Don Ardell's Wellness Perspectives on Sex, Religion & Politics

Phony Baloney Balloon-Boy Deja Vu - Be Skeptical of Belgian Tall Tale

The infamous Terri Schiavo case is in the news again, brought back into the media with the alleged recovery of consciousness of a man in a vegetative state for 23 years - all the while utterly motionless. 

The recovery, however, is something less than what you might consider a "recovery."  In fact, it is probably nothing whatsoever.  No recovery and no genuine communication.  The communicating by the patient is, in fact, what is called facilitated communication.  A third party is doing it FOR the patient. 

Can you believe this is a major news item?

If you really do believe that, I want to offer you a special deal on the Golden Gate Bridge. 

Facilitated Communication or FC is the sleigh of hand junk science fad being sold to the media to explain an alleged ability of a young Belgian youth 23 years in a vegetative state to communicate.  Naturally, the parents want to believe in a miracle or a scientific breakthrough.  Parents want to embrace any kind of hope, even if not religious extremists like the Schiavo family in Florida.  The claim in this case started with the use of a new CAT scan technology.  Unfortunately, dig a little deeper and the tale is almost certainly a weird combination of fraud, voodoo and wishful thinking.  In the Belgian case, the only one doing any communicating is the nurse who guides the finger of the comotose patient.  She should be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced - and her trickery widely exposed as soon as possible. 

Let an independent third party, or several forms of non-biased experiments be run and there is little doubt but that tests will show fraud at work that has so far bamboozled the media.  On the other hand, a cynical view is that media managers know it's all a scam (a book is in the works along with TV specials - and no doubt T-shirt sales).  The only reason the FC ruse is tolerated for a moment is for ratings purposes. 

What do YOU think? 

Two Suggestions For President Obama From A Speech Writer Waiting To Be Enlisted In The Good Cause

On October 12, 2009, Charles Gibson interviewed President Obama on ABC-TV about health care reform. Mr. Gibson served Mr. Obama a "gotcha" question, to wit: "Mr. President, will you and your family give up your current health care program and join the new universal program that the rest of us will be on?" 

While I did not watch the interview, I learned about it from exultant conservative bloggers who gleefully noted what they called "Obama's stony silence." As noted, I do not know if the president fumbled the question, but really, what could he say? Any president or member of Congress would have to be some kind of secular saint to agree to do such a thing, since their health plans are indeed gold-plated - and cost next to nothing, thanks to taxpayer subsidies for high officials. 

However, I have a suggested response for Mr. Obama consideration, just in case this query is posed again, which it surely will be. Here is what I think he should say, more or less: 

"Life is NOT fair, as most people have realized for some time. The president and members of Congress enjoy many benefits unavailable to the populace. Other presidents and Congressional leaders created systems that favor citizens elected to high public office. Maybe they should not have done so, or the people should have insisted such entitlements be eliminated. Maybe it is time for changes in health plans beyond those reforms under consideration. 

However, for now, the system does favor those elected to certain high offices. Take the presidency, for example. In this job, you get many perks, including a bigger airplane on call at your service 24/7 than the aircraft enjoyed by most Americans. Members of Congress don't get airplanes or a really nice house fully furnished with a home office as I do, but they do, as your question recognizes, receive generous health insurance plans. I don't think the folks who manage to get themselves elected to highly contested seats (only two available) in the US Senate from each state or the 435 accomplish the same in districts across the land will be anxious to sigh up for the basic plan we want everyone to have. Perhaps this question of fairness relative to health care benefits should be revisited in political campaigns to come. Until a consensus for changes in Federal health plans is realized, I'm going to accept the current plan granted to me by the Congress. Meanwhile, I'll continue to work as hard as I can to make greater benefits, even if not quite presidential (or Congressional), available to everyone else. 

Does that answer your question?

On another matter, let me start by noting that I am a liberal. I am also an Independent who voted for Mr. Obama, and not only because I was horrified at the presence of a moron reactionary on the other side's ticket. I liked Obama during the long campaign and fully expected REAL change. I've been disappointed, a lot, so far. I expected more support for women's rights and gay rights, even though I'm not female or gay. I thought Obama would rebuild a figurative wall to keep separate church and state, but instead he gave us Rick Warren at the Inaugural and expanded rather than halted faith-based funding of religious charities. 

But what really runs chalk across my blackboard is the president's habit of ending most speeches with the ludicrous phrase, "God bless America." What the hell does that mean? Which god? How does a god bless a country? What happens if we ever, somehow, got blessed? What does that mean, anyway? If Obama does not ask for God to bless America, does that mean we won't be blessed? How many times does he have to say those words to get the blessing? How many blessings do we need? Have these matters ever been explained and, if so, by whom and what did he/she or it say?

I'd like to know what YOU think. Any comments?

The Tax Exempt Status of the Catholic Church Should Be Revoked Immediately

Injecting itself aggressively into the health-care debate, the Roman Catholic Church in America has emerged as a major political force with the potential to upend a key piece of President Barack Obama's agenda.

Peter Wallsten, Catholic Church Emerges as Big Player in Health-Care Fight, Wall Street Journal, November 10, 2009, p. A4.

An amendment to the House-passed health bill bars anyone who receives a tax credit from enrolling in a plan that covers abortion.  This ban is the result of an intense lobbying campaign by Catholic churches across the nation.  The church worked behind-the-scenes while publicly mobilizing supporters at the grassroots level. 

Political activism by the tax-exempt Catholic Church reached an odious level five years ago when Catholic bishops declared that they would not grant communion to the Democratic nominee.  While free-thinkers and others are not bound or intimidated by dogmas thought ridiculous by other than true believers (who unfortunately number in the millions), to candidate John Kerry and other Catholics, this was a big deal. 

Why would the church threaten its most prominent member at that time? The bishops did so because Catholic Kerry dared to support a woman's right to make a choice regarding abortion.  This choice was of course enabled for all women in this country in 1973 when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized the procedure.  

The nation has been embroiled in legal battles between the forces of theocracy and secular governance for many years, and there is no end in sight.  Politicians at present are largely composed of believers and supporters of religious encroachment on separation of church and state.  IRS rule violations are common; religious leaders know they can get away with ignoring rules forbidding partisan political activity and other campaigning that injects religious beliefs into public policies.  The Catholic Church is the worst offender.  What a shame our presidents since JFK have not seen fit to instruct cabinet members and others in government, including the Commissioner of the IRS, to act swiftly when church groups meddle in public policy while insisting on keeping their tax-exempt status. 

In 1960, candidate Kennedy spoke to church leaders in Texas.  Imagine how Catholic bishops and other Catholic lobbyists would respond today to the late president's remarks delivered in 1960.  The following words are from JFK's speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion on September 12, 1960.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

I myself believe in an America that will not allow tax exempt status for a Catholic Church that acts as a political force.  I therefore believe that the IRS should immediately strip the church of this undeserved privilege. No religious body should be allowed to impose its will upon the general populace.

An Honest Congress Would Be A Miracle

Robert Ingersoll was asked for his opinion of miracles in the 1870's.  His reply included an assessment of "miracles" described in the bible, followed by a parable of sorts.  A portion of Ingersoll's response, taken from "Sixty-Five Press Interviews with Robert G. Ingersoll" (AAP, 1983), went like this:

"All the miracles recorded in the New Testament could have been simulated.  A fellow could have pretended to be dead, or blind, or dumb, or deaf.  I want to see a good miracle.  I want to see a dog with one leg, and then I want to see the other leg grow out."  Next, Ingersoll offered a humorous parable:

"Two men were disputing about the relative merits of a salve they had for sale.  One of the men, in order to demonstrate that his salve was better than any other, cut off a dog's tale and applied a little of the salve to the stump and, in the presence of the spectators, a new tail grew out.  But the other man, who also had salve for sale, took up the piece of tail that had been cast away, put a little salve at the end of that, and a new dog grew out, and the last heard of those parties they were quarelling as to who owned the second dog.  Something like that is what I call a miracle. 

If someone could come up with a salve or other remedy for an honest Congress, I, too, would give some respect to the notion of having witnessed a miracle.  The Congress today is a disreputable institution.  The approval rating is 25 percent - lower even than that of George W. Bush at the end of his sorry eight-year reign of ruin. On Friday last, former Louisiana congressman, William Jefferson, was sentenced to 13 years in prison for taking bribes.  Congressmen and women all take bribes, in my opinion, but they are legal when called campaign contributions from special interest lobby groups.  Of course, they all insist that contributions of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in no way influences their voting, but you have to believe in biblical-level miracles to buy that.  Other former Congresspersons currently in prison for chicanery of one sort or another include Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Bob Ney and James Traficant. 

Yes, given the nature of the campaign fund-raising norms or system of legal bribery that exists today, a House of Representatives with 435 honest and a Senate with another 100 honest members would, I belive, satisfy even "the great agnostic" and skeptic Robert Green Ingersoll that a miracle had occurred.

I have an idea that would facilitate a somewhat MORE honest Congress, and such a consummation would not require a miracle to come about. 

I suggest that the president appoint and the Congress endorse the establishment of a non-partisan committee to vet the ethical qualifications of all candidates for Congress.  The independent committee would develop an efficient method to assess the ethical quality of everyone elected to the House and the Senate of the United States, and assess any ethical charge brought against said member.  If found not to be ethical, the member would be expelled. 

That is my REAL wellness suggestion of the day.  It is the first in a series of REAL wellness suggestions that will appear at this space from now until the end of time or until I die, whichever comes first.  Your comments about this and/or future suggestions are warmly, lovingly and earnestly encouraged.  All comments will be listed at the site. 

All the best.  Enjoy your life - it's the only one you're going to get so make the most of it.