Just one Hillary Clinton Criticism

Every day the politics of this country become more and more inane. I think it is time I begin writing about it, because even if no one else ever reads what I write, I will have the satisfaction of purging some of the raging feelings politics in 2015.

Just one Hillary Clinton criticism
So much negativity is being said about Hillary Clinton, even from people who have and should support her. I believe it is time for a woman to occupy the White House. Hillary is the woman who can get it done because becoming President of the United States isn't a walk in the park. It takes experience, tenacity, intellect, and so much more, including guts. It has been interesting to watch the evolution of Hillary since her early days as First Lady. She has matured into a power house of knowledge about the world, the government, the voters, and above all her opponents. She has come a long way from baking cookies in the White House kitchen just to prove a point, to the politically-savvy woman she is today. Hillary is qualified to be the Commander and Chief of this country for many reasons, but most of all, because she's been through the fire and come out the other side. She is stronger, smarter, and more able to fend off her foes. This race will be interesting to watch.

In trying to satisfy my urge to communicate through Facebook posts, I found that to no longer suffice. There seems to be so much that needs saying these days. Besides, I just can't help myself. 

I was inspired by a Facebook meme I saw this morning depicting Hillary Clinton talking to Henry Kissinger. It was apparently a piece by Reverb Press, an online news and lifestyle magazine, entitled "Why Did a War Criminal Advise Clinton For Years?" In it, a litany of questions were asked about which of his policies she supports.

I'd like to know why is there an assumption that she supports any of them. 

This publication appears to have a liberal slant, but it could have come from the other side just as easily. 

The piece outlines how the dastardly Kissinger enabled Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and protected Chilean dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. 

"We know thanks to the posted emails from the Clinton server that she was in regular contact with Kissinger," the webzine stated, adding, "We know that she considers him a friend thanks to her review of his book last year."

The assumptions are troubling, but what really troubles me is the conclusion, "That Clinton would willingly interact with the man who engineered the genocide in Bangladesh should give us all pause."

These kinds of assumptions harm our politics, malign good people, and rev up a frenzy among unintelligent, non-thinking, reactionary masses of people who hate Hillary Clinton for whatever is their reason du jour.

Can't we just stop it? It is so frustrating to see such jump-to-conclusion journalism with nothing to back it up but assumptions. I'd personally like to see the motive behind these allegations that somehow Hillary has a mutual agreement with Henry Kissinger just because of a few past interactions. The reality is that this woman was the Secretary of State, charged with the handling of all the foreign affairs of this country. She has to interact with everyone who may provide insight, information, or informed opinion available to her. That can't be an easy task, given the climate in today's world filled with so much upheaval, particularly when it comes to the Middle East. I'm sure it is a bitter pill to take, to have to talk to people you agree or disagree with on a regular basis. But that is how it is done! Keep your friends close; your enemies closer. 

Whatever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt, trusting in judgement, refusal to burn bridges, and recognizing that Regular Joe just isn't privy to all the information needed to make an informed opinion on this or any subject. The point is that to run a country, or in Clinton's case, to manage its international affairs, all the information available is not just fair game, but may be vital and necessary. To discount any one person or bit of data or factual truth is to fail. To do the best you can, which is all I believe Hillary Clinton ever did in any job she has ever or will ever hold, there can be no less. 

To make a real judgement, it takes facts, as many as can be obtained, from all angles. I would expect nothing less of her than to seek out friends, enemies, and all parties involved in decision-making before a rush to judgement is ever made. Decisions must be products of calculated thought without speculation.

Regular Joe doesn't seem to get that. And stringing words together does not a journalist make. Regular Joe doesn't get that either. Too many people are believing too many things that simply aren't true based on what they read on the Internet. 

I don't know if Hillary Clinton considers Henry Kissinger her friend. I really don't care. Does it really matter? As long as she is qualified and does the best job she can do, that is all that really matters. I am not in her close circle of friends. In fact, I've never met her. So I don't care about her personal life. I do care about the decisions she makes that affect the country I call home. And if Henry Kissinger can giver her insight into doing that, great! And I believe she will do the best she can to make the right decisions that are best for the U.S. of A., as I believe she has always tried to do. 

Folks need to slow down and think about what they read. It seems we could all take a lesson from Hillary Clinton. Don't discount information, no matter where it comes from. And don't believe everything you see and only half of what you read. 

Already sick of 2016? There is a long way to go!

English: Barack Obama delivering his electoral victory speech on Election Night ´08, in Grant Park, Chicago. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is rather amazing that it is only the summer of 2015 and already the political season seems to be in full swing. In a few short weeks, debates will be held. Well, they aren't really debates; they are more like Fox News' idea of who they'd like to see compete.

In my view, everything that has to do with Fox News and every "candidate" that has anything to do with them should simply be considered satire. Who in their right mind would believe any of the drivel they "report?" I suppose the optimum phrase here is "right mind."

The only good thing I can see about this ever-earlier focus of news organizations on the upcoming election is that it has resulted in the country's dimmer switch on President Barack Obama. He's had enough of their attention, which isn't really attention at all; it is more like a negative obsession. Since the day he announced his run for office, so long ago, they have been criticizing, complaining, and making up whatever they like to discredit him. So, while the right-wing nut jobs have been rallying around Donald Trump, wondering how they can get a word in edgewise, Obama has been able to simply do his job.

English: This photo depicts Donald Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Oh, the Donald! These damn crazy Republicans are easily distracted by a well-placed media spotlight, especially when they all dance around it, hoping they can steer it their way.

It has been positively shameful how our President has been treated. Clearly, his racial makeup is responsible. Some folks just can't handle that a President of both black and white descent occupies the White House. I think this is evident, as the country seems as divided as it was in the 1860's.

Despite how long this election season has gotten, I do see a bright side. If nothing else, it will be an interesting one to watch.

I can't help but wonder if the next President will face similar scrutiny as the current one. I suspect that we ain't seen nothin' yet, especially if the next President happens to be the first female to hold the office. I suspect it very well could be. We will see all the misogynists come out of the woodwork. Equality is not something that is clearly understood in this country. It seems as though the bottom line is, if you aren't a wealthy white male, you just don't seem to count.

Republican field 

I don't mind admitting that I have very little respect for the Republicans in the field. In fact, I dislike most of them and would hate to see any of them as our 45th President. Surprisingly, there are now 33 declared Republican candidates with two more considered potential. I have never heard of some of them and can only hope they have better credentials and stronger positions than the ones that have already made a mark--or at the very least have name recognition.

Democratic field 

Even the Democratic field is much fuller than we are told by our friendly neighborhood reporters. There are about 16 declared candidates and others possibly waiting in the wings.

Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Republicans have the Donald. Democrats have Bernie. As much as I would love to see a Bernie Sanders Presidency; I mean this guy says everything I want to hear. I am not convinced that it is possible to elect him. As much as the Conservatives like the Donald, the liberals like Bernie. We have both wings of the Republicans and Democrats. While it is true that the county is divided, I believe the majority still lies between the two. That is why I just don't think Bernie will be elected. There is also a real fear factor. Democrats will do anything not to get another Republican in the White House. And, one of the most popular Democrats is running as well--Hillary Clinton.

The county has a real dislike for much of what is going on in the country. It has awakened an interest in many that never participated in the process before. Bad economic times touched lots of people too, as did unemployment, housing, poverty, and other society ills.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There have been other hot-button issues, like the legalization of same sex marriage, way too many mass shootings, insensitivity invoked by the Confederate flag, police shootings caught on video, part of the Voting Rights Act being struck down, the rise in income inequality, the war on women, the makeup of the Supreme Court., etc. More and more people in this country are being touched politically by one issue or another. So, who really knows which way the country is going.

Personally, I don't think things will run much farther amok than they already have. If the election were held tomorrow, I think Hillary Clinton would be our 45th President. But, we have a very long way to go. So, I for one plan to watch and see how it all plays out.

Tipping my hat to Shonda Rhimes

I am more than a little shocked at how many people refuse to grasp the fact that television is an entertainment medium, and not real life.

Patrick Dempsey (Photo by Wikipedia)

This has been evident in the total meltdown of Grey's Anatomy fans after the untimely death of heart throb Derek Shepherd, played by Patrick Dempsey, who was killed in a traffic accident just minutes after he rescued victims of another wreck at the same location. Gotta love the irony!

My shock sounds pretty funny even to me. In fact, when I read what I just wrote, I'm a little surprised by it myself.

One of my favorite TV shows Lassie (1954 TV series)
(Photo by Wikipedia)

I love television! Admittedly, I'm an addict. I grew up in the golden era of television, nurtured by the likes of I Love Lucy, the Carol Burnett Show, and my all-time favorite show, Lassie.

In addition to animal stories and variety shows, and daytime drama, I was always drawn to medical/emergency shows like ER, Rescue 8, Emergency, Trauma, and so many others over the years. It is no wonder that I have watched Grey's Anatomy since the day it started.

I too get emotionally invested in my television viewing. I don't miss a single line of dialogue, when a favorite character is on screen. As a writer, I know how important every word can be as a plot twists and turns throughout the story. Every word is a contribution.

I love a good story! When the writing is good, and in Grey's case it is far better than good, I empathize with the characters. I feel I know the people I see each week. I too was shocked by the death of this beloved character I had watched for 11 seasons. But life goes on in television, as it does in life. Ironically, in a television drama, the closer it is to real life, the better the show. If there is anything I despise, it is the 'all feel good all the time' model that television has been dabbling in for too long. Television is basically fantasy that mirrors real life. Something is terribly lost however when fantasy mirrors just more fantasy. The realism is the draw for me. I really hate all the dark fantasy that is filling the airwaves, but that is another blog post entirely.

So basically, instead of hating Shonda Rhimes, the brilliant creator/writer of Grey's Anatomy, I give her props. The outrage by fans merely serves to validate Rhimes' work. The hatefulness being expressed toward her is, in many ways, better than an winning an Emmy. Writers want to engage their audience. Rhimes certainly has done that. And, she has done it very well.

To the outraged fans who say they will never watch Grey's Anatomy again, I don't believe you. Who doesn't want to see how the doctors and nurses of Grey/Sloan Memorial Hospital fill the void left in their hearts by the loss of their beloved friend and colleague?

Kudos Shonda Rhimes. I can't wait to watch what you are thinking.

Dr. Oz's reputation is far more credible than his critics

Dr. Mahmet Oz
photo credit: Wikipedia)

The latest media feeding frenzy now centers on Dr. Mehmet Oz, a well-known, well-respected cardiothoracic surgeon who made a name for himself when he was first appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show more than a decade ago.

Since then, he has hosted his own show on ABC where he has delved into just about every health issue imaginable, explored even the most private ones, and offered expert medical advice to anyone who was interested.

"There are no embarrassing questions," he would tell his audience, as he urged viewers to share as much information as possible with their own family doctors.

Dr. Oz encouraged viewers to be aware of their own feces for changes in color and consistency in order to ward off diseases such as colon cancer. Oz underwent his own colonoscopy in an effort to assuage the fears of the dreaded test that can detect and potentially prevent early colon cancer.

He has long celebrated patients who have lost weight and encouraged many more to change their diets in favor of more healthy eating habits. He advocates for sexual intercourse as a normal, healthy, activity for adults.

Some of the topics he has broached have been controversial, outside the customary medical parameters.

Oz has been an advocate for traditional medicine to work in conjunction with alternatives. He is an advocate for patients, calling himself, "their cheerleader." He is not just another doctor who touts taking a pill and calling him in the morning.

But it appears he has ruffled a few feathers in the medical community. 

Doctors are not always the driving force behind personal medical decisions that drive health care. Pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry are becoming more entrenched in these decisions. There are millions of dollars at stake by complying with these industries. And, the close ties between business and government is not lost on those in the field. The FDA and USDA for example, drives the food industry, with complete control of the food that is regulated and therefore consumed in this country.

So, it stands to reason that anyone who questions the wisdom of widespread practices would be taken to task. So, while this is not the first time, Oz, who has created in a wrinkle in the system by urging individuals to think about the treatments they are using, has recently come under fire by other doctors closely aligned with the health care industry. They are calling for Dr. Oz to be fired from his faculty position at Columbia University. He is being called a quack and charlatan.

A letter, signed by Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institutional at Stanford University says Oz "endangers patients and is a menace to public health." Miller went on to say that he doesn't believe Dr. Oz should be on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution.

Request denied!

Doug Levy, chief communications officer for Columbia University Medical Center, responded, "As I am sure you understand and appreciate, Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."

He later clarified that the university planned no action against Oz because the university "does not regulate faculty engagement in public discourse."

This is political, pure and simple

From what I can tell, and I don't claim to be an expert, Dr. Oz is an advocate for his patients. He wants what he says he wants, for people to be the best they can be, when it comes to their health and with regard to their health care. 

His biggest critic is Dr. Henry I. Miller, the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the Food and Drug Administration. He is an advocate of genetic engineering of food sources, opposes an FDA mandate to label GMO foods, and has been critical of Dr. Oz's skepticism over the safety of Arctic apples, those that are genetically-modified to prevent them from turning brown after being cut into.

This isn't Miller's first go-around with Dr. Oz. In 2011, he went after Dr. Oz when Dr. Oz did a show that resulted in the identification of identified high levels of arsenic in apple juice. Oz was critical of FDA approval of this known health hazard. Two years later, the FDA proposed a limit for the amount of naturally-occurring arsenic in apple juice. 

Rather than weighing into the debate of the facts presented by these two professionals, all I can speak to is what I've noticed in the years I've watched Dr. Oz's television show. 

I've learned a great deal about coping with my own medical issues. I've been inspired by Dr. Oz's common sense approach to health care. I've learned what signs to look for in determining the severity of potential illnesses. Dr. Oz has offered important advice about the benefit of eating healthy food. I have taken some of his advice and at 63-years old, have never felt better in my life. I understand the benefits of healthy food choices and recognize that you really are what you eat.

Watching Dr. Oz has demystified the medical stigma, which makes it easier to talk to my family doctor about ailments. In short, a trip to the doctor is not so intimidating. I've learned the value of second opinions, prevention and cures, and questioning things I don't understand. I have learned to listen to what my body tells me. 

I see a value in watching an informative television show, especially one that is so enlightening about issues that affect us all every single day. I have no qualms about watching Dr. Oz. and following his advice. 

It is ironic that criticism of Dr. Oz comes from a source that is so obviously has his own conflicts of interest. Dr. Miller is affiliated with the Hoover Institution, which in itself is a right-wing public policy think tank. It doesn't take a scholar to realize that questioning the long-held status quo in the medical field is going to make some waves.

One of the others who signed the letter is Dr. Gilbert Ross, who heads an independent research organization--American Council on Science and Health, (ACSH) that defends fracking, opposed New York's efforts to ban sugary beverages, and supports the use of pesticides such as atrazine and BPA (bisphenol-A), according to Al Jazeera America.

The publication also noted that according to Mother Jones Magazine, donors to ACSH are largely from energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical and tobacco corporations like Monsanto, DowAgro and Syngenta. Read more about Dr. Gilbert Ross, who is a convicted felon who defrauded New York's Medicaid program of approximately $8 million for which he spent 46 months in prison.

I dismiss these critics and I stand with Dr. Oz.

Response to U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly

I haven't written updates about the Peotone Airport (South Suburban Airport) for some time. I just couldn't help but respond to an editorial in the Chicago Sun Times by U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, entitled "Still Waiting on 3rd Airport" that was touted by the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, (SSMMA).

My opposition to the state building a new international airport began in 1987 as part of a small protest outside the IDOT offices on Michigan Avenue. That led to the formation of RURAL, Residents United to Retain Agricultural Land, which I helped get off the ground officially on Aug. 2, 1988. RURAL was the predecessor of the present anti-airport group STAND (Shut This Airport Nightmare Down). 

More than 10 years ago I moved out of the area, so I was no longer confronted with the day-to-day assault of my senses in the form of the deteriorating landscape at the hand of the State of Illinois. Much of the land has been sold or taken by the state through eminent domain scattering the inhabitants of the rural community. Perfectly good homes have been razed, homesteads destroyed. I've kept in touch with some of those who remain, despite communications that continue to break my heart. Even now, with each headline, Facebook post, or random thought, I still find myself annoyed. I said in those early days that this airport will never be built. I'd like to stand behind that premise, although who could predict the lengths the state has and will continue to go to try to get this airport built despite its lack of support and lack of need.

That brings me to the editorial written by U.S. Rep. Kelly. 

She attempts to paint a dismal picture of O'Hare International Airport, which incidentally has recently reclaimed its rank of the #1 busiest airport in the world. At one point it was third. Ms. Kelly, O'Hare is doing just fine, thank you very much. She goes so far as to call domestic hub operations and cargo potential as in a "decline." Oh really!!!

She touted the increased capacity of a new airport as being roughly 100,000 flights per year at a cost of $1 billion. All that tells me is she has bought into without question, the wildly-inflated numbers the state has used since the project was first envisioned in 1985. What they have done is write, revise, write, revise until their numbers are close to acceptable. Then, even though inflated, they build from there. The foundation of the study of this project is faulty, which logically, all else built upon it merely teeters. The state has gone to great lengths to control the study process, so all of it has been bought and paid for by them. They have had ultimate control. Since the beginning, IDOT has used every trick in the book to paint a rosy picture of this project. It just never really stuck. But they are relentless. They will try anything.

Take the new jobs figures Kelly touts--pie-in-the-sky. I hate to tell her, but the jobs figures have always been overstated. Thanks to the late Suhail al Chalabi and his wife Margery, who have long manipulated the numbers. Suhail is gone now. I wonder who the state will get to produce the salable numbers now? 

When an elected official tells you "dollar for dollar, the third airport is a better deal for taxpayers," you better start asking questions. Better yet, you better start electing better officials. Kelly is the replacement for Jesse Jackson, Jr., who is currently finishing his sentence for corruption in a half-way house. He was a big promoter of this airport along with Gov. Pat Quinn, who just lost the election to new Gov. Bruce Rauner. 

Building on projections is not wise. Wouldn't it be better to build on past experience? Look at what the state has already done. Mid-America Airport in downstate Illinois is an example of an airport the state had to build to relieve St. Louis' Lambert Field. Trouble is, Mid-America has no air traffic, no airline tenants, and little hope. It does have funding--from the taxpayers. 

Kelly suggests that it would be smart for American and United Air Lines to reinvest in Illinois to ensure Illinois as a premier aviation hub. Sorry Ms. Kelly, but Illinois is already a premium aviation hub. It is called O'Hare International Airport. Furthermore, American and United Air Lines have already stated their opposition to a new airport near Peotone. Had you been at all informed about this project and its history, you would know that American and United hate the idea of another new airport. So do all the other air lines that have been on the record for decades opposing this project. 

There are far better ways to create jobs for the beleaguered south suburban region of Chicago. An airport 40 miles away is not the answer. The only thing that should be done with the South Suburban Airport is drop it and move on! This project started in 1968. It is about as innovative as transistor radios and 45 rpm records. 

As far as the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association, they tout this editorial in their website. "Editorial: South Suburban Airport needed to regain aviation market."  This group has been the lead voice for three decades. At least they are consistent, but isn't that a long time to beat the same dead horse?



More content:
Illinois Airport featured on NBC "Fleecing of America"
Voice of reason

Use the 'search this site' on the sidebar of the home page for additional information