Republicans must remove Donald Trump before he annihilates earth with his hate and vengeance

Echo opinion letter to the editor published in The Gazette, an Iowa newspaper.

vious

Previous

I’m a Republican who backs Rob Sand because he serves Iowa

After reading former Gov. Terry Branstad’s op-ed endorsing Randy Feenstra I was …

 Next Up

Next Up

Cancer screening gets a boost from Congress

Congress recently enacted, and the president signed, the Nancy Gardner Sewell Me…

Congress, do your job and rein in Trump

How many of us have been in a restaurant or grocery store where a child is having a meltdown, screaming and crying, while their parents seem oblivious to the tantrum and let it continue❓ When I am confronted with this disruptive and annoying behavior, my response is not anger at the child, but anger at the parent who will not act to control the outburst.

This demonstrates how I feel about Congress as it continues to ignore the tantrum happening every day in the White House. 

Donald Trump clearly is unhinged❗ He's not well. Like a toddler, he is unable to regulate his emotions or his words. Like the parents of the child freaking out in the grocery store, Congress is responsible for reining in Trump's behavior, including his illegal war and his appalling threats to destroy "a whole civilization." 

Rep. Ashley Hinson and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, vowed to defend the U.S. Constitution, not the president. For the sake of humanity, please control your unruly child or we voters must elect someone who will.

From Sheri Albrecht in Solon, Iowa

White Christian nationalism is not Christian and is a threat to democracy rooted in the Constitution

Echo editorial opinion by Steve Corbin, published in The Gazette, an Iowa newspaper:

You may be among the 35 percent of Americans who have never heard the term “white Christian nationalism.” But, of those citizens who are knowledgeable of the concept, it carries a decidedly negative view. The belief is becoming more and more important to understand as cultural diversity, racism, immigration issues, political divisiveness and political candidate pandering is before us.

What is white Christian nationalism? Generally — according to the Southern Poverty Law Center — it “refers to a political ideology and identity that fuses white supremacy, Christianity and American nationalism, and whose proponents claim that the United States is a `Christian Nation.’”

Research conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) with the non-partisan Brookings Institution (BI) as well as a poll sponsored by Southern Poverty Law Center/Tulchin have the same conclusion: white Christian nationalism movement is a growing threat to America’s democracy.

The far-right anti-government and religious rights movement of the 1990s, is getting stronger and stronger and will play a major role in the 2024, local, county, state and federal elections❗

During the November 21-December 14, 2022, time period, 6,212 Americans were asked by PRRI/BI for their reply to these five statements: 

1. The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation, 2. U.S. laws should be based on Christian values, 

3. If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore, 

4. Being Christian is an important part of being truly American and 5. God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.

Answers across all five questions were found to be highly correlated with a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6 percent at the 95 percent level of confidence.

Fifty-four percent of the GOP faithful are adherents of Christian nationalism vs. 23 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats.

The PRRI/BI research notes five core attitudes are often associated with Christian nationalist beliefs: 

• anti-Black, antisemitic, 
• anti-Muslim,
• anti-immigration and 
• patriarchal adherence of traditional gender roles.

Furthermore, research revealed “Christian nationalism beliefs are strongly correlated with support for QAnon, an extremist movement of the political right,” whose tenets include: 

1. The government, media and financial worlds are controlled by a group of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation. 

2. There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders and 

3. Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.

The Southern Poverty Law Center offers a summary of the movement that should be a wake-up call to Americans: “White Christian nationalism is a key ideology that inspired the failed January 6, 2021, insurrection and fueled multiple failed political campaigns in 2022,… however, white Christian nationalism remains a persistent and growing threat to U.S. democracy.”

Any person with a modicum of intelligence knows European colonists immigrated to America to escape religious persecution, expand their economic opportunities and live in a country where there was separation of church and state. Followers of the white Christian nationalism movement want to contradict the principles and norms of democracy and make America an authoritarian country.

Adherents of white Christian nationalism are like wrecking balls, the drivers of antidemocratic conspiracy theories and election denialism (SPLC, 2023) and possibly book banning, LGBTQIA denigration, “sanitized” Black history curriculum, anti-female reproductive laws, gerrymandering and attacking diversity, equity and inclusion.

Currently there are 14 Republicans and three Democrats wanting to win the 2024, presidential election. Hundreds of candidates will be seeking local, county, state and federal offices of power. Citizens must be vigilant and keep candidates who espouse any resemblance of white Christian nationalism out of public office.

Steve Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. The Gazette has been informing Iowans with in-depth local news coverage and insightful analysis for 140 years

January 6 House Committee is teaching important history

Opinion echo letter published in The Gazette, newspaper in Cedar Rapid Iowa newspaper: 

Spooky January 6 poster is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 images

I have been following the U.S. House special committee investigation on January 6, 2021. As someone who has taken part in campaigns for both Republican and Democratic candidates, this is not a political event. It is about supporting our constitution and defending our democracy. It is an opportunity for an educational moment for the American public.

According to Cornell Law School, an insurrection is defined as someone or "someones" who incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto. 

If you watch a network that has neglected its responsibility to the American public to cover the hearings, (aka #FakeFox) I suggest that you change the channel and pay attention to what is being said. 

These hearings are constructing an important accounting of American history that even most Republicans agreed is necessary in the immediate aftermath of that horrible insurrectionist day. Some Republicans like Rep. Liz Cheney, have now put country over party, knowing the peril that we face. 

Unfortunately, far too many want to ignore the hearings, even the testimony given under oath by top advisers in former President Donald Trump`s administration and campaign.

To ignore these hearings is to ignore a threat to the most important part of a democratic republic — elected officials’ willingness to relinquish power when they have lost. If we no longer have that, then we no longer have a democracy. That is the threat we face. I hope we rise to face it head on, and it starts with working to understand what led to January 6.

From Dan Voss, in Atkins Iowa

Evangelicals must resolve their irresponsible support for Trumpziism

 The New York Times celebrates President Biden's “liberal Catholicism” as did liberal Catholics.

American religion and politics after Donald Trump

Echo essay published in The Gazette Colorado Springs newspaper:

The controversy over religion’s role in American politics reached a fevered pitch after a violent pro-Trump mob breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The resulting mayhem ended the joint session of Congress and led to the deaths of five people. Some carried crosses or sported religious T-shirts. What could this radical assault on the American way of governing mean? Nearly everyone condemned this act, but was religion to blame?

Some Christians thought Donald Trump was God’s man to restore America. A number of charismatic “prophets” (alert! Matthew 7:15) predicted Trump would win the election. 

Franklin Graham admitted Trump’s faults, but (incredulously!) supported him without wavering. Nevertheless, the organization Evangelicals for Biden claimed that Joe Biden’s policies and character were more in line with Christian values than those of Trump. Observant Jewish radio hosts Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro advocated for Trump. A Gallup report claims, however, that the “clear majority of Jewish Americans identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.” Muslims tended to support Biden, given Trump’s travel ban affecting some largely Muslim countries.

Now that we have a new president — only the second Roman Catholic president in American history — what role might religion play in American politics after Trump’s presidency?

What role should it play?

President Joe Biden’s religion

President Biden is sworn in with his family's historic Bible

President Biden’s inauguration bore the marks of religion. The invocation was given by a Roman Catholic priest, Father Lee O’Donovan. It was Biblical in tone, but did not mention Jesus. 

Moreover, the homily and benediction were given by the Rev. Silvester Beaman, an African-American pastor. The conclusion to his prayer made a few waves (to those who were listening carefully) — a point to which I will return.

Biden’s speech mentioned God three times. He spoke of America as “one nation, under God, indivisible,” which is taken from the Pledge of Allegiance (if anyone remembers). He also said, “Before God and all of you, I give you my word.” As most politicians do, he ended with God — “May God bless America and may God protect our troops.” He mentioned a Christian philosopher and theologian: “Saint Augustine, a saint in my church, wrote that a people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love.” This raises the question of the identity of these common objects — something he did not directly address. He dedicated time for prayer: “Let’s say a silent prayer for those who’ve lost their lives and those left behind and for our country.”

President Biden’s comments harmonize with American civil religion — a nondenominational sense of our need for God and prayer. Presidents appear more religious than they are, for the sake of expediency — taking a page from Machiavelli. While Biden’s religious comments make for a weak sermon, civil religion is far better than the establishment of atheism (consider the USSR and China) or any kind of theocracy. 

Yet, the "devil" is in the religious details, as we will see. To sort out the role of religion in politics after Trump, we need some American history and civics.

America, religion and politics

After his visit to America in 1921, celebrated British writer G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) wrote that America was a nation with “the soul of a church.” 

Unlike Chesterton’s home, religion here cannot be established by the state. The First Amendment stipulates that there will be no national church. But neither shall the state prohibit “the free exercise” of religion. This is part of the genius of what George Washington called “the American experiment” — an experiment that is ongoing and not invulnerable. These principles have made possible the raucous drama of religion and politics in America, ever since.

In America, religions compete for adherents. The state can neither help nor hinder them. Distinguished sociologist Rodney Stark claims that this helps explain why religion flourishes in the United States more than in Western Europe, with its history of national churches.

When people choose one religion among competitors, they tend to be more committed to that religion than if they were born into a state religion. In America, most religious people identify as Christians, but there is plenty of room for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others. Religious diversity is allowed and encouraged by our founding principles.

American law does not silence or constrain irreligious citizens, since freedom of speech — including irreligious speech — is one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Further, the Constitution declares that “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (ArtVI.C3.1.2). Are we, then, a secular country?

Groups like The Freedom from Religion Foundation understand the phrase “the separation of church and state” to imply that religious principles have no place in public life, although religious belief and behavior is acceptable if left to the private sphere in homes, churches, synagogues, and mosques. The strict separationists speak of freedom of worship, instead of religious liberty, since liberty (the First Amendment word) allows for a wider reach for religion than mere worship. For the strict separationists, religious values have no place in public policy, since America is officially secular in government.

But it isn’t. The phrase “the separation of church and state” does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. Rather, Thomas Jefferson wrote of the “wall of separation between church and state” to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in 1802. The Constitution allows citizens — religious or otherwise — to participate in civil government. Tax money cannot support any specifically religious organization; however, religious people and organizations are free to bring their religious beliefs into politics. Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to the principles of the American founding and to religious convictions in his pursuit of full civil rights for African Americans. Consult his famous “I Have a Dream” for proof.

Given these American principles, however religion and politics play out after Trump’s presidency, religion should not be restricted to a private realm. Religion belongs in the public square. But what will it look like? Because America is made up of over 300 million people with various religious and political views, it is impossible to discuss how each religion will respond to the Biden administration. I offer some observations, however, and voice some concerns.

The drama of religion and politics after Trump

Because of the storming of the Capitol and the heavy military presence at the inauguration, many Americans fear religious extremism is tied to pro-Trump forces. The dust has not yet settled on the details of the Jan. 6 riot — just who was there and why, and what did they want to accomplish — but the concerns about pro-Trump religious extremism are legitimate, even if sometimes overstated. The overwhelming majority of religious Trump voters are not extremists who want to overthrow the government. Further, many Christians who voted for Trump thought they chose the lesser of two evils (which is also the evil of two lessers). They harbored no messianic expectations of Trump, and they accept the election outcome.

Once you screen out QAnon surrealists, white supremacists, the Proud Boys and a few other miscreant groups, you are left with a lot of disappointed conservative evangelical voters, but hardly a teeming mass of political desperados. Politically liberal evangelicals and other liberal religious people are happy. Nevertheless, politically conservative evangelicals lost a president who supported their political passions such as restricting abortion, advocating for religious liberty and supporting Israel. They are profoundly distressed but are more likely licking their wounds than loading for bear.

Some in the alt-right claim that God justifies white nationalism. According to the Anti-Defamation League, some “in the alt right identify as so-called radical traditionalists, people who want to preserve what they claim are traditional Christian values but from a uniquely white supremacist perspective.” Their beliefs have no basis in the Bible, and one hopes their numbers are small and decrease. But they could be aggrieved and energized by Trump’s defeat. The (evil!) Proud Boys, an alt-right activist group, were among the Capitol rioters.

White supremacism has historically referred to those who believe that whites are intrinsically superior to other races and should thus have power, rights and privileges not afforded to nonwhites. Members of the Ku Klux Klan fit that description as do other aberrational groups and individuals (such as David Duke, whose star has faded) that use religion to promote racism. 

By the traditional definition of white supremacy, no Christian should be a white supremacist, since the Bible teaches that all people are made in God’s image, without respect to race or religion and because the early church was multiethnic. Moreover, very few Christians are white supremacists by that definition, although the phrase is sometimes used indiscreetly to attack one’s political opponents.

Many evangelicals disliked Trump for various reasons, not least of which was his character. Those enamored of the social justice movement (or wokeness- state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality) favor an approach to government drawing on critical race theory.

Those in this camp are called “progressive Christians.” They believe that racial and gender problems are rooted in systemic forces of oppression that can only be addressed through radical political means. These include defunding the police and giving reparations to Blacks to compensate for slavery.

Evangelicals who are millennials trend in this direction and look past the abortion-rights positions of those who share their basic viewpoint — unlike many older evangelicals, who will not for vote anyone who is not anti-abortion.

A vexing problem for religion and politics after Trump is the politics of gender identity. One of Biden’s first executive orders forbid discrimination based on one’s sense of gender identity. Theologically conservative Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that God assigns gender identity as either male or female and that this is not subject to human alteration. Jews and Christians affirm heterosexual monogamy as God’s norm, while Islam allows for polygamy, but not same-sex marriage. (More liberal adherents of these religions reinterpret their sacred documents to allow for LGBTQ priorities.)

Conservative religious commitments are at odds with the LGBTQ insistence that gender identity is fluid and that sexual relations are not subject to traditional religious norms. Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims in America deem all people to be God’s creatures, whatever their sexual identity. They are not seeking to criminalize consensual sexual behavior they deem sinful. (Pornography is another matter.) However, if it becomes illegal for a religious school, for example, to refuse to hire someone in a same-sex marriage, this could spark civil disobedience or even the closing of religious institutions that refuse to comply with state edicts.

Coming back to President Biden, conservative Catholics who oppose his abortion-rights position or his endorsement of LGBTQ views will accuse him of religious hypocrisy. 

At the same time, The New York Times celebrates his “liberal Catholicism” as did liberal Catholics. Catholic prelates have urged priests to refuse the president Holy Communion, however, until he adheres to the church’s moral teachings. Biden will maintain the appearance of Catholic devotion, but will frustrate many conservative Catholics. It is unlikely that Biden will explain exactly how his faith informs his policies. Modern politicians usually place their faith in a private realm that never rises to the level of objective knowledge bearing on public policy.

The Rev. Beaman’s closing prayer at the inauguration is significant. He prayed, “In the strong name of our collective faith, Amen.” A traditional Christian prayer ends with something like, “in the name of Jesus.” That is, those with faith offer their prayers, but they do not pray in the name of their faith, let alone “our collective faith.” But the Rev. Beaman’s prayer tried to cover the religious bases by substituting “collective faith” for any specific reference to the Deity.

And there’s the rub. Americans of various religious faiths want to contribute to political outcomes. But their faiths differ, as do their political views. Nevertheless, whoever occupies the White House, the American system can accommodate this raucous affair of religion in politics and politics in religion as long as our leaders and our citizens hold true to our founding principles and ideals.

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D., is professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary and the author of 14 books, including, “Philosophy in Seven Sentences.” 

Donald Trump fails to bring dignity to America- denegrates science and the military

Opinion echo letter published in The Gazette an Iowa newspaper:

A call for dignity in the White House!  Donald Trump does not show compassion. He is a failed creature:

In 2015, Republican Donald Trump said John McCain, a Vietnam War Prisoner of War (POW), wasn’t a war hero. (OMG!) I was incensed! My uncle, Sam Lyle, was a POW in Germany during World War II. I couldn’t believe that any U.S. citizen, regardless of party, would vote for Trump after that outrageous statement!

The Atlantic’s article of Sept. 3 reignited my fury! 

How can a person who disparages military leaders and service members, our veterans, and the fallen who made the ultimate sacrifice be reelected! I also recalled Donald Trump’s nonresponse to this summer’s reports on Russian bounties being paid to kill American troops in Afghanistan.

As a lifelong Democrat who first voted 55 years ago, I ask you to vote for Joe Biden for President. Vice President Joe Biden demonstrates compassion and respect for the military. 

Electing Joe will restore the needed dignity and global leadership to the office of the President.

Patricia A. Ikan, Solon Iowa

Americans need pandemic relief money and the US can afford it. So, what's the hold up?

An echo opinion editorial published in The Gazette, a Colorado newspaper.  By Paul Weseman, an economics writer.

Coronavirus Stimulus Talks Officially Crumble as Trump Officials Reject Democrats' Offer- Newsweek 

Maine Writer prologue: Sometimes, reading the last sentance in an essay makes the point, without having to labor through the narrative.  "after the Great Recession, many economists began to rethink their view of debt. The recovery in the United States and especially in Europe was sluggish in part because policymakers were too reluctant to stimulate growth with debt."

#GOPAlert   #SenatorMitchMcConnellAlert

#SenatorSusanCollinsAlert

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government's war against the coronavirus is imposing the heaviest strain on the Treasury since America's drive to defeat Nazi Germany and imperial Japan three-quarters of a century ago.

The Congressional Budget Office has warned that the government this year will run the largest budget deficit, as a share of the economy, since 1945, when World War II ended. Next year, the federal debt — the sum of the year-after-year gush of annual deficits — is forecast to exceed the size of the entire American economy for the first time since 1946. 

Within a few years, it's on track to set a new high.

It might be surprising to hear that most economists consider the money well-spent — or at least necessary. Few think it's wise to quibble with the amount of borrowing deemed necessary to sustain American households and businesses through the gravest public health crisis in more than 100 years. That's especially true, economists say, when the government's borrowing costs are super-low and investors still seem eager to buy its debt as fast as the Treasury issues it.

Here's a closer look at the federal debt and the government's use of it to combat the pandemic and the economic pain it's inflicted.

So, just how much money are we talking about?

The annual deficit — the gap between what the government spends and what it collects in taxes — will hit $3.3 trillion in the budget year that ends Sept. 30, the CBO projects. That amounts to 16% of America’s gross domestic product, which is the broadest measure of economic output. Not in 75 years has a deficit been that wide.

The federal debt, reflecting the accumulated deficits and the occasion surplus, is forecast to reach 100% of GDP next year. Then it is predicted to keep climbing to $24.5 trillion — 107% of GDP — in 2023. That would snap the record of 106% of GDP set in 1946. (The percentage does not include debts that the government agencies owe one another, including the Social Security trust fund  (...and...Maine Writer opinion...beneficiaries pay into, by the way.)

So, why is the US budget so lopsided?

The U.S. government was already deeply in debt even before the virus struck in March. The budget had absorbed the expenses of the 2007-2009 Great Recession, the federal benefits for the retirements of the vast baby boom generation and the cost of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cut. Last year, the debt burden reached 79% of GDP, the highest share since 1948.

Then came the pandemic. The economy tumbled into a sickening free-fall as businesses shut down and millions of Americans hunkered down at home to avoid infection. GDP collapsed at a 31.7% annual rate from April through June, the worst three months on records dating to 1947. In March and April combined, employers slashed a record 22 million jobs.

To help Americans to endure the crisis, Congress passed a $2 trillion relief bill in March. Among other things, the package sent Americans one-time checks of up to $1,200 and temporarily offered the unemployed $600 a week on top of their state jobless benefits.

Economists say that the rescue probably helped keep the economy from sinking into a depression but also that much more assistance is needed.

So, can the U.S. really repay all that money?

After World War II, the United States paid down the federal debt with surprising speed. By 1961, the debt had dropped to 44% of GDP, the same level as in the prewar year of 1940.

Behind that success was a fast-growing economy that delivered rising revenue to the government and erased the debt. From 1947 through 1961 the economy grew at a 3.3% annual rate. The financial system was tightly regulated by the government. This allowed policymakers to keep interest rates artificially low and minimize the cost of repaying the debt.

Circumstances are somewhat different now. The economy doesn’t grow as fast as it did in the postwar boom years. Since 2010, GDP growth has averaged just 2.3%, even excluding this year's economic implosion. And the government doesn’t control interest rates as it used to, not after the financial deregulation of the 1980's.
Still, the Federal Reserve is helping keep government borrowing rates ultra-low by buying up huge volumes of Treasury debt.

So, Does the debt carry economic consequences?

Economists have long warned that too much government borrowing risks hobbling the economy. 

When the government takes on excessive debt, the argument goes, it competes with businesses and consumers for loans, thereby forcing borrowing rates prohibitively high and imperiling growth.

Another concern is that investors will demand ever-higher interest rates for accepting the risk that governments could default on their debts.

Some economists and budget watchers still warn that a day of reckoning will come and that the United States will have to curb spending, raise taxes or both.

But, after the Great Recession, many economists began to rethink their view of debt. The recovery in the United States and especially in Europe was sluggish in part because policymakers were too reluctant to stimulate growth with debt.

In the United States, rates didn’t rise even though government debts were high. Investors, it turned out, had a near-insatiable appetite for U.S. Treasurys, still considered the world’s safest investment. 

Their rush to buy federal debt helped keep rates low and limited the government’s borrowing costs. So did persistently low inflation.
In such a low-rate, low-inflation environment, the risk of piling on more debt seems more manageable, at least for countries like the United States and Japan that borrow in their own currencies.
In a speech last year, Olivier Blanchard, a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, declared:

“Put bluntly, public debt may have no fiscal cost ... The probability that the U.S. government can do a debt rollover, that it can issue debt and achieve a decreasing debt-to-GDP ratio without ever having to raise taxes later, is high.’’

Save our Post Office: An integral part of our Nation

Maine Writer - Of course, I appeciate and support this point of view, an opinion published in the Iowa newspaper The Gazette, but in my further opinion, I intend to stand in line for as long as it takes to vote all Republicans out of office!  Remove every one of them!

Mail-in voting should be a pandemic priority- Congress must protect the Post Office from a being the victim of Donald Trump's political polarization!  He intends to prevent Americans from voting.

Echo opinion from Jan Patterson

The most important thing Americans do for our democracy is vote. That’s the basis for everything from our local officials to the President of these United States. 

But, we shouldn’t have to take a chance, or possibly expose the election officials, to the virus by voting in this pandemic.

Many states already vote exclusively by mail. All of the states should follow their example. Counties already have the process in place to vote by absentee ballot. By including all voters we can save countless lives, and isn’t that the goal in a pandemic? The life you save could be yours. Even the president voted by absentee ballot last time.

Fraud is often given as a criticism by opponents, but proof is never found to back up the claims. The Mueller Report did spotlight deficiencies that need to be addressed to protect against foreign or domestic hacking. These problems should be addressed by increasing election security, but bills designed to do this are sitting in the Senate majority leader’s desk. 

Cyber security should concern everybody.

Our Post Office is an integral part of our Nation, and would play an even bigger part if we all vote by mail. We should all support the work they do. It keeps America going.

Call the auditor’s office, ask for an absentee ballot, for health, weather, or other reasons.

Call our Senators and urge them to support the National Disaster and Emergency Ballot Act. 

No one should die because they cast a vote. (Protect voting rights!)

Jan Patterson  in Marion, Iowa

American pop culture - Why the Super Bowl is important: Echo opinion

An echo opinion about American pop culture- football- reported in The Gazette, a Colorado newspaper serving the Colorado Springs area.

On Super Bowl Sunday, over 100 million Americans will gather to consume guacamole and gawk at the genuine spectacle Americans know as the Super Bowl. About one-third of us will catch the game in full or in part, making it the nearest we come to a countrywide meet-up. In these socially and politically divided times, this moment of national assembly matters all the more.

Literally twice as many people watch the Super Bowl as tune into a speech made by the president of the country meant to assess how the country is doing. (Reported in USAToday)

There’s nothing quite like the Super Bowl on television, reported by Lt. Col. ML Cavanaugh.

Lt. Col. Cavanaugh opinion published in The Gazette

Last year’s game slipped to 103.4 million viewers, the smallest estimated audience since 2009, which was a wee bit south of the most watched game in history, when 114.4 million tuned in in 2015.

If you do a quick search of the most watched television programs in American history, you’ll find that the M.A.S.H. series finale (1983) and Roots (Ep. VIII, 1977) hit 100 million — but the rest of the top viewed American shows are Super Bowls.

Blasphemy as it is to hard-core fans, but it doesn’t matter much who plays. The game draws our the eyes of the nation, year in and year out, to watch the Great American Football Show.

And the Super Bowl’s economic impact is significant, real, and important. Just ask local liquor store owners, or companies paying through-the-nostrils for television commercials, which are reportedly going at the rate of $5 million per 30 seconds (about $170,000 for every tick of the clock’s tiny hand).

But it is the Super Bowl’s social impact that matters most. The simple fact that so many of us are congregating for the same thing at the same time matters. Greatly. Because nowadays, so much else divides us. It’s not just the old culprits, like race and class and gender and religion, all which still exist and still exert a powerful divisive impact on us. On top of that, we can add a hefty modern dose of subconscious self-sorting and social media algorithms that reinforce the divisions.

Without even knowing it, we often choose our neighborhoods and networks in ways that make us prisoners of our personal bubbles. And they’ve received a powerful exponential boost through our social media habits.

It’s become easy to head home to little islands where everyone is very much like ourselves, an experience that’s only been amplified by our online habits. The result is that, more and more we’re doing less and less with wide, diverse groups of Americans.

Television is a great example of this digital division. 

Now the goal for building hit television shows is narrow-casting to a smaller, more passionate audience — as opposed to broadcasting, where the aim is for the broadest audience possible. 

Cable news is the most extreme version: If you’re one type of person you put on MSNBC, and if you’re another type of person you put on FoxNews. It may be television’s golden age, but it’s also a much more solitary experience than it used to be.

Except for the Super Bowl. Sure, there are some true fans that look for key matchups, know who’s likely to make a game-breaking play, anticipate all the story lines the announcers will raise during the game, and make iron-clad preparations to ensure not a single second or play is missed. 

But the number of these Super Bowl Super Fans pales in comparison to the vast majority of casual fans that only see a handful of games (or just this one game) each year.

It matters that “we the people” do something together, even if it is something as trivial as football. That we talk about the same game. That we laugh at the same commercials. That we jeer at the same halftime show (or that we leer at the same “uniform malfunction”).

Of course, the game won’t come without some controversy, as the debate over athletes that kneel in protest for social justice will likely continue at this Super Bowl. But nations are like families in this way, they argue and bicker and disagree, but what matters most is that in the end everyone’s sitting together, watching the same game.

And when it’s all done Sunday night, we’ll have something to talk about, together, on Monday.

That is, until Tuesday...reports Lt. Col. ML Cavanaugh, PhD*, is a nonresident fellow with the Modern War Institute at West Point and published in The Gazette.

IMO, on Tuesday, that's when the nation is exposed to the partisan divide created by the Trump failed state of the union speech.  Those who watch Trump are either victims of his mass hypnosis cult or they are being paid to fact check his compulsive lies. 

*This essay is an unofficial expression of opinion; the views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of West Point, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any agency of the U.S. government.

Veterans not receiving care they need - opinion from Colorado

Echo letter to the editor published in the Colorado newspaper "The Gazette"

Veterans not getting needed care
I read an article in the Washington Post today on veteran suicides.

I was appalled that: “VA set aside $6.2 million this year alone to advertise its crisis hotline...But as of September, the agency had spent $57,000...”.

Men and women who have sacrificed for their country will not get the care they need because “The GAO* blamed ... instability that has consumed the agency for more than a year ... and ... rudderless leadership left staff working on suicide prevention without clear direction.”

While staff members worry about their cushy jobs, veterans die in unheard of numbers. They are forgotten. Is this the way to repay their sacrifice? I don’t think that’s right, and I hope you don’t either!

From
Jude T. Brock  Woodland Park Colorado

*GAO- US Government Accountability Office

Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Diseases- rise in reported rates

As sex-transmitted disease rates soar in Colorado and elsewhere, states beg for help

MaineWriter- Many years ago I was working at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, at time where the national public health urgency was focused on finding ways of diagnosing sexually transmitted syphilis earlier and faster, so as to help prevent the spread of the epidemic.  

Although progress was made at the time, the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases STDs has regressed as per this article in the Colorado Springs news:

A report by Kimberly Leonard and reported in the The Gazette and the Washington Examiner

State and local officials are begging Congress and federal agencies to spend more money to halt an alarming rise in sexually transmitted diseases, which have climbed steadily in Colorado and elsewhere over recent years.

“We are basically all expressing the same concern and expressing the need for urgent action,” said Dr. Nate Smith, president-elect for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “This is something that is not going to go away on its own.”

More than 2.3 million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were reported in 2017, say preliminary data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

That’s nearly a 9 percent increase from 2016 and a higher rate than those reported in other developed nations.

Even more worrisome, syphilis last year caused nearly 1,000 babies to be born with deformities or severe health problems — a 20-year high and a doubling in four years. If untreated, chlamydia and gonorrhea can make women sterile.

Colorado chlamydia rates “increased steadily from 2007 to 2016, with two dips in 2010 and 2013,” reported the state Department of Public Health and Environment.

As of 2016, the most recent year with available data, 25,569 chlamydia cases were reported in the state. That’s a rate of 461.7 cases per 100,000 people, compared with 497.3 per 100,000 people nationwide that year.

By county, Colorado chlamydia case rates are highest in Denver — 908.7 cases per 100,000. El Paso, Adams and Arapahoe counties are among seven others with chlamydia rates higher than 500 per 100,000 people.

Gonorrhea and syphilis rates also have increased in Colorado in recent years. Denver has the highest gonorrhea and second-highest syphilis rates.

“We know what we have to do to respond,” Daniel Shodell, deputy director for disease control at the CDPHE, told The Gazette in May.

“And we’re really focused on testing, treating and encouraging people to protect themselves.”

Dr. Chris Nevin-Woods, medical director for El Paso County Public Health, has said public health funding to address STDs has not kept up with the outbreak.

Over the past 15 years, the purchasing power of federal funding devoted to fighting STDs, which goes to state and local public health programs, has fallen by 40 percent. But because STDs have risen so dramatically so quickly, officials say it’s time to invest more federal money to fight it.

The National Coalition of STD Directors has asked for a $70 million annual increase in STD prevention and treatment and for the Trump administration to come up with a federal plan to coordinate the work of health agencies.

The group also asks the administration to declare a public health emergency for STDs, as it did for opioids. Such a designation would free federal funds that help officials respond faster.

The money would go to STD clinics, to protect babies from syphilis effects and to combat drug-resistant gonorrhea, which can lead to long hospital stays, disability or death. The CDC estimates STDs cost the U.S. $16 billion a year.

Smith, who is also director of the Arkansas health department, said with more money, his state would hire more health-care workers who reach out to sexual partners of infected people and bring STD testing and education to vulnerable communities. Such interactions help people get treated and talk about protection, he said.

State and local officials are meeting with top federal health officials regularly and have found discussions encouraging, said David Harvey, executive director of the National Coalition of STD Directors.

Before 2013, STDs were on the decline. Now even more common STDs, including herpes and human papillomavirus, which can lead to cervical cancer, aren’t tracked by the federal government. HIV rates are reported separately.

More people are using drugs to prevent HIV transmission, and more women are using long-term contraceptives. But condom use appears to be falling by the wayside, raising STD rates.

Gonorrhea diagnoses increased by 67 percent from 2013 to 2017, nearly doubling among men and increasing by nearly a fifth among women, the CDC reports. Syphilis diagnoses nearly doubled, mostly among men who have sex with men. Chlamydia was the most common condition reported to the CDC in 2017, accounting for 1.7 million diagnoses.

“This is the continuation of a persistent and troubling trend,” said Kyle Bernstein, chief of the Epidemiology and Statistics Branch in the CDC’s Division of STD prevention.

Some politicians are taking note. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, top Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote to to Surgeon General Jerome Adams in October, saying: “I write to ask that you take immediate action to raise public awareness of the problem and engage all relevant federal agencies in taking evidence-based steps to address the problem, with particular focus on prevention amongst populations most at risk of contracting STDs.”

Ahead of budget deliberations this year, 10 Democratic senators and 36 Democratic representatives asked their appropriations leaders for more money to fight STDs. They didn’t get it, but Harvey said advocates hope the money will be in President Trump’s budget request in February. The federal government now spends about $157 million a year to fight STDs.

Experts say the 2.1 million people addicted to opioids, such as heroin and prescription painkillers, contribute to the rise in STD rates, because people are trading sex for drugs.

Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration has rolled out a few proposals to deal with drug-resistant bacteria. The CDC has urged doctors to test women for syphilis not only when they learn they are pregnant, but also a couple of times throughout their pregnancies.

The opioid crisis, which claimed 40,000 lives last year, and other public health issues such as obesity and nicotine addiction have pushed the STD surge into the shadows, Smith said.

“If you look at the numbers, it’s really pretty bad… You can’t look at that kind of increase for any transmissible disease and not be very, very alarmed,” he said.

Colorado Politics contributed to this story.

Neo-Nazis in sheep's clothing? Southern Poverty Law Center

Editorial warning about the Southern Poverty Law Center~ from Colorado newspaper, The Gazette.  This echo opinion is a warning for those of us who might be coerced into thinking the anti-hate group's name is a euphemism for poverty advocacy. Perhaps, the group's name does not sufficiently define its purpose.  Does SPLC* intentionally mislead the public in order to squelch open debate? It’s much easier to slander opponents with emotionally-charged slurs than it is to engage in logical arguments about questionable policies. After reading this editorial opinion and looking up some related informational links, I'm thinking the SPLC is a watchdog group that apparently needs careful watching.

Echo opinion published by the editorial board of The Gazette, a Colorado newspaper:

Americans fought a civil war to enhance civil rights. We work tirelessly to expand diversity and marginalize hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan and factions of neo Nazis.

Meanwhile, a rich and powerful domestic hate group has fooled the masses into embracing and funding it. The hate organization uses the mainstream media like a sock puppet that blurts “racist” on cue.

The Southern Poverty Law Center foments hatred under a pretense of fighting “hate and bigotry.” For years, The Gazette’s editorial board sounded a lonely voice warning about the hateful, judgmental and fraudulent tactics this law firm uses to raise money and benefit the left by destroying individuals on the right.

Today, we are far from alone.

Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen took on the Southern Poverty Law Center in June, under the headline “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility.”

Thiessen documents how the law firm makes money by “labeling virtually anyone who does not fall in line with its left-wing ideology an ‘extremist’ or ‘hate group.’ ”

Last week, Washington Post general features writer David Montgomery eviscerated the hateful law firm in a 7,000-word expose titled “The State of Hate: Researchers at The Southern Poverty Law Center have set themselves up as the ultimate judges of hate in America. But are they judging fairly?”

Nearly every inch of the article leaves the reader answering “no.”

The article begins with retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin showing the reporter a bullet hole in the wall of the Family Research Council’s office in Washington. Boykin, former undersecretary of defense of intelligence under George W. Bush, serves as executive vice president of the research council.

The bullet hole attests to the first round fired by Floyd Lee Corkins in 2012. The second round went through the arm of building manager Leo Johnson, who tackled Corkins and prevented a massacre. Corkins told the FBI he planned to shoot up the family values lobbying organization because the Southern Poverty Law Center blacklisted it as an anti-gay hate group.

Montgomery’s interview with the law center president Richard Cohen reveals how the law firm uses the “hate” label as an instrument of force against those with mainstream values that simply conflict with those of the far left.

Montgomery asks Cohen about the hate listing of organizations advocating secure borders and immigration reform, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He asks about the hate listing of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a non-profit law firm that helps people fight to preserve their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

Do they, Montgomery asks, “really have so much in common with neo-Nazis and the Klan that they belong in the same bucket of shame?”

“Obviously the hate label is a blunt one,” Cohen says. “It’s one of the things that gives it power… the fact that a group like the ADF can get in front of the Supreme Court — to me that makes them more dangerous, not less so … ”

Got that? The leader of the Southern Poverty hate group thinks a group of pro-bono lawyers, petitioning the Supreme Court for just airings of grievances, poses more danger than the Klan — an organization best known for lynching, torturing, raping, and dragging minorities to their deaths. That is just plain sick, Cohen.

For the record, the ADF frequently wins at the Supreme Court. It is the law firm that showed the Supreme Court how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission committed a veritable hate crime against cake designer Jack Phillips by calling his religion “despicable” and forcing him into political re-education for practicing his faith.

The haters of the Southern Poverty Law Firm sit on an endowment of roughly $400 million, generated mostly by fund raising efforts that scare people with a “hate map” that shows “hate groups” throughout the country.

Until recently, victims of the SPLC felt helpless. Then, Maajid Nawaz sued the center for including him in the “Field Guide to anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz wound up on a hate list for advocating the peaceful practice of Islam over violent Islamic “extremism.” The law center settled for $3.4 million last summer.

Few things are more hateful than maligning peaceable, loving people as haters — for money and political gain.

Victims of the law center should not passively endure the hateful politics of personal destruction. They should follow the Nawaz lead and sue. The law center's $400 million war chest should become a reparation fund to compensate targets of a longstanding, self-serving and careless campaign of hate.

The Gazette editorial board

*SPLC began as a legitimate civil rights organization. In 1987, it sued the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) for the role it played in the death of a black Alabama teenager and won a $7 million verdict. In recent years, however, the SPLC has become a very controversial and partisan organization. Rather than defending victims of discrimination, the SPLC has changed its focus to smearing any group that disagrees with its own political agenda.

Nurses and caregivers - Professional shortages

Aging America facing a health care professionals crisis

Echo opinion by Gene Budig and Alan Heaps published in the Colorado Springs newspaper "The Gazette"

America is aging rapidly. The numbers tell the story: 50 million people 65 or older in 2015 (15 percent of the population); 70 million in 2030 (20 percent of the population); and 100 million in 2060 (25 percent of the population).

This demographic shift brings with it many changes. Voting patterns, consumer spending, economic productivity, workforce availability and government programs are all being impacted.

Over time these, in turn, will reshape many of the nation’s institutions and priorities.

Health care is one of the major impacted areas. The reason is obvious: demand for medical services will increase because old people have more physical problems. For example, 80 percent of older adults have at least one chronic disease, and 68 percent have at least two.

But quality expansion of health care will not be easy.

The current system is a large (13 million employees) Byzantine web that includes, but is not limited to, medical practitioners (doctors, home health care and emergency medical workers, nurses, technicians), government officials, hospital administrators, drug and medical device manufacturers, insurance companies, lobbyists and researchers.

Standing at the center of this complex enterprise are the nation’s three million nurses. Their importance cannot overstated. They:

• Are the largest segment of the health care workforce;
• Play pivotal roles in hospitals, ambulatory settings, health centers, homes, long-term facilities and schools;
• Contribute in many critical ways including direct care, patient advocacy, research and policy making;
• Are directly responsible for much of the confidence in the health care system. (For 16 years in a row, nursing has been rated as the profession with the highest honesty and ethical standards. More than 80 percent of the public rate nurses in the high or very high categories. Lobbyists bring up the rear with an 8 percent approval rating.)

Yet the profession is in crisis.

By 2024, it is estimated that the nation will have one million unfilled registered nurse positions. While part of the shortage is caused by the increase in nursing jobs, other factors include an aging nurse workforce (more than half of registered nurses are 50 years or older) and dissatisfaction with the profession due to overwork, stress, bureaucracy and lack of confidence in leadership.

The solutions to the problem are varied and complex. They include recruitment, compensation, working conditions, and professional and leadership development.

But there are two simple facts of which we can be sure: without an effective national strategy to fill this gap, our health care system will be crippled.

But all this must be driven by an acknowledgement of the central role nurses play in practice and in policy.

Our interest in health care and the role of nurses is partly driven by concern for America’s welfare and happiness. But there is a more personal reason as well. A recent illness brought one of us into close contact with our medical professionals. This first-hand experience made it obvious that our individual and communal health being depends on the great work of our nation’s nurses.

So this column is not only about national well-being but also a thanks for their fine work.

Gene Budig is past president/chancellor of three state universities (Kansas, West Virginia and Illinois) and a former president of baseball’s American League. Alan Heaps is a former vice president of The College Board in New York City.