Celebrating Communism; raising the Chinese flag in Philadelphia

 Tomorrow, on September 30, Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs is planning to raise the red flag emblazoned with the star of the Chinese Communist Party to celebrate the anniversary of the establishment of the CCP.  There's more than just a mere touch of irony involved here. Less than a mile from City Hall, the site of the proposed CCP flag-raising, Betsy Ross stitched the first American flag in a small house on Arch Street, at the direct request of President George Washington. The Stars and Stripes was adopted by the incipient United States on June 14, 1777. It was proudly flown during the Revolutionary War that resulted in our independence. Very near to Betsy Ross's house is the site of John Dunlap's press that disseminated the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1788.  

Celebrating the authoritarianism represented by the CCP is antithetical to the essence of freedom and American values. Is this 'virtue-signaling, tolerance for diversity, or just a patent disgrace? Philadelphia has long been the center of gravity for American freedom. A public celebration of the Chinese Communist Party, which is fast becoming the single greatest national security threat to the United States in the 21st century, is warped.

The proposed event is being sponsored by the Pennsylvania United Chinese Coalition, part of a network of organizations attempting to boost the CCP's reputation and influence within the US under the guise of 'cultural exchange'. While it may have been intended to be a symbolic gesture, it is nonetheless crass and vacuous. Here is the real underpinning irony; many Chinese-Americans are in Philadelphia because they were seeking the freedom and opportunity denied to them by the CCP. The Chinese in Philadelphia are likely loathe to celebrate the regime that persecuted them. This 'ceremony' is likely more of an insult to them, not to mention a reminder that they're not far enough removed for the CCP. Philadelphia's Office of Immigrant Affairs needs to rethink this. We should be celebrating American Freedom, not Communist oppression. Just ask the Chinese immigrants...

Discord, Dissonance, Hate, Murder, What's Next? Dare we ask...

 It's difficult to say exactly when the 'divide' began to develop, but it has been over a fairly long period of time. Decades, for sure. As children we're not really aware of which direction the political winds are blowing, but there are some major political events that we will remember even at a very young age. In November, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. Johnson was in office when the bill passed, but Kennedy first proposed it. I remember both very well. I was ten years old. I was born during the Eisenhower administration and recall seeing him on television. It was black & white back then of course and stations signed off at midnight to the National Anthem. The good old days...  I don't recall my parents ever declaring they were democrat or republican, but they were indeed patriots and supported the president. Eisenhower was a Republican and Kennedy was a Democrat. Both great presidents. No hint of a political divide back then. 

During the Reagan and Bush admins, any ideological political divide that existed was subdued and mostly irrelevant. Compared to the present political climate, this was a very calm period in politics. Along comes Bill Clinton. The Whitewater Scandal, Travelgate, Filegate, and ultimately Monicagate. Scandal after scandal, there were those unfortunate ones who lost their jobs and reputations, but such never included the Clintons. Except of course Monicagate which resulted in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In January, 1998, Bill Clinton on national TV made his famous statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." As he said this he shook his right forefinger at the nation for emphasis. In August 1998, Clinton admitted to an "inappropriate" relationship with Lewinsky. The House impeached Clinton in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. In February 1999, the Senate trial acquitted on both counts. Oddly, the Republicans held the majority in the Senate but could not remove Clinton from office without a 2/3 majority. Obviously, the democrats would not support the move to impeach. 

Arguably, there were a number of points in history that could be tagged as the genesis of the political, ideological divide the country is experiencing today. In my opinion, the above described event is a prime contender. The president of the United States screws a 20-something year-old intern in the Oval Office, is impeached and his party refuses to vote for impeachment?... Despite his DNA being on her blue dress? How much more egregious could his conduct get before the Democrats would vote to impeach? From that point forward the impetus to 'protect the incumbent Democrat' by the party members, and increasingly as time passed by the liberal-leaning mainstream media began to snowball. There are dozens upon dozens of examples but it has become tiresome to recount them. So I won't. They are all a matter of public record. 

Fast forward to today. The divide is so real, and raw. So raw that a young radical, leftist murdered a conservative activist speaker on a university campus in Utah. Simply because he was tired of his perceived "hate". I say perceived because the majority does not align with his speech being 'hate'. Not everyone, including myself, agreed with everything Charlie Kirk said. The Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. In broad, general terms and point by point, it was no mistake. There have been numerous misrepresentations about what he said and meant, but the Civil Rights Act was not a mistake. It was a requirement. It was necessary. 

But let's put Charlie Kirk aside for a moment, God rest his soul. He was a good person. He loved his family, he loved God. Give him credit. But, here we are. In a nutshell, we have right and left. Should it be so simple. We have far-left and far-right. The 'fringe'. The 'extremists'. Is each actually a part of the divide? Is the far-right' actually 'right'? Ditto for the left? We see 'markers' that cause us to tag them as right or left, but are they really? Or are they in reality just 'extremists'? Prone to violence, even to the extreme of taking anothers' life? Taking another's life is a heinous act of insanity, even if transitory. Blame it on the right, blame it on the left, what difference does it make? It's a criminal act. Let's blame it on criminal tendency. Blaming it on the left or the right is a waste of time.  

Now, let's move past that. We know how far we have come and how wide the divide has become. How do we fix it? Can we fix it? How much worse, how many people must die before we can make it better. Let's go ahead and get optimistic, before we can stop it. I wish I could answer that. I wish anyone could. If we look at history, when we reached such a divisive point in the past, war broke out. Did the war solve it? No, but changes were made and we went on. We, eventually unitedThe problem is lives were lost, thousands of lives. God help us it doesn't take a war to make those necessary changes this time. 

The tax you didn't even know you were paying...

 We've all heard the old adage "There are only two things that are guaranteed in life; death and taxes". Hard to argue with that axiom. Taxes are endless; income, property, estate, sales, inheritance, capital gains, excise, luxury, tariffs, hotel/lodging, motor vehicle...  And more. But there is one tax not listed here that we all pay at some time, some of us more than others. Much more. It's an insidious tax for which there are no statues that codify it. But it's real, very real. That tax is time. 

Most discussions of inequality focus on wealth gaps and income. But there's an equally sinister version of inequality that doesn't pit the rich against the poor. It's the administrative state's pilfering a valuable resource from anyone trying to get ahead and improve their life. Time. 

Time inequality is less visible, harder to measure and more harmful than income inequality. Modern life and liberal market advocates have achieved a steady increase in individuals' leisure time. Work/life balance is a goal of any corporate environment these days. In the past those with fewer means labored from sunup to sundown to survive, they now enjoy more time for family, rest and improving their lives. Lassez-faire delivered this miracle; but government bureaucracies are surreptitiously taking it back. 

Navigating government systems is like a second job that doesn't pay the bills. Renewing your drivers license, that's a half day down the tubes. Applying for social security benefits? Lots of luck with that. Starting a side business? Expect to spend months navigating complex licensing requirements, completing paperwork, obtaining inane approvals, and making repeat visits. These are beyond mere annoyances, they're regressive, invisible taxes involving time, imposing the greatest burden on those with the least resources. A 2016 study by researchers at the consulting firm Management Lab revealed that bureaucratic waste - including delays and over regulation cost America 17 percent of its GDP. This number represents real hours lost, opportunities denied, and lives hindered. The well-to-do have ways around this. They can hire assistants, pay for expedited services, or simply take time off without financial strain. But for the poor, every government imposed delay comes with a tangible cost: lost wages, missed shifts, and less time with family. I didn't even mention frustration and stress.

A maze of occupational licensing laws govern over twenty percent of U.S. jobs. In many states to obtain a license for a job one must pay fees, pass tests and complete sometimes hundreds of hours of training. It's not just money being extracted, excessive amounts in many cases, but time. For example, in New Mexico to obtain a cosmetology license one must complete more than 1,600 hours of training. Requirements such as this are intended to protect incumbents who benefit from high hurdles to eliminate competition. 

To compound the problem, even after meeting the costly, time-consuming requirements, many find themselves blocked by arbitrary bureaucratic vetoes. Policies like 'certificates of need' allow government officials to decide, often without justification, that an individual's services aren't needed, regardless of that person's qualifications. Some people who are hindered by arbitrary hurdles seek help from the courts. Legal recourse can be a marathon as well, not to mention unaffordable by most. The Supreme Court case Sackett v EPA involved a family that wanted to build a modest home on their property in Idaho. The EPA claimed jurisdiction over their property and threatened absurd fines unless they obtained an expensive permit. The couple fought back, and won. But it took a full sixteen years to vindicate their rights. Is this government overreach or sheer stupidity? Both, I suppose, but a little heavy on the stupidity. 

What can be done about this? Actually, a lot. Lawmakers can repeal these ignorant, baseless licensure requirements. Government permission is not needed for jobs that pose no risk to the public. Streamlining government processes; if it takes more than 30 days, requires multiple in-person visits, or can't be completed on-line, then the process is broken. Implement response time caps, default approvals, and digital filing for everything. Regulatory audits shouldn't measure only monetary costs, they should also measure the time burden. Courts should treat bureaucratic time-wasting, particularly when it burdens or prevents people's right and ability to earn a living, as a matter of legal concern. Courts reflexively defer to regulators determination that a law is necessary, even when the law blocks a person from earning a living. If a law unnecessarily consumes people's time without a clear public benefit or need, the courts should strike it down. 

Every unnecessary delay, form and regulation is an insidious, hidden tax on our most precious, unrecoverable resource: time. And that tax is anything but equal. On an individual basis, time is a very limited resource. The time tax is real and it's time to treat it that way...

Getting the Job Done.

A couple of weeks ago a New York Appellate Court dismissed an unconstitutional and disgraceful $500million penalty on President Trump and his businesses. At the time, incidentally, New York Attorney General Letitia James was getting busted for mortgage fraud.  Rewind a little further and have a look at all the declassified documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, John Ratcliffe and Kash Patel that show the entire RussiaGate hoax was quarterbacked by then president Obama and Hillary Clinton. A scrutiny of the events reveals a collapse of the legal and deep-state forces against president Trump. One could arguably say such reveals explicit details of the ongoing collapse of the Democratic Party. 

Not only could the deep-state not defeat Mr. Trump and the forces of treachery and sedition break him, the prominent liars are themselves now facing criminal indictment. To ice the deception cake, Trump was re-elected. Quite a nightmare for Obama, Clinton, the deep-state, and the Democratic Party. It appears that all those who participated in the Russian hoax and various other phony trials, they're getting fired form their jobs and lawyering up. 

As if that's not enough, Trump is running a vastly successful administration in terms of economic policy, domestic policy, foreign policy, immigration policy et al. Oh, lest we forget, law and order. He closed the open border. Not only could they not put him in prison, or bust his businesses, or keep him off the ballot, or tie him to the Russia hoax, he is now succeeding in virtually every initiative he's put forward. In spite of numerous judicial hurdles (overreaching federal district judges) the judicial system appears to be working. As bad, inept and corrupt as some of these judges have been, with all of their political biases and weaponization of lawfare, Trump has prevailed. Hey, he may be a bit of pompous jerk at times, but he's getting the job done...

Our True Heroes...

 I like writing about politics and statesmanship, heaven knows there's plenty to write about that. I'm going to take a break today though from my predisposed political bent and talk about a different topic. This is one of my life topics, and a very important life at that. 

My precious granddaughter who is sixteen years old has been suffering from cancer for over ten years now. It's a very serious and life-threatening form of brain cancer called metastatic epitheloid glioneuronal. When she was initally diagnosed, the prognosis was grim. She was in the care of a team of doctors at Texas Children's Hospital in Houston. They decided that surgery was the best initial approach. They operated and were able to remove 'most' of the tumor. As is often the case with cancer, especially in the brain, the tumor ensconced itself in the cranial cavity like hot lava oozing down a mountainside, embedding itself in every nook and crevice along the way. Their efforts to remove almost all the tumor was nothing short of miraculous. Years went by and she lived a normal childhood life. 

Then, it began to rear its ugly existence once again.   At the time there were some cutting-edge treatments available; radiation and proton therapy. I can't offer much of an explanation of these therapies as such is way above my pay grade. But empirical evidence convinces me that it is a life-saver, at least it was for my granddaughter. After the treatment program she was diagnosed as 'in remission'. Some of the tumor, which was now greatly reduced in size was still there but determined to be 'dormant'. One pitfall is the radiation procedures can and do have side-effects. Hers was Moya-moya. This is a rare progressive condition that affects blood vessels in the brain. Doctors were near certain it was caused by the massive doses of radiation she had received. Months later, she suffered a stroke. 

She survived the stroke and after extensive rehab was able to resume a near normal life once again. A few more 'more-or-less' uneventful years passed. One evening, recently, she began having severe headaches and vomiting and was rushed to the emergency room. Cat-scans and MRI's revealed the tumor had grown and was spreading again. Once again an oracular team of doctors convened to determine the best path forward. Because we humans can only endure so much radiation in our lives, radiation/proton therapy was not an option. Which only left one. Surgery. Surgery is by nature fraught with risk. Any type of surgery, some more or less than others. Brain surgery is likely the apex on the risk curve. And for the second time... The first time she had brain surgery she was a mere five years old. To a five year old, brain surgery, toe surgery, what's the difference. Everyone around her was telling her you're going to be fine. That was good enough. The second time though, she's sixteen years old with a significantly heightened sense of self awareness. She's a very bright young lady and knew the gravitas of the situation this time and she was scared to death. The moments I spent with her just before the surgery, seeing her fearfulness was heart-breaking and life-changing for me. 

She not only survived the surgery she came out like Rocky pumping his fists in the air on the steps of the museum in the movie "Rocky". The morning after the surgery she was awake and talking almost as if nothing had happened. I felt as if I had entered an alternate existence. How can this be happening? The sense of relief was probably akin to being rescued from a tsunami. We were prepared for whatever was to be, but ultimately were granted a God-given reprieve. 

This little girl in her short sixteen years of life has endured more pain and suffering than most people endure in a lifetime. And if you were to walk in her room at the moment you would see a smile brighter than the sun. She is my hero. If I can muster the courage I have seen in her for the rest of my days, I will be proud. The other heroes I have encountered in this ordeal are the gifted doctors that have so compassionately cared for her. And saved her life, more than once. There are a great deal of really smart, gifted people in the world. And then, there are doctors. Getting up in the morning (actually all hours of the day and night...) and going to work and saving someone's life. We are just so proud, glad and blessed that on one of those days, the life they saved was my precious granddaughter. Again. 

Godspeed to doctors the world over. 

Social Media, let's pull back the cover and have a look...

 In the late 90's and into the early 2000's social media began to take a foothold. Early sites like SixDegrees, Friendster, and MySpace introduced online social networking, but were still mostly the province of younger, internet-savvy groups. By the mid-2000's, MySpace had peaked, and for a time was the most visited site in the U.S. FaceBook launched in 2004 and expended beyond college campuses in 2006. Once it opened up to the general public and added features like News Feed (2006) it became the dominant social network. It was around this time that social media stopped being just for 'techies' or students and was used by families, businesses, and politicians. In the 2010's, with the rise of smartphones, especially after the iPhone appeared in 2007, platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and eventually TikTok, made social media a part of everyday life across nearly all age groups. 

I do not believe that anything in history has influenced such rapid changes in culture, customs, even language than has the advent of social media. It has undoubtedly influenced and changed the mores of younger generations. The social norms, customs and 'unwritten rules' of the younger generations are so many and so varied, older generations are unaware of most (uninterested probably, as well). In recent times it has undoubtedly played an influential role of the outcome of a presidential election. Morals, on the other hand should not change from one generation to the next, provided that parents are doing their due diligence. Which we know isn't always the case. There is little doubt that moral decay is being insidiously advocated on social media platforms for those young, vulnerable ones in search of their own moral platform.. There have been countless crimes committed via the internet; financial, moral, including reputational damage, vile hoaxes, criminal, including extortion, fraud, the list is endless. And these are difficult, tedious, resource-heavy crimes to solve. Yet the image they inflict seems to be practically instantaneous. 

And now we are experiencing the technological tsunami that is AI. Google was cool. AI is revolutionary. Scholars can do extensive research in a fraction of the time bringing new discoveries and developments and literary works to our lives. The misguided amongst us can incubate evil ideas with clarity and speed. To be fair, every new technological development spawns both good and evil. For example, in 1836, Samual Colt patented the Colt Revolver, the first commercially successful handgun made in the US. Colt Revolvers are still made today, one-hundred eighty nine years later. They still allow law enforcement officers to do their jobs. They still allow the armed forces to defend our country. Regrettably, they also abet bank robbers, thieves and burglars and murderers to ply their illicit trades. 

And so it shall be with social media, the internet and AI. At least until we can figure out an effective way to avert evil. Considering since the days when Jesus walked the earth, evil has been present and prevailed all too often, it would not be reasonable to expect a timely resolution. Unfortunately and regrettably it is a part of the human condition. There will always be misdeeds and miscreants, not to mention ordinary troublemakers. But the thinkers, the innovators, the inventors, the developers will always far outnumber them. As fast as these elite groups can come up with groundbreaking ideas, the troublemakers will always follow. For all the great wonderful things the internet and social media has brought, always keep in mind there are those lurking in the cyber shadows waiting for an opportunity to wreak havoc. It's what they do. Deny them their opportunity. 

California: Gorgeous coastline, fabulous climate, lots of nice people and the dumbest politicians on earth.

 California seems to be experiencing an 'energy crisis'. Gas prices are expected to exceed $8 per gallon in 2026. That's similar to Europe, who have been experiencing extremely high fuel prices for decades. But there's an entirely different 'cause and effect' in play causing California's gas price spike. Seems California has regulated itself into unaffordable energy. In spite of abundant energy resources and refining capacity, California has created a regulatory climate that has convinced  two major oil companies to close their refineries in the coming year. 

Valero's Benicia refinery near San Francisco and Phillips 66's Wilmington refinery near Los Angeles are both scheduled to close in 2026. Valero CEO Lane Riggs said on a recent earnings call that California's tough "regulatory enforcement environment" was the main factor driving the closing of the state's sixth largest refinery. The announcement came six months after state regulators fined the company $82 million for exceeding toxic emissions standards for more than 15 years. 

Phillips 66 announce the closure of its Los Angeles refinery, the seventh largest in the state, just 3 days after California passed ABX2-1, which requires refiners in the state to hold additional inventories of gasoline stock. The company attributed the closure to not any specific policy but to "long-term uncertainty' for the refining business in the state. This is the sixth and seventh largest refiners in the state. Would a reasonable person be inclined to think that conditions would be any better for the five larger refineries?...

Last year Chevron moved its headquarters out of San Ramon, California to Houston, Texas, because it was becoming increasingly difficult to do business in the Golden State. According to a professor at USC, California has legislated itself into a situation where costs are extraordinarily high and the political environment is extraordinarily harsh. The two refineries represent almost 20% of in-state gasoline production, about 6.2 million gallons of gas per day.  At present, California gas prices are about 40% higher than the US average, a difference attributable to 'supply issues', the CA 'special blend' of gasoline (sold only in CA), and a layer of taxes and fees paid by consumers. 

California Governor Newscum blames the oil companies for gouging consumers for decades. According to him, "There's no other way to put it." Well, Gav, if you told the truth, there would indeed be another way to put it...  California with the help of Obama and Biden have been pushing to make California (and the country for that matter) an all-EV affair. Newsome's objective was to eliminate internal combustion engine vehicle sales by 2035. That mandate set the stage for energy companies and refiners to set up an exit strategy. His timing is a little off, the refiners seem to be leaving about a decade too early. 

California at one time was fourth in the world in oil production. Today, it produces about 2.5% of all US crude production, and only about 24% of its own in-state needs. That has left CA highly dependent on foreign imports including Iraq, Brazil, Guayana, and Ecuador. In 2024, CA imported 61% of its oil from foreign sources. 

With the looming closure of the two refineries, the situation stands to get worse. California has no inbound pipelines for incoming gasoline or oil, leaving them completely dependent on foreign sources to make up the difference. All arriving gas and oil imports will be via maritime vessels, known for being some of the most egregious producers of greenhouse gas emissions. 

California doesn't only have a lack of competent leadership, they have a leadership vacuum. If the Richter scale could measure stupidity, this earthquake would be historic.

Democrats and Main Stream Media, Strange Bedfellows...

 If you've been paying attention to American politics, as most of my readers have, you undoubtedly know of the 'relationship' between the democrats and the mainstream media. We'll take a look at how that relationship came to be, and it's obvious that it has deep roots in our history. It's the result of decades of political, cultural, and institutional shifts that reinforced each other. It's not an official alliance, but there's a mix of historical patterns, shared social circles and professional incentives that brought the two in such close alignment. 

In the early 20th century, newspapers were openly partisan, there were Republican papers and there were Democratic papers. In the mid 20th century, major outlets (CBS, NBC, NYT, Washington Post...) adopted a "professional objectivity" model. In the 1960's - 70's, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the civil rights movement created a generation of journalists who saw themselves as watchdogs (Woodward and Bernstein...) against government power - particularly against Republican administrations (Nixon, Reagan, Bush). This era also saw newsrooms recruit more college-educated reporters from urban, liberal-leaning backgrounds. There's also a cultural and demographic element involved. Major newsrooms are concentrated in large cities (New York, DC, LA) that vote heavily Democratic. That creates (by osmosis)  a liberal newsroom culture where liberal viewpoints seem 'normal' and conservative viewpoints seem alien, or extreme. Add to that the fact that journalism schools and elite universities lean left politically, which undoubtedly shapes the values of incoming reporters. And we must take into account the 'social overlap'. Politicians, journalists, and policy staffers often attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, and socialize in the same circles. Marriages and friendships across politics and media make shared perspectives more likely. 

There's a structural component to this history as well. As cable news and later the internet fragmented the audience, outlets began to chase loyal demographic niches. For many of the legacy outlets, the core audience leans left, so content and framing follows suit. Politicians who grant exclusives, leaks or insider info tend to be treated more favorably. Democratic administrations, especially Clinton and Obama, cultivated relationships with reporters. Newsrooms often choose perspectives that resonate with their editorial culture. 

The emergence of talk radio (Rush Limbaugh) in the late 80's, and Fox News in the late 90's created a parallel conservative media arena. Republicans increasingly distrusted legacy outlets, further reinforcing the perception that 'mainstream' media was leftist leaning. Over time, journalists who leaned conservative often gravitated toward explicitly right-leaning outlets, leaving legacy institutions with an even more left-of-center makeup. 

The Obama administration deepened the affection between many journalists and Democratic leaders. The Trump era accelerated the trend, as many outlets positioned themselves as opposition forces, further blurring the line between adversarial journalism and partisan advocacy. 

As for the social circles and familial connections, let's take a look at a few. At the time Susan Rice was Obama's National Security Advisor, she was married to Ian Cameron who was ABC News Executive producer. CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, who was Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. One time ABC News reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Kate Hogan, Obama's former Deputy Press Secretary. One time President of CNN, Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources, Tom Nides.  

The all-out veracity of mainstream media has been dubious and questionable on many occasions of late. And for good reason. The majority of Americans have little confidence and place little credibility in mainstream media. Though it's doubtful that the institution will shift any further to the right or even center in the foreseeable future. They have simply taken on a level of irrelevance that they seem to accept. But the history of these strange bedfellows is there for all to see. The vast majority of Americans see it, are aware of it, and are taking it into account when they choose new sources. The 2024 election is hard proof of it. 

Are You an Organ Donor?

 Being an organ donor is a noble commitment. To oblige oneself with donating one's organs after death requires a true sense of altruism and compassion for others. Not to mention that the survivors will be obligated to accepting one's wishes to do so. To give, so that others may live is ennobling. However, this exchange of living tissue is transactional. Not intending to sound cold and detached, but organ donation is a multibillion dollar industry. While there are rules and laws, when humans are involved there will be errors, both accidental and intentional. Combining human error with life and death situations is brimming with the possibility of tragedy. Yet it happens...

In most jurisdictions, vital organs are removed only after a formal declaration of death - usually brain death, defined by irreversible loss of brain and brainstem function. This is meant to uphold the "dead donor rule", which requires that organ harvesting must not cause the donor's death. Some ethicists argue that families and donors may not fully understand that brain-dead donors are still alive in some physiological sense, even if legally dead. Donation after 'brain death' is considered 'common medical practice'. 

Another definition of death is "donation after circulatory death". This method is growing in use. Life support is ceased and after the heart permanently stops, usually a 2 - 5 minute waiting period, the organs are harvested. Ethical concerns arise due to the very narrow timing, potential conflicts of interest, and the possibility of misclassifying death. By definition though, this process is 'post-mortem'. 

It's worth noting that China espouses state-sanctioned organ harvesting from prisoners. Credible sources have described execution methods structured to yield high-quality organs before actual death has occurred. Witness testimony has confirmed that doctors have participated in organ procurement before death, essentially making the act of removing the organ the cause of death. 

As I mentioned earlier, since organ donation is transactional, and human error is a possibility, there have been documented cases of tragic reports. A Kentucky man declared brain-dead later showed signs of life during organ retrieval surgery. The procedure was halted and is now under investigation. Investigators found over 70 such near-miss cases in Kentucky alone, and a national review revealed 103 cases of concern. 28 potentially involving organ recovery before death. 

These reports have sparked public outrage, as they well should. The US Department of Health and Human Services is now launching major reforms to ensure that organ procurement only happens after death is definitively and legally confirmed. Even one, singular instance of harvesting vital organs before confirmed death is beyond horrifying. There is actually a man alive today that awoke in a surgical facility and locked eyes with medical practitioners who were about to harvest his vital organs. Unthinkable... While human error in cases where highly trained technicians are involved is rare, it's still possible. Which means there will be cases where error happens. Another case where we have to try to protect ourselves from ourselves... 

Human Vulgarity...

In the news today was one of the most profoundly saddest stories I have ever read. And, as we say here in the US, it really 'hit home'. The Islamic State and affiliates are burning churches and beheading Christians in Africa's Mozambique and the Congo. It pains me to even write such a hideous thing. International observers are reporting these events, with some of the most brutal attacks occurring in the country of Mozambique. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), a counter- terrorism research nonprofit based in Washington DC, has descried this  as 'silent genocide' taking place against Christians. The Islamic State Mozambique Province recently released 20 photos boasting of four attacks on "Christian Villages" in the Chiure district, in Mozambique's northern Cabo Delgado province. 

MEMRI said the photos show ISIS operatives raiding villages and burning a church and homes. The images also allegedly depict the beheadings of a member of what the jihadists consider "infidel militias" and two Christian civilians. The rampaging jihadist groups celebrated the killings. There were also photos showing the corpses of several members of the so-called infidel militias according to the institute's report. 

This 'jihadism' taking place is actually Muslim activism gone awry. Islamic doctrine does not call for the annihilation of other religions. The Quran and classic Islamic law actually call for recognition of other monotheistic faiths. Judaism and Christianity are considered 'Ahl al-Kitab', "People of the Book". Historically, they were allowed to live under Muslim rule with certain rights and obligations. The Quran contains verses permitting religious diversity. "There is no compulsion in religion" -Quran 2:256, thought this is tied to other verses about religious conflict that are tied to specific historical events. However, there are verses that actually call for fighting, though they are typically connected to political or military conflicts of the 7th century, not an open-ended command to eradicate other religions. For centuries, non-Muslims often lived in Muslim lands paying a special tax but freely practicing their faith. 

The obvious explanation for what is happening in Africa, as well as in so many other places, is radical, extremist groups reinterpreting scripture to justify violence against all non-Muslims. Strangely, this is a modern militant ideology that doesn't reflect the historical position of Islamic jurisprudence. 

I chose the title of this article as I could not think of a more appropriate word to describe this atrocity than vulgarity. If you look up vulgar in the dictionary, you'll see such synonyms as crude, ribald, obscene, vile, depraved, and so on. This is beyond murder, this is savage slaughter. For me, this strikes at a personal level. Several years ago, I sent in a DNA sample to one of the labs that offered to give an elemental breakdown of one's heritage by country or region. From the stories of elders through the years, I had a pretty good idea of my cultural background, but I was sure there were some 'other details', so to speak. Indeed there was...Most of what I learned in the report was what I expected. One item was not. A small percentage of my bloodline is Congolese. I am, by most modern standards considered 'white'. Appearance-wise, I am as white as the clouds floating in a blue sky. My ancestral lineage includes the Congo. However small the proportion, it's there. The details of how it came to be I'll never know, only that it exists. 

Knowing that by bloodline, no matter how many generations ago, I am connected to the people of the Congo makes this even more impactful. That this is happening to Christians in Africa is beyond repulsive. It is base. It is a betrayal to humanity. It is an extreme of the savagery of nature. At this point we can only pray that some overpowering force, whether by man or God, will end this barbarism.  

It's a game of Inches...and so is life...

 Baseball is often referred to as a 'game of inches', owing to the fact that so many calls are so 'close'. That is, a runner and the throw arriving at a base at seemingly the same instant. Or a fielder leaping high against the outfield wall to make a catch and reaching over the top, nabbing a would-be home run. There's a lot of excitement in the game not to mention the tradition of more than two centuries of Americans watching and playing the game. It is also often intimated that many aspects of the game of baseball resemble life itself. I tend to agree with this philosophy and I'll give some examples. 

When my son was younger, we enrolled him in the local youth leagues when he was about six years old, give or take. He started out in T-ball, where the ball is placed on a "T", kind of like a very tall golf tee. The little sluggers would swing away. At six years of age, skills like dexterity, hand-eye coordination and strength are incipient, yet so endearing to watch. As the years began to roll by, our interest in watching him play never waned. In fact, when he was about ten, I took him to register for the season and was told the league was badly in need of coaches. He begged me to coach. I was, of course, reluctant as I had never coached any sport. In spite of loving the game of baseball, I just couldn't see myself as a coach. Five years later, I was an experienced baseball coach and had not only had learned a lot about baseball, but about life as well. It was to be some of the best years of my life. 

The rules of baseball are consistent for all ages. The only thing that changes are the dimensions of the field. Some of the traditions seen in the professional leagues find their way down to youngsters on a neighborhood field. Seeing a young boy, and his team jump in the air with excitement when a hit clears the outfield fence is unforgettable. His teammates rushing to the plate and slapping the hero's helmet is priceless. Teaching and coaching them to the point that they can accomplish such things is life-changing. 

Back to my point of baseball resembling life, allow me to give an example of that. Like practically every endeavor in life, some are going to excel and some aren't. Athletics and baseball are no exception. Even at an early age, some of the kids start showing signs of athletic talent. As they grew older, the more it obvious it becomes, even being able to play certain positions, and batting. They began to see for themselves where their strengths and abilities lie. As in life itself, we're all good at something, we just have to find where our niche is. And then go to it like the last monkey getting on Noah's Arc when it's beginning to rain. A big hurdle (and heartbreak) for kids, and adults as well, is when there is the desire is to do something that you don't quite have the ability to do. A lot of kids want to be a pitcher, the crowds focus on the pitcher. Everyone wants to be a star, and successful pitchers are indeed stars. Cy Young, Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, I doubt anyone reading this won't recognize any of those names. Honus Wagner, Cal Ripken Jr., Ozzie Smith, Ernie Banks, recognize any of those names? They're pretty famous, but shortstops.  If you're a die-hard baseball fan you probably do, otherwise you might not. What twelve year old boy wouldn't want to be like Nolan Ryan? But the unfortunate truth is very few athletes have what it takes to be a good pitcher, at any age. As it turned out, my son was one of those who did have the athletic talent to pitch. When he was fourteen years old, I wasn't coaching at the time, I witnessed him pitch a nine inning no-hitter. It was an experience I could never forget in my lifetime. We spent countless afternoons on the field practicing, him pitching and me catching. I actually became a decent catcher in my forties. Pretty remarkable considering I was not a good baseball player when I was his age. Catching his pitches that were in the 80mph range, I was OK. When they started to reach into the 90mph range I knew I was near retiring. But I wouldn't trade those days for anything. As I coached him through the years in developing his pitching skills, I recall telling him that to be a good pitcher, I mean a really good pitcher, you have to want it. You have to want it in your heart and your soul. Then, then, you work at it until it happens, and giving up is not an option. That perspective, I believe would apply to just about any endeavor in life. 

There are other ways to point out the resemblance of baseball to life. My favorites are some of Yogi Berra's quotes. "It's not over until it's over." Who hasn't heard that, or even said it at times? "It's like deja vu, all over again. When you come to a fork in the road, take it. You can observe a lot by just watching. Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. Baseball is 90% mental, the other half is physical." 

Baseball remarkably resembles life. Or is it the other way around?