Today's topic is honour. Or lack thereof.
But before we get there -- thanks to all of you who called and wrote with your blood types....
And -- tomorrow is the next stage of the Iowa caucuses -- DCW says that John Edwards may do better than expected.
So now, on to honour, and our first contestant is John McCain.
McCain released his tax returns last week, but I didn't have time to read them. Well, now I've found the time. First, as everyone probably knows, John and Cindy file separately. Therefore, we don't know anything about the $100 MILLION Cindy is sitting on. I can let that pass. No, I can't: she claimed she kept her numbers quiet "to protect her children's privacy." And then it turns out that the largest part of their joint charitable contributions went to the private schools the McCain children attend.
We're going to skip the stolen recipes Cindy McCain posted as her own on the McCain campaign website (actually courtesy of the Food Network) and move on to John McCain's Disability Pension. I did not make this up.
John received $58,358 from the Navy as a disability pension for injuries sustained in the Vietnam War. This money is 100% tax free because of the 'severity' of the injuries. Data from the McCain Senate staff, reported here.
Now, if he is truly disabled, he deserves the pension. But if he is truly disabled, how does he claim to be in excellent health? In general, one gets a disability pension NOT as an honorarium, but because one is unfit to undertake their job. GOVERNMENT pensions are for people who cannot do ANY job. At least, that's how it works for the SSA pensions. I recently read the rules, and you lose the pension if you can go back to work. There might be something different about military pensions -- but I guess my follow-up question would be: How come John McCain gets one which is triple what SSA pays, and while 25% of the Iraq War vets are homeless? 60 grand is a lot of money when you remember that median income in America is in the 40's depending on whose count you believe -- although they are all in the $40's.
Does anyone else think McCain should pick one? Either -- "My wife is worth $100 million dollars, and I make decent money as a Senator, and therefore I'll return my Social Security pension, and my Navy disability pay, since I don't need it." (You know, like dollar-a-year men, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jon Corzine). Or perhaps: "I'm qualified to be Commander in Chief because I'm in great shape, and therefore, I don't need a disability pension."
I could overlook it all if McCain was not opposed to increasing the GI Bill for current vets, and in favour of waterboarding. (Yes, I have the source: look at his vote list from the current Congress).
Our second contestant is Hillary Clinton.
Today, in North Carolina, the State GOP is going to start running Jesse Helms-style TV ads. (If you don't know who Jesse Helms was, look at the pictures in the dictionary next to the word "racist"). Source: North Carolina state GOP http://www.ncgop.org/home/index.asp (It's the story called "Extreme").
They are running the ad for downticket pull -- and they have a long history of ugliness like this. Here is the 1990 Jesse Helms ad: http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1990.html
And I understand this -- fear sells, and this is hardball politics.
BUT -- people of conscience need to condemn things like this. Which John McCain did. The Clinton camp was asked to do so also, and they have remained uncharacteristically silent. The Big Tent -- the Democratic Party -- we do NOT condone this sort of ugliness. Wait, I’m sorry, I forgot, the Clinton camp has demoted Mark Penn and is now using the Karl Rove playbook.....sorry, really, I forgot.
And our final contestant today is sort of amorphous. Back in 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. (For details, Google “1993 WTC bombing" and then skip Wikipedia because it is NOT a real source). Back in 1993, I spent a fair amount of time listening to people say that if the Clinton administration did nothing, this would happen again. They said that this was just the start, that the Arab extremists were coming for America and we needed to prepare. NO ONE listened.
We'll come back to this, but first, a little semantic sideline: when I was in practice, I had a patient who had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, BAD cardiac arteries, and a few other things. I told him that he needed to cut back on the 2 packs a day he was smoking, cut out the after-dinner stogie, quit drinking, and modify the diet he was on, which consisted of meat, pasta, wine, coffee, and not much else. He refused things like fruit and veggies, with the exception of tomato gravy. He told me that life wouldn't be worth living without all that stuff. I sat by his hospital bed the night he died. My semantic question: is it his fault that he died of a heart attack? Should he be blamed? I don't have an answer although I believe we make the choices we make, and we pay the consequences. But there are some who would say it was his fault.
Back to the WTC. The alarmists were right. Arab extremists (the same Kuwaitis and Saudis and NOT the Iraqis) came back in 2001 and killed 3,000 Americans. Is this the fault of the American government? Should they be blamed? If you think the government is culpable, then PLEASE quit blaming Jeremiah Wright for saying that 9/11 was the fault of the government, that they brought this upon us. You can keep at him for the "G-ddamn America" comment, but let this one go.
And before we leave the religious zealots: Hagee, Hagee, Hagee. He has called Catholicism "the great whore", he has said Katrina was because of a gay pride parade, has choice comments on women (sample, "What's the difference between a snarling Doberman and a woman with PMS? Lipstick")
and is an all-around bigot. I don't blame McCain for soliciting Hagee's endorsement, but why does anyone put up with thinking what Hagee says is okay? Gotta ask -- is it because John Hagee is white, and white racism is okay, while anything from a black is anti-American? Does the MSM ignore him because it is not divisive ENOUGH?