anti-Christian.
However, it appears that the same people who claim that America is a Christian nation are quite comfortable with outlawing feeding the hungry and helping the needy. They must be too busy fighting for their religious liberty not to bake cakes for same-sex couples.
Criminalizing the Homeless
If that were the only laws that made things difficult for the homeless, it would be shameful enough. But sadly, that's only the tip of the iceberg.
In Houston, it has become illegal to search in dumpsters for food, as so many homeless people are forced to do. One 44-year old homeless man was ticketed by a Houston police officer for." disturbing the contents of a garbage can in (the) downtown business district."
In the Houston area, the most recent statistics indicate that more than 6,300 people are without a home on any given night. Nearly half of the unsheltered homeless population have a mental illness and/or substance abuse disorder. (There is good news too. Since 2011, there has been a 37% decrease in homelessness in Houston and in the past year, an impressive 16% decrease, according to the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County.)
In San Francisco, arrests for illegal lodging, or sleeping outside are increasingly common citywide. According to one source,
The number of such citations of homeless people jumped sharply in the last two years: Illegal lodging charges increased from 85 to 219; maintaining a public nuisance, from 134 to 240; and obstructing a sidewalk, from 317 to 677.
Said Elisa Della-Piana, director of the Neighborhood Justice Clinic in Berkeley explained to T.J Johnston, writer for Street Spirit:
“A tired homeless man faced up to three years in prison for dozing off on a milk crate. Prison. For sleeping while sitting up — an act that anyone who has ever been on a plane ride can attest is torture in and of itself.”
Increasing the penalties against the homeless only punishes the ones who need help, especially after deep cuts in affordable housing and "other poverty-abatement programs starting in the 1980s."
Origins of Our Contempt
According to the nonpartisan think tank, The Urban Institute, between the years 1981 and 1989, the homelessness rate tripled.
One reason for this was the lack of affordable housing. Available housing for the low-income household became harder and harder to find. There was a reason for that.
In the effort to limit government responsibility- a prime directive for conservatives- the budget for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was cut by a staggering $65 billion, going from a budget of $83 billion in 1978 to only $18 billion in 1983.
In effect, as one source put it, the federal government under Reagan "relinquished its responsibility for developing affordable housing for low-income families."
For an explanation of the full effects of the policies, you can go to this informative site.
Consider that during the same years, Congress was debating the Reagan budget of the B-2 stealth bomber. At $2.4 billion each, Congress cut its initial purchase of was 132 bomber to just 21.
If nothing else, this gives some indication of the moral priorities.
Another of Reagan's policies which contributed to the rise of homelessness concerned the governmental responsibility of the mentally ill (including substance abuse.)
Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness.
Betraying our Duties
Upon closer inspection, we can see that the movement that put more and more mentally ill patients on the street did not begin with President Reagan.
It was actually a part of the 60s and 70s reforms that gave more rights to patients with treatable mental illness. Drugs were seen as the panacea for mental illness and policy-makers with doctors decided that the best course was to put the less severely patient back into the community. It was a major mistake.
The range of patients who could be released into the community - so long as they were not a threat to others- broadened considerably.
The effect was predictable: Once released, they would fail to take meds or get counseling and went right back to being seriously ill. As reported back in 1984, the policy was not working and something needed to be done:
Dr. Frank R. Lipton and Dr. Albert Sabatini of Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital in Manhattan, who have done research on the problems of the homeless, say one of the major flaws in the concept of deinstitutionalization was the notion that serious, chronic mental disorders could be minimized, if not totally prevented, through care provided within the local community.
The neo-conservative mandate under Reagan to slash government programs all but ensured that Federal funds for community mental health programs would begin to dry up, shifting the burden to the states. The states, in turn, followed the federal government's lead and legislators too cut their budgets on mental health programs.
It was more than any single Reagan policy. It was a general attitude that homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, and even diseases like AIDS, were all personal problems and that governments had no mandate to seek resolutions. In short, social problems could and should be resolved without any cost to government.
It may surprise a lot of the young whippersnappers that at one time when it came to helping the homeless, it was a matter of national pride. Edward Kennedy in his 1980 concession speech at the Democratic convention said:
Our commitment has been, since the days of Andrew Jackson, to all those he called "the humble members of society.." On this foundation we have defined our values, refined our policies and refreshed our faith.
And that was the historical pivoting point.
By electing Ronald Reagan in 1980, Americans decided by popular vote to turn their backs on the poor, the drug addicts and the mentally ill. The road to prosperity had to have its scapegoats, after all. The humblest members of society didn't deserve our attention. There had to be winners and losers.
What was the joy of success if prosperity was to be universally shared to all members of society?
When Compassion Became a Joke
Nobody can claim ignorance about Reagan's record. His sense of empathy had been made clear for years, well before he was elected president. In 1966, before a TV audience he said:
"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."
Hunger in America, for many, was just a joke.
When heiress Patty Hearst was kidnapped and the SLA- the group that abducted her- initially demanded that free food for the poor and elderly be distributed in the poor neighborhoods of San Francisco. It was, they said, a condition of beginning negotiations for the release of Miss Hearst. In three days of distribution, over 75,000 resident received food through charity organizations.
What was Governor Reagan's response?
Reagan told reporters that people who accepted the food were "aiding and abetting" felonies. (I am sure he meant felons, not felonies.) He said he "deplored the fact that these people are accepting the food."
Fuming at the hostage-takers' demand, Reagan reportedly told Republicans at a luncheon (a luncheon!)
"It's just too bad we can't have an epidemic of botulism."
(He later claimed the botulism remark was just a joke.)
Joke or not, sometimes an off-hand remark can reveal so much about the character and the moral standards of the teller. President Reagan and the party that has always held him in high regard- indeed idolized him- set the path that would today lead to laws making the poor and the sick and the homeless criminals.
For a nation that takes so much pride in its Judeo-Christian roots, -with a moral code that demands we treat others the way would expect to be treated, that teaches us to care for the needy and the helpless as a glory to God- you'd think we could treat the homeless just a little bit better than this.
Through a special tax arrangement with the Australian government, Rupert Murdoch's New Corporation- parent company of Fox News- became the largest single factor in the shortfalls in the Australian budget.
The single largest factor in the underlying deterioration of the federal budget announced by Treasurer Joe Hockey in December was a cash payout of almost $900 million to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation.
Despite Fox News and News Corp newspaper's near-constant drumbeat against government spending, it came right down to it, News Corp was just another corporation expecting special treatment. Documents last week revealed the company claimed a massive tax deduction- one of the largest cash payments- from the Australian Tax Office.
When the Australian budget went south, it was not due to wild spending on foolish projects or due to the military appropriations but, if these reports are true, one main factor was a record-breaking tax deduction that the Tax Office allowed the media giant.
With abrasive Right Wing talk radio “personality” Rush Limbaugh’s all-but-inevitable dismissal from the airwaves, many people are starting to ask how the heck were people like this man ever allowed behind a microphone in the first place. His latest outrage- calling Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown student meant to testify before Congress a variety of insulting names over a few days- is really only a single example in a career built on competitive sensationalism. And Limbaugh is, of course, by no means alone.
A Man Called Savage
Michael Savage
Let’s take a look at another radio personality who has made a name for himself promoting right wing hate. If you thought Rush Limbaugh was bad, then Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) a radio talk show host for the Talk Radio Network, could be his equal or worse.
Using the pseudonym Michael Savage, he’s launched a one-man mission to save America from its enemies at home and abroad, which on any given day includes liberals, gays, academics, the homeless, the Clintons, immigrants, feminists, CNN, the American Civil Liberties Union, Muslims and other minorities. Broadcasting three hours a day, five afternoons a week, from a rented studio in downtown San Francisco, he gives voice to the right wing’s darkest fantasies.
The same political evangelicals who have wasted taxpayer's money in the US are taking the Christian Right's homophobic defense of family show to Russia.
And there's a good reason why Putin and the Russian government supports the extreme conservative propaganda.
Back in February, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council (FRC), a far right Christian political organization, declared that the American Economy was doomed. It was only a matter of time.
The cause for the meltdown? America's acceptance of gay rights, naturally.
Perkins' American Apocalypse
In case you don't know, the Family Research Council- a tax-exempt 501(c)(3)charity- lobbies in Washington against all
things homosexual in the name of supporting family values. "Homosexual
conduct is," according to the FRC, "harmful to the persons who engage in it
and to society at large, and can never be affirmed."
Perkins' argument that acceptance of gay equality can actually cause the economy to
tank is a new one. It works like this: Gay rights, Perkins
predicts, will weaken the nation to such a point that Russia and China will
feel emboldened to drop the dollar as an international currency standard.
American money will be worthless.
Thereafter every time you open your purse
or wallet all you will hear is a flushing sound.
At the beginning of last year, before the presidential campaign had really gotten underway, Nomadic Politics reported that one of Mitt Romney’s high- dollar contributors to his Restore Our Future SuperPAC was hedge fund billionaire, John Paulson. Now it seems as though, Paulson might be considering leaving the country altogether. Bloomberg last week mentioned Puerto Rico as a possible new home. (His hedge fund, however, issued a denial of the story.)
Paulson belonged to an exclusive club of uber-wealthy Romney backers who, even before the Republican nomination, were willing to write a cool million check for Romney’s bid for the White House. What's a million between friends? Why, that's chicken feed for a man like Paulson, whose net worth, according to Forbes was almost $16 billion. (The year prior to the SuperPAC contribution he reportedly earned staggering 5 billion.)
But it was all for naught, in the end. Investing in Romney proved to be an expensive proposition with very limited returns. However, the opposite can be said of Paulson's investments during the economic crisis. Wall Street analysts say that Paulson became outrageously successful by betting on failure, from the collapse of banks to the mortgage crisis.
The summer of 1965 was one of many critical moments of American history. The Great Society, President Johnson's ambitious policy to overhaul the country, became a reality. However, at the same moment, a new movement of a different kind was emerging. It was a kind of backlash that would take 15 years to mature into the conservative movement.
With Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney’s announcement of Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate, there’s bound to be a lot of talk about Ryan’s budget proposals, particularly the proposed reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats are no doubt pleased with Romney’s decision since any changes - no matter how necessary- to these social programs are bound to create some fear with some affected voters.
Still, something has to be done. Everybody agrees on that, at least. Health care is the biggest driver of future budget deficits.
It is true that Ryan’s tweaking of his original plan should have removed some of this understandable anxiety and yet when it comes to something this complex, voters on both sides of the political spectrum are deeply suspicious of any tinkering. Even the ultra-right wing Tea Party movement is opposed to medicare cuts. One source- correctly or incorrectly- captures the mood of the anxious voter.
Ryan’s plan has been rightly called “a thinly disguised assault on Medicare.” The House GOP knows they have no immediate hope of ending Medicare, but they’re telegraphing their long-term plans to cut all the cords holding up America’s social safety net. That should be a brutal wakeup call for all of us as we get a glimpse of how they would reshape America as a less kind, less gentle nation. They don’t plan to stop at Medicare; Social Security won’t be far behind.
It would be tempting for Democrats to scare the elderly voters with exaggerated fears about what Romney and Ryan might do. Even without the medicare fears, the less than charismatic Paul Ryan is certainly not going to be giving the Romney campaign anything close to a boost.
As I said, I will leave further discussion of that topic to others.
Instead, I would like to take you back forty-seven years to a small town in Missouri where important events were happening.
by Nomad Rupert Murdoch, head of the media empire News Corporation, has come under fire in the UK. His newspapers are accused of hacking into private phones in the name of journalism. Questions are now being asked about how much influence did Murdoch actually have in the political process and what was the effect.
The UK media ethics investigation and phone-hacking scandal which threatens to bring down Rupert Murdoch’s vast media empire, News International, has taken a dramatic turn.
A former prime minister has charged that Rupert Murdoch lied under oath to the Parliamentary inquiry committee investigating allegations of excessive media influence in the political process. The Leveson Inquiry
Prime Minister David Cameron took the courageous step of creating a Parliamentary investigatory panel, led by Lord Justice Leveson. The Leveson Inquiry was charged with looking into the claims of illegal phone hacking at Murdoch-owned newspapers, with illicit pay-offs to the police for inside information. Additionally, the inquiry was to look into the wider of issue of British media ethics. (What they could scavenge anyway).
The other day, the New York Times gave this warning to former New York City mayor and avid Trump supporter, 72-year-old Rudy Giuliani: Rudy's ardent support for Mr. Trump could come at a cost to his legacy.
That's what happens, I suppose, when you attempt to defend indefensible things. Former Giuliani aides, the article claims, are concerned about their ex-boss' unquestioning loyalty to the Republican nominee.
They cited his unsubstantiated questioning of Hillary Clinton’s mental and physical health. He has also championed Trump's promise to build an “impenetrable physical wall” on the country’s southern border and to severely restrict immigration from Muslim countries. (When Trump was pressed for specifics, he began to sound more and more supportive of what is presently being done by the Obama administration.)
So strident - some would say delirious- has been Giuliani's support for Trump, the editorial boards of some newspapers have raised the possibility that Rudy is "unhinged."
But then, in this election, how on earth could you know?
So much of what Mr. Vidal had to say about American politics and its culture were things that many Americans just didn't want to hear. Yet looking back over his record as a prognosticator, he always seemed to be more on the right side, rather than the wrong side of history.
It is true that his love for stirring up controversy (often for its own sake) made it easier for people to despise him. Yet, few could deny that when it came to exposition, to expressing the liberal ethic, Gore Vidal could rarely be bested.
There was a famous 1968 televised debate between his mirror image on the right, William F. Buckley, Jr. In this debate, the topic turned to the heavy handed police reaction to protesters at Chicago Democratic Convention. Vidal referred to Buckley as a "pro- or crypto- Nazi" and it was at that point that Buckley lost his cool and said, very uncharacteristically,"Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in your goddamn face, and you'll stay plastered."
.jpg "Lyndon Johnson")
