Posted by: N.S. Palmer | March 10, 2010

Dershowitz and the Right to Counsel

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Today’s New York Times has a forum about the Cheney gang’s attempt to demonize lawyers who represented accused terrorists during the Bush-Cheney era.

Before reading the exchange, I noticed that Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was one of the participants. I wondered what position he would take.

In the past, he’s represented unpopular clients such as Claus von Bulow and has argued vigorously for their right to counsel — a right which is long established in European and American law. He’s also smart enough to recognize the stark contradiction between those facts and the Cheney gang’s propaganda campaign.

At the same time, Dershowitz is in the neoconservative orbit and could be expected to support anything for a war either against Islam or against those whom he perceives as Israel’s adversaries. In the United States, “accused terrorist” has been seen as roughly synonymous with “accused Muslim,” so it’s not much of a stretch.

In the end, Dershowitz did not disappoint. He acknowledged that accused terrorists, including sympathizers and “fellow travelers” (look it up), had a right to legal counsel. But he then drew a moral equivalence between providing legal counsel to suspects and providing legal cover to the Bush-Cheney regime for torturing prisoners. Providing the latter is the same kind of war crime for which Nazi judges were tried at Nuremberg and sentenced to long prison terms.

Give Dershowitz credit: He’s an advocate. No matter how immoral or irrational his position, he’ll argue it well.


Copyright 2010 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | February 20, 2010

War Criminals Go Free — Again

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Surprise, surprise: Today’s New York Times reports that the U.S. Justice Department has given only a slap on the wrist to John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the Bush-Cheney regime lawyers whose “torture memos” provided specious legal cover for violation of U.S. and international law.

Yoo and Bybee’s work not only tried to justify torture of prisoners. It also committed torture: against logic, human decency and — most relevant — against both statutory law and legal precedent.

Yoo is now a (much-protested) law professor at the University of California / Berkeley. Bybee is a federal judge, appointed to the post by the Bush-Cheney regime.

Ethics lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) concluded that Yoo and Bybee had

… ignored legal precedents and provided slipshod legal advice to the White House in possible violation of international and federal laws on torture.

The OPR recommended that Yoo and Bybee be cited for “professional misconduct,” which could have led to the revocation of their licenses to practice law.

However, David Margolis, associate deputy attorney general, overruled the OPR’s recommendations, which were already far too mild. As a result, the official Justice Department report (PDF) cited the two war criminals only for “poor judgment.”

Thus, the Obama administration once again let the psychopathic monsters of the Bush-Cheney regime (starting with Bush and Cheney themselves) escape justice.

In 1947, German jurists who had provided similar legal apologetics for the Nazi regime were tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, were convicted, and served long prison terms. As a result of the Justice Department’s whitewash, Yoo and Bybee won’t even suffer the loss of their law licenses.

Republicans try to frighten the uninformed by painting Obama as a wild-eyed leftist (as well as a Kenyan Socialist Muslim), but there’s no indication he’s anything but a slightly less vicious, considerably more intelligent version of his predecessor.

From his continued support for Bush-Cheney policies that benefit Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, to his continuation of the Bush-Cheney regime’s Afghanistan occupation, to his complete lack of leadership on issues such as jobs and health care reform that would benefit working Americans, Obama is starting to look very much like “Bush-lite.”

And that is not “change we can believe in.”


Copyright 2010 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | January 8, 2010

Who Was on the No-Fly List

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

The “no-fly list” established by the Bush-Cheney regime in December 2001 was supposedly meant to stop terrorists from boarding U.S. commercial airplanes.

It can undoubtedly be used for that purpose, even if it’s ineffective and oppressive.

But it’s worth taking a moment to remember some of the people who were and were not on the no-fly list. It seems that the list can be used for other purposes unrelated to airplane security.

Not on the no-fly list

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused Christmas 2009 "pants bomber."

On the no-fly list

U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA, 1932-2009)

  • The late Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), a U.S. Senator since the 1960s and a Democratic critic of the Bush-Cheney regime.
  • Dr. Robert J. Johnson, a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel who was running for Congress as a Democrat.
  • Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), a civil rights advocate.
  • Walter F. Murphy, an ex-Marine decorated for heroism in the Korean War and now a political science professor at Princeton.  Murphy reported that the airline employee who refused to let him board asked if he had participated in any peace marches against the war on Iraq: “We ban a lot of people from flying because of that,” the employee said. Murphy had not, but he had criticized the Bush-Cheney regime in a lecture that was posted on the Web.
  • Jesselyn Radack, a former ethics advisor to the U.S. Justice Department who had argued for allowing legal representation to U.S. citizen John Lindh, captured in Afghanistan and accused of fighting for the Taliban.
  • Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa.
  • Cat Stevens, a popular singer who converted to Islam.

Given that the no-fly list is fairly simple for real terrorists to evade (as noted by security expert Bruce Schneier), one has to wonder why it exists at all.

Or perhaps one doesn’t have to wonder.


Copyright 2010 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | December 31, 2009

The Most Beautiful Song Ever

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

My computer is currently playing what I consider the most beautiful song ever.

It’s my all-time favorite: “Die Kraft Der Liebe” (The Power of Love) sung in German by Dutch songstress Dana Winner. It’s one of the songs on Ms. Winner’s CD, “Wo Ist Das Gefuhl?” (Where Is The Feeling?).

The song has the melody of Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in A (K.622), second movement: the kind of hopelessly retro, breathtakingly poignant music that American pop singers would never touch and American music companies would never publish.

Winner has a voice like an angel: clear, strong, and perfectly on key. Her German is clear and easy to understand, perhaps because she is Dutch and trying harder than a native German speaker to pronounce everything precisely.

Oddly, I couldn’t find the lyrics on the Web. One Web site said that it had to take down the lyrics “for copyright reasons.” That’s pretty interesting: Apparently, you can’t even tell anyone what the lyrics are without getting threatened by some corporation’s legal department. I’ll see if I can get away with telling you a little bit of them:

Jetzt und hier, steh ich vor deiner Tur (Now and here, I stand before your door)
Lang hab ich davon getraumt (Long have I dreamed of it)
So stark, zu sein wie Heut, (To be as strong as I feel on this day)
Nur durch die Kraft der Liebe ganz allein. (Only through the power of love, all by itself.)

Und endlich kommt die Zeit (And finally comes the moment)
Fur diesen Weg zuzweit (For this path together as a couple)
Erlosen wir die Dunkelheit (And we are freed from the darkness)
Durch nichts als die Kraft der Liebe. (Through nothing but the power of love.)

Just from the lyrics, you can’t imagine the soulful yearning of the song, the haunting beauty of Mozart’s melody, or the delight of hearing Ms. Winner’s voice. I wish you could. But if you have any love for music — and by “music,” I mean actual music, not the kind of “floor show with soundtrack” that passes for music these days — you might try downloading the song from some legal outlet.

I’m not endorsing iTunes, but here’s the link to its page for the song if you want to click the page’s Preview button and listen to a sample.


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | December 29, 2009

Doublethinking About Terrorism

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Today’s New York Times chronicles the American government’s quest for ever-more-intrusive airport security systems. The ostensible purpose is to thwart terrorists and wannabes like last week’s Nigerian “pants bomber.”

But what if the solution to terrorism is much simpler?

The fact is that Americans suffer from classic “doublethink” about terrorism.

Doublethink, a term coined in George Orwell’s novel 1984, is the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time while ignoring the contradiction.

Even if they watch Fox News, most Americans know that their government bombs people and sponsors repressive regimes all over the world. At the same time, they believe that America just minds its own business in the world, never bothers anyone, and certainly doesn’t do anything to make people hate us and want to attack us.

As a result, they are completely baffled by acts of terrorism. They think that terrorists are irrationally hostile toward the United States and the Western way of life, and that nothing short of an impenetrable security system can stop them from attacking us.

And because there’s no such thing as an impenetrable security system, the result is a never-ending parade of more oppressive and intrusive security procedures. And more billions of taxpayer dollars wasted. And more freedom taken away (for our own good, as always).

The solution to terrorism is not to shovel more and more tax money into boondoggles such as the Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, nor to let the government wiretap everyone, nor to lock Americans into their houses and let them out only under police supervision.

The solution is to stop bombing wedding parties and to tell local dictators that they’re on their own.


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | December 15, 2009

Matthew Arnold on Empathy and Atheism

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Matthew Arnold? Who’s that? Didn’t he play a character on the TV series “Roseanne”?

Nope, that’s a different Arnold. As far as I know, they’re not related. Actor Tom Arnold, who appeared on “Roseanne,” is funnier but has said little about the human condition.

Matthew Arnold

Matthew Arnold was a 19th-century English poet and social critic who has a lot to say that illuminates our current problems. In his day, he was most famous as a poet, being considered the third-best poet of the 19th century, right after Tennyson and Browning. His other claim to fame was as a son of Thomas Arnold, the real-life headmaster of England’s Rugby School who was fictionalized in the popular 1857 novel Tom Brown’s Schooldays and makes a cameo appearance in the 1969 novel Flashman.

Today, most people read almost nothing that was written before last month, let alone before they were born. As a result, they have no inkling that the furious debates they hear every day are pretty old stuff.

The same issues and arguments arise in society after society, century after century. They arise because they come not from technology or any unique conditions of the present era, but from human nature and the nature of human society. Those things don’t change.

Matthew Arnold on Empathy for Others

There’s a joke about the run-up to the Bush-Cheney regime’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell are sitting in a tavern. Rumsfeld says to the bartender, “We’ve decided. We’re going to kill a million Iraqis and Britney Spears.” The bartender, in horror, gasps “Why are you going to kill Britney Spears?” Rumsfeld laughs and turns to Powell triumphantly. “See? I told you that nobody would care about the million Iraqis.”

Matthew Arnold would understand that joke.

In his book Culture and Anarchy, Arnold describes how Englishmen of his time viewed other races and nationalities:

It never was any part of our creed that the great right and blessedness of an Irishman or, indeed, of anybody on earth except an Englishman, is to do as he likes. And we can have no scruple at all about abridging, if necessary, a non-Englishman’s assertion of personal liberty. The British Constitution, its checks, and its prime virtues, are for Englishmen. We may extend them to others out of love and kindness, but we find no real divine law written on our hearts constraining us so to extend them.

In other words, we reserve our empathy mainly for our relatives, our group, and our nationality. Anyone outside those groups is a second-class citizen of the human race.

We wouldn’t explicitly think of them — whether “they” are Irish, African, Arab, Muslim, or members of some other group — as sub-human, undeserving of compassion or human rights, but that’s how our baser selves feel about them. That’s why we instinctively recoil at the suggestion of killing Britney Spears but are less troubled, at least on a gut level, with the idea of killing a million “foreign devils” who look different from us, who speak an unintelligible language, and who follow a “heathen religion.”

Matthew Arnold had never heard of sociobiology or kin selection, because in his time those theories hadn’t been invented. But he would have understood their basic idea: We tend to help those who are genetically related to us. We regard with suspicion anyone who is not so related. The closer the relation, the greater the emotional bond, so people in the same family have the greatest loyalty to each other. People in the same group or nationality, though more distantly related, are more likely to share genes than people in different groups or nationalities. Hence, they regard “their own” people as having human rights, but are ready to attack and kill “the other” people.

Later in the same essay, Arnold wrote:

And then the difference between an Irish Fenian and an English rough is so immense … [The Irish] is so evidently desperate and dangerous, a man of a conquered race, a Papist, with centuries of ill-usage to inflame him against us … with no admiration of our institutions, no love of our virtues, no talents for our business, no turn for our comfort!

A few substitutions can bring that passage up to date:

And then the difference between an Arab and an American is so immense … [The Arab] is so evidently desperate and dangerous, a man of a conquered race, a Muslim, with centuries of ill-usage to inflame him against us … with no admiration of our institutions, no love of our virtues, no talents for our business, no turn for our comfort!

As the popular saying goes, S-S-D-D: “Same stuff, different day.”

Atheists on the Warpath

It’s Christmas time, and that means one thing: Atheists are on the warpath. Again.

According to Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, their message of Christmas cheer is

… just to say that you can be good without God, so their atheist neighbor down the street shouldn’t be vilified as though he is immoral.

Also, of course, if you believe in God, they think you’re a gullible fool. Either that, or you’re so terrified of death that your reason has deserted you and you’ve taken refuge in childish fairy tales.

But let’s get back to Mr. Speckman’s point. Matthew Arnold had a fair amount to say on the subject. He was no secular humanist, but by 19th-century Victorian standards, he was quite a freethinker. He was frankly sceptical about the Biblical stories of miracles, but he didn’t want to get rid of the Bible or belief in God. He just wanted to reinterpret them in ways he thought were compatible with modern science. So atheists find him congenial in a lot of ways.

However, unlike contemporary atheists, Arnold recognized the great value of faith in God and in a transcendent moral order to which we are all accountable. He writes about Christianity, but his remarks apply to any theistic religion (such as Judaism) that includes a strong and enlightened moral code. In his book God and the Bible, Arnold writes:

At the present moment, two things about the Christian religion must surely be clear to anybody with eyes in his head. One is, that men cannot do without it; the other, that they cannot do with it as it is.

Nobody with eyes in his head claims that an atheist can’t be a good person. It’s just more difficult to be a good person when one believes that there is no transcendent moral order and that one will never be called to account for one’s misdeeds. Life is hard enough for most people. Why make it harder for them by taking away beliefs that reinforce their conscience and strengthen their better selves? Psychology, history, and common sense testify in unison on behalf of Bible-based religion.

Thus, whether true or not, the Bible and theistic religion are socially beneficial. Given that there are also persuasive (though not conclusive) reasons for believing them to be true, it becomes, in the words of George Bush’s CIA director, a “slam dunk.”

Freethinker that he was, Arnold was also too smart to believe that we can safely ignore history and human experience that show the value of faith in God. In that respect, he was a conservative. Another passage in God and the Bible reads like a description of today’s fashionable atheists:

Only when one is young and headstrong can one thus prefer bravado to experience, can one stand by the Sea of Time, and instead of listening to the solemn and rhythmical beat of its waves, choose to fill the air with one’s own whoopings to start the echo.


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | December 13, 2009

Bush-ism with a Human Face

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Waaaay back in the 1960s — yes, during that tiresome decade of Woodstock and flower power and Vietnam — something remarkable happened in Czechoslovakia.

From the end of World War II in 1945 until 1989, Czechoslovakia was dominated by the Soviet Union, which was the 20th-century’s nom de voyage for the Russian Empire. Its official ideology was communism. Its official governing method was oppression.

In 1968, a reformer named Alexander Dubček became leader of the Czech Communist Party, which was the country’s ruling party. He wanted to keep the egalitarian goals of communism (such as equality and social welfare) but get rid of its oppressive aspects. His government allowed free speech, including open dissent from government policies. He reined in the secret police.

Dubček called his movement “communism with a human face.”

Naturally, the Russians couldn’t allow it. They invaded Czechoslovakia and put an end to that experiment.

How little things have changed. In 2009 under President Obama, the United States is now being treated to “Bush-ism with a human face.”

One must admit that it is a slight improvement. Instead of having to endure the smirking, murderous, simian countenance of Dubya Bush, we now hear very similar policies from the serious, calm, intelligent visage of President Obama. It cuts the nausea factor by quite a bit. It’s been months since I threw my shoes at the TV set.

But it’s still Bush-ism: Bail out the Wall Street sharks who wrecked the economy, but not the unemployed whose jobs and lives the Wall Streeters destroyed. Sell out health care reform to the in$urance companies, the drug companies, and their hired lackeys in Congress. Crank up the war against Afghanistan. Slow down the exit from Iraq. Beat the drums about largely imaginary terrorist threats. Provide legal defense for the Bush regime’s chief torture apologist, John Yoo. Leave in place the instruments of oppression established by the Bush regime, such as the Transportation Security Agency, no-fly lists, warrantless wiretapping, and the Department of Homeland Security: instruments that never stopped a real terrorist threat, but hyped plenty of fake ones and beat down the American people into cowed submission lest they be put on a “watch list.”

An article in today’s New York Times recalls the worst paranoia and propaganda of the Bush years, when hapless loudmouths and street thugs were framed as dangerous terrorists. The Times article, “Domestic Insecurity,” uses the same weasel-words that we saw over and over in propaganda from the Bush-Cheney regime: the supposed terrorists were “accused of being drawn into terrorist scheming,” “accused of helping plan the killing spree in Mumbai,” “accused of going to Pakistan for explosives training,” and they “allegedly participated in a rocket attack against U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”

Anyone can be accused of anything, and since the Bush-Cheney regime’s signature event of 9/11, they have been. Jose Padilla was accused of plotting to explode a “dirty bomb,” and was then tortured in an unsuccessful attempt to get any evidence at all that would implicate him in such a plot. The “Miami Seven,” who couldn’t have assembled a bomb even if they’d bought it “ready to assemble” at Wal-Mart, were led by an FBI agent provocateur to take an “oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda” before being framed for a virtually non-existent plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. There are many more such cases.

Are any of our current “accused people” actually guilty of anything? The Bush years taught us to doubt it. The Obama administration hasn’t given us good reasons not to doubt it.

I still believe that President Obama is trying to do the right things. The problem is that he’s not trying very hard. Instead, he’s “going with the flow.” Since 2001 (and even before that, to a lesser degree), the flow has been in the wrong direction.


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | December 2, 2009

A Great Man Leaves Us

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

Robert W. Palmer, M.D.

Dad

I remember a lot of things about my father, who passed away on November 28.

When I was a child, Dad liked to watch “the Friday night fights” (professional boxing) on television. While he watched, he drank a beer or two: usually Budweiser, “the king of beers.” Occasionally he drank Wiedemann beer, though he later avowed that it was “awful stuff.”

Saturday mornings, I took charge of the television to watch “The Three Stooges,” a slapstick comedy team from the 1930s and 1940s whose antics I still enjoy on DVD. Dad was usually in the kitchen, adjacent to the TV room, cooking pancakes for the family. He enjoyed listening to the Three Stooges because of all the sound effects they made as they punched each other and poked each other in the eyes (don’t try that at home, kids).

Every Christmas, Dad dressed up as Santa to distribute presents to the children in the pediatrics ward of Methodist Hospital, where he was chief resident physician. Even though I wasn’t a patient in the hospital, I attended the big Christmas party where he gave out presents. I felt as if I was in on a big secret: The one handing out the presents wasn’t really Santa, he was my father.

On Christmas Eve, most children and their parents leave cookies and milk for Santa Claus in case he’s hungry when he visits. At my house, we left cookies and beer. Budweiser, the king of beers. I was starting to get suspicious about the Santa story.

When I played baseball in Little League and wanted to be a pitcher, Dad built a pitching mound for me in our backyard. On the side of the house, he painted a circle so that I could practice throwing accurately into the center of the circle. Dad had opened his own medical office by then, and his secretary was married to one of the players for the Indianapolis Indians baseball team. From the player, Dad got a major-league baseball bat that had been used in several games, and gave it to me. It was almost as big as I was, but it gave me extra confidence as I dragged it onto the Little League field to the awe of the other children. Dad was also a popular umpire for Little League games, partly because of his fairness, partly because of his knowledge of baseball, and partly because of his zany theatrics as an umpire.

Those are cherished memories, but they’re the kind of memories that many sons have of their fathers. I want to tell you about the man himself.

Aristotle recommended “moderation in all things.” The Buddha said that we should follow “the middle way.”

Neither of them ever met Dad. He was not a man of the middle way. His philosophy was more akin to that of Jesus, who said that if someone wanted our coat, we should give him our cloak as well; and if someone wanted us to go a mile, we should go two miles.

Whatever Dad did in life, he threw himself into it fully and without reservation. As a soldier, as a student, as a doctor, as a husband, father, and grandfather, as a civic leader, or just as a man, in baseball or golf or singing, he didn’t go just one mile. He didn’t go just two miles. He’d always go at least three, or four, or however many it took. And when he finally had to leave us, he did so on his own terms. As much as any man can be in control of his own destiny, he remained in control of his until the very end.

His total commitment applied to his moral beliefs and conduct as well. He wasn’t a perfect person: none of us is. He didn’t get everything right the first time. But whenever he became convinced that he’d been wrong about something — in belief, attitude, or action — he moved heaven and earth to do better and to get it right.

That’s part of the reason he was more than just a good man: he was a great man. His life and example continue to inspire us and enrich our community.

The night before Dad left us, I was at Starbucks writing an article — working, as Dad would have wanted — when my brother Dave called me on my cell phone. He told me that he had just come from Dad’s hospital room, and if I had anything else I wanted to say to Dad, now was the time to do it. I told Dave that Dad and I were lucky to have settled all our outstanding issues 10 years ago. I had been to the hospital every day for two weeks, including earlier that same day. We had said everything that needed to be said. And I went back to writing.

But then I stopped writing. I got up and drove to the hospital. There were two more things I needed to say to him.

I stood by his bedside and looked at the man who had taught me so much. And I said:

“I’m sorry that I am not a better man.”

I’m no worse than most people, and probably better than some. But no matter how long I live, and no matter how much I achieve, I know that I will never be the man my father was.

I took Dad’s hand. And I said:

“I will see you again someday.”


Community Hospital Annual Diagnosis Awards

Each year, the hospital gave an award to the doctor with the highest percentage of correct diagnoses. Dad won the award year after year, until the hospital finally declared him "permanent champion."

What’s not in the official obituary:

  • As a doctor, Dad made house calls and charged $35.
  • He was almost never late. If you had an appointment with him at nine o’clock, you saw him at nine o’clock unless you were late.
  • He had only one examining room and saw only one patient at a time. As a result, he made less money than most doctors but gave his patients better care.
  • He was much in demand as a diagnostician. When other doctors couldn’t figure out what was wrong with a patient, they called Dad. He was like the TV doctor “House” except that he didn’t need a cane, he didn’t need a “team,” and he was always kind to patients.
  • When he was chief resident at Methodist Hospital, he dressed up each Christmas as Santa Claus to distribute presents to the children in the pediatrics ward.
  • Though he was a scientist, he believed in the personal and spiritual side of medical practice. He thought it was just as important to care for his patients as people as it was to give them the right drugs.
  • If he had a fault, it was that he believed all doctors (and all Republicans) were as dedicated, honest, and conscientious as he was.
  • He provided a moral example that I still struggle to follow.

Robert W. Palmer, M.D., born 1922, passed away after a brief illness.

Dad was born in the small town of Tyler, Minnesota in the United States, son of the Rev. Roy Palmer and Cassie O’Camic Palmer. He grew up in Waterville, Minnesota. He had three brothers and two sisters. As a youth, he was a talented athlete in football, baseball, and basketball, and a successful Golden Gloves boxer.

When the United States entered World War II, he enlisted in the Army Air Corps and became a B-24 bomber pilot in the South Pacific. He flew 76 combat missions, became a squadron commander, rose to the rank of Major, and was decorated repeatedly for heroism.

After the war, he used the G.I. Bill to enroll in Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he graduated with honors three years later. While visiting a friend in upstate New York during his senior year, he made an impromptu Saturday morning visit to the University of Rochester Medical School. There, he encountered an elderly gentleman who gave him a tour and asked him questions about his background. After the tour, the man asked Dad if he wanted to enroll. When Dad said that he doubted he could gain admission, the man revealed that he was Dr. George Whipple, a Nobel prize-winning medical researcher and dean of the medical school. He told Dad that his application was accepted. Dad enrolled the next year and earned his M.D. in 1953.

He moved in 1956 to Indianapolis, Indiana. There, he became chief resident physician at Methodist Hospital, a post later held by one of my brothers, Steven. He entered private practice as an internist in 1960 and retired in 2003, though he continued to serve as staff physician for Meals on Wheels.  He was affiliated for most of his career with Community Hospital, where he served on the board of directors and established the family medicine residency program.  He was also assistant professor of clinical medicine for the Indiana University School of Medicine. He was elected to the Fellowship of Distinguished Physicians of Community Hospital in 1991.

Dad was active in many civic and charitable causes. He was president of the Lawrence Township School Board, president of All Souls Unitarian Church, and a founder of the World War II Roundtable. He was an active member of the Service Club of Indianapolis and the American Legion, as well as a volunteer at the Indiana State Museum and a driver for Meals on Wheels.

Link: A 1988 interview that I did with my father about his life.


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | November 30, 2009

Dubya Did Us a Favor

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

It’s time to “give the devil his due.” I hereby admit that President George W. Bush did the American people a favor. Just one.

It was a very small favor, of course. And as with all favors bestowed by the Bush crime family, it wasn’t free. We paid at least 10 times the retail price for it. But still.

What was the favor? It’s summed up in this article from today’s New York Times: “Food Stamp Use Soars, and Stigma Fades.”

By looting and wrecking the economy, throwing millions of people out of work, Dubya and his cronies cured Americans of the idea that only the shiftless and incompetent could be unemployed. They shattered the popular nostrum that we are masters of our own destiny, and that if the world comes crashing down on our heads, it’s because we didn’t work hard enough or didn’t think positively enough. They reminded Americans that a “social safety net” is there for a reason; and that if their neighbors need food stamps today, they themselves might need food stamps tomorrow.

It’s not the first time Americans have needed and received this kind of wake-up call. The Great Depression of 1929-1941 had the same effect. It convinced Americans for the first time that poor relief and promoting full employment were legitimate functions of government.

The U.S. population originally consisted mainly of English immigrants. With them, they brought the legal practices and the social attitudes of their mother country. In 19th century America, workhouses were common and the poor were stigmatized just as they had been in England. Echoing the views embodied in the English poor laws of 1834, American writer Josephine Lowell argued that poor relief should be provided only in workhouses and only under conditions so unpleasant as to discourage anyone from taking it:

“We have already accepted the postulate that the community should save every one of its members from starvation, no matter how low or depraved such member may be, but we contend that the necessary relief should be surrounded by circumstances that shall not only repel everyone not in extremity from accepting it, but [that] … discipline and education should be inseparably associated with any system of public relief.” [Lowell, 1884, reprinted in Mink, Gwendolyn and Solinger, Rickie, Welfare: A Documentary History of U.S. Policy and Politics. New York: New York University Press, 2003.]

Notice Ms. Lowell’s belief, quite common both in her time and before the latest Bush recession*, that people are poor because they are “low and depraved.” Conversely, both Ms. Lowell and today’s Wall Street “masters of the universe” believe that people are rich because they are high and virtuous. Neither belief has much validity.

During the Great Depression, almost a third of the American workforce became unemployed. We’re not there yet, and the Obama administration’s halfway measures might well prevent the worst. But we’re in pretty dire straits. From 1929-40, hard times tutored Americans in the idea that poverty was not necessarily a result of laziness or sin. As a result, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt could persuade Congress to enact an array of programs that formed the foundation of the American welfare state:

  • The Social Security Act (1935): Together with amendments passed in 1939, this provided aid for several different groups, including retirees (Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance) and children (Aid to Dependent Children, later renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children).
  • Unemployment compensation to help individuals who lost their jobs.
  • Subsidies for medical care of poor families.
  • Public-works jobs through the Public Works Administration (1933), Civilian Conservation Corps, and other agencies.
  • Direct cash grants to states for poor relief under the Federal Emergency Relief Act (1933).
  • Construction of public housing for the poor under the National Housing Act (1937).

After World War II, the Great Depression faded from memory and Americans once again became ambivalent about welfare programs. Social Security remained the linchpin of the welfare state, thus becoming a target of those who saw welfare as illegitimate.

In 1933, President Roosevelt told Americans that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

In 2009, the only things we have to fear are Democratic timidity and Republican obstructionism.

We can only hope that the need for economic recovery before the 2010 elections, plus Roosevelt’s example, will make the Obama administration more courageous and aggressive in fighting for the rights and jobs of ordinary Americans.
________________________________
*George H.W. Bush, president from 1989-1993, also caused a recession in the early 1990s. He could have done it earlier if John Hinckley, son of a Bush financial backer, had succeeded in his 1981 attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, making then-vice-president Bush president. In the Wikipedia article, see the section on “Bush-Hinckley Family Connections.”


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

 

Posted by: N.S. Palmer | November 27, 2009

My Most Popular Blog Article

By N.S. Palmer, Ph.D.

It’s interesting that my most popular blog article is not about Obama, Bush, politics, science, economics, or philosophy. It’s about newspapers: “Why Subscribe to a Print Newspaper?”

I wrote that article in March of 2009 and it still gets from five to 25 views a day.

Quite a few people are still interested in newspapers.  Because I think newspapers are important, that gives me hope for the future.


Copyright 2009 by N.S. Palmer. May be reproduced as long as byline, copyright notice, and URL (http://www.ashesblog.com) are included.

 

Older Posts »

Categories