Paul Krugman’s recent  NY TIMES op-ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/opinion/krugman-the-post-truth-campaign.html) about the post-truth society wrote in his last paragraph “The end result will be no real penalty for running an utterly fraudulent campaign. As I said, welcome to post-truth politics.”  Several questions arise: Why is there no penalty? and Isn’t this politics as usual, i.e., hasn’t this lying behavior long been part of the fabric of society?

From my perspective, the answer to the latter question is yes: lying for political gain has been part of human culture seemingly forever.

However, I realize that Krugman may well have come to a partially wrong conclusion.  First, we have to agree that a penalty is a consequence; in the situation described by Krugman although there may not be a personal consequence (an imposed penalty on an individual for anti-social behavior) there are societal consequences.

It has been long known that one of the great problems with politics is the fact that truth pays a price.  As one studies politics, especially during election campaigns, one leans that not only are lies expected, but worse, permissible.   There are consequences for such behavior.  Unfortunately, as Krugman points out, the politicians (liars) are not the ones who pay the consequences, society does.  One such consequence is that people, except for ideologues who support the lying politicians or their stated positions, tend to become very cynical.   The personal and societal expectation and acceptance of lying to promote a specific cause or to gain a specific advantage helps lead to the destruction of reason. Ideology trumps fact (truth):  ideology trumps reason.

Yet, when one looks at the phenomenon of political lying more closely, one finds that, in truth, society has been conditioned to accepting lies as truth while managing to avoid the widespread cynicism that should have accompanied it.  Under what circumstances did such behavior become a reality?  From my perspective, the answer is simple:  when lies are wrapped up in religious dogma and practices; when lies are presented as beliefs and beliefs are religiously mandated to be true irrespective of the lack of supporting evidence or even in the face of evidence to the contrary.   Every society, even primitive ones, had its politics and also had its religious beliefs and practices.  The two systems developed pari passu and, to their mutual advantage, married.  Like in any marriage, the individuals – in this case, Church and state – remained as individuals but also became one and acted in concert to their mutual advantages.

To be fair, there also existed the silent and, at times, the not too silent minority, who disagreed and developed cynical attitudes.  Too often there were fatal consequences for being in the minority.

Over the millenia, politicians built on that which already had become part of the very essence of society and, by so doing, enhanced the growth of ideological based truth and societal cynicism with its hatred of government – recall that I define government as men and women in power (I have a distrust of men and women in power – even though there is no viable alternative – as I have seen how readily they are prone to abusing this trust rather than using it for the good it can do).

It is the intense development of the concept of  belief and ideology as truth and the destruction of reason that is currently eroding American society.  Nothing shows the deadly influence of such behavior more than the re-emergence of the marriage of church and state – tax supported faith-based institutions – and the ever present presidential hopefuls who are all to willing, nay, eager, to pander to an anti-intellectual, anti-science and scientifically ignorant mass of people who are religiously conditioned to accepting ideology and belief as truth.

Woe is us.

For the past couple of weeks some TV advertisements in behalf of presidential candidate Herman Cain appeared which have political pundits wondering what they mean.

While they ponder the conundrums, I think these ads are very self-evident.   Herman Cain wants to turn back the hands of time and do away with regulations.  He wants to return to the glorious days of yesteryear:  back to the era of smoking in public places as opposed today’s bans;  he wants to remove regulations on pollution.  He wants to return to the days of the developing West – the days when people could become anonymous and disappear in society – no social security numbers for ID etc.   He wants to return to a simpler time where there was no social security, unemployment insurance,  workman’s compensation, child labor laws, unions etc. and people had to depend on charity or their families for assistance.  He wants to return to the era where there was no control over pharmaceutical agents by an FDA:  the time when snake oil salesmen held swayand the public health be damned.

I think his messages are blatantly transparent.

Those of us who live in Florida have been inundated with almost daily accounts of Governor Rick Scott’s attacks on the State’s education with recent emphasis on the system of higher education.  There should be no doubt in any one’s mind that he is aping the behavior of his fellow governor with whom he shares the same first name nickname, Rick Perry of Texas.

One of Governor Scott’s latest tactics was to post online the salaries of more than 50,000 employees at the public universities as if he was disclosing a great state secret for the public to share.  However, as any knowledgeable person knows, such information has been available for years.

Rick Scott is a governor who keeps talking about accountability and making the educational system more efficient.  Thinking citizens are now required to  ask:  What about making the Governor’s office more efficient?  Are not the above actions of the Governor duplicating what is readily available and, therefore, a waste of valuable time, effort and resources?  I doubt if anyone, intellectually, would be opposed to enhancing efficiency.  However, it seems as if Governor Scott came to a very selective, preconceived conclusion as to where efficiency should be applied.

As part of his tactics, the governor wants reports detailing the teaching responsibilities of the faculty.  The governor seems to be unaware that faculty have multiple responsibilities of which teaching is the most important.  For example, faculty are expected to do academic counseling.  Depending on the college or university, a faculty member may be assigned a given number of students to counsel.  This means helping students put together a plan of study for the four years, planning their next semesters work and for following their progress.  Some faculty take this aspect of their jobs lightly, others very responsibly.  There is no way of quantifying what I consider to be a very important academic activity for a governor’s report.  Every year I had at least 10 students assigned to me who, unless they changed their major, changed institutions,or dropped out of school, I carefully followed for their entire college career: in addition, I also advised a variable number of other students who came to me for counseling and help, irrespective of their major discipline, because they were dissatisfied with their advisers; these were students who were in one or more of my courses.  Yes, I could have turned them away, but I didn’t.  I always remembered two things from my own experiences, i.e., the great stupidity and  frustrations I encountered during my college career and the very rare kindness.  I promised myself that, if ever I was in such a position, I would never mistreat a student.  Academic advising, if done properly, is exceedingly time consuming.

Again, depending on the College and University, faculty also are expected to be actively engaged in on-going scholarly activity in the faculty member’s area of expertise which, theoretically, should result in obtaining extramural financial support and publications in professional journals.  (As an aside: “scholarly activity” is a more generic, and, therefore, also a more inclusive term than what is commonly called research: it is a term that is more reflective of the variety of academic activities of faculty, i.e., preparing for and giving concerts or art exhibits is far different than doing bench research in a biology, chemistry or physics lab.)  Such activity can only be quantified partially while doing so is fraught with complexities that boggle the mind.  In some cases such activity may also include supervising graduate students on the masters and doctoral levels of education.  The latter, if done properly, is also exceedingly time consuming, especially if this activity also involves undergraduate and graduate students.

Further, faculty are expected to engage in service: service is a broad term that includes service to the institution or service to the local, regional, national or international community or one’s professional society.  Administrative service, such as working on departmental, college or university-wide committees, is part of a faculty member’s expected responsibility due to the concept of shared governance.

Faculty also have to engage in administrative work which includes, inter alia, filling out reports of one’s activities required by the university and now by the Governor and annually writing statements of goals – as if these can really change.

Of course, these faculty responsibilities and activities are to be accomplished while faulty members are trying to stay current in their field of expertise as well as in the broader fields associated with their discipline.  For example: my area of expertise was the physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology of the atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and the helium-xenon group of elements) – their theoretical and practical applications.  Yet, because I taught introductory biology, I had to try to keep current with many of the major developments in the broad field of biology.  I also taught courses such as the biology of aging and the biology of drugs – an introduction to pharmacology.  Therefore, I had to try to stay current with the latest developments in these areas as well.  The new knowledge obtained had to be incorporated into one’s lectures, if the faculty member was intent on bringing the very latest information to the students irrespective of whether or not it was in the latest text books, most of which could be several years out of date by the time they were published.

I wonder how many in the general public think that all of this can be done in 2080 hrs – the total number of annual work hrs based on a 40 hr work week?  Governor Scott obviously considers educators as not doing enough on their jobs and, therefore, are being overpaid.  He cut faculty salaries by about 3%.  Florida is among the lowest paying states with respect to faculty salaries.

There is no college or university administrator who works as hard as the average conscientious faculty member.  I would be pleasantly surprised if Governor Scott demanded comparable information from administrators or athletic coaches as he does from faculty?  Most administrators do not do much teaching, if any, nor do they do much academic counseling. They either all have attained or very close to attaining their Peter principle level.  They sit on committees and make decisions while commanding exceedingly high salaries.   If Governor Scott wishes to assure that financial resources are used to their maximal effect on educating students, he could start by demanding that many of the bloated, multi-levels of administrators in the colleges and universities be eliminated: they and their ego-mollifying staff, in reality, are unproductive and unnecessary.  By so doing, there would be more money available to run the university without having to reduce faculty salaries or cutting back on library resources.

A coach has to field winning teams.  However, unlike the situation with faculty, a coach is given athletic scholarships and a staff with which to recruit and train very specific athletes.  Faculty are required to work with whatever students the university accepts.  Faculty do not select the students who appear in their classes, except perhaps for their own graduate students.  Students have various abilities, talents and personalities to which the faculty member has to adapt and weld into a classroom unity in a relatively short period of time – one week – if the faculty member is to be successful during a 16 week semester.  Unlike coaches, faculty have very little leverage over students.  For 12 yrs I taught on the semester system and for 18 yrs I worked and taught on the quarter system: this means two class turnovers per academic year on the semester system compared to three turnovers on the quarter system - summers excluded.

The latest of the Governor Scott’s harassing tactics, as he continues his relentless assault on higher education (what he is doing to public K-12 education is disgraceful but cannot be dealt with here), is his requesting – nay, demanding - that the colleges and universities provide information as to how well they are measuring student learning; how well are they preparing students for the work force; and, how well they are performing in placing students in jobs.  Further, he wants the institutions to focus on the teaching of mathematics and science.  Why?  Because it is his opinion that such a scientific/technological education will produce graduates who will be more employable than graduates in other fields, especially the humanities.  He specifically pointed to the field of anthropology as a field not worthy of being supported.  Ironically, the media uncovered the fact that his daughter was graduated with a degree in anthropology.

It seems as if Governor Scott considers the aim of higher education to be nothing more than occupational training centers thereby making the institutions of higher learning nothing more than the equivalent of vocational schools.  He even wants these institutions of higher learning to expand one of their services and make it a specific function, one never before considered to be a job of an educational institution, i.e., to be responsible for finding employment for the students.  Apparently, Governor Scott wants institutions of higher education to expand their placement services to be that of a full-time employment agency.

In such a scenario I cannot help but wonder whether Governor Scott understands how students fit into considerations of what constitutes higher education and how to deliver it.  Perhaps that is why the governor asked about the teaching responsibilities of faculty.  Perhaps Governor Scott does not consider the myriad other activities of faculty to be important and he is trying to justify eliminating them.  By so doing, the faculty can then just concentrate on teaching and catering to the students wants, desires and needs.

Is Governor Scott suggesting that any area of study outside of math, science and technology should not be funded?  And, is the Governor suggesting that the colleges and universities eliminate their vital research and graduate programs?

However, there are other considerations: What would the governor do with students who do not wish to major in math, the sciences or technology?  Are they not entitled to a higher education? Is the Governor suggesting that students be forced into these areas because that is what he wants?  Are students not permitted to select the areas that are of interest to them and more in tune with their abilities and talents?  Are not students the ones who should be making career decisions and then, with or without the aid of a faculty counselor, select the appropriate course of study?  What would the governor do with and for students who want a graduate education? Send them out of state?

What will such actions mean for the quality of faculty at these institutions, the quality of education, the quality of the students that would be attracted to these institutions and the eventual economic impact on the state?

Governor Scott appears either to be a man devoid of understanding as to what are the myriad aims of education or else chooses to ignore the wider educational purposes of colleges and universities.   I cannot help but conclude that Governor Scott is cynically appealing to and trying to assuage the basest instincts of his ignorant base to the ultimate detriment of the people of the State of Florida.

Dear Ombudsman

When I was an active physiologist, I had great respect for LANCET.  I even published in LANCET.  I am sorry to say that  events of the past couple of years have caused me to change my opinion.

I must take issue with Richard Horton’s abuse of his power and his utter contempt for his position as editor of a prestigious scientific journal and the journal’s audience as evidenced by his heinous antisemitic politicization of LANCET and by his failure to adhere to standards of excellence of quality expected from LANCET.

Editor Richard Horton has been and still is abusing his power as editor to promote a specific uncivilized political point of view, i.e., the delegitimization and destruction of a nation and of a people.  There was no opportunity for another person having an opposing view to have read the offending paper and overview statement of the editor in advance and simultaneously present his/her analysis on this important subject.  Any future submission by an individual having an opposing view would have to undergo peer review and would be limited in length.  Ergo, there would be no guarantee of publication nor would there be any guarantee of equal exposure as to placement in the journal should such an article be published.  There would be no inclusion in an information retrieval system as letters to editors are usually not archived for retrieval.  Such restrictions do not apply to an editor.  Thus, the use of a scholarly journal having the stature of LANCET for a reasoned scholarly debate did not and does not exist.

Permit me to elaborate further.

When an editor of a journal provides an opinion, it should reflect the highest standards of scholarship worthy of a journal such as LANCET.  The editor is the voice of the journal.  The editor’s behavior reflects on the journal.  An editor should set an example of the quality of writing and scholarship expected for publication in the journal.  If the editor uses shoddy scholarship, there is the perception that the editorial staff is tolerant of poor quality scholarship which will then be reflected in the quality of the articles appearing in the journal.  An excellent example of failure to adhere to high standards of quality is editor Horton permitting the publication of a paper which is virtually devoid of scholarship and to which he added overview comments which reflect negatively on his role as an editor and his eager willingness to accept  a very uncivilized partisan point of view without any significant degree of cerebration on his part.

Editor Horton, in his overview of the article “Childbirth at checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territory” accuses the Israelis of inhumane actions towards pregnant “Palestinian” women and claims that the Israeli actions are “crimes against humanity.”  Further there is the charge that the Israeli soldiers are doing this with premeditated intent.  This later point has aspects of the ancient blood libel charge – well known in British history – and makes the Israeli (Jewish) soldiers appear to be  avatars of evil – a view that is congruent with the depiction of Jews in British culture and various antisemitic organizations throughout the world including the political left.  Yet, nowhere does editor Horton discuss the very pertinent reasons as to why Israelis have checkpoints nor did he require the author of the article to discuss this crucial point.

Editor Horton does not provide any evidence of the number of cases where Israel denied pregnant women from entering Israel through the checkpoints: he implies that this is exceedingly widespread, else why does he scream to have this brought before the International Criminal Court as a crime against humanity? – nor does he provide any comparative statistics on the number of hospitals in Gaza and the number of births occurring in hospitals in Gaza, nor does he even address the question as to the number of pregnant women from Gaza who go to Israel for birthing.  Editor Horton does not discuss why these pregnant women are insisting on having their babies in Israel.  Further, editor Horton does not discuss the veracity of an underlying assumption, i.e., that Israel has a responsibility to provide medical services for these women.

Editor Horton, had he done his research, would have become aware of Palestinian Arab Muslims using ambulances and medical facilities to transport and harbor terrorists including the use of female suicide bombers disguising themselves as pregnant women.  Editor Horton should have required -nay, demanded – that the author, in making his case, discuss these aspects of the subject.  Had editor Horton done his homework, he would have discovered the story of the pregnant woman, whose life the Israeli medical staff saved, who later tried to come back to blow up the very medical facility in which her life was saved including the people who saved her.  Editor Horton seems willing to deny Israelis the fundamental right of any living organism or state: the right to life which includes the right of self-defense.

Sadly, editor Horton appears to be so imbued with his hate-filled antisemitic ideology that he not only did not address all of the above fundamental and highly significant issues he also disregarded the basic need for maintaining quality of scholarship; worse, he did not require the author of the article to address them.

Shoddy editorial scholarship does produce shoddy publications.

It is despicable that Editor Horton and the author of the article are abusing the reputation of LANCET so as to spread lies and distortions about Israel and Israelis (Jews).   It is equally despicable that there has been a lack of outrage from British physicians, from the media and from the medical community throughout the world against editor Horton and LANCET.  I consider the lack of outrage to be indicative of the acceptance by society of the use of a hate-filled, antisemitic/anti-Israel ideology to trump science and reason.

I am not privy to the reasons why editor Horton is using LANCET to vent his obvious hatred of Israel and, by extension, Jews.  However, when I consider the role British academicians play in castigating Israel, attempting to destroy it as a political entity and working to ostracize its scholars from international meetings, I do not find this latest overt expression of British hate so surprising.  What is disturbing is the fact that for the past couple of years LANCET has been reneging on its role as an important vehicle for presenting ideas and for reasoned scientific and medical debate: instead it has become a center for the dissemination of irrational and unwarranted hate – a direct violation of the Hippocratic Oath and the Oath of Maimonides.

British culture is suffused with antisemitism which, ipso facto, provides an excellent breeding ground in which individuals can and do manifest overtly their anti-social and uncivilized behavior.  Editor Horton, seems to be imbued with classic British antisemitism and, not surprisingly, seems to have adopted the anti-intellectual approaches of distortion and outright lying adopted by British scholars on the political left as they feverishly work to demonize and destroy Israel and the Jewish people.  In so doing, editor Horton has diminished and is diminishing the stature of LANCET as a leading medical journal.

Sadly, the lack of disgust by the scientific and medical community throughout the world at Richard Horton’s behavior as the editor of LANCET, I consider to be reflective of the extent antisemitism has grown throughout the world in the past few decades: it is evidence of the intellectual community’s willingness to accept fantasy, lies, and distortions in the place of facts and reason just to promote an uncivilized political end.  How else could editor Horton get away with such abominable scholarship?

If editors of scientific journals such as LANCET succumb to endorsing hate-filled ideologies and substituting them for facts and reason while not making their perspective authors adhere to the highest standards of scholarship then how is a civilized society supposed to teach a new generation of children and expect them to understand the importance and need for intellectual honesty and integrity, the need to respect all people, the reverence of life, and to do away with culturally derived hate?

On June 18, 2011 a famous, highly decorated and widely respected scientist died at the age of 95 and was buried two day later in the Hebrew Orthodox Cemetery in South Bend, Indiana.  For the most part, local and national media were silent about his death.  This silence is more disgraceful since it is associated with the ignominious behavior of the Obama administration in continuing the government’s long standing antisemitic actions against a member of the deceased’s family.  All of Dr. Morris Pollard’s children attended his funeral except for his youngest son, Jonathan, who was not permitted to attend despite formal pleas from American Jewish leaders and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.   Dr.  Pollard was not even permitted to have  Jonathan visit him while he lay dying.

The question one has to ask is why express such uncivilized behavior against a man of the stature of Morris Pollard?

When Dr. Pollard lay dying, a desire to see his son was his.  The funeral was about honoring Morris Pollard’s life.  Children visiting a dying father and, afterwards, attending his funeral is about honoring the man.  For those who are religious, let us not forget the fifth commandment: Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.   These actions have nothing to do with condoning or extolling Jonathan or any other member of the family or friend under such circumstances.

Why does Dr. Morris Pollard deserve being honored?   As a result of his WWII research Pollard received a commendation medal  for heroism and for sustained acts of meritorious service and three presidential citations.  For his investigations into cancer, he received the Hope Award from the American Cancer Society.  Pollard’s investigations while serving in the army and at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston covered a variety of  viral diseases including those important in tropical medicine; he participated in vaccine development and he developed the first serological test for Hepatitis A.   During his 50 year tenure as Director of the Lobund Institute at the University of Notre Dame he revived the moribund laboratory and brought it to a world class standard; there he and his colleagues worked with gnotobiotic animals so as to study the mechanisms of disease.   He made important contributions to cancer therapy and, inter alia, developed bone marrow transplants for treating leukemia.

Why would the government not permit humanitarian gestures to honor a man, in the last stages of his life and as well as in death, who, through his research and leadership, made important contributions to the advancement of science and medicine thereby contributing to making this a better world?

What danger to the US could possibly  result from Jonathan visiting his dying father and attending his funeral?

To answer the above questions, we have to look elsewhere other than in Dr. Pollard’s life’s work for answers.  The obvious place to start is with Jonathan.

Jonathan Pollard was an intelligence analyst who was arrested for giving Israel classified U.S. data concerning the developing capabilities of Syria, Iraq, Libya and Iran with respect to nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare.  The US was obligated to provide Israel with such information according to the 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two nations.  By his own admission, former deputy CIA director Bobby Inman was so incensed that Israel had used American-supplied satellite photography to destroy Iraq’s Osirik nuclear facility  (from which President G. H. Bush benefited immensely a decade later in the first Iraq war) that, apparently on his own recognizance, ordered the withholding of intelligence information from Israel; he made it a criminal act to transmit certain intelligence information of some Arab states to Israel.  Pollard discovered this deliberate suppression, which violated the written agreement, and, through the chain of command, tried to get the decision reversed.  He was told to “mind his own business”, and that “Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don’t need to know.”  He also learned that an aspect of denying the flow of information to Israel was to limit Israel’s ability to act independently in defense of its own interests.  Note the not too subtle antisemitism.  These overt expressions of hate were exacerbated by the well-known hatred of Israel harbored by then  Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger.  Weinberger engaged in an immoral, if not illegal, act when, at the end of the hearings, he provided the sentencing judge with a 46-page classified memorandum to which neither Pollard nor any of his attorneys have ever been allowed access – even till today – thereby violating Pollard’s constitutional rights.  I am not condoning Pollard’s illegal activities. However, I am able to understand his anger at what was occurring and why it was happening; I am able to understand his frustration at not being able to correct, through appropriate channels, a seemingly illegal activity based on hate of Jews and Israel, and I am able to understand, without approving of them, the reasons for doing what he did.

It has been my long time conclusion that as a result of the overt antisemitic attitudes of the people involved, Pollard was tried as a spy but sentenced as a Jew.

How else can one explain the above actions and the fact that the American government violated the plea agreement entered into with Pollard – even though Jonathan Pollard completely cooperated with the investigators – and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole, the harshest sentence ever given to a spy for such a minor offense.  Consider: because of the plea agreement, Pollard never had a trial; he was never charged with treason; he was never indicted for harming the United States; and, he was never indicted for compromising American secrets.  Ultimately, he was indicted on one count of passing classified information to an ally without intent to harm the United States.

Of the more than 20 other Americans caught spying for non-adversarial nations, not one was ever given a life sentence.  Of the more than 60 people caught spying for adversarial nations over the past two to three decades and who caused immeasurable damage to the United States, a few were given a life sentence.

There is no question that Pollard had been singled out for special treatment.  Why?  From my perspective:  because the non-adversarial nation was Israel and Pollard is a Jew and the prosecuting people involved had independently expressed a profound hatred of Israel and Jews.

I have long contended that the Jonathan Pollard case is the American equivalent of the infamous French Dreyfus Affair.  Yet, the Pollard case is not the first in which a Jew was singled out for harsh treatment.

Americans picture themselves as being great humanitarians who have great compassion for their  fellow human beings  throughout the world.  Yet, when it comes to Jews a separate standard seems to apply.  The different value system was just applied so as to interfere with honoring a very deserving Jewish man in the last days of his life and in the memorial following his death.

Shame on the media for not promoting the story of Morris Pollard, whose life could and should serve as a role model for the young.

Shame on the Obama administration for condoning and participating in an overt manifestation of antisemitism.   By so doing has Obama, not too subtly, signaled the haters of the world that he stands with them?

(I use the word shame despite the fact that I am well aware that the concept of shame no longer seems to connote the sense of opprobrium associated with such conduct; indeed, I wonder whether shame still exists in modern society).

Shame!

I do not know how closely people have been following the Jeffrey Wiesenfeld affair at City University in New York (CUNY) pertaining to the awarding of an honorary degree to the playwright Tony Kushner.     I thought it would be worth my while to rethink the case based on the vote to grant him the honorary degree and to share  some of my thoughts with you.

As I reviewed some of the available  material, I could not help but strengthen my previous conclusions that that which people  should really be concerned with is not whether Tony Kushner is awarded an honorary degree but with the level of antisemitism that is growing in American colleges and universities,  particularly at two components of CUNY, i.e., City College and Brooklyn College – my alma mater, and the role people such as Tony Kushner may be playing in bringing about this uncivilized behavior.

The four institutions of higher learning (City College of New York, Brooklyn College, Queens College and Hunter College) that were originally amalgamated into CUNY developed great reputations because of the Jews (along with others) who attended, taught and did research there.  I specifically mention Jews only because the Wiesenfeld/Kushner controversy revolves around a Jewish issue.  At one time these institutions had huge Jewish student populations and a very large number of Jewish faculty.  The Jewish students, like their gentile counterparts, were primarily from immigrant homes.  Ditto for the faculty.  The influence of Islam in making these institutions great was virtually imperceptible.

Let us not forget, at least in the case of the Jews, that these city institutions were tuition free and represented some of the very few institutions in the United States where Jews could obtain a higher education.  Other prestigious institutions throughout the country - particularly the Ivy League schools – had strict quota systems which greatly limited Jewish enrollments.  The historic irony of this, I will have to leave for another day.

Following WW II, when American businesses expanded and the need for brain power exploded, the previous hate-based barriers to  opportunity began to crumble.   Because of the high quality of the faculty of the New York City colleges and the will of their students to succeed, there resulted an unprecedented success for the sons and daughters of the immigrant populations, particularly for the Jews for whom the obstacle of antisemitism was always present, although just beginning to abate.  The influence of these institutions spread throughout the USA and throughout the world.  Their fame as quality institutions was widely acknowledged.

Ironically, these prestigious institutions of higher learning are now slowly being destroyed not because Jews are attending, teaching and doing research there – but because there are Jews there and because there is the state of Israel: in other words, they are being destroyed, in part, because of the longest and greatest hate, antisemitism – that which Harry Golden referred to as the one great constant in Western civilization.

Just like elsewhere throughout the last two thousand year history of the world, uncivilized individuals would rather destroy the advancement of society just so they could assuage their religiously derived and religiously supported hatred.  For centuries it was Christian hatred against the Jew, which still exists, but, because of changing demographics in the modern world, more and more it has become based on the  Koranic teachings to subjugate and destroy all persons who hold to non-Muslim beliefs, with specific mention of Jews.

The people engineering this destruction are primarily Muslims backed by Muslim wealth from throughout the world and aided and abetted by people of  the political left, and the self-hating Jews (who, in all likelihood, are also part of the political left).  They are destroying these once great institutions by attacking Jews instead of honoring them for continuing the great tradition of those Jews who preceded them in helping to make these institutions as great and prestigious as they were and who, themselves, were responsible for contributing greatly to advancing the health, wealth and welfare of society.

In recent years and for several reasons there has been forthcoming a view that we are witnessing the decline of America as a world leader.  If one requires further proof of the growing awareness of the decline of the USA as a society, one need to look no further than what is happening on our college and university campuses today.      Some will be quick to point to the political left, the rise of PC, etc.  In part that is true.  Another part pertains to events occurring since the late 1950s and 1960s, i.e.,  the growing influence of Muslim money in directly or indirectly supporting these and other groups – not just on the campuses but also elsewhere in society – as part of the campaign to delegitimize and destroy Israel.  I had to fight this anti-Israel/antisemitic movement when I first arrived at the combined Purdue University and Indiana University campus in Fort Wayne in 1968.  Unfortunately, today we are witnessing the success of the destructive influence of the relentless campaign against Jews and Israel by Arab/Muslim money with complicity of the media as demonstrated by the growing number of physical attacks on Jewish students and the failure of stupid, spineless administrators to acknowledge and deal with the situation.  There is much more that I could say about this subject but will not at this time.

And, when one brave university trustee speaks out in defense of values, quality of scholarship and character while acknowledging the antisocial situation, he is the one who becomes vilified and demonized.

I do not doubt that a prevailing view amongst the political left  is that there is an ongoing witch hunt against anyone who dares criticize Israel.  The J streeters and Kushner, aided and abetted by the political left, of whom they are part, claim this to be true.  However, unlike the magic mirror of the evil queen in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, the mirror these people peer into reflects not truth, but  only a hate-based distorted and perverted history, which, through sophistry, is disguised as reality.  Kushner et al remind me of Creationists battling evolution.

Kushner represents a growing view, irrespective of its veracity, in the left leaning community that Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing when the state was first formed.  It makes no difference to these critics that there was a war and that this war started long before the formation of the state of Israel.  It makes no difference to them who fired the first shot.  It makes no difference to them that the Arabs left their villages at the request of their leaders so as to be out of the way of the Arab armies as they come in to destroy the Jews and push them into the sea.  It makes no difference to them that Golda Meir and David Ben Gurion went amongst the Arabs and begged them to stay and help build the new State.

It makes no difference to these critics that the Arab/Muslim people people were promised that after their armies were victorious they would be permitted to return and take the Jewish lands, homes and possessions for their own.  It may be true that during this war, some Arabs may have been pushed out of their villages – undoubtedly this was done for strategic purposes.  Let us not forget the alternative: had the Arabs been victorious there would not have been displacement of Jews but rather a mass slaughter of Jews – Arab/Muslim version of ethnic cleansing.  These Arab/Muslims learned their lessons well – not that they really had to be taught – from the Grand Mufti who sat at Hitler’s right hand during WW II.

Let us not forget that the 1948 Arab-Israeli War was a war of survival for the Jewish people some of whom already escaped or survived the most horrific attempt of ethnic cleansing in the history of the world.

It seems as if all Kushner and these Israeli critics want to know or think is that the Jews, after the 1948 war, would not let these Arabs return to their villages.  Ergo, the charge of ethnic cleansing.  But, is this truly ethnic cleansing?  Think of what those pejorative words connote.  Those derisive words unconscionably  tie the Jews of Israel together with Hitler, who did real ethnic cleansing.  And, this linking of the Israelis (Jews) to Hitler has been on ongoing aim of Arab/Muslim propaganda and, since after the 1967 Six Day War, it also became the aim of the political left.  The purpose being to delegitimize and destroy the state of Israel.  But if Israel is truly guilty of real ethnic cleansing then how come there are so many Arabs in Israel today with a rapidly growing population and that Arabs are  members of the Knesset?  How come Israel is not engaged in “ethnic cleansing” today?  The truth is that Kushner and his cohorts did not tell the truth to the public.  Israel never engaged in “ethnic cleansing.”

How come Kushner and these great critics of Israel do not criticize Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, the so-called “Palestinians” of ethnic cleansing?  In Saudi Arabia there are no churches or synagogues and no non- Muslim is permitted to take up permanent residence there.  No Jew is permitted to live in “Palestinian” territory.  The idea of a Jew holding any public office, let alone an elected position, in any of these countries is laughable.  Let us not forget that which initiated Bin Laden’s movement was the fact that Saudi Arabia was permitting American bases (non-Muslims) on holy Arab soil.  Today, there are no American bases there.

In the eyes of Kushner and the other critics of Israel, only Israel has to be not just Kosher but Glatt Kosher – in every way that they arbitrarily decide is socially, politically and morally important and correct, irrespective of its consequences to Israeli citizens or the Jews of the world – else Israel has no right to exist.   These are standards to which no other country in the world is held, even those with the most heinous civil rights records.

Despite Kushner’s claim of being pro-Israel, his deliberate but false use of such a horrific term as ethnic cleansing, with all of it negative connotations, is a clear indication that he is anti-Israel/antisemitic.  That Kushner, in being self-serving, is being disingenuous and less than truthful can be seen from the fact that he had previously said that creating the state of Israel was a mistake.

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld was the evil queen’s mirror; he made Kushner and the rest of society confront truth and reality.  However, by so doing, Wiesenfeld was going against a popular culture in which disinformation, distortion of news, manufactured news along with photo shopped pictures, outright lies by the media are offered to the public as fact so as to support an ancient, religiously based hatred of Jews.

It was inevitable that Kushner, despite Wiesenfeld’s objection, would have an affirmative vote to have the honorary degree conferred on him.

Kushner is a famous playwright who happens to be gay and left oriented in his his political philosophy.  To maintain his leftist credentials, Kushner tears reason and facts from his mind so as to adhere to the demands of current leftist ideology of anti-Israel/antisemitism.

Does Kushner really deserve the honorary degree?

After looking at some of his work, I cannot help but wonder how much of his fame – including the Pulitzer Prize – is due to his talent and art as it is to political correctness and Kushner’s politically correct positions amongst a certain segment of society.

As to who is awarded an honorary depends on what purposes the degree is supposed to serve, i.e., what is the message the university is trying to send and what it hopes to attain by awarding the degree to a specific person and the specific criteria that a candidate would have to meet in order to be considered for the honor.  In all the materials concerning the Kushner case that I read, no one person cited specific criteria.  After all, an honorary degree has no real value other than bringing attention to the institution  awarding the degree with the hope of attracting donations from alumni and others while inflating the ego of the recipient.

Having spent a major portion of my professional life as an academician, I can say that one aim of awarding honorary degrees is to introduce students to people whose behavior and accomplishments are worthy of emulation.  Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, acting as an honest and interested trustee who is trying to safeguard the reputation of the institution on whose board he sits, raised the very legitimate issue of a person’s total character as being worthy of consideration in making decisions as to who should receive an honorary degree.   For acting responsibly, by questioning Kushner’s total character and quality of scholarship, Wiesenfeld has been subject to a horrendous barrage of unfair and unnecessary criticism.

To counter Wiesenfeld and to mitigate the damaging effects of Kushner’s anti-Israel stance, based on faulty logic and facts, the recommendation had been made to divorce Kushner’s talent from any of his political views, especially those pertaining to Israel.  However, that is a specious argument since Kushner’s writings, dealing with homosexual life, in themselves are very political.  The issue dies from lack of credibility.

Attempting to make Kushner Kosher reminded me of the treatment of Martin Heidegger after WW II.  Martin Heidegger was lauded for his contributions to philosophy but, for a period of time following WWII, he was denied opportunity to teach or hold university positions because he was an active member of the Nazi Party and supported Hitler.  (As an aside: no one suggested denying Kushner any opportunities.)

However, Heidegger was later resurrected when the Allies engaged in a program of denazification - a process of ridding all aspects of German and Austrian society of National Socialist ideology: denazification involved removing people from positions of influence and by disbanding or rendering impotent organizations associated with Nazism.  With the onset of Cold War, the creation of West Germany and the needs of the West of German scientists and engineers, denazification eventually was abandoned.  Disgustingly, Heidegger was essentially exonerated by one of the most powerful methods of political expediency, lying.  He was considered to have been an individual who was just caught up with the emotions of the time and who just went along with the crowd without doing any independent, critical thinking.  By the use of such logic Heidegger, a highly educated and trained professional philosopher who made the conscious and educated decision to join the Nazi Party and support Hitler, was reduced to being a non-thinking, emotionally driven robot and thereby cleansed of his sins and free to resume his professorial career.

In Kushner’s case, Wiesenfeld was correct in making political considerations and character part of the equation in determining who gets an honorary degree.  Tony Kushner is not an honest man worthy of emulation and, therefore, was not deserving of an honorary degree. Shame on those trustees who voted aye.

Recently the first two sentences of a BIOCOM news article initiated a series of thoughts about the desire for peace.  Have you noticed that the world is not designed for letting people live and let live in peace with mutual respect?  Hence humans dream of the coming of a Messiah and they dream of a messianic age.  The very nature of life is tension and strife that arises out not just for the needs for basic survival (food, clothing, shelter sex) but also out of other innate drives such as a desire for power and control.  We are witnessing such desires become overt actions in North Africa and the Mideast as well as in other living arrangements throughout the world.  Cruelty, meanness, chronic lying, deceitfulness, greed etc. rule.  Cooperation and working for ones mutual benefit does exists at all levels of society but only within restricted conditions.

The two sentences that stimulated the above thoughts were: “US President Barack Obama told a delegation of Jewish leaders on Tuesday that Israel must create a context for peace with the Palestinians. President Obama said that Israel must use its military, political and cultural strength to create this climate in order to move forward towards peace talks.”

Why is it that Obama always puts the onus on Israel to do things?  When will there be a change in the political philosophy underlying such thinking?  When other nations win wars, it is the loser who sues for peace.  Israel is the only nation that the world demands that if it wishes to survive, it damn well better sue for peace and make as many concessions as it takes to satisfy the loser.  This attitude of the winner suing for peace, which is imposed on Israel, has been such from the very beginning of its modern existence. Obama is just continuing the antisemitic tradition.  Israel is a country that cannot afford to lose any war.  Its very existence depends on winning.  A single loss would lead to its complete destruction and the death of its Jewish citizens and life for Jews throughout the world would then become very precarious.  The above truth is derived from the writings and sayings of virtually all the recent past and current Arab political and religious leaders.  There is a profound antisemitism pervading this world.

After every war, Israel has returned conquered territory and still there is no peace.  The closest is the cold peace existing between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel.  Why is there no comparable pressure being exerted on the artificially made up group of people called “Palestinians?”  Why should they not have to create a climate of peace?

Why can the Arab/Muslims and “Palestinians” keep going to war against Israel and suffer no consequences?  Why?   Because fellow Muslims have oil and the west needs their oil?  Why can the Arab/Muslims keep calling for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews but Israel has to create the climate of peace?  Have we entered the world of the surreal?  Apparently, Obama and other political leaders live in this surreal world.

It is about time that this vicious cycle of hate on the part of the Arab/Muslims is broken.  It is time to put the onus on the real people who have to create the climate of peace –  The Arab/Muslims.

The breaking of the cycle is unlikely to happen; it is comparable to the dream for a messiah.

Because the US and the Western nations have not learned and do not understand that only thing that the Arab/Muslims understand is strength and cruelty and act on it,  the ongoing cultural-religious war between Islam and the West is ongoing and does not seem to have an end in sight.  This mental aberration on part of the West coupled to other social and political forces, provides the philosophical basis for Obama and others to demand that Israel sue for peace;  that Israel give up tangible assets for an intangible a piece of paper promising peace which, according to Sharia law, can be abrogated at anytime.  According to Mohammad. such peace treaties are temporary “time-out” conveniences permitting the Arab/Muslims to rearm and regroup for the next step in their on-going war against the rest of the world and their desire to dominate and control – thereby making all subservient to Islam and its god Allah.  We already heard how many Egyptians want to terminate the peace agreement with Israel – but, when they do that, I bet that they will not return the Sinai Peninsula with all the Israeli developed oil fields back to Israel.

The world is in turmoil and no one has a clue as to how it is going to turn out.  One can only dream and hope.

Ever since the pre-release of Pope Benedict XVI’s book that absolves the Jews collectively of the Crucifixion of Jesus, various Jewish groups have been going wild praising him for his timely and well needed statement.  For example, Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said: “This is a critically important and timely statement by his Holiness, particularly at a time of increased mainstream anti-Semitism worldwide and a very important tool in the fight against Jew-hatred.” He goes on to say: “The Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate declared that this was a false teaching, and absolved the Jewish people as a collective from the crime of deicide. The Pope’s new book goes beyond this declaration and shows why the earlier popular reading is not supported by the Gospel texts.”

Nicole Winfield, writing for the Associated Press (March 2, 2011) said:  ”In “Jesus of Nazareth” excerpts released Wednesday, Benedict uses a biblical and theological analysis to explain why it is not true that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death.

Pardon me if I dissent from such euphoria.  After all, ever since Nostra Aetate (1965), the Vatican’s most authoritative document on the issue of Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus, the Catholic Church began to teach that Christ’s death could not be attributed to Jews as a whole at the time or today. Pope Benedict XVI’s statement, based on a detailed scriptural exegesis reiterates that position.  His analysis provides the intellectual basis for the Church’s new position.  I say new, because for over 1900 yrs, it taught that the the collective Jewish people for time immemorial are responsible for  the death of Jesus.  I wasn’t called Christ killer for nothing.  I wasn’t beaten in stair wells in the elementary school by groups of Catholic kids while they screamed Christ killer at me for nothing.  Listening to my grade school teacher tell the class that it was alright to beat up Jews as long as it was done in a dark alley where they could not be seen while she humiliated me in front of the entire class was all part of carefully instilled hate on the part of the Church.  There was a lot more to my personal experiences with the Church that I will not bore you with.  This uncivilized behavior was taught and encouraged by the local priest(s) of St Dominic’s Church in the Van Ness section of the Bronx – and elsewhere as well – at least during the 1930s and 40s.  Remember this was the time that Father Coughlin was riding high with his antisemitism as was the German American Bund, other antisemitic organizations and Charles Lindbergh and antisemitic rants as the key spokesperson for the American First Organization.  During that era, when the Nazis were coming to power, in power and moving toward world conquest and domination, the Church officials, for all practical purposes,said and did nothing.

You shall be known by your utterances as well as by your silence.

Stop and think at least about two aspects of what Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

First: What Pope Benedict XVI wrote is in a book.  it is neither a Papal Encyclical or Papal Bull.  It is not a Church edict. Since it was not said ex cathedra it does not imply papal infallibility.  I have no idea whether it was even reviewed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  What the Pope wrote is neither Church dogma nor doctrine.  At best, it provides intellectual substantiation for what Nostra Aetate was supposed to have done but failed to do.

One of the best and most comprehensive devastating critiques of  Nostra Aetate - the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1965 – was written by Gottlieb in his book The Naked Mind.

Second:  Everyone is centering on the age old concept that the collective Jew was not responsible for the death of Jesus.

Please note very carefully what Nicole Winfield wrote: “…why it is not true that the Jewish people as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death.”   In one form or another, other people who are writing on this subject express the same thought:  the Pope supports the concept that the Jewish people do not hold any collective guilt over the death of Christ.  I will discuss the significance of why I emphasized the two statements: “Jewish people as a whole” and “collective guilt” below.

Apparently Pope Benedict XVI specifically addressed the very troubling but highly influential passage in the Gospel according to Matthew (27:24-25) in which the crowd is shouting: “Let his blood be on us and on our children.”  Drawing from the accounts described in the Gospels of Mark and John, the pope argues that the crowd spoken of refers to the “dominant priestly circle” and supporters of the rebel Barabbas, and therefore “not the Jewish people as such.”

Whereas, historically the Church interpreted these remarks as a curse upon all of the Jewish people – assuming that they were said at all considering none of the supposed Gospel authors were present when these supposed events took place, Pope Benedict states that the words do not amount to a curse upon the Jews because Jesus’ blood was shed for all people.  But, those words, assuming that they were uttered, had nothing to do with Christ’s shedding of blood.  They could never have meant all Jews since these people were speaking only for themselves – they had no authorization to speak for the Jewish people collectively – and, therefore, they could be referring only to themselves and their descendants not the descendants for all Jews.  It was the Church’s evil interpretation that these words referred to the Jewish people collectively that led to the centuries of horrors that followed.

Since the Pope refers to Barabbas, one should be aware that there are varying interpretations as to who exactly Barabbas was. There is one school of thought that Barabbas is really derived from the name Bar Abbas – the son of Abba and Abba is the Aramaic or Hebrew for father.  Benjamin Urrutia, a biblical scholar and co-author of :The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus, claims that Rabbi Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice Pontious Pilate was to make between the two prisoners is a fiction: he contends that Yeshua Bar Abba (Barabbas) was the leader of the successful and nonviolent Jewish resistance to Pilate’s attempt to place Roman eagles – symbols of the worship of Jupiter – on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.  Such an interpretation also makes the entire story of what the people also supposedly shouted about the blood being on them and their children also fiction.

Recently, Haley Sweetland Edwards and Garrett Therolf reported that Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh, in a speech before the UN,  blamed the U.S. and Israel for ‘destabilizing the Arab world’  http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0311/yemen_blames_israel.php3).  He said that the anti-government protests in his capital were being run by the White House.

The truth is that his conclusion about Israel being a destabilizing force in the Arab world is true, but not for the reasons he stated. (I hope no one takes my comment out of context and use it to say that I agree president Saleh’s remarks.)

The reasons that Israel is a destabilizing influence in the Mideast are multiple.  The ordinary citizen in the Arab world witnesses how the remnants of a devastated people – a people who were decimated by the Holocaust and who survived concentration and death camps and  who were driven from virtually every corner of the Earth settle in a nearby area where their brethren have been living for centuries, which then became an independent nation.  And, within the  span of 60 -70 years they observed how this supposed cursed nation progressed from impoverishment in an undeveloped land, virtually devoid of natural resources, to become a stable democratic nation and a world leader in science and technology and an exporter of agricultural produce as they made the desert bloom, even while – at times – being forced to spend up to 50%, if not more, of its GNP on defense and being forced to engage in a continuous struggle for survival against the combined forces of its boarder states supported by not only the larger Muslim world but other nations as well.

Logic dictates that the people have been and are seeing a disconnect between what they were being told and taught by their political and religious leaders and reality.  It is natural that these oppressed people would desire the same for themselves.

This awareness was always the real fear of the Arab world and why the Arab/Muslim nations were so adamantly opposed to having a Jewish nation live alongside their feudal societies which are run by autocrats who not only run their autocratic nations cruelly but also theocratically – which only added to the burden of their people’s lives.

Having a successful functioning democracy – especially a Jewish nation which they were taught to be cursed by Allah – along side them would be destabilizing because the people would then be able to see for themselves what they were being deprived of and would demand such freedoms and opportunities for themselves.

It would be helpful and enlightening if the leaders of the Arab/Muslim nations would be honest and enter into individual or regional alliances with Israel to help develop their own nations and the region.

It would be helpful and enlightening, if the European nations and the anti-Israel media and the anti-Israel political left and right would spend their time encouraging such agreements instead of using their resources for disseminating distortions and lies about Israel and for fomenting  hate and discord towards Jews while promoting war.

That there is a war on women occurring in the US has been disputed by some of my more conservative friends.  During the discussion involving such mundane activities as providing evidence, I also tried to introduce some critical thinking by suggesting to them that the war on women has explicit implications for the death of god.

Once I had their attention,  I suggested that this serious implication raises a conundrum.  In certain traditions, god had already been killed!  When did that occur?  How and why would humans want to kill IT again?

The first killing supposedly occurred about 2,000 yrs ago on a cross in Calvary.   According to the concept of the triune Godhead, the father, the son and the holy spirit represent three aspects of the godhead.  The son – also considered to be the messiah and god – was considered to be a political threat to Roman rule and was ordered to be killed by a Roman court.  In carrying out the order, the Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross where he eventually died.  For now, I will reserve any theological discussion on how humans can kill an omniscient and omnipotent god for some future date – after I work out the details.

This supposed series of events were incorporated into a newly created, quasi-historical, political document by a group of human men who also declared the final product to be a new and holy theological scripture which now served  as a replacement for an already existing body of holy documents.  This holy book – now called The New Testament – became institutionalized into a religious belief system with a priestly hierarchy and became a major influence in the subsequent development of western civilization: this hierarchy, with its unsubstantiated, politically oriented, holy book and belief system as its foundation, in turn, had a great impact on the ensuing development of civilizations throughout the world.  The hierarchy also instituted periodic fatal edicts against groups of people who refused (still refuse) to accept its canonical creation as being replete with “infallible” truths, who refuse(d) to accept it as a replacement for existing religious scripture – now derogatorily labeled The Old Testament, and who also refuse(d) to live according to its dictates.  The continuous existence of such stiff-necked people constitute(d) a perpetual threat to the hierarchy and its imposed belief system.  Therefore, from its outset, the hierarchy instituted policies that would cause such obstinate and inflexible people to be subjugated, demonized, dehumanized, even destroyed (think papal statements and decrees as well as special prayers and inclusion in the sponsored educational systems, think institutionalized racism, religious disputations, think gated ghettos and lack of civil rights – inter alia, think wearing of distinctive identification badges, think limiting educational, occupational opportunities, land ownership and legal standing in disputes with the ruling class and true believers – think poisoning of wells, think false blood libel charges, think the Inquisition, think pogroms, think false documents such as The Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion, Think the Dreyfus trial, think the Shoa/Holocaust).

The belief system’s influence with its dire consequences is being felt in this 21st century since the supposed first death of the messiah-god.    The almost success in one situation of the triumvirate – demonization, dehumanization, and destruction – provides the required credence to support the triumvirates adoption and expansion by the larger society so as to be able to be used against any individual or group that dares to act contrary to what constitute the social, political and ethical positions of particular individuals or groups irrespective of their association with the hierarchy.

One of the many overt manifestations of this influence is the attempt of such individuals and groups at controlling virtually all aspects of the lives of women, especially their sexual and reproductive functions.  These warriors consider fertilized ova and ensuing fetuses to be equivalent to post-natal, existing humans.  Hence, the war on women (hereafter, people carrying out this war will be referred to as the Warriors). I am not referring to Thurber’s incomparable gentle humor of the battle between the sexes.  The bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of physicians tending to the specific needs of pregnant women along with the defunding of organizations that provide important health information and services to women is not funny; one could hardly find humor – unless it is of the most macabre type – in such antisocial and uncivilized behavior of Warriors sworn to defend the life of a fertilized ovum even if it endangers the lives of others including the life of the involved, already existing female.

There is at least one logical conclusion that derives from certain actions on the part of these Warriors that may have a humorous overtone.  First a little background.

By now, everyone is, or should be, pretty much aware of Georgia State Representative Bobby Franklin’s (R- Marietta) attempt at introducing legislation, which, according to Lindsay Beyerstein (http://bigthink.com/ideas/31348), “Seeks to Criminalize Unauthorized Vaginal Bleeding.”  Franklin introduced legislation “to investigate all unsupervised miscarriages as crime scenes.”  The relevant language from HB 1:

“When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the ‘Georgia Death Investigation Act,’ the proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare and file the report within 30 days[...]“

According to Jen Phillips (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia) miscarriages and abortions could be punishable by death.  And, it is with this potential death penalty for miscarriages that logic now takes over with perhaps its “dark humor” conclusion.  But first, I am not sure how this law will be implemented:  will women have to report each day of their menstrual flow to some agency to have their flow inspected to see whether or not there was evidence of a miscarriage?  How will it be determined if such a miscarriage involved some deliberate human action?  Yet, the Warriors belong to a class of people who are opposed to big government and are opposed to having government in their lives.  Yet, Franklin’s proposed law would not only greatly enlarge the role of government but also have government intrude into the lives of individuals and families.

But, then again, we are familiar with the cynical, political adage – which seems to fit the image of the Warriors, that government involvement (intrusion?) in the lives of people and their businesses are good, even necessary, for others but not for me.

According to the Warriors, a child is a gift of god.  According to science and medicine, approximately 50% of the conceptuses terminate in a spontaneous miscarriage (abortion).  All too often the female isn’t even aware that she is (was) “pregnant”.  Ergo, the miscarriage or spontaneous abortion becomes an act of  god.  According to Franklin’s proposed law, god would have to be put on trial and, if found guilty, put to death.  How many times will society permit god to murder fertilized ova and fetuses before invoking a death penalty? How many millions of conceptuses and fetus that spontaneously abort will society tolerate?

However, according to New Testament history, god was killed once, but had the audacity to rise from the dead.  Supposing, each time society kills god again, IT continues to rise from the dead and continues to slaughter innocent human fertilized ova and fetuses?  A logical conundrum.  Of course, this theological and practical problem would not exist if there was no god.

Jews are used to putting god on trial: Jews have done that for centuries.   The problem is that god never showed up at the time of the accusations.  But, for the believers of the New Testament, putting god on trial would be a new theological development.

Perhaps the Shadow’s saying:  ”Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” should be amended as follows: “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of god?”

I suggest that during any discussion of Franklin’s Bill,  we should encourage a discussion of the logical consequences of its   passage.  Perhaps, during such a discussion we would witness the evolution (Oops. Sorry for the slip.  The Warriors are also opposed to evolution.) of a new theology.