Update from the Heartland
No.545
21.5.12 – 27.5.12
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Let us all remember and praise those who sacrificed so much
for our freedom. Memorial Day is a
time of remembrance.
The follow-up news items:
-- On Monday, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
[414] issued its recommendations
regarding prostate cancer screening [512],
concluding that “for men younger than age 75 years, the benefits of screening
for prostate cancer are uncertain and the balance of benefits and harms cannot
be determined,” and that for men 75 years or older, “there is moderate or high
certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the
benefits.” For the life of me
(literally), I do not understand their logic or reasoning. I understand their words and concerns,
but I believe their focus is way off the mark. Prostate cancer screening involves a Digital Rectal
Examination (DRE) by a skilled physician and a vial of blood tested by a
qualified laboratory for the level of the Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA). To my knowledge, there is zero risk
from either the DRE or PSA. The
conclusions of the USPSTF appear to be far more an indictment of the U.S.
medical establishment than the screening process, i.e., inappropriate treatment
recommendations based on less than conclusive PSA results. The USPSTF risk concern centers upon
the treatment. Their analysis and
conclusions would have been far more effective if they had focused on prostate
cancer treatment, rather than prostate cancer screening – the treatment embodies
the risk, not the screening. The
implication of the USPSTF finding seems to be an ostrich syndrome, i.e., what
you don’t see can’t hurt you. Who
are these folks anyway? Short
answer: 16 medical professionals.
The USPSTF was first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984,
and codified in its present form by §915 (a) [113 Stat. 1653, 1659] of the Healthcare
Research and Quality Act of 1999 [PL 106-129; 113 Stat. 1653; 6.December.1999]. Regardless of the considered opinion of
the USPSTF, they are wrong. I
remain the poster-child for annual prostate screening. I have had a DRE every year since I was
17 years old, and a PSA every year since the early 1990’s, shortly after the
PSA was introduced. It is not any
individual reading, but rather the trend over many tests that offer a better
clue. I was thoroughly counseled
by both my urologist and oncologist regarding my options. For my age and indicators, both doctors
said my options were: vigilant surveillance, radiation, or surgery. I absorbed their counsel and did my own
assessment with on-line resources as well as several prostate support
groups. The collective told me
what I needed to make a confident decision. I made the best decision for me, and I am enormously
grateful for my conscientious General Practitioner doctor, who detected my
prostatic adenocarcinoma early and the specialists who helped me make the
correct decision. Bottom line: the
risk is not the screening tests; the risk is in the treatment, i.e., what you
do with the information. I was
unwilling to roll the dice that my cancer was slow growing and not
threatening. Knowledge is power.
-- Four Secret Service employees have decided to fight their
dismissals for engaging in inappropriate conduct in Cartagena, Colombia last
month [539/41], alleging they are scapegoats
for behavior that the Secret Service has long tolerated. The legal action threatens to unravel the
efforts of Director Mark J. Sullivan to swiftly move past the embarrassing
scandal over agents’ hiring of prostitutes. I have mixed feelings regarding this whole affair – I’m surprised
agents engaged in such bonehead activities while on a mission, and conversely,
I want them to be treated fairly and appropriately.
I urge all freedom-loving people around the world to not
forget Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who ran a vaccination program for
the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in Abbottabad, to collect DNA samples in
an effort to verify the presence of Usama bin Laden at a compound in the
city. A Pakistani court convicted him
of high treason and sentenced him to 33 years in prison. I do not want to go too far advocating for
support of Doctor Afridi, as we will face the inevitable comparison to Jonathan
Jay Pollard [21.November.1985].
“A Way Out of the Same-Sex Marriage Mess”
by Mae Kuykendall (Op-Ed Contributor)
New York Times
Published: May 23, 2012
Mae does offer an interesting path out of the Mess, as she
calls it. Yet, I am struck by the
ease with which we can dismiss individual liberties. I am certain she believes in the approach she
suggested. She proclaims her
support for equal rights for all citizens under the Equal Protection Clause;
however, her proposal still leaves non-heterosexual or non-traditional citizens
with a taint of inferiority. I am
also struck by her play to the reality that the Supremes display considerable
deference to the Federal government and secondarily to the states. Regrettably, Mae’s proposition places
the State over the individual.
Perhaps, the courts’ acknowledgment of the primacy of We, the People, is
just lip service to placate the masses.
Those who espouse the disenfranchisement and segregation of citizens who
do not fit within The Box of normalcy and conformity have yet to demonstrate
the rationale and justification for the imposition of their will upon all
citizens and the denial their “pursuit of Happiness” for those who do not bow
to the majority. This debate is
about equal rights and every citizen’s fundamental right to choose their path
for “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” The Supremes cannot find otherwise.
“Protecting our Catholic conscience in the public square”
by Donald Wuerl (Cardinal, archbishop for the District of
Columbia)
Washington Post
Updated: Wednesday, May 23, 2012; 10:27 AM
The Catholic Church [538]
has filed 12 different federal lawsuits, claiming the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) violated the First Amendment protection of religious freedom
when it issued a mandate in February, regarding employee medical insurance
coverage of birth control services.
Church leaders in the United States took the unusual legal action
representing 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations ranging from local Catholic
Charities to parish schools, hospitals, and colleges. The proponents love to cast this political question in the
context of a war on religion as with so many of the social issues – binary,
black or white, y’re either for us or a’gin us. I truly appreciate the desire of Church leaders to impose
their will upon whomever will submit, whether believers or not. In this instance, the Church appears
rather desperate to retain some semblance of the dictatorial practice employed
for centuries to maintain control over individuals. I respectfully submit that if the Church’s argument against
birth control services was sufficiently strong, it would not matter what the
secular law said, i.e., just because an insurance plan offers certain coverage,
there is no requirement for or ability to force individual members to avail
themselves of that particular service.
If heroin was offered legally at the corner convenience store, most of
us would not be a purchaser or consumer – we would exercise our freedom of
choice, not to partake. It is in
this context that I see the Church’s actions as a rather desperate and
unenlightened effort, based on an antiquated methodology and a lack of belief
in the strength of their position as well as a desire to demonstrate their
power within a secular, free society.
The Church appears to be deathly fearful of our fundamental right to
freedom of choice, or in the ability of an individual to make a proper informed
decision. Let us stop trying to
bludgeon one another into submission and return to the abundant energy of
public debate to find mutually acceptable solutions.
I am intrigued by the juxtaposition between the Church’s
actions noted above and their acquiescence when Executive Order 13199, titled:
“Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”
[290] was issued by President George
W. Bush {29.January.2001}, along with the associated Supreme Court non-decision
– Hein v.
Freedom from Religion Foundation [551 U.S. 587 (2007); no. 06-157]
{27.June.2007} [271, 290]. The Church has
no problem “getting involved” with the government when things go their way, but
whoa be it when issues are not exactly to their liking.
“Nuclear weapons just don’t make sense”
by Walter Pincus
Washington Post
Published: May 23, 2012
I shall respectfully disagree. I still believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warranted and
appropriate applications of the weapon.
To my knowledge, no human being, regardless of intellect, experience,
wisdom or ideology, can predict the future. I would agree the likelihood of use is remote, but I
respectfully contend the probability is NOT zero. I can envision a variety of scenarios that could instigate
the use of such a dreadful weapon.
Let us not be blind to the potential.
Space Exploration Technologies (AKA SpaceX) launched its own
unmanned, resupply, Dragon capsule to the International Space Station (ISS),
making it the first private company to dock a spacecraft with the ISS. The vehicle reportedly carried half a
ton of non-essential supplies for the test run. Congratulations!
“Greeks facing 'payback time' for tax-dodging, IMF chief
Christine Lagarde says -- The Greeks have had years of having fun and shirking
taxes, but now it is payback time, Christine Lagarde, the head of the
International Monetary Fund has warned.”
by Katherine Rushton
The Telegraph [of
London]
Published: 26 May 2012; 11:53AM BST
The title and subtitle fairly well say it all. Unfortunately, I suspect the Greek
People are not up to their responsibility and accountability.
Comments and contributions from Update no.544:
Comment to the Blog:
“Compromise and moderation have become such spiteful words
in the American political lexicon because the culture of greed demands no less
than everything. Thus, ‘compromise’ in that context comes to mean ‘give me what
I want and shut up about it.’
“I think of myself as a student of history and I was
likewise unaware of the Dorr Rebellion. However, I have enough study behind me
to be dubious when someone asserts that they can do something because ‘it’s a
free country.’ Catch-22 came along long before that book named it and remains
alive and well.
“You mentioned the market in your discussion of JP Morgan
Chase. As others have pointed out (Baseline Scenario, for example), the markets
do not regulate banks the size of JP Morgan Chase. Other lenders and investors
remain aware that the tab for their mistakes will be paid by taxpayers; market
forces might apply to smaller banks, but not to them.”
My response to the
Blog:
Re:
compromise. Both poles are
comparably intransigent. Your
observation is certainly validated by the public statements of Richard Mourdock
[543]. However, the unwillingness to compromise is much larger than
greed. Too many of contemporary
politicians use the phrase, “I cannot compromise my principles,” as if they
have sworn a blood oath to God.
Solutions are found in compromise, not in bludgeoning the other group to
death.
Re:
free country. Well said. We are free to choose our path to
Happiness . . . along as that path exists within acceptable or tolerable
boundaries. We are NOT free to
cause injury to other people or property; we are generally not free to threaten
other citizens, e.g., exceed the speed limit in residential areas, or
distribute deficient products.
Re:
Catch-22. Again, we said – 1961
was quite a bit later than 1842; but, as you say, the paradox has been around
for millennia.
Re:
market. I do not think
JPMorganChase is bigger than the marketplace; they are experiencing the
consequences of their actions as we speak. I will agree big banks are more buffered from the market
than small banks.
. . . follow-up comments:
“Those politicians have not sworn a blood oath to anyone's
God, but they've earned their campaign contributions.
“JP Morgan Chase and the other ‘too big to fail’
banks--unlike their smaller competitors--are not subject to market forces so
long as taxpayers bail them out. That is the crux of the argument against ‘too
big to fail.’ JP Morgan Chase can absorb a loss of $2 billion. They're bigger
than that. That's the scary thing.”
. . . my follow-up response:
Re:
blood oath. Some of them sure act
like it, though. Spot on! The ultimate corruption of money. One of many reasons I hope the NC jury
convicts John Edwards – send another message.
Re:
JPMorganChase. Indeed! I am still of the opinion that the big
banks should be broken up for the same reasons the USG broke up Standard Oil,
American Tobacco, and AT&T.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
That Secret Service agents use prostitutes ought not to surprise anyone. That the use was organized and sanctioned by supervisors, as it appears to have been, does surprise me. Why is not some standard of common sense deployed in the hiring of the supervisors and the management of these expeditions?
In re the doctor who assisted American forces in Pakistan, as nearly as I can tell from the Wikipedia article on him, “Dr Afridi was accused of having taken a half-dozen World Health Organization cooler boxes without authorization. The containers are for inoculation campaigns, but no immunization drives were underway in Abbottabad or the Khyber agency.” Thirty years does seem rather a stiff penalty for that. It surprises me that the US forces involved did not provide any needed equipment given the unlimited expense of everything else associated with finding bin Laden. I do not recall who Jonathan Jay Pollard was beyond my vague association of him with spying, a thoroughly unsavory business.
I read that article by Mae Kuykendall on gay marriage. I think she concerns herself a bit too much with “backlash,” but her method would eventually work. Obviously, though, waiting for that would take a very long time. I don’t favor that long a process with an issue that we could resolve far sooner. While I empathize with your disdain for Ms. Kuykendall’s focus on high-level power struggles over the interests of individuals, it seems to me that the people who can make changes usually focus on those power struggles. I noted that you called her “Mae” rather than your usual practice of using her complete, formal name including any and all prior names.
As we have discussed in the past, I have no sympathy to waste on the Catholic Church or any other institution that seeks to control its employees’ non-work-related decisions. That they try to abuse freedom of religion in the name of controlling others just makes them hypocrites as well as anti-democratic.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki may well have been “warranted and appropriate”; a final decision on that one will fall to more qualified and interested historians than I. That was in 1945. In 2012, the people fighting the USA show no interest in our nuclear deterrent. NATO has lost its relevance as well. NATO was formed to oppose Russian communism, which fell in the late 1980s. NATO has yet to find a new mission.
I will note here that Greece and the United States both suffer from people not paying taxes, but in the United States the Congress has mandated this whereas in Greece the issue is lack of enforcement. The IMF has no sympathy for the Greeks, but then they have no sympathy for anyone.
Calvin,
Re: Secret Service. Agents of the Secret Service are human beings, and thus flawed and susceptible to the same weaknesses. The Secret Service has high standards and trust in their agents. What happened in Cartegena is not reflective of the whole organization.
Re: Afridi. I’m not so sure the Wikipedia information is accurate. The Pakistanis called his contribution treason; they must be using a rather liberal and broad definition. I think the Pakistanis are making a much bigger statement to the United States than on Afridi’s actions. Unfortunately, he is paying a very heavy price.
Re: Pollard. He provided highly classified information to Israel. Pollard’s actions were far closer to treason than Afridi.
Re: Mae Kuykendall. She was the author / reporter, not the object of the topic.
Re: Catholic Church. Spot on! There is an old saying, if you open the birdcage and the bird flies away, he was never yours. Freedom is like that. Fear and retribution are never successful methods in a free society.
Re: nuclear weapons. Deterrence is only one aspect of such devastating weapons. I simply urge us to take the broader view.
Re: NATO. You may well be correct regarding the organization’s future mission(s).
Re: Greece. There are Americans who attempt to avoid taxes. Wesley Snipes comes to mind. At least the IRS actively searches for and prosecutes tax cheats. The IMF is doing what must be done.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment