Another day another VA visit

I saw my primary care doctor last week and he referred me to several of the specialty clinics for some follow-up stuff.  I went to see one of them this morning.  For a still undetermined reason, my shortness of breath is even worse of late, so it was more of a struggle for me to walk across the parking lot and throughout a good portion of the first two floors of the main hospital building at the West L.A. VA Campus.  I suppose I should be grateful I didn't have to deal with the temporary triage area of the Emergency Room.

When I got to the clinic reception area, pulling an oxygen tank on wheels behind me and very out of breath, the sign said, "please stand behind the kiosk until you are called to the window."  I stood there waiting while one of the clerks showed the other how to handle something in the computer.  Five full minutes passed before the clerk who had been receiving instruction was ready and called me to the window.  The other clerk told him, "don't help him until you finish that, to make sure you don't have to go back and do it all over gain."  Another couple of minutes passed and then that other clerk summoned me to the window.  It took her all of 30 seconds to check me in and tell me to have a seat.  Seven minutes of standing and struggling to breathe seems excessive.

I was early for my appointment.  I still had to wait for 40 minutes beyond the scheduled appointment time before I was seen.  The disconnect isn't with the quality of the care provided.  The specialist I saw was personable, thorough and obviously concerned with my medical issues.  He provided excellent care, clear and cogent instructions and I was thoroughly satisfied with the quality of care.  If I were writing a review of the place, he'd get the maximum number of stars.

The administration of that care is the problem.  We can fault Congress for not providing enough funding, the Executive Branch for inadequate management and the protections of the Civil Service system in keeping employees who don't do the work and cannot be fired; but there is another issue to be explored.

The first symptom is found in that parking lot.  Every single parking space marked as "Handicapped Only" was occupied.  That is a lot of spaces.  The parking lot entry is now controlled by a guard to ensure that no employees and only properly cleared visitors can park in that lot between 6 a.m. and 3 p.m.  The lot was still almost completely full on a mid-week morning.

There are 170 VA Medical Centers and 1,061 outpatient clinics in the VA Health System.  There are over 9 million veterans enrolled in the VA Health System.  I am not typical in terms of number of visits given my multiple medical issues, but so far in 2018 I've been to the VA for non emergent care nine times.  Since every veteran should get at least one checkup annually and there are a lot of us getting care on a more frequent basis; assume for a moment that we average two visits to a VA facility each year.

Over 18 million appointments (not counting emergent and urgent care visits) divided by 1,231 facilities is over 14,600 appointments per facility annually.  The West LA VA campus is big.  Lots of buildings.  Lots of people.

This isn't offered as proof of anything except there are a lot of appointments to manage.  The proof is in the scandals of waits veterans experience to get care.  I watched a man in the waiting room this morning waiting patiently for his name to be called.  After he'd been there for well over an hour waiting, he had to go to the desk and reschedule.  He had to be somewhere.  Jammed parking lots, jammed waiting rooms and reports about how administrators are gaming the system to earn performance bonuses they aren't entitled too are signs that the system's capacity isn't sufficient to provide every veteran with the excellent care the system can and does provide.

* * *

The VA Mission Act, which went from the Senate to Trump's desk last week, is not the answer.  One of its provisions is to allow the VA to contract with a chain of care clinics to serve a segment of those more than 9 million of us enrolled in the VA Health System.

Medicare is a government funded system where the care is provided by non-government providers.  The rate of errors in claims processed by Medicare is far higher than the rate of private insurers.  I see nothing to indicate the same would not be the case if the VA allows veterans to go to private care providers without pre-authorization.  Some will milk the system.

The VA needs to invest in infrastructure and administration first and foremost to make the most efficient use of its present capacity.

Did ABC do the right thing in canceling Roseanne?

The day after Memorial Day 2018 will be remembered mostly for one Tweet, and the firestorm it ignited.

For those who haven't been following this story, the "vj" refers to former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett.  That tweet was deleted.  This one is still posted:

Sorry to have tweeted incorrect info about you!I Please forgive me! By the way, George Soros is a nazi who turned in his fellow Jews 2 be murdered in German concentration camps & stole their wealth-were you aware of that?  But, we all make mistakes, right Chelsea?

— Roseanne Barr (@therealroseanne) May 29, 2018

ABC reacted by canceling Roseanne within hours after she posted her Tweet.  Considering that the reboot of the sit-com was ABC's highest-rated scripted program this past season, they gave up a lot.  Did that factor into the decision?  CNN has published a story claiming to be the "inside" data on what transpired after the now-deleted tweet.

I found it interesting that according to the story, fears of an advertiser boycott apparently didn't factor into the decision-making process.  I was not surprised to read that one of CNN's sources for the story claims one executive at a meeting on the subject said "there was no way to come back from this."

It should also be noted that the story points out that this wasn't the first time.  

"Around 10:30 a.m. Eastern, 7:30 a.m. Pacific, Barr tweeted out an apology to Jarrett.  She said she was "leaving Twitter."  But ABC had heard this before -- there have been past flare-ups when Barr pledged to stay away from the social network, only to come back days or weeks later."

Before I became aware of the firestorm generated by the tweet, a good friend asked me if I felt ABC should fire Roseanne and/or cancel the show.  My initial reaction was that they'd probably suspend her for several episodes and do other forms of damage control.  Soon after, they fired her.

* * *

Once again, technology's role in speeding up events cannot be ignored.  There were memes going around even before ABC acted.  Wanda Sykes had tweeted out she would not return to the Roseanne show for season two before ABC acted.  Emma Kenney, an 18 year old actress who was playing Roseanne's granddaughter on the program was calling her agent to quit the show before ABC acted.

If ABC had chosen not to act with such swiftness, the network would have been left twisting in the wind.  Dealing with outrage on all sides.  From those like me who found that tweet indefensible to those who somehow see this as an issue involving Roseanne's First Amendment rights.

Funny thing is, those who believe Roseanne's free speech has been violated don't apply that same standard to the NFL's ban on players kneeling for the playing of the national anthem.  The fact is, neither is a First Amendment issue.  Only government can violate a person's First Amendment rights. 

I don't see how ABC could have done things much differently.  There are some who are arguing that the network could have simply fired Roseanne from the show, changed its name and continued with the remaining cast members.  There is speculation that another network (probably Fox) might pick up a Roseanne show, without those members of the cast who took issue with the tweet.  I don't see that happening though.  Tom Werner, Roseanne's producing partner told Dateline that he hopes, "Roseanne seeks the help she needs."

Could ABC continue with the rest of the cast in a sit-com with a new title.  I jokingly suggested "Dan Minus Bigot" but titles like "The Connors" or "Dan Takes Over" might work.  After all, other shows where there was a titular character survived in one form or another after that person departed.  Mayberry R.F.D. went on for three seasons after Andy Griffith departed The Andy Griffith Show.  The Hogans went on after Valerie Harper left Valerie.

Then I tried imagining The Dick Van Dyke show without Dick Van Dyke.  The Mary Tyler Moore show, without Mary.  Shonda Rhimes is on record as saying Grey's Anatomy will end when Ellen Pompeo decides she's done playing the title character.

The audience would decide if The Connors would work for ABC.  

* * *

Should ABC have acted so quickly and decisively?  Before you answer, I want you to imagine what would have happened if they hadn't?  How would those offended by Roseanne's words have moved against the network?

Did ABC do the right thing?  You tell me.

Revisiting a Reagan Aphorism

The tweet below came from Jon Favreau but he is only one of many who retweeted the image.

The photo shows immigrant children being held in cages.  The implication is that this was done by the current administration.  The problem is that the photo is from a story published by the Arizona Republic in 2014.  

We see someone post something that outrages us and our immediate reflex is to share/retweet it.  We may even be more likely to distribute things that outrage when we see the icon below next to the name of the person whose timeline we are viewing:

Problem is, that is only indicative that they really are who they say they are.  It doesn't mean that the things they post are any more or less accurate than those of us who aren't "verified."  That's an important word.  It brings us to the titular aphorism of the late Ronald Reagan.

"Trust, but verify."  Even in this age of Facebook and other sites trying to separate the fake from the real I still assume that internet content is riddled with what one reporter described as "demonstrable falsehoods."   I have to admit that at first when Chrissie Teigen took Maggie Haberman of the New York Times to task for using those words to describe things Donald Trump had said, I agreed with Chrissie.  A lie is a lie and it should be called one.  However, Haberman's point that Trump may not have known all of the facts makes "demonstrable falsehoods" more accurate is well taken.

I'm trying to be sure than whenever I share something, it is accurate.  Before I share it.  Facts matter.  Accuracy matters.  The truth matters.  In an era where the truth became the first casualty of someone we refer to as #LiarInChief taking office, those of us who are part of the resistance need to be more cognizant of being accurate and truthful in our criticism.

* * *

While on the topic of immigrant children and how they are being treated by the current Administration, let's talk about conflation.  The conflation of the headline about how the federal government has "lost" almost 1,500 such children and how the Trump Administration is separating children from their parents at the border when families enter the U.S. illegally.

The two are separate issues.  A story in the Washington Post explains the lost children issue very clearly.

"During a Senate committee hearing late last month, Steven Wagner, an official with the Department of Health and Human Services, testified that the federal agency had lost track of 1,475 children who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border on their own (that is, unaccompanied by adults) and were subsequently placed with adult sponsors in the United States."

The separation of children from their parents at the border is the result of a Trump Administration decision to refer every single instance of illegal crossing of the border for federal prosecution.  That will result in the separation of families.

It is also worth noting that the "lost children" is based solely on phone calls made to the sponsors that those children were placed with.  It is likely that many of those sponsors chose to "go off the grid" to avoid deportation of those children.

* * *

The desperate conditions that drive parents to send their children to our borders on their own, or to try to smuggle them into the U.S. are well documented.  I won't fault them for making that choice.  I will fault our government and the leaders we have elected to handle such things for failing to deal with this issue in the more than three decades since President Reagan's program of amnesty became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.  We can't wish this issue away.  Ignoring it doesn't work.  Congress needs to act.

Memorial Day Thoughts

This Memorial Day blog is dedicated to TSgt John A. Chapman, who perished in the Battle of Takur Ghur in Afghanistan in 2002.  At a ceremony yet to be scheduled, he will receive the Medal of Honor.

On Memorial Day, the graves of veterans who are buried in Arlington National Cemetery and other places of honor are visited by the living.  American flags are used to "decorate" those graves.  This is a tradition that began in ancient times.  Graves were decorated with flowers.  The tomb of Achilles was covered in amaranth and the grave of Sophocles with roses and ivy.

Unlike Veterans Day, when we honor every man and woman who has served our nation, Memorial Day is set aside to honor those who gave their lives during their military service.  Not just those who died in combat but all who died while serving.  All of the fallen deserve to be remembered.  Not just the 655,000 on both sides who fell during our Civil War.  Not just the 2,446 we lost during the Spanish-American War.  Not just the more than 116,000 from World War I, the more than 405,000 from World War II and the more than 36,000 from the Korean War.

We honor the 23 who were killed during Operation Just Cause (the U.S. Invasion of Panama).  We honor Captains Fernando Ribas-Dominicci and Paul Lorence.  They were shot down while carrying out the mission to bomb Libya in April of 1986.  We also honor Captains Paul Dean Martin Jr. (yes, the song of the famed singer) and Ramon Ortiz; who died on a routine training mission in March of 1987 when their plane crashed in the San Bernardino Mountains.

We honor MSGT Gary Gordon and SFC Randall Shughart along with the 17 other men who died in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993.  We also honor Navy Lieutenant Matthew Claar, who was killed while making a night landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln on a training mission.

We honor Edith Ayres and Helen Wood, two nurses serving during World War I who died in a training accident while aboard the USS Magnolia.  Nurses did not hold rank at the time.  They were killed while sitting on deck, watching soldiers conducting a practice drill.  A weapon misfired and the resulting shrapnel killed both women.

Memorial Day is to honor all who have fallen while serving.  No matter where, no matter when.  During my 15 month tour of duty at Andersen Airbase on Guam, my unit lost five personnel.  The fact that one took his own life and three of the remaining four died because they chose to ignore rules and do stupid, dangerous things doesn't alter this fact.  They are our honored dead.

July marks the 45th anniversary of the U.S. military being an all-volunteer force.  Every man and woman serving made the choice to put on the uniform.  All who are serving now were honored on this year's Armed Forces Day.  All who served, in the past and in the present will be honored in November.  Memorial Day is reserved for those who fell while serving.

* * *

Through the travail of the ages,
Midst the pomp and toil of war,
Have I fought and strove and perished
Countless times upon this star.

In the form of many people
In all panoplies of time
Have I seen the luring vision
Of the Victory Maid, sublime.

I have battled for fresh mammoth,
I have warred for pastures new,
I have listed to the whispers
When the race trek instinct grew.

I have known the call to battle
In each changeless changing shape
From the high souled voice of conscience
To the beastly lust for rape.

I have sinned and I have suffered,
Played the hero and the knave;
Fought for belly, shame, or country,
And for each have found a grave.

I cannot name my battles
For the visions are not clear,
Yet, I see the twisted faces
And I feel the rending spear.

Perhaps I stabbed our Savior
In His sacred helpless side.
Yet, I’ve called His name in blessing
When after times I died.

In the dimness of the shadows
Where we hairy heathens warred,
I can taste in thought the lifeblood;
We used teeth before the sword.

While in later clearer vision
I can sense the coppery sweat,
Feel the pikes grow wet and slippery
When our Phalanx, Cyrus met.

Hear the rattle of the harness
Where the Persian darts bounced clear,
See their chariots wheel in panic
From the Hoplite’s leveled spear.

See the goal grow monthly longer,
Reaching for the walls of Tyre.
Hear the crash of tons of granite,
Smell the quenchless eastern fire.

Still more clearly as a Roman,
Can I see the Legion close,
As our third rank moved in forward
And the short sword found our foes.

Once again I feel the anguish
Of that blistering treeless plain
When the Parthian showered death bolts,
And our discipline was in vain.

I remember all the suffering
Of those arrows in my neck.
Yet, I stabbed a grinning savage
As I died upon my back.

Once again I smell the heat sparks
When my Flemish plate gave way
And the lance ripped through my entrails
As on Crecy’s field I lay.

In the windless, blinding stillness
Of the glittering tropic sea
I can see the bubbles rising
Where we set the captives free.

Midst the spume of half a tempest
I have heard the bulwarks go
When the crashing, point blank round shot
Sent destruction to our foe.

I have fought with gun and cutlass
On the red and slippery deck
With all Hell aflame within me
And a rope around my neck.

And still later as a General
Have I galloped with Murat
When we laughed at death and numbers
Trusting in the Emperor’s Star.

Till at last our star faded,
And we shouted to our doom
Where the sunken road of Ohein
Closed us in it’s quivering gloom.

So but now with Tanks a’clatter
Have I waddled on the foe
Belching death at twenty paces,
By the star shell’s ghastly glow.

So as through a glass, and darkly
The age long strife I see
Where I fought in many guises,
Many names, but always me.

And I see not in my blindness
What the objects were I wrought,
But as God rules o’er our bickerings
It was through His will I fought.

So forever in the future,
Shall I battle as of yore,
Dying to be born a fighter,
But to die again, once more.

George S Patton, Jr.

Let's talk about speech, baby

Let me begin by saying I think the NFL is sending a bad message by creating a rule that requires players to stand for the playing of the national anthem before games; or remain in the locker room while the anthem is playing.  It is jingoistic and not reflective of the freedoms upon which our nation was founded.

But it is not a violation of the First Amendment rights of the players who want to take a knee.  The First Amendment only protects our right to freedom of expression from being infringed by the government.  It is clearly outlined in the text of that First Amendment.

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

While Donald Trump, in his role as the nation's president has certainly pressured the NFL's owners to take action to stop the kneeling, no law or executive order was enacted.

* * *

However, the right is not absolute.  We all know the exception where someone cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater.  What caught my eye and is illustrative of another instance where the right can be infringed was an op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun.  The USA Today story that mentioned this op-ed piece pointed out that the authors are graduates of the Naval Academy and they were taking issue with Trump delivering the commencement address at the 2018 graduation ceremony.  Here is an excerpt from that op-ed:

"It is right and fitting that the president of the United States give a commencement address to a service academy's graduating class.  It is also right and fitting that citizens of the democracy for which these graduates will soon be charged with protecting point out the personal cowardice, narcissism and incompetency of the current president."

Because Daniel Barkhuff and William Burke, Annapolis Class of 2001 are no longer commissioned officers, they can write those words without fear of retribution.  That would not be the case were they still serving as commissioned officers.

Were they still serving as commissioned officers, their words might well be in violation of a law passed by Congress that does infringe upon freedom of speech.  A law that has been determined to be constitutional.  That law is the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Specifically, Article 88.

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Dr. Daniel Barkhuff is a former Navy SEAL who served multiple combat tours.  Defending our freedoms.  At least one of those freedoms which he did not enjoy while serving our nation.

Freedom of speech is important.  Important enough that the collective ignorance of what the First Amendment actually means needs to be addressed.  

Most of us have forgotten Adam M. Smith.  If you have, this will remind you:

As far as all levels of government were concerned, Mr. Smith was free to deliver this drive-thru rant.  No laws were ever passed that infringed on his right to speak.  

That doesn't mean there weren't consequences.  This happened in 2012.  Mr. Smith was fired by his firm shortly after the video rant he posted to Facebook went viral.  He was the firm's Chief Financial Officer at a salary he claimed was $200,000 a year.  He also claims to have lost stock options worth over $1 million.

With some limits, as mentioned above, we are free to say almost anything.  But not without consequence.  Freedom of speech isn't protection from consequence being imposed by anyone outside the government.

2018 CA Primary Election - Proposition 69

This is the summary of Prop 69 from the Secretary of State's website:

"Requires that certain revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law be used only for transportation purposes and generally prohibits Legislature from diverting funds to other purposes. Fiscal Impact: No direct effect on the amount of state and local revenues or costs but could affect how some monies are spent."

A bit of history is in order.  Last April the CA Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 and it was signed into law by Governor Moonbeam.  It raised the tax on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon.  It raised the tax on diesel fuel by 20 cents per gallon and increased the sales/use tax on diesel from 1.75% to 5.25%.  It also raised vehicle registration fees.

Proposition 69 is an attempt to force that Legislature to spend the revenues generated by SB1 on transportation projects only.  The Los Angeles Times' endorsement of a Yes vote on Prop 69 points out the following:

"The measure would require that the new revenue go into special accounts that could be spent exclusively on transportation.  This isn't a new concept.  Californians have passed constitutional amendments to guarantee that certain fuel taxes and license fees are reserved for transportation projects.  Proposition 69 similarly amends the state Constitution to ensure that revenue generated from the diesel sales tax increase and the new transportation improvement fee in SB 1 are dedicated to transportation spending."

The LAT is referring to Prop 42 and Prop 1a, both of which were designed to make sure that gas tax revenue would only be spent on transportation projects.  In 2010, then Governor Schwarzenegger pulled off a bait and switch where the sales tax on gasoline was reduced but the excise tax on it was raised.  That allowed revenues from the excise taxes to be diverted to plug holes in the budget.

The nonpartisan CA Legislative Analyst Office published a 12 page study about SB1 and it pointed out the following:

"Though SB 1 establishes various long-term performance outcome measures for highway conditions, the legislation does not include specific mechanisms for holding the administration accountable for achieving these outcomes nor does it set interim benchmarks against which to measure the administration’s progress in the near term. To improve its oversight of the new funding, we encourage the Legislature to begin now considering how to hold the administration accountable in the near term. For instance, the Legislature could establish in state law interim outcome measures against which to measure the administration’s progress in achieving the longer-term outcomes contained in SB 1. It also could consider consequences should the administration not achieve these interim outcome measures."

Proposition 69 is a good start down the road to ensure that revenues from gas taxes of all forms are not spent on anything but transportation projects.  The issue of attempting to repeal SB1 is for the November election, should proponents of the repeal proposal manage to qualify a measure for that ballot.  Meanwhile, I recommend a vote of Yes on Prop 69.

2018 CA Primary Election - Proposition 68

Time for an examination of the ballot measures we will vote on in the primary election here in California on June 5, 2018.  First up is Proposition 68.  The Secretary of State's website has a page with detailed information on this measure.  This summary is from that page:

"Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for: parks, natural resources protection, climate adaptation, water quality and supply, and flood protection. Fiscal Impact: Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $200 million annually over 40 years. Local government savings for natural resources-related projects, likely averaging several tens of millions of dollars annually over the next few decades." 

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board has recommended a vote of Yes on Prop 68.  I disagree.  I will vote No on Prop 68.  Not because I'm opposed to spending money on the projects outlined in the proposition.  They are worthwhile projects and should go forward (for the most part).

Why will I vote no?  A number of reasons, but I'll start with a few letters.  AA-, Aa3 and AA-.  Those are the bond ratings for California's general obligation bonds by Fitch, Moody's and S&P; respectively.  They represent the 4th best rating in each system, and are just below the average rating of all state's bonds.

Here's a number.  Bloomberg dot com published a story this past March about the state's current bond situation.  At that time there were over $30 billion in unsold bonds.  The Times editorial points out very clearly that California is spending (and will continue to spend) 6% or less of the state's general revenues on bond interest.  

The May budget projections show estimated revenues of $129.8 billion.  6% of that amount is $7.8 billion.  Estimates of the cost of the interest expense of this bond issue over its 40 year life is $2.53 billion.  That budget projection included adding over $5 billion into the state's "contingency" fund, which would bring that reserve to nearly $13.5 billion. 

The outstanding bond debt isn't the state's only financial problem.  There are unfunded pension liabilities of over $220 billion for state employees.  When you add in local unfunded pension liabilities the total rises to over $330 billion.

In May of 2016 I wrote a blog about how the CA budget is far too dependent on personal income tax revenues.  The situation now is even more precarious given the changes regarding itemized deductions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  The deduction for state income and property taxes is now limited to $10,000.  The workarounds being proposed in CA and NY aren't going to work, as pointed out in this Forbes piece.

I believe that the state legislature should pick and choose the most urgent of the projects listed in Prop 68, fund them from the budget surplus and not take on additional debt at a time when our state's fiscal stability is in so much peril.

Vote No on Prop 68.

Is the stigma of being a "rat" enabling school shootings?

Tattletale
Informer
Rat
Squealer
Narc

Terms for someone who reports it when they see a transgression.  We inculcate people into believing there is a strong negative stigma involved with reporting what we see/know about to the authorities.

Institutions go out of their way to air their dirty laundry in the public's view.  The recent firing of a gynecologist by USC is just one of a myriad of examples.  Nondisclosure agreements (NDA) where victims are paid to remain silent.  I wrote a blog entry about another incident at a private high school where they got rid of a teacher who was ultimately arrested and charged with four felonies that involved "improper touching."

There are a lot of things that are involved in the dynamics of the ever-increasing epidemic of school shootings in the U.S.  The Santa Fe School shooting in Texas was the 22nd in the first 138 days of this year.  That's more than one per week, on average.  This time it wasn't an assault rifle.  There are indications that the first student targeted by the shooter was a girl who had spurned the shooter's romantic overtures. Scorned lover doesn't explain everything though.

There were some clues in his postings on social media.  Talk about how he always wore an overcoat, no matter how hot the day was.  Did some of his fellow students suspect he was a ticking time bomb, bound to explode at some point?  Perhaps.  The better question though is would they have spoken up, given the extreme reactions they would have been subjected to by their peers for being a narc?

I was driving in traffic last Friday afternoon, after the shooter was in custody and we knew that ten people were dead.  I listened to a former FBI agent who was a guest on talk radio.  He spoke about the stigma of people who report things to the authorities.  When it comes to what most consider "terrorist" stuff, the mantra 'if you see something, say something' is followed.  But not when we see bullying.  Not in schools and not in the workplace.

Why?  Because we are afraid of being tagged with one of those labels?  Because we are even more afraid that the bully will turn their attentions to us for "tattling" on them?  Or is it that while the negative consequences of tattling are well-known, there is no upside to taking the risk?

All across the land there are anonymous tip-lines where you can report a crime without your identity being revealed.  The fear of reprisal is why this is such an important resource.  Should we be providing that kind of anonymous reporting for school-age kids to report bullying or social media posts that might indicate yet another potential shooter?

* * *

The role of the father in allowing his son access to his guns is also something that must be examined. Reports are that this shooter used a shotgun and a handgun.  This wasn't a case where an assault rifle was used.

A story in the New York Times indicates that while Texas is one of 14 states that has a criminal charge for improper storage of firearms, that law won't apply to the father of the Santa Fe High School shooter.  That's because that law references children 16 and under and the shooter is 17.  What kind of lunacy is that, where a parent cannot be prosecuted because his minor child is 17 instead of 16; when neither age is old enough to legally own or possess a firearm in the state?

Every state should have such a law and it should hold adults legally responsible if their firearms are misused by their children.  It should be a civil tort and a criminal offense.

Gun control worked here.  The firearms were purchased legally.  Proper gun safety measures were not used here, or this teenager would not have been able to put his hands on those guns.

Assault rifles are a separate issue.  There is no need for anyone who is not a part of that "...well-regulated militia..." to own one.  That topic has been addressed repeatedly in this blog.

* * *

There is one thing we can all do to help stem the tide of these school shootings.  Identify every single politician who has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association and work tirelessly to vote them out of office.

Just who will cash in on sports betting?

Back in 1992, Congress passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992.  Its summary when introduced in 1991 by then Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini read as follows:

Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act - Prohibits a State, or any political subdivision, from sponsoring, operating, advertising, authorizing, licensing, or promoting any lottery, sweepstake, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on any game or games engaged or conducted or scheduled by any professional or amateur sports organization, or on any performance or performances in such games.

Sports betting in Nevada wax exempted.  So was jai alai, horse and dog racing, and there were a few other carve-outs for existing programs.  The question is, did the bill infringe on states rights, as prohibited by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On May 14, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association that the law was indeed unconstitutional.  But before you rush out the front door to place a legal sport bet here in California, don't.  You are in for a wait of months, probably years before that will happen.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Native American casinos, horse racing track operators and the owners of the card clubs operated in some CA cities will be competing to be allowed to handle sports betting as the Legislature moves to regulate and tax the enterprise.  BTW, L.A. Times, your story reports incorrectly that card clubs do not have games where players bet against the house.  That is untrue.  It is true that in games like Pai Gow and Blackjack that a player seated at the table can choose to assume the role of banker, if no player does, the players are betting against and winning/losing to the club.

Just how much money is involved here?  Estimates are that more than $400 billion is wagered annually on sports in the U.S.  99% of that is done outside of Las Vegas.  A study by the UNLV Center for Gaming Research reveals that over $4.8 billion was wagered on sports in Nevada.  Over 90% of that amount was wagered on three sports, baseball, basketball and football.

Is the logic the same as legalizing pot?  Take something people are doing in violation of the law, and making it a tax revenue source?

What O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson have in common

What do a former NFL star/convicted felon and a recently retired Broward County Sheriff's deputy accused of cowardice at the Parkland mass shooting have in common?  Both are receiving hefty pensions for the rest of their lives.

O.J.'s NFL pension pays him more than $25,000 per month according to multiple sources.  Some sources also claim he has as much as $5 million invested in a private pension.  Based on Mr. Peterson's more than 32 years of service with the Broward Sheriff's department, he will receive a pension of $8,702 per month for the rest of his life.

Those pensions are safe from people who sue these two individuals because of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1972.  The wrongful death judgment handed down against Simpson in 1997 awarded the family of Ronald Goldman $33.5 million.  With interest, that judgment has reportedly grown to more than $70 million.  But ERISA protects his pension from being seized to pay off any portion of that judgment.

There will be wrongful death suits filed by the families of the victims of the mass shooting at Parkland's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.  One has already been filed.  Mr. Peterson's pension is safe from those lawsuits.  Fox News reported that the pension might be in jeopardy, referencing an article in the Orlando Sun Sentinel.

"Peterson hasn't been criminally charged in relation to the shooting, but his pension benefits could possibly be forfeited according to the Sentinel, pending a Florida state inquiry into how police responded to the shooting."

In fact, the only way he could lose the pension would be if he was criminally charged and convicted. This is from the Sun Sentinel's article:

"Neither the sheriff's office nor the state attorney have indicated 'any charges or other circumstances' that would justify withholding Peterson's pension, Erin Rock, secretary for the Department of Management Services concluded in a letter dated March 28th."

Remember Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced assistant football coach at Penn State who was convicted of multiple accounts of child molestation?  He was receiving a pension of $4,900 per month at the time and it was revoked.  Then it was reinstated.  Why?  Because the law in Pennsylvania did not make child molestation a crime for which a pension could be revoked until 2004.  Sandusky retired in 1999 and was not a government employee at the time of those post-2004 offenses for which he was convicted.  A judge ruled in 2015 that the state could not revoke his pension.

All of the public outrage over this won't change a thing.  ERISA is the law of the land and unless it is changed, these men will continue to draw their pensions.  At least Jerry Sandusky won't be able to spend any of his pension anywhere but the prison commissary for the rest of his life.

Why North Korea's change in tone should not be a surprise.

From 1976 through 1996, the United States and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) held a very large, annual military training exercise.  It was called Team Spirit.  During my one year tour of duty in South Korea, my unit was deployed in a number of locations during that exercise.  The exercise was cancelled in 1992, held again in 1993 and was used as negotiating tool from 1994 to 1996.  The exercise was scheduled, planned out but ultimately not held.  Each and every year, the North Korean dictatorship would claim Team Spirit was a prelude to an invasion of North Korea.

Max Thunder is a different joint exercise of U.S. and ROK military capabilities.  It has been held annually since 2009.  Like his father Kim Il-sung before him, Kim Jong-un has been making noises annually about how Max Thunder is a threat to his nations security and sovereignty.

This should not be a surprise to the administration of Donald J. Trump.  Did they not consider that scheduling a summit within weeks of this annual exercise would give North Korea an opportunity to walk back their commitment to get ride of their nukes?

Then again, South Korea really hasn't been a priority in the Trump Administration.  It took from his inauguration until last month for him to nominate someone for the job.  He's chosen yet another high-ranking military officer for this job and while the resume of Admiral Harry Harris is impressive, I'm not sure he has the right perspective for the position.

Back in February (and updated in March) of this year, Bloomberg reported that after the firing of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, eight of the top ten positions at the State Department were vacant.  One of the two incumbents in those positions has announced he will retire as soon as a successor is selected.  There is a severe lack of knowledge and experience at the top of that department.

I would have done it differently.  Trump would call it weakness, but I would have postponed the exercise.  I wouldn't have canceled it.  That would be a concession.  I'd have told Kim Jong-un that I was postponing in order to have a more harmonious atmosphere prior to the summit.  Then if he were to back away from the table, holding the exercises would have been an appropriate response.

Over four decades of holding major military exercises in South Korea and North Korea has always objected.  Blustered.  Threatened.  Worse yet, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton is a hawk to the nth degree.  I can't call him a chickenhawk since he did serve in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve; although he admits he did that to avoid serving in Vietnam.  Donald Trump and John Bolton are not well-suited for handling the precarious situation on the Korean peninsula.

I hope the current dictator of North Korea will get rid of his nukes.  But I don't think it will happen without Trump having to give him something.

Six hours for an eye exam is more than a little frustrating

The VA has a new tool.  I get text reminders of appointments.  The reminder asks me to confirm if I will or won't be making the appointment.  When I respond that I will be at the appointment, the automated system responds with "please arrive 15 minutes before your appointment."

Yesterday's appointment was for 9:15 and I arrived at 9:01.  After standing in line for five or six minutes I was all checked in and took a seat in the waiting room.   Just under 90 minutes later, one of the optometrists I've seen in the past came up to where I was sitting.  She said "the technician says he called your name but you didn't answer.  I'll let him know where you are."

I never heard my name called and even though I was playing Words With Friends on my phone, I'm an attentive listener.  The technician showed up and we did the test (it's a field of vision exam).  Then the technician directed me to a specific waiting area (there are several in this clinic) and I waited.  When the ophthalmologists all left for lunch, I was frustrated.  When their attending physician returned from lunch, I pointed out I'd been there since 9 a.m.  She promised to see what the hold up was.  She returned and told me I was waiting to be seen by an optometrist and that their attending would make sure someone came to see me.  That was at 1:35 or so.  Finally, just before 2:15 I was seen by the optometrist.  It was after 3 p.m. when I was finally able to leave, with an appointment for three months from now in hand.

Again, the fault isn't with the doctors.  The optometrist who examined me apologized profusely for the wait.  The technician didn't address the issue.  The conclusion was indicative of what is wrong with the system.  I had my portable oxygen tank with me, so it should have been obvious that it isn't easy for me to just stand around.  I'd been standing in line for ten minutes before I was finally called to the window.

When I got to the window, the clerk there asked me for my last name the last four of my social security number (that's how they track who we are) and then picked up a pile of papers on her desk and began dialing her phone.  She told the person who answered that their paperwork was ready to be picked up.  After that, she examined the paperwork and discovered that some of what was in the stack belonged to someone else.  At that point she began a protracted discussion with one of her co-workers about how this paperwork didn't belong there.  Finally she turned back to me and again asked me for my last name and last four.

I understand multi-tasking, but you don't ignore the person in front of you and make them wait while you begin a new phone call.  It is the height of rudeness.

Areas where we should probably respect privacy

First Lady Melania Trump goes to Walter Reed for treatment of a benign kidney issue.  Former Senator Harry Reid is being treated for pancreatic cancer.  The public wants details.  Selena Gomez had a kidney transplant.  The late Margot Kidder suffered from bipolar disorder which resulted in a widely publicized manic episode back in 1996.

We live in a culture of celebrity.  How else could TMZ and the National Enquirer (and many other tabloids) be so wildly successful?  I have no objection to reporting who is dating who, who is cheating on their spouse/lover and so on.  But I think there needs to be respect for privacy when it comes to medical issues, IF, the person requests it.

I've been very open about my health issues.  I'm going to write about a new one when I'm done ranting about privacy.  It is my right to choose what I share about my health.  We have laws about protecting patient privacy.

George Clooney
Britney Spears
Richard Collier of the Jacksonville Jaguars
Octomom Nadya Suleman
Anne Pressly, a local news anchor in Little Rock, Arkansas
Michael Jackson
Gabby Giffords
Kim Kardashian
Dr. Rick Sacra, who contracted Ebola while treating patients in Africa

What do these people of note have in common?  All of them had their privacy violated by workers at hospitals where they were being treated.  27 workers were suspended without pay for a month for snooping into the records of George Clooney at the hospital where he was treated following a motorcycle accident.  UCLA Medical Center fired at least 13 people for improperly accessing the medical records of Britney Spears while she was a patient in the hospital's psychiatric ward.  A medical researcher at UCLA was sentenced to four months in federal prison in one of the first prosecutions involving violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)'s privacy rules.

Why do people put their careers and freedom at risk?  Puerile curiosity?  Perhaps.  Financial gain?  Possibly.

If someone wants to share the details of a medical issue, fine.  If they ask for privacy, we should respect that request.

* * *

I've told my health story before.  But I'm going to recap it here rather than send someone who hasn't yet read it back to an old blog.  Back in July of 2009 I was driving to an appointment on a Saturday morning when I started having trouble breathing.  More than the usual trouble.  I went to the Emergency Room at the hospital in Marina Del Rey.  I would wind up spending 11 days in the ICU, most of which was spent with a tube down my throat (intubation).  All in all I was laid up until September.  Then in May of the following year I again was struggling to breath while driving, this time to my new job.  I got to the ER at Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, sat down at the Triage station and passed out.  I woke up nine weeks later.  I would spend three months there, another nine months at the Little Company of Mary Sub-Acute Facility in San Pedro and another year recovering after being moved to an Assisted Living Facility.  The diagnosis was Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

During the first ten months of that time at the hospital/sub-acute, I had a tube in my throat.  They had performed a tracheostomy to save my life.  When I was hospitalized back in 2009, one of the two pulmonologists on my case was worried they wouldn't be able to wean me off of oxygen through a nasal cannula.  But that wasn't an issue.  Nor was it an issue when I was much sicker the following year.  When I went to the Assisted Living Facility, I did not have oxygen tanks.

I've had oxygen tanks for use while walking for a number of years now.  But in recent months, my breathing has worsened.  I don't need oxygen at rest or when walking around my home, but I need it more than ever when I'm out and about.

I saw another pulmonologist last week.  He is speculating that the cause could be something called tracheal stenosis.  That typically happens after long periods of intubation.  It isn't a major concern at this point.  We have a plan for the next six months after which I'll have some more detailed tests on the situation.  At that point I might need an outpatient surgical procedure.

I was watching an afternoon of reruns of Grey's Anatomy the other day and it was the time when patient "Denny Duquette" (played brilliantly by Jeffrey Dean Morgan).  When discussing his decision to sign a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order, he said something to the effect of, "I'm a big strong horse of a man stuck in this broken body."  Oh how I identify with that sentiment.

When I was stationed in South Korea I ran five miles a day after work, unless there was a volleyball match.  After my second marriage broke up, I got back into shape and was running half-marathons and bicycling over 100 miles per week.  I went on a few 100 mile rides around the area on weekends.  They'd take all day but were well worth it.  One time I came down old Sepulveda from Mulholland hitting speeds in excess of 50 mph on my mountain bike (yes, that was insane to do).

Now I can spend a few minutes on my feet and begin to get short of breath.  I don't like it.

What is the point?  I chose to share this information.  No one violated my privacy.  Then again, since I'm not famous, no one would have a motive to do that to me.

Respect...hardly

The controversy continues to swirl surrounding the supposed "joke" made by White House aide Kelly Sadler.  At a staff meeting this past Thursday while discussing Senator John McCain's opposition to the nomination of Gina Haspel to head the CIA, Sadler allegedly said that his position didn't matter since "...he's dying anyway."

At a press briefing the following day, WH Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about this and refused to comment.  When asked if Donald Trump is setting a "hurtful tone" Sanders disputed that, as reported by CNN.

"Certainly there is not a tone set here," Sanders said.  "We have a respect for all Americans.  That is something we try to do in both word and action."

Seriously?

Senator Cryin’ Chuck Schumer fought hard against the Bad Iran Deal, even going at it with President Obama, & then Voted AGAINST it! Now he says I should not have terminated the deal - but he doesn’t really believe that! Same with Comey. Thought he was terrible until I fired him!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2018

Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd of Fake News NBC just stated that we have given up so much in our negotiations with North Korea, and they have given up nothing. Wow, we haven’t given up anything & they have agreed to denuclearization (so great for World), site closure, & no more testing!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 22, 2018

"Slippery James Comey"
"Shadey (sic) James Comey"
(James Comey) "...is a weak and untruthful slime ball..."

Sorry Ms Sanders, but that is not respect.  It is blatant disrespect and I could list many many more instances of the utter contempt displayed by Donald Trump against anyone who he opposes in any way.

* * *

Interestingly, another leak from a staff meeting shows Ms Sanders, according to "sources" calling the remark by Ms Sadler wrong; but focusing more on the fact it leaked than the comment itself.  

I can understand her concern.  But a true leader confronted by this decision would not have stonewalled.  So what would I have done?  I'd have answered the first question about the comment this way.

"It was an inappropriate remark and we have dealt with it internally.  I cannot comment on personnel matters but I addressed the issue.  I'm far more concerned with the fact that a member or members of our communications team felt the need to leak the details to the media.  If we cannot count on confidentiality in our internal staff meetings, something needs to change.  I apologize for the inappropriate comment."

Leadership begins with acceptance of responsibility.  Not abandoning that duty.

* * *

While some decisions remain to be made, the major TV networks have done much of the bloodless destruction known as cancellation for the upcoming season.  You can see an up to date scorecard here.

Which shows do I care about continuing/ending?  I was happy to see Blue Bloods renewed, especially in light of the surprise at the end of the season finale.  That will be an interesting dynamic to watch unfold next season.  As a big fan of Code Black I am hoping it will get another season.  I was happy to see Madam Secretary renewed and plan to catch up on what I've missed with a binge watch this coming week.  

It isn't easy for a television series to get me to watch regularly.  I watch a lot of reruns.  Law & Order.  Grey's Anatomy.  Hill Street Blues.  I'd watch JAG or L.A. Law if they were running on a cable network.

* * *

A story in today's Los Angeles Times reports that a survey of flight attendants reveals nearly 20% of them report having been the victim of some form of sexual harassment within the last year.  That stat is based on claims of being physically harassed.  35% of the flight attendants surveyed reported being harassed verbally.

This fictional account of the lives of two stewardesses was published back in 1967.  It was actually written by a man who was a public relations executive for a major airline, although the two women whose names are credited as the authors were involved with the project when it began.  It painted a risqué look at the lives of the then almost entirely female flight attendants.  Nearly five decades later, Mandy Smith (who had worked for Virgin Atlantic for a decade) penned this tome.

We had television's Pan Am.  Snakes on a Plane had a blonde bombshell flight attendant.  Executive Decision had Halle Berry and Marla Maples as the flight attendants.  Passenger 57 had the very fetching Alex Datcher as a flight attendant and Elizabeth Hurley as a terrorist disguised as a flight attendant.  

The media's narrative about flight attendants all being gorgeous and available is a misnomer.  That does not justify passengers on real flights abandoning their inhibitions and doing whatever they feel like doing.  The same rules about words and actions that are in play everywhere else in our society need to be enforced everywhere.  Even on a flight.

* * *

On Friday Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the U.S. would help North Korea with its economy if they denuclearize.  

That's a tall order.  Data from the CIA lists 198 economies of nations and dependencies with per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure.  Using U.S. dollars as a measure, there are four nations listed with per capita GDP over $100,000.  The U.S. ranks 13th with a per capita GDP of $59,500.  North Korea ranks 184th with a per capita GDP of only $1,700.  To put that in perspective, Uber is running an advertisement to get people to apply to drive for them, guaranteeing you will earn at least $1,700 doing so.

Rebuilding their economy will require assistance from the rest of the world on par with the post World War II Marshall Plan that revitalized Europe.  Do we have the resources to take on the arduous task of revitalizing the economy of North Korea on our own?  I do not believe we do.

Longevity in Primetime

Since we're in May, that means it is time for the season finales of prime time television shows.  Who remembers when we were all speculating about this season-ending cliffhanger?

The speculation about "Who Shot JR" ran rampant until the fall.  It was 1980 and an election year.  In fact, Republicans distributed literature claiming "A Democrat Shot JR."  The result was when the reveal episode ("Who Done It") was broadcast in the fall, it was the highest rated television episode in history.  Spoiler:  "Kristin Shepherd" (Mary Crosby) did it.

Ratings are what creates longevity for prime time television shows.  They are the reason that just this week, NBC renewed Law & Order: SVU for a record-tying 20th season.  It will tie the record currently held by the original Law & Order and Gunsmoke.

CBS has ordered a 16th season of NCIS.  ABC ordered a 15th season of Grey's Anatomy.  Both of those shows are ending their seasons with the departure of characters who have been long-term main characters of the show.  Pauley Perrette's "Abby Scuito" has been the female lead on NCIS since it began as a spin-off of JAG in a two-episode roll-out in 2003.  Now she's gone.  The show has already lost two of its other main characters with the previous departures of Cote de Pablo and Michael Weatherly.  I noticed an article someone wrote saying that CBS should make the 16th season of NCIS the last.

Will the quality of the show decline with the departure of Abby?  That's something that every viewer will have to decide for themselves.  The show began with Sasha Alexander as the main female agent and killed her off after two seasons.  Then Cote de Pablo replaced her and that went on until the end of season 11.  Now Emily Wishersham's "Ellie Bishop" occupies the role.

Sarah Drew and Jessica Capshaw have been on Grey's Anatomy for a long time as well.  Both are leaving the show, whose season finale is next week.  Shonda Rimes is on the record saying that Grey's Anatomy will end if Ellen Pompeo's "Meredith Grey" chooses to leave the show.  Given the show's continued success in the ratings, as long as she is going to stay with the show, will it go on endlessly?  An interesting question.

When the original Law & Order began, it had a very simple structure.  One hour, part of which two detectives, supervised by a higher ranking detective, would investigate a crime.  The next part of the show focused on two assistant district attorneys prosecuting the case, under the supervision of the District Attorney.

There were only two higher ranking detectives in charge of the "squad" for the entire run of the show.  Dann Florek's "Don Cragen" for the first three seasons, until he was fired to create a slot for a female character (he would later reprise the role for 15 seasons), and S. Epatha Merkerson's "Anita Van Buren" who played the role for the last 17 seasons of the show's run.

The Detective Sergeant/Senior Detective role saw six different characters rotate through it.  two of them advanced from the Junior Detective role into the Senior Detective slot.  Aside from those two, there were five other characters in the Junior Detective role.

Three characters were in the Executive Assistant District Attorney role.  One of them eventually became the District Attorney.

After Richard Brooks was fired from the show after three season for the same reason Dann Florek was let go, six different women held the position of assistant district attorney working under the Executive ADA.

What is the point of all of this?  The actors were replaceable as long as the show's structure worked.  As long as the writing was good, the performances likewise.  Each of the six women who portrayed the ADA brought different nuances to the role, but those were subtext.  Backstory.  The same was true of the detectives.  Likewise the detective squad commanders and the District Attorneys.

NBC kept Law & Order on the air even when its ratings began falling.  It didn't help that the show was moved from its traditional timeslot.  As someone who has watched every single episode of Law & Order, I think that the writing in its final season was some of its best.

And that's what I think ultimately drives ratings.  Good writing and good acting, in combination with scheduling a show and leaving it there to allow it to build a fan base.

I lost interest in NCIS with the departure of Michael Weatherly.  Now that Pauley Perrette is gone, I probably won't watch another new episode.  I'll stick to the reruns.  But the departures of Sarah Drew and Jessica Capshaw from Grey's Anatomy won't bother me all that much.  It's the depth of the characters that the show's writing team creates and the way the actors bring out that depth.