I wish you a peaceful, uneventful Christmas. 

I'm not sure  "Merry Christmas" is appropriate because I know from experience it's difficult to feel merry when you are thousands of miles from home and there  are people outside the perimeter who would like to kill you.    It's more difficult for many of you than it was for me because many of you are away from your spouses and children as well as being away from your parents and siblings.

I spent Christmas 1969 at Landing Zone English just north of Bong Son,  South Vietnam.   I hope your Christmas will be comparable to mine.   

I worked in the army post office  serving the 173rd Airborne Brigade.  After weeks of abnormally large amounts of mail we had a day off with no mail coming in.  We had had help with the extra mail which included a large number of small artificial Christmas trees.   Several lucky men from various  infantry units had been given the opportunity to spend their last  couple of months in Vietnam  sorting mail instead of  looking for  Charlie.

The weather was sunny but without the heat and humidity of summer.  Winter days in that part of Vietnam were often cloudy and sometimes rainy.    That night some of the men on guard duty got a little carried away and started popping red and green flares until someone decided to sound the siren for a red alert.  The enemy had agreed to a truce, primarily so he could resupply his units.

Of course not all Christmases in Vietnam were pleasant.  For some other memories, songs, etc. see the site started  by  Mary Garvey in 1994. 

I hope your Christmas isn't anything like my dad's wartime Christmas.  He was a truck driver in Patton's army.  His unit was outside of the area the Germans occupied in the Battle of the Bulge, but he and his brother earned Bronze Stars by disobeying orders and taking some supplies through German lines.   When he talked about it later he felt he hadn't done anything special. He had simply shown the officers that they were wrong about the danger.
    
American soldiers, sailors and Marines have at times  been spending their  Christmases in  harm's way since the American Revolution.   Members of the Air Force joined them 60 years ago.

The American army's first major  victory came on Christmas, 1776,  when General George Washington  led his army across the Delaware River to defeat the Hessians at Trenton, N.J.
The next  Christmas  was rough  because of the frigid weather at their encampment at Valley Forge.

Perhaps the most remarkable  wartime Christmas occurred  in  1914  in World War 1  when  English. German and French troops ignored the wishes of higher officers and declared an informal truce and talked and sang with each other before returning to the war.
 
I wish you could all be home for Christmas, but that isn't possible.  You are participating  in a unique conflict.  Our previous wars  were against  other nations including the wars against the Cherokee, etc  Even our Civil War was a war involving a group of states acting like another nation.

In the War on Terror your enemy is more like an oversized criminal gang armed with military  weapons.  Their primary focus is on killing people.  They claim to have a religious motive, but they will kill their fellow Muslims just as readily as they will kill us "infidels".  They would like to take over a country, but that isn't their primary goal.   

Many of them want to provoke a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.    They want to get others to blame all Muslims for their actions and attack  Muslims who aren't involved in the violence. 

Your job is to keep them from getting a country to use as a base of operations.    In Vietnam we  weren't always sure which of the Vietnamese were friendly and which were not.   As the recent at Ft. Hood indicates, you cannot even be sure of your own comrades.  

Eliminating all terrorists probably isn't possible, but you can minimize their opportunities to conduct mass murders. 

ABC has run promos for All My Children (AMC) that are obviously false.   Broadcasters receive licenses based on serving the public interest.  A network that lies to attract viewers is not acting in the public interest. The FCC should consider revoking ABC's license allowing it to own individual television stations. 


I initially thought I wouldn't  post this on  blogs other than the one at Soap Central because it  involves a show with fewer viewers than live in  the 33rd most populous state, Arkansas.  However,  I realized that  a network that will lie in promos for one show  will likely lie in promos about other shows. 

 
ABC  claimed that the program would  reveal the "real killer" of the character Stuart Chandler in the May 15 episode.  Judging from the shows that have appeared thus far this month,  AMC is not going to reveal the real killer. 

Instead the head writer of AMC Charles "Chucky" Pratt Jr. has decided to name someone who could not possibly have committed the crime as presented in May.  He has in effect  rewritten the scene so that three characters who were pointing guns at the victim before the shooting just disappeared.

Viewers probably shouldn't have been surprised  at this blatant disception.  AMC had promoted the May 15  episode as having a major character being killed.  Instead, the victim was a character who had been appearing only infrequently. 

David Canary convincingly played both the major character Adam Chandler and his physically identical twin brother Stuart.  They were opposites in terms of personality.  Adam is a ruthless control freak who is usually seen wearing a coat and tie. Stuart was the "nicest guy in town" who was usually more casually dressed.              

The writers initially made it appear that Adam had been killed,  but  the characters subsequently discovered that Stuart was the victim. Deception within a show is a acceptable dramatic device, but deception to get people to watch is a form of fraud.  Producers of a commercial product who used similar advertising might face criminal prosecution. 

In the murder scene three people [one (Kendall Slater) outside and two (Zach Slater and David Hayward) inside] are shown pointing guns at the  man they  believe to be Adam Chandler but actually is his twin brother Stuart wearing his suit coat.   The inside lights have been turned off  by another character as part of another story line. Exterior lights appear to still be on and there is occasional lightning. 

The camera doesn't show the actually shooting, but a hole in a glass terrace door indicates the shot came from outside.  The murder weapon  is the revolver  held outside by Kendall, the mother of Zach's child and occasionally his wife.  

In the next episode,  Zach fires the murder weapon within the vicinity of a police officer and then surrenders when he realizes he cannot get away with the revolver.  Zach then confesses to the murder to the police chief      Zach owns the local casino with an occasional implication he could be a possible  "relative" of Tony Soprano. Police chief Jessie Hubbard subsequently reveals that fingerprints of both  Kendall and Zach are on the murder weapon.

Zach and Kendall wanted to kill Adam because they falsely believed that a faulty heart valve made by Adam's company had caused the death of their infant son. They didn't know a doctor had  revived the son after they have left for the Chandler mansion.    

After the shooting  Kendall  is shown  fleeing the murder scene with long time friend and occasional lover Ryan  Lavery.   When they arrive at the hospital to check on Kendall's son,  Kendall remarks to Ryan "I need to remember why we did this.[kill the man they believed to be Adam]."  Ryan replies, "you didn't kill Adam, Zach did."

Ryan's  statement may indicate a conspiracy in which Zach has decided to take the fall for the crime to protect the mother of his child.   Both statements indicate knowledge of the crime that they could only have gained by  at least witnessing  it.

Sometime later Kendall confesses to the murder just before the DA plans to prosecute her.  Kendall and Zach subsequently remarried so they could not be compelled to testify against each other.  

The recent portrayal of the murder has Adam Chandler standing outside where Kendall was and pointing the gun inside.  The writers want us to believe he shoots his twin under the delusion he is shooting himself. 

There has been a suggestion that he was shooting at his reflection in the glass terrace door which would have made it impossible for him to have hit his brother who was off to the side and  out of that line of fire.   The limited lighting inside, from a fireplace, makes it unlikely he would have thought his brother was himself, although someone expecting to see Adam in the room might have falsely assumed the white "mane" of hair meant the man was Adam. 

Considering that at least five people were looking for Adam at the time, it is virtually impossible for him to have been in that location without being seen.  If he had pointed the gun toward the inside, the two armed men inside would have seen him easily  and opened up on him knowing that they could have claimed to have fired in self defense. 

If he had committed the crime how would Kendall and Ryan have known about it and how would Zach have obtained the murder weapon?  If Adam killed Stuart why weren't his  fingerprints on the gun along with Zach's and Kendall's?

 AMC has become an Alice in Wonderland type world  presided over by its own Mad Hatter, head writer  "Chucky" Pratt.    The writers  are apparently incapable of coming up with a new story line to replace the murder one, so they are artificially perpetuating the Stuart murder story line by changing what happened and deliberately lying by claiming they are now identifying the real killer.

Those of us who remember the murder episode know that the writers are lying about the possibility  of Adam Chandler being the "real killer".  Unfortunately. those who didn't see it or have forgotten what happened in the murder episode may be deceived by these claims  and watch the farce the program has become.  We cannot be sure that  AMC  won't come back in another month or two and claim someone else is  the "real killer"

Incidentally. I am continuing to watch the program as an historian who is interested in the decline of network television.  If I had been a fan of the show I would have given up on it long ago due in part to the highly repetitive dialogue of some characters.

In the long run successful advertising depends upon the  credibility of the advertiser.  ABC as an advertiser no longer has any credibility. 

A network that lies about what will happen on one show will lie about other shows.  It probably isn't illegal for television networks to falsely advertise programs.  The only recourse for viewers is to ignore promos by networks that have been known to lie.

I wouldn't watch any ABC program based on an ad on the network. For that matter, I wouldn't attend, rent or buy a new Disney movie based on advertising because I don't believe I can trust ABC Disney to tell the truth.

I wonder how  many people realize  that the "new" series "V" is actually a remake of an 80's series of the same name. The new series may, or may not, be consistent with that series.

Does the Obama administration understand why we invaded Afghanistan?  Does the Obama understand that we have no choice but to remain in Afghanistan until we can establish a stable government that will not allow the country to be a base for terrorism?

The Christian Science Monitor has reported that White House Chief of Staff  Rahm   Emanuel   told CNN it would  be "irresponsible" to send more troops into Afghanistan before the political situation is resolved.   Actually it would be irresponsible to wait for the political situation to be resolved before committing sufficient troops to stabilize the situation.

We invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the Taliban government of Afghanistan had allowed the country to be used by a group of  al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked New York City and Washington, D.C., on September 11.  We cannot afford to leave until we can be assured that the country has a government that will not allow the country to be used to stage any more attacks against the U.S.

Emanuel said it would be "reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop levels if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create."

Does Emanuel understand  what  the impact of  Soviet rule followed by the rule of the Taliban?    Both governments followed policies of discouraging, and in some cases eliminating, those  who didn't blindly accept government orders.

The only people who had any experience operating a government were in the Taliban and they relied on terror to rule.  Time will be required to find and train honest individuals who will not abuse their government positions.  

Early volunteers for government service have often been dishonest, because dishonest people are more willing to take risks than honest people.  It will be difficult to attract honest people until  we can eliminate the violence that discourages them from getting involved.
 
If none of those who currently are interested in leading the government are capable of providing effective leadership, we will have to  look for  and  develop new leaders.   We may have to rebuild the country beginning at the local level.

Withdrawal before the country  has a viable anti-terrorist government is not an option.   Osama bin Laden would claim a major victory for violent Islam and use the victory to substantially increase recruitment.

Afghanistan is sometimes compared to my war [Vietnam] because it is a difficult place to defend against a guerrilla war.  However,  our adversaries in Vietnam never attacked  American cities or supported terror attacks on American cities.  Our adversaries in Afghanistan have attacked American cities before and want to use the country as a base for future terrorist attacks   against the United States and other countries.

We need to stay as long as it takes to prevent the country from once again becoming a base for terrorism even if that takes another 20 years.  We still have troops based in Germany and Japan 64 years  after we defeated them in World War II even though they are peaceful countries.

The most important rule in health care is "first do no harm".  Unfortunately Congressional Democrats seem totally oblivious to this rule. 

Many  Democrats are so egotistical that they think anything they do will  be an improvement.  They seem incapable of understanding  that changes can make a situation worse instead of better just like giving a patient the wrong medical treatment can worsen the patient's condition.  The wrong medical treatment can kill.   Making the wrong changes in the health care system can reduce  access to health care and reduce the quality of health care.

In one of my favorite episodes of M*A*S*H*   Captain Hawkeye Pierce is appointed the unit's chief surgeon.   Major Frank Burns complains to a general when Hawkeye decides not to immediately operate on  a badly wounded soldier who comes in.   When the general arrives Hawkeye has been playing cards while the man was receiving a blood transfusion, etc. to stabilize his condition.   Hawkeye tells the general he can now safely operate because the patient has been stabilized.  Operating too soon would have jeopardized the patient's chances of  survival.

Congressional Democrats continue to push a health care plan substantially similar to the one adopted by Massachusetts which is a failure according to the Boston Globe
 
The program has failed to provide the universal care it was supposed  to guarantee.  Coverage is not affordable.  The cost  of the subsidized program has gone from $630 million in 2007 to $1.3 in 2009.    High deductibles mean people who buy compulsory coverage may not be able to afford to use it. 

Low income families aren't the only ones who have trouble affording health insurance.   Many with incomes well above the poverty level like Ron Norton of Worcester, Mass.,  make  too much to qualify for government assistance but not enough to afford insurance.

The key to successful medical treatment is an accurate diagnosis.   The problem with American health care is the high cost of health care rather than lack of insurance.  High costs make it difficult for persons to afford insurance.

Doctors take x-rays or run tests as appropriate before choosing treatment for any major medical problem.  Congress needs to do the same with health care.  Congress needs to determine the specific causes of high costs to see if they are unnecessary. 

For example, are doctors, hospital administrators, insurance executives, etc. receiving higher incomes than patients can afford to provide them?   Are hospitals or other medical facilities making excessive profits by overcharging insurance companies?  Are so called non-profit hospitals or clinics actually functioning as if they were profit making organizations?   Are the uninsured including illegal aliens really responsible for high costs or are they being used as scapegoats by the health care industry to cover up the real cause?  Are courts forcing unnecessary costs on the industry?

This is breast cancer awareness month so perhaps a breast cancer analogy is appropriate.  Thirty years ago the treatment for all forms of breast cancer was usually  a complete mastectomy.  Today some, but not all, forms of breast cancer can be  successfully treated with a  simple lumpectomy that  removes only  the small tumors, provided the cancer is detected early enough.

Thirty years ago toxic chemicals were used to treat breast and other cancers.  Today a growing number of  cancers can be treated  with milder chemicals that  may attack only the cancer cells  without  damaging other  healthy cells.  In some cases radiation can be targeted to cancer cells without harming healthy cells. 

The American health care "problem" doesn't require radical surgery or toxic chemicals.  Improving American health care only requires  a lumpectomy  and mild chemicals.

 

 
President Barack Obama should follow the example set by North Vietnamese  negotiator Le Duc Tho in 1973 and refuse the Nobel Peace Prize.  Many are criticizing the decision to award Obama the Peace Prize.  This isn't the first controversial decision by the Nobel committee.

It is inconceivable that the Commander in Chief  of a nation whose  troops are actively engaged in armed combat should be awarded a peace prize.  I happen to support the U.S. role in both conflicts, but recognize that involvement in war is inconsistent with receiving the Nobel Prize.

If Obama has made an "extraordinary effort" for peace, why are Americans still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan?  How is the practice of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan an example of "reaching out" to the Muslim world?   Is the Nobel Prize Committee demonstrating racism  by seemingly suggesting that  the killing of Muslims is insignificant?

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war.  Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible,  but  peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about. 

The Nobel Committee awarded the 1973 Peace Prize to Tho and Henry Kissinger for the work on the Paris Peace Agreement designed to  end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.     Tho refused to accept the award because he realized his nation had not abandoned its goal of uniting Vietnam by force if necessary.    Kissinger initially accepted it but subsequently attempted unsuccessfully to return it.

Tho and Kissinger at least had done something  that  could qualify  them for consideration.  Obama has done nothing but talk. 

Obama has  not ended any war as President Theodore Roosevelt had  when Roosevelt received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for helping negotiate an  end to the Russo-Japanese War.  Many questioned the decision to give the award to Roosevelt because American military forces were dealing with a violent rebellion in the Philippines.

Whether or not the American role in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified or not, that role is not a role of peace, but of war.  Peaceful resolution of these conflicts may not be possible,  but  peaceful resolution of conflicts is what the Peace Prize should be about.

President Obama should  not accept a Peace Prize so long as these conflicts are going on.

Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, Le Duc Tho, 1973, Vietnam, Henry Kissinger, Theodore Roosevelt, refuse
  

This is the city, Wichita, Kansas.  Monday,  September 28,  it was warm in Wichita. 

Deputy Sheriff Brian S. Etheridge was on patrol.  At 11:42 A.M. he received a call to take a theft report in the 3600 block of South Rock Road. 

11:51 A.M. he arrived at the residence.  When no one came to the door, he  notified dispatch he was going to check the rear of the residence. 

12:01 P.M. Deputy Etheridge notified dispatch he had been shot.

Richard Lyons, a man with a long criminal history,  was waiting  in ambush with a deer rifle.  Lyons  fired hitting Etheridge in the back with the bullet penetrating the deputy's body armor.  He then went over to the wounded officer and when his rifle failed to fire took the deputy's hand gun and shot him in the leg.

Later in the day officers spotted Lyons in a nearby field.  Lyons opened fire on officers and was subsequently killed in the exchange of gunfire.

Officers later learned that Lyons might have told friends he wanted to kill an officer and that he may have been suicidal.   Officers will never know for sure, but  it seems likely that Lyons initiated the violence  to provoke officers into killing him in what has come to be known as "suicide by cop".  

A study published in February indicates 36% of shootings by police may involved suicide by cop.   This is up from a  1997 study which suggested 11% of  officer involved shootings were suicide by cop incidents.

Sometime police can identify situations in which a person may want to be killed.  At other times, officers may not have time to evaluate the situation. They may have to act immediately to avoid being killed or to prevent someone else from being killed.


Last summer Harvard Professor Henry Gates complained after he was arrested  for being  out of control.   

He failed to  understand that the officers had no idea who he was or what his state of mind might be.  They didn't know whether he could become violent or not.  All they knew was that someone had seen him and another man force the door open.

When Gates came to the door yelling about an officer coming after him because he was black he likely created a suspicion in Sgt. James Crowley's mind  that Gates  might be guilty of something or had a grudge against the police which might lead to violence.   I don't know if Crowley considered the possibility or not, but  men of Gates' age sometimes consider suicide if diagnosed with an incurable  debilitating disease like ALS or Alzheimers'.

Prof. Gates may have been tired and irritable because of his long trip from China.  However, Sgt.  Crowley didn't know that and  could not be sure Gates was  not  being influenced by drugs, alcohol or a mental problem, which could include high blood pressure or a tumor.

Gates complained about Crowley following him into the kitchen, but Crowley had to do so because he could not be sure that Gates would not come out with a weapon.   By staying with Gates, Crowley reduced the possibility of ending up with a standoff with Gates barricaded inside the house.    

Supporters of convicted criminal,  movie director Roman Polanski believes he should be allowed to get away with skipping out on sentencing 32 years ago.  He had originally been charged with giving  a 13-year-old  aspiring  model champagne and  part of a Quaalude and then raping and sodomizing her among other charges in spite of her pleas that he stop.  According to the girl's  grand jury testimony he photographed her topless, ostensibly for a magazine, and then had her completely disrobe before attacking her.

He managed to plea bargain the charges down to a simple unlawful sex with a minor charge.   However, he fled the country when it appeared the judge might sentence him to a longer jail term than what he had agreed to in the plea bargain.

As many people know, male Hollywood producers, directors, etc. have long had a reputation for requiring woman who wanted to succeed to grant them sexual favors via the casting couch.  Polanski possibly thought this tradition meant he could get away with attacking a young girl  who wanted to become a model. 

40-year-old men who rape 13-year-olds usually are sexual predators who have preyed on more than one  girl.  I wonder if there are other girls who were raped by Polanski but didn't report it because  they were ashamed, considered rape part of the cost of getting in show business,  felt it wouldn't do any good to charge someone so well known or were paid to forget the incident.

Polanski has avoided arrest for 32 years because France allows it criminals to return home without fear of being extradited for their crimes.  French leaders apparently believe it is perfectly acceptable for French citizens to rape American girls.    

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand was quoted in French media as saying, "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."  French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told France-Inter radio that he and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski asked Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that Polanski be released on bail, calling his arrest  a "bit sinister."

French opposition shouldn't be too surprising considering the country's past support for accused artists.

Polanski has been flaunting the law for 32 years.  It's time for him to be returned and serve out his sentence.
 
Ordinary citizens who have done the same have been required to  return to jail.  Why shouldn't  big shot  film makers? 

Are entertainers in particular or the rich in general above the law?  Are they only required to pay compensation to their victims and check into rehab when they get caught breaking the law?  Do the entertainers who support Polanski believe rape of children by film directors is acceptable behavior?

It's not like Polanski questioned the charges by attempting to establish his innocence in a trial like Michael Jackson did.  Jackson challenged the charges against him and the jury found him not guilty.  Polanski readily admitted his guilt by agreeing to a plea bargain that implied only a minor violation of the law. 

Ultimately the  government's ability  to force people to comply with its regulations  involves the threat of imprisoning those who refuse to comply.   If the Democrat controlled Congress decides to arbitrarily force some people to purchase  health insurance will it adopt severe measures to insure compliance with its requirement.  

Will any  government requirement to purchase health insurance  include the threat to  imprison those who refuse to purchase  insurance or pay a fine?  Will  government  confiscate money or property from  those who refuse to purchase health insurance or pay a fine?

President Barack Obama falsely compares the purchase of health insurance to auto liability insurance. "What it's saying is ... that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance," he said.

 I don't know if  Obama is deliberately lying or he is so ignorant  he doesn't understand the difference between auto  liability insurance and personal health insurance.

States don't require everyone to purchase auto liability insurance.  States only impose the requirement on those who want to own and drive motor vehicles to insure that drivers who cause injury or property damage will be able to compensate those who suffer loses.   Motorists typically have the option of substituting proof of financial responsibility, such as posting a cash bond, in lieu of  insurance.

Different  couples with the same income might not have the same ability to pay for health care.  A young couple might have two large student loans to pay off  and still want to start purchasing a house or newer vehicles.  A couple might  decide to take the risk of going without health and life insurance to start their own business.   Some couples may be providing assistance to a disabled parent.

Many of those who could afford insurance do without it because they believe their healthy lifestyles reduces their need for medical care.  They don't want to have to pay to subsidize the habits that increase medical costs like smoking, unhealthy eating and drinking habits, failure to exercise, etc.   Insurance companies use money taken from healthy people to pay for the medical care of unhealthy people.  Democrats who favor compulsory insurance should ask themselves if they want to be forced to pay for Rush Limbaugh's prescriptions.

Who is best able to determine if someone can purchase health insurance -- wealthy members of Congress, government bureaucrats or individual couples?

Is this still the land of the free or is it a police state like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

President Barack Obama needs to abandon his obsession  with  the Democrats'  clunker health care proposal.     His public relations campaign indicates desperation and an unwillingness to recognize that this clunker needs a new engine rather than a slick advertising campaign.

Obama started out wrong by attempting to  force the very complex measure through Congress with limited debate.  This high pressure salesmanship approach  created a suspicion that something very bad was hidden in the fine print of the measure because high pressure salesmen often hide important information of contracts.  

Most of us are especially suspicious of politicians when they ask us to trust them after presenting a measure so complex that it might take a decade of lawsuits to figure out.

The claim about so-called "death panels" might have been false,  but  many so distrusted  the measure that  they readily believed the claim.  Suspicions about Obama's intent also  caused many to believe that  he had some ulterior motive  with the public option provision.

Obama's frequent  public appearances may be counterproductive because  he comes across too much like  the  stereotypical  used car dealer who runs  ads every half hour.

Democrats need a new health proposal not  an expanded  public relations campaign to sell the current clunker.

A successful president needs to follow the advice of the "Gambler" in the Kenny Rogers song.  He needs to "know when to hold 'em [and] know when to fold 'em."  This is the time for Obama to "fold 'em" on health care and wait for Congress to deal a new hand.

Lucas Wondra  has achieved something only about  4 %  of those who enter scouting  achieve.  He has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout.  

His achievement is particularly significant because the 16-year-old Hutchinson (Kansas) High School student has the genetic disorder Down Syndrome.    Lucas is one of many who are demonstrating that  individuals with Down Syndrome can  be productive members of society.    Maybe they are not capable  of performing  brain surgery or becoming professional athletes, but  then  neither are the vast majority of the rest of us.

Individuals with Down Syndrome have an extra copy of chromosome 21   , a condition called  trisomy 21, which can cause physical and mental disabilities because having three copies of some genes interferes with the normal operation of cells and development.   Down Syndrome children may not be geniuses, but many of them are able to attend classes with other students instead of being limited to special education classes as was once the case.  

The cause of the extra copy of the chromosome is unknown, but it is known that an extra copy may be received from one of the parents or the extra chromosome may appear during the embryonic stage of development resulting in some cells with the extra copy and some with only two copies of chromosome 21.   The possibility of an extra chromosome developing in embryonic cells  is a major reason why embryonic cells may be unsafe to use in treating human disorders
  
Lucas isn't the first Scout with Down Syndrome to earn the rank of Eagle Scout.  For example,   Adam Townsend of Mesquite, Texas, became an Eagle Scout on June1, 2009.    A. J. Trueblood of Lakeland, Florida, became an Eagle Scout  in August, 2006.  Clayton "Trey" Henderson of Ridgeview High School in Orange Park, Florida, became an Eagle Scout in April, 2006.  

Down Syndrome scouts have to meet the same requirements as other Eagle Scouts if they are physically able to do so.  A. J. Trueblood didn't even mention that he had Down Syndrome on his application. 

Lucas   is unable to swim so he substituted a 20 mile hike.  He also completed  five 10 mile hikes.  I don't know if I even hiked 20 miles when I took basic training in the army, although it sometimes felt like 20 miles.

Lucas is physically unable to speak but can communicate using sign language and a PDA with voice software.   He used the PDA to communicate with a congregation while serving as a chaplain's aide including offering a thought for the day and leading in the Lord's Prayer.

Many of those with Down Syndrome never had the opportunity for achievement that these Eagle Scouts had because their mothers listened to ignorant, prejudiced doctors and others  who persuaded them to have abortions.  Many share the prejudiced (or is it bigoted)  view of Nicholas Provenzo  that    "a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision."

Provenzo obviously doesn't understand what those with Down Syndrome can do.   I wonder how many of those who think Down Syndrome individuals cannot do anything  had the drive to become Eagle Scouts.

Perhaps the lamest argument for aborting Down Syndrome babies has been suggested to students on more than one occasion by University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Professor Albert K.  Harris.   "In my opinion, the moral thing for older mothers to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome #21, and abort the fetus if it does. The brain is the last organ to become functional."

"I know somebody who had a child like this, and it ruined their life," he said. 
 
Down Syndrome babies do require more time and effort than some other babies, but that doesn't mean they should not have the opportunity to be born and live. 

Active "normal" children may actually require more supervision than Down Syndrome children because they may be physically able to get into dangerous situations faster than Down Syndrome children.

Potential parents who are concerned that a child with Down Syndrome might require more of their time should reconsider the decision to become parents.  Down Syndrome isn't the worst thing that can happen to a child. 

A child could be afflicted with a fatal form of cancer or Muscular Dystrophy.  A child might be severely injured in an accident or abducted.   

A child might require greater effort from parents because of  hyperactivity or autism.  A "normal" child may decide to get involved with drugs or gangs.

These and many other problems that can occur with children can adversely affect families, but the problem isn't with the children. Major illness of the death of a child from any cause potentially can destroy a family if parents start playing a blame game. The problem in these situations is with parents who cannot accept adversity.   

Sue Thomas was born in May, 1950,  and was a normal child until she suddenly lost her hearing at 18 months.  The "experts" told her parents that she would never amount to anything and should be institutionalized.  Her parents ignored the advice and made sure that she had  the opportunity  for as normal a life as possible including attending school with children who could hear.    

At the age of  7 she  became the youngest Ohio Champion  free style skater  in  history. In  1979, she became part of an elite FBI surveillance team.   In 2002 a tv series Sue Thomas: F.B. Eye    debuted  based on her career, although many of the episodes dealt with the type cases facing the FBI at the time of the series rather than cases from the 80's.   The Gospel Music Channel is bringing that series back on September 14.

Some people try to define others by what they cannot do instead of what they can do.  Lucas Wondra, Adam Townsend, A.J. Trueblood and Clayton Henderson have done something I couldn't have done when I was their age.  They have become Eagle Scouts.

I was a Cub Scout, but my family moved to another town when I was in the 6th grade and I never became a Boy Scout.  Even if I had participated, I doubt that I could have fulfilled the requirements for an Eagle Scout because I was the stereotypical "98 pound weakling" in high school.

I cannot play a musical instrument like Sarah Itoh  who has Down Syndrome and who was playing the clarinet by the time she was11 years old.  She is an accomplished public speaker who particularly enjoys telling audiences how she enjoys Special Olympics.   At her age I had enough trouble just repeating lines in a church Christmas play.

We all have different abilities and disabilities.   We can do some things that others cannot do and they can do some things that we cannot do.

Sue Thomas responded to her loss of hearing by learning to read lips.    That skill got her a job as an  FBI agent because she  could what other FBI agents could not do.  She could tell what a   suspect under visual surveillance was  saying without the need to plant a microphone near him.

We don't know the full potential of what individuals with Down  Syndrome can do because for many years  people just labeled them "retarded" and assumed they couldn't do anything.  Maybe none of the Eagle Scouts mentioned will become  an astronaut like Eagle Scout Neil Armstrong or a movie director like Eagle  Scout Steven Spielberg.  However, drama student and cheerleader Clayton Henderson might  become  a successful actor like Joseph "Chris"  Burke  who  has Down Syndrome and was a star of the successful tv series "Life Goes  On.."  

 How many of us could star in a tv series?

Some people claim that Down Syndrome children cost society because of government programs that have assisted them.  I doubt seriously all Down Syndrome individuals together have cost society  nearly as much as  Bernie Madoff. 

President  Barack Obama  resembles the  used  car dealer in  the CARFAX commercial. 

You've probably seen the commercial.  A sleazy used car dealer is attempting to push a customer into buying  an apparent clunker.  The  customer  says he won't buy without seeing the CARFAX which would provide a history of the car so the customer would know what he was getting.

Obama has been pressuring Congress to  adopt  some type of health care related program without the lengthy debate that should precede any major change in health care.  Obama's attempt to force the issue implied a major flaw with the proposal, perhaps something so unpopular that he was afraid people would find out about if the measure wasn't adopted quickly.

Used car salesmen long ago gained a bad reputation as a group because some of them have misrepresented  the condition of the vehicles or the mileage they get.  Southern California used car dealers once supposedly would misrepresent a car's use by saying it had been owned by a "little old lady from Pasadena who only drove it to church on Sundays."  Or at least they did until the Beach Boys released a song about "The Little Old Lady from  Pasadena"  who was "the terror of Colorado Boulevard"  in her " brand new shiny red super stock Dodge."
 
Some of today's used car   dealers will sell cars that have been wrecked or in a flood to unsuspecting customers who don't insist on seeing the vehicle's  CARFAX.

Comparing presidents to used car dealers isn't new.  In the late 60's the question was asked about Richard Nixon, "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Did Obama try to force the issue because his proposal really isn't about providing better access to health care but providing money for the health care industry, including insurance companies?  

Forcing people to purchase insurance whether they want it or not would certainly increase insurance company revenues.  The public option would provide billions more in income for health care providers so that more hospitals can afford to pay administrators such as Michelle Obama $300K salaries.  The public option can make it easier for insurance companies to reject those with medical conditions and let the government pay for treatment. 

Perhaps Obama is worried people will discover the Massachusetts Plan he wants is a clunker that the state is considering a plan to ration health care.      

Obama's attempt to force the issue provided  the atmosphere in which a fear about "death panels" could develop.   The idea may have originated  from  statements by some of those associated with Obama who might play a role in implementing any legislation than specific provisions in the act.   

Contrary to denials by Obama supporters, an increased government role in health care could create virtual death panels.  Having government control access to health care could  create virtual death panels.    If a private insurance denies coverage for treatment of a potentially fatal disorder, the patient has the option of  asking friends and family raise money for the treatment.  If  government  took control of health care,  that option might not be available.   A government  agency decision to deny payment for treatment might become a death sentence because private financing might not be allowed.

I might have purchased a used car from Richard Nixon, at least before Watergate, but there is no way I would buy one from Barack Obama.

The way some politicians talk I don't think they understand that insurance companies don't pay for health care, their customers do.

Insurance works in one of two basic ways.  Life insurance is part investment and part ponzi scheme.  Part of the payments to beneficiaries comes from investment of the money the insured paid in premiums and the rest comes from the premiums being paid by others.   Life insurance works as long as the death rate remains low and the number of people purchasing life insurance is high.

Health insurance may have operated through investments at one time. Today, the money paid to health care providers comes from the premiums paid by the insured.  Health insurance provides a way for many people to pool their financial resources to pay the medical bills of those who become sick or injured. 

Health insurance can only function as long as the healthy insured outnumber the unhealthy insured.  A health insurance company can only stay in business if most of its customers during any given year pay more in premiums than the company pays for their medical expenses.

The problem in American health care isn't a lack of insurance, but the high cost of medical care.  The high cost of medical care  hampers the ability of individuals and their employers to pay for medical care or purchase  insurance. 

Government and private insurance played a role in increased medical charges by routinely paying medical charges without question for decades.    

The first step to health care reform should be reduction of costs which will require extensive congressional hearings to determine why costs are so high. The investigation should include determining if health insurance companies are overcharging customers in order to make excessive profits or pay excessive salaries to executives.

For example, what role do malpractice cases play in health care costs?  Are medical tests or hospital dispensed medications overpriced?  Are doctors' fees too high considering the financial resources of patients?  Do states adequately regulate the quality of medical care?  Correcting mistakes by doctors and hospitals  is expensive and leads to malpractice suits.

During the coming weeks we will be hearing about the nation's best health insurance program.  It doesn't cover  a wide variety of disorders, but it provides complete coverage  for  the type of disorders it covers -- the various forms of Muscular Dystrophy.

The Muscular Dystrophy Association  provides  assistance  in the form of wheelchairs as well as  medical treatment for  those  whose  form of MD can be treated.   The MDA doesn't require patients to have other insurance or make payments.

The MDA isn't the only charitable health organization.   St. Jude's Hospital   provides treatment to children without regard to ability to pay as do the Shriners' Hospitals.

Charitable hospitals once played a major role in American health care until administrators discovered they could make a profit by charging government and private insurance for health care.  The organizations that once funded many of these hospitals gradually allowed the hospitals to become self supporting by charging patients and their insurance companies.

Churches and other charitable organizations need to play  a greater role in providing health care to those who  find it too expensive.   I don't expect  Democrats  to support  this approach because they want to make the federal government  bigger even though  the federal government doesn't  do anything particularly well.  It even has trouble running the post office or fighting wars  in spite of the fact  it  has handled  both functions  since before the current constitution was adopted.

I doubt that the Ferengi Republicans like Rush Limbaugh  will be interested in encouraging charitable organizations,  but perhaps the religious Republicans might.

Incidentally, I emailed some suggestions on health care to the Obama administration earlier this year when it requested input.  I originally wrote it in 1992 and expanded it during the Clinton administration, with occasionally mailings to politicians.  It's a work in progress that I haven't done much with for several years.     I really need to go back through it and do a better job of making the various parts fit together, but with the politicians we have now,  I don't think it's worth the time.

Why should we believe statements about health care from the most secretive president since Richard Nixon?  We have no way of knowing if presidents who keep significant secrets in some areas are telling the truth on other matters.  

Barack Obama's continued refusal to release minor personal documents like his actual birth certificate, college records, etc. implies he is covering up important information that we should know about.   Unless his critics are correct, none of the information should have any adverse affect other than possibly causing some embarrassment.  

A president who feels he has to keep personal secrets is very likely to also keep secrets about his proposals including those involving health care.   He shouldn't be surprised that many people suspect he has ulterior motives for some proposals and may be lying about their impact.

Obama has lied on other important issues.  Last year he said there wouldn't be any new taxes for most of us.  After being elected he proposed huge tax on carbon emissions that will affect all of us.  The purpose of the tax is to allow the greedy financial interests who bought the White House for him to make billions trading "carbon credits".  

I don't know if his critics are correct that the refusal to release his actual birth certificate is due to him being born outside the U.S., but there doesn't appear to be any other reason for him to keep the birth certificate secret.  Does the birth certificate indicate Obama was born outside the U.S. or could it include information that might indicate that Obama is not  the child mentioned on the certificate?  Perhaps the real Barack Obama died shortly after birth and his mother in a humanitarian move adopted an African orphan to replace the baby she lost.    She then used the U.S. certificate to make it appear her new child was born in the U.S.

Incidentally there is now a claim that someone has found a Kenyan birth registration indicating he was born in Kenya.     As was the case with the document used to claim he was born in Hawaii, the other side suggests it is a forgery.  And, like the Hawaiian document, it merely states that there is a birth certificate rather than being an actual birth certificate.  Those who believe the document is valid suggest it may have been produced in connection with his mother's divorce case.

I recently had the misfortune to observe some very bad psychological child abuse that I was powerless to stop.  Calling the police would have done no good because the abuse was on a television show, the July 23rd episode of  ABC's All My Children.


Several adults were ganging up on a little girl, Emma Lavery,  trying to  get her to stop saying  she had seen one of them, Kendall Slater, kill someone by mistake.   Worse than that they were attempting to coerce her into saying that she had  seen her mother, Annie, commit the murder instead.  One would talk to the girl than leave so another could continue the ordeal.  By the end of the ordeal the  poor little girl was catatonic.

I debated  writing about  the show because I don't usually write about  television.   I decided to write because  no one else seems particularly concerned about the incident and because it appears none of the characters will be punished for their crime.

There is no excuse  for such a scene.  If child abuse is going to be dealt with on television, it should happen off camera or be referred to rather than shown.   The purpose should be to deal with the subject rather than to allow adults to use it for some type of dramatic affect.
 
The incident is part of an effort by the show's ineffective writers to rescue a poorly  designed story line involving a murder in the May 15 episode. 

The episode was a ratings stunt to build sagging ratings by releasing rumors that a long standing character would be killed in the episode.   Then ratings would be maintained by the mystery of who fired the fatal shot -- as in who shot JR on Dallas, except on AMC the shot would be fatal. 

As far as I know the episode isn't available online, but if you can find someone who has a copy you might watch it.  The episode was hilarious.  If I didn't know better I would have thought  it was written and directed by bad horror movie king Ed Wood.   The show featured numerous individuals wondering around a darkened mansion seeking to kill the owner. A few bumped into each other.  Others just missed each other.   In the end someone killed the  identical twin of the owner.  The victim, Stuart Chandler, was the nicest man in town. His  "evil twin" Adam was the object of the would be killers.

The writers managed to establish  that several  had a motive to go to the mansion to kill Adam.  However, they didn't set up the crime scene so that the killer could have fired from anywhere in the room or through a doorway, including an open patio door instead of patio door that was apparently closed and fired through.      They also should have had the murder weapon with several different sets of fingerprints or perhaps no fingerprints so anyone could have fired it.   

  Instead of many suspects they quickly ended up with only one, Kendall, who thought her baby had died because of a medical device made by Adam's firm.   The writers attempted to remedy the situation by making "Crazy Annie" (Emma's mother) a suspect even though she had no apparent motive and was at the mansion to get her daughter who was visiting Adam's grandson.

Annie was under treatment for mental illness caused by abusive treatment from her brother.  He eventually pushed  her over the edge and she had killed him with a tire iron.  She escaped from the mental hospital to get her daughter and leave town.   The writers have decided to have the characters blame her for any violent crime and ignore the possibility that one of the town's leaders might kill.  Considering the way the other characters treated Emma, Annie may now be the sane one.

Recent episodes make the abusive treatment of Emma unnecessary except to pad the storyline.  Kendall, after seeing the ghost of Stuart accusing her of his death, decided to confess.    Incidentally for those not familiar with AMC, Kendall is the daughter of character Erica Kane played since the show's beginning by the legendary Susan Lucci who holds the record for the most Emmy nominations before winning one.     David Canary  who played Candy Canaday on  "Bonanza" began playing Adam Chandler in 1983 and his twin brother Stuart in 1984.   Canary was briefly on a list to replace Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock during a contract dispute involving Nimoy.

I had watched AMC several years ago when I got soapnet with digital cable which ran a week's episodes on Saturday nights and Sunday afternoon.  The show had a reputation for dealing with social issues and I liked Lucci's performance in a version of Dickens' Christmas Carol,  "Ebbie".  At that time one of the characters had a teen age daughter who was autistic.  I eventually decided there were other shows I would rather watch.  After I retired I had more time and decided to try the show again. I have a research interest in television and its role in society. 

Unfortunately,  the show has been going down hill with the child abuse of Emma indicating the writers have run out of ideas.  Unless the network can find some new writers the network should seriously consider canceling it.   According to the ABC site the network plans to move the production of the show to LA .  The network  should save its money unless the move includes replacing the writers, director and producers responsible for the show's decline.