Bike trip Northwestern Pa 9/15-16/2012

0

Riders:
Dave Crippen (BMW R1150GS)
Frank Barber (Suzuki cruiser)
Bill Lewin (Harley FXR)

Nice ride up through the Allegheny National Forest to Bradford, Pa, a sparse area frequented by sportsmen.  Very nice scenery, lots of streams and woods.

We visited the Zippo Lighter Museum in Bradford and it was fascinating. Zippo has been making lighters for 80 years and still going strong. The museum is set up like the Rock & Roll Museum with lots of alcoves full of history. tTe owner once shut down production for months when he learned some of the abrasive wheels were failing sooner than expected and spent US$300,000 to create new ones that would never wear out. Conservatively, I think there were at least a thousand lighters on display, memorializing every person, place or thing famous for more than 15 minutes. Zippo will fix any lighter, anytime, for any reason free.  Found a book of lighters from Vietnam and there were hundreds of them with some great quips: “If I had a house in Hell and a house in Vietnam, I’d sell both”. “If I die in Vietnam, bury me on my stomach so the Army can kiss my ass”. Incredible photos, a real keeper.

Then over to Titusville, PA to spend the night in my buddy Frank’s cabin. Very nice place out in the middle of nowhere, about a mile of grass trail to get to it. Many creature comforts and very quiet. Frank has two “Quad” four wheel all-terrain vehicles one of which I got a chance to run around the woods. 480cc fuel injected engine, five speed. Very quick and seemingly stable in the woods. I asked frank how likely this beast was to stay on four wheels. He said he never tipped it over. So armed with that security I took off through the woods with Bil Lewin behind me.

I immediately noticed that the “quad” didn’t have any woods sense at all. The more the throttle opened the faster it went, disregarding all real or potential obstacles. Who was supposed to instill common sense into this beast?  Surely not me, a veteran of much off road riding in the 80s. As a younger dog, I had been known for a few competent if not inspired full throttle runs through the bush on dirt bikes. What could possibly go wrong?

What went wrong was a sudden onset of a deep gully after cresting a small hill at speed, enough room on either side but too deep in the middle. Too fast to decide, up the side of the right hoping I’d been living right. The beast that had never tipped before flipped me out the left side like a flapjack and came to rest on it’s side on my right leg, pinning me like a lab frog.  Lucky for me the ground was soggy and it just squished my leg into the bog but it was too heavy for my other free leg to push it off. So in the immortal words of Buckaroo Banzai, “no matter where you go, there are you are”. Finally, Bill came up behind me and pulled the thing off me. No damage done, just a few sore muscles.

Beware vehicles that have never tipped before.

Brief 1.5 minute YouTube video of all the above all at:

http://youtu.be/ROew5war_8I

Film Review: “2016: Obama’s America”

0

Dinesh D’Souza is a self-professed conservative pundit. There is another 20-minute film out there in which he’s interviewed by interviewed by another conservative pundit with a reputation for distorting virtually any issue, Glenn Beck.  D’Souza freely admitted his desire to make a propaganda film that supported his own viewpoint, not necessarily examine any facts objectively. That’s exactly what he did, so this isn’t anything resembling a documentary (which is what it’s billed as).  It’s a statement of D’Souza’s biases, supported by whatever D’Souza could find that seemed to support it.

It was co-written by John Sullivan who directed the impeccably stupid and factually incorrect:  “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” featuring Ben Stein,which was roundly trashed by Rotten Tomatoes (a whopping 9%) and virtually every critic in the crit-o-sphere including well respected Roger Ebert. So you have some really strong experts here.

D’Souza says he understands Obama because he (D’Souza) is so much like him (so what) and theorizes that many of Obama’s actions are to jive with his dead father by taking isolated excerpts from the previous book. I read that book and I didn’t get any of that impression, nor did anyone else I know. D’Souza has no training in psychiatry or clinical psychology, so his opinion isn’t any more authoritative than mine.

D’Souza then schleps around the globe interviewing on-camera anyone that has a bias against Obama, presenting this bias as “enlightening”. He also makes oblique references to the incredibly stupid and previously trashed “birther” issue.  And of course Obama spent four years overseas as a child, which he implies, was a major formulation of his basic personality. He dredges up past guilt-by-association silliness like Bill Ayres and the Rev Wright, personalities that faded from any credibility years ago.  .

This film is specifically constructed to reinforce the alarmist notions of the radical political fringe. The spawn of Satan, Barak Obama, a man who is destroying the country in a quest to prove his worth to his dead father. Lots of expert opinions from people who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew Obama Sr. A distant relative of Obama that maybe Obama is ignoring because he’s a poor African (the relative never agreed with that).

D’Souza punctuates some of his points with “Psycho”-like musical shrieks to help the viewer come to the conclusion that frightening things are happening (because of Obama). The ending was shored up by swells of patriotic music designed to complete the emotional attachment to the film’s premise.

This garbage doesn’t get the dignity of review as a film. It gets a minus 5 Glenn-Beck-Intros for intellectual dishonesty, malicious gossip, idle conjecture, guilt-by-association, armchair pseudo-psychology, whitewashing of facts, leaps in logic, and ugly race-baiting.

This pseudo-documentary is the closest thing to the essence of pure evil as anything I have ever witnessed. Somewhere the moldy corpse of Dr. Goebbels is smiling.

 

 

 

Film Review: “Lawless” (2012)

0

“Lawless” (2012).  A period piece riding the tails of “The McCoys and Hatfields” on the (cable) History Channel. A similar blood feud tale set in the prohibition era involving moonshiners in Virginia (probably more West Virginia).

The film was ho-hum, slow, onerous, made poor use of some of the talent (Gary Oldman), didn’t develop many of the characters well and let Guy Pierce overact. I was thinking I should have waited till it came out on HBO.

I was also looking at the location scenery.  The longer I watched, the less the location looked like anywhere in (West) Virginia.  It looked like North Georgia, a place I am very familiar with. So I stuck around for the credits, and sure enough it was filmed in Georgia and the Northeastern city of Clayton, Georgia is mentioned. The film Lawless was mediocre but the subject of moonshine in North Georgia is much more interesting.

In the mid-60s, I lived in Toccoa, Georgia, about an hour’s drive from Clayton.  Much of the state was “Dry” (no ethanol containing beverages sold).  This was an advantageous collusion between the conservative arm of the Baptist Church that considered ethanol to be a tool of the devil, and moonshiners, who made a tidy profit supplying ethanol-containing  beverages to the population, including many of the Baptists. They both combined to insure no referendum was ever brought forth legalizing booze.

The moonshiners maintained stills deep in the dense North Georgia woods, serviced by isolated dirt roads no one else had any business on and would be well advised not to find any. Many of the stills were Rube Goldberg inspired. Some used car radiators seeping lead into the brew, and responsible for some strange musculoskeletal twitching amongst some of the old timers. They were also known to dash a little Red Devil Lye to the mix for some additional curing.

As it happened, my colorful past history includes moonshine issues (but you already knew that). In 1964 and 1965 I was dodging the draft at a small college in Habersham County, North Georgia, one of the several small colleges that collected guys that busted out of normal  schools and needed protection from the draft. The other infamous school that comes to mind was Parsons College in Iowa.

The boy’s dorm at Piedmont College was right next to a large expanse of deep piney North Georgia woods. At night I could hear the moonshiners making their rounds, and occasionally them getting chased by “revenooers”. They dove fast and they drove hard through the dirt roads at night with no headlights. They knew every foot of the woods. Some previous moonshiners became successful NASCAR drivers in the 50s (Junior Johnson).

Naturally, it was necessary for shiners to have vehicles faster than the revenooers, who were pretty much stuck with stock rides. In the late 50s, the shiners vehicle of choice was the Ford sedan with an 85 horsepower flathead V-8 engine easily amenable to souping up with three Stromberg 97 carburetors and a ¾ cam. They then put huge springs and shocks in the rear end to support full trunks of liquid cargo a la “Thunder Road (1958).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052293/

In the 60s, they ran later model OHV Ford V-8s with huge four-barrel carbs and other modifications. Sewer pipes for exhaust pipes. These beasts would easily outrun any stock police car.

We college kids purchased quart jars of shine anytime. This stuff was extremely potent. I suspect it was at least 95% straight up ethanol and 5% God only knows what else. It was the only brew available to most of the poorer portions of the population. As I recall, a quart jar of typical shine went for about US$00.50, a lot more money then than now. Mixed with orange juice it wasn’t too bad, all other factors considered. I didn’t keep any of it for posterity.

Interestingly, there are still dry counties in Georgia, maintained that way by the same factions in 1964, and you don’t want to go tromping around in those woods either, especially at night. Clayton Georgia is the home of a lot of other strange things including the kid in the tree playing the banjo in “Deliverance” (1972).  He still lives there.

I give “Lawless” two laconic anti-heros out of five. Wait for it to come to cable and see for the accurate location filming.

Rent “Thunder Road” (1958 for an accurate view of moonshining in the old days.

 

Expatriation as retirement

0

I’ve been watching this back and forth now on Events for a long time and like K. Mattox says, it really never changes. A bunch of people with iron-clad opinions that never change if for no other reason than they only believe evidence that sees it their way   And, of course, I’m guilty of that as well.

But cut to the chase, I think the Presidential race is largely inconsequential. The dire straits the country has entered is largely a result of bad decisions made by a very large number of incompetent decision makers over a very long period of time. And there remains the possibility that no matter who was making any of these decisions, the evolutionary process would not have altered much or for long. The Presidential race gets a lot of visibility, but I’m not convinced any of them can do much more than make promises they have no power to keep. And the various factions are now simply committed to getting absolutely nothing done unless it’s with their interest group. Stalemate is now the order of the day, and Romney can’t avoid it anymore than Obama did.

Many of the problems we now face probably can’t be fixed by anyone. Call it whatever you want, the weather is dramatically changing and in that process, our food and water supply will change (for the worse) with it. The US economy is largely service oriented, with fewer interesting in purchasing those services. Half the world is at the throat of the other half and most of them have nuclear weapons now. We are already deeply in debt to factions that have no problem using that debt to our detriment.  The global economy is in serious trouble and there is no realistic cure for it.

I think people dwell on a Presidential candidate to fix all that because of the media visibility, but the reality is that they are all slightly more manipulative observers than the rest of us. Obama is a altruistic ideologue trying to create a safe haven for most of the country at premium prices.  Romney is a rich white guy trying to get back to his glory days of saving the Olympics. They both like flying around in Air Force One and waving at the crowds.  But in the end, I suspect none of them will alter the inevitable path we’re on. Our bed was made through a long period of time and like it or not, we’re going to sleep in it.

I continue to wonder if becoming an expatriate is not a viable option at my stage in the game. I have enough money in my retirement accounts to live quite comfortably without Social Security.  If I went on the cheap, I could make it till age 90. If I continued to blow money on stuff I like as long as I’m spry and healthy enough to enjoy any of it, I could probably make it to 80 and beyond. When it’s all gone, I could see myself with a room on a Personal Care Home with photos of the glory days on the wall, a cable TV and a laptop. As long as I could keep up with the world, I’d be OK with that. If I couldn’t do any of that, I’d make sure I had a deal with someone to take care of that situation.

I continue to wonder if the most enjoyable course is to move out of the country, not in a fit of pique because of the rule of a political candidate but simply because I don’t have much faith in where the country’s going no matter who’s in charge.  Re-locating to a burned out country out of the way of political upheaval seems like an interesting deal. A small area of a burned out country that no one in any power base cares about and is likely to maintain no matter what happens in the global situation.

I was in the South of Spain motorcycle riding a few years ago. The guy that owned the small motorcycle rental was a German expat, formerly an engineer of some kind.  He moved to a beautiful small town right on the Southern coast of Spain and set up shop. Potential renters flew into Malaga, he drove over and picked them up for an hour’s ride through the countryside.  I took a few days and rode all over the area. It was phenomenal and no one paid any attention to what was going on over the rest of the world. In this small town, satellite cable was available and an International airport (4th busiest in Spain) was an hour away. He was happy as a clam and spent a lot of time lying around the beach ogling pneumatic babes.

When I was in Morocco, the guy that owned the tour I went on (specialized for one or two individuals with specific interests) was a former professor at a Kansas university that did actually leave in disgust over the political situation a few years ago (conservative Republican afraid of Obama).  He had a nice deal there and was busy enough to make a living.  He said Morocco was a very nice, safe, comfortable place to be for expats. Totally apolitical. When I was there,  met three physicians actively planning to relate permanently to Jerusalem. I see more activity toward expatriation than ever before.

More people just don’t want to live in the maelstrom anymore. They just don’t care. The more political attack ads I see (and actively avoid seeing-) now about every twenty minutes on TV, the more resolved I am to get away from all of it. I could see myself purchasing a small out of the way bungalow somewhere in Scotland or England, near enough access to London and airports if needed, Cable TV, Satellite Internet, bikes and a car parked out front. I could find a LOT to do with the time I have left. When that time’s up, none of it matters anymore.

Reviews of some new Cable TV features.

0

Network television is famous for programming constructs appealing to the dumb and dumber. Irritating canned laugh tracks. Insipid plots guaranteed to offend no potential sponsors. Dumbed down dialog. Getting marginally better with Alcatraz (Fox- cancelled after one season). Person of Interest and Blue Bloods (both CBS).

But the most talented writers and directors flock to more liberal cable channels in droves, closely followed by discerning viewers. The experiment succeeded beyond the wildest expectations. What followed were amazing classics such as “Deadwood”, “Justified”, “Mad Men”, “Breaking Bad”, “Flashpoint”, “The Closer”, “The Wire”, “The Daily Show”, “Hatfields & McCoys” and others. Well written, well performed, frequently with actors no one ever saw before.

Having tasted blood, Cable TV is maneuvering to focus their viewing audience according to age and specialty interest. Accordingly four new cable dramas worthy of review have emerged.

—————–

The Newsroom. (HBO). Sundays 10 pm on HBO.

http://gawker.com/5924306/dan-rather–the-newsrooms-third-episode-is-even-better-than-the-first-two-episodes-i-enjoyed-so-much

Newsroom accurately portrays a real cable newsroom, with real newsroom. Well reviewed by none other than Dan Rather. To a degree I have not seen on any visual medium before, they portray the craft and passion of TV journalism as well as the realities of TV business. Albeit with a very “liberal” bent, they lay it all bare. Episodes deal with with how far a commentator must be willing to go to correct an on-screen gaffe (lie), how to beat out the competition to out a domestic disaster (Gabby Gifford’s shooting) and nuts and bolts of handling the bin Laden killing. Jeff Daniels is magnificent as the cable news talking head, ably assisted by Sam Waterston and Jane Fonda.

It’s VERY interesting, and got a good review from none other than Dan Rather:

dan-rather–the-newsrooms-third-episode-is-even-better-than-the-first-two-episodes-i-enjoyed-so-much

Highly recommended by me.

_______________

“LONGMIRE”. (A & E Channel- final season episode tonight Sunday).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1836037/

An adult Western along the lines of a very interesting “Jesse Stone (Tom Selleck), which CBS cancelled. The viewers for both these series are all over 50 and mystery buffs looking for intelligent plots and production. Over 50 viewers viewed as worthless by the advertisers who pay the freight at CBS. The math is a little different when you get to cable, though. A similar draw, “Hatfields & McCoys” on The History Channel earned huge ratings and 14 million viewers.
“Longmire” is based on Craig Johnson’s series of mystery novels about small-town Wyoming sheriff Walt Longmire, played by Australian actor Robert Taylor (faking a credible American accent). Like Jesse Stone, Longmire is a man out of sync with the 21st century — No cell phone, spends a lot of time brooding alone. Following the death of his wife, Longmire’s personal and professional attention to detail falls apart. 

But over the course of several investigations, Walt starts to find his way back into the world, even if it’s a world that doesn’t always seem to understand an old cowboy like him.

Longmire is a VERY strong series, maintains viewer interest, interesting plots, outstanding supporting cast, great on-location scenery. The progress of each episode can be a little slow and require some getting used to. The title character has texture and grain, he relates to the viewer. Second season renewed for next Winter.

Highly recommended by me.

——————

“Boss” (Starz).

I have reviewed this series TWICE this year, which gives you hint of how much I like it. I think “Boss” is simply the most incredible series since the gold standard of incredible cable dramas “Deadwood”, which stands alone in the archives. From the opening scenes of Chicago evolving before your eyes accompanied by “Satan, your kingdom must come down” by Robert Plant (see me if you don’t know who Robert Plant is).

“Boss” is a spectacle surrounding Chicago Mayor Tom Kane, a man who understands that his constituents need to be led, but Chicago is a city with many social, economic and ethnic special interests that can’t be controlled with an iron fist. It requires a time-honored mixture of compromise and balance to maintain a functional equilibrium, frequently of a barbarous nature. And a lot of players with their own self interest, including those closest to Kane.

Kelsey Grammer is persuasive as a cunning old-school political bully. The mayor’s henchmen normally enforce his decrees with methods that would make even stone cold Russian Apparatchiks giggle. But the mayor has a devastating secret: a degenerative neurological disease that he hides with the same ruthless guile he uses to cover up all the barbarous manipulations that get things done. Suddenly a man with absolutely power is put in a position where he intermittently cannot tell the difference between real and Memorex.

The result is an absolutely uncompromising, brutal view of an amorphous world held in and out of check by a ruthless leader absolutely without scruples, even dealing with his own family. No one is exempt from his blessings, and no one is safe from his wrath. It’s a riveting drama, textured, and relentless. Kelsey Grammer brings to life an unflinching character lingers in your headspace for days. It’s a beast of a show, the best new drama of this year.
HIGHLY recommended by me. Second season initial episode this Friday night August 17

——————–

“Strike Back” (Cinemax).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1492179/

Started out as a six episode series on the BBC patterned after “24” (Fox). Highly trained British Special Forces special-op soldiers cavorting around creating mayhem behind various enemy lines in the near east. Offers serviceable action scenes, casual depictions of torture and death, and a comic-book conspiracy intrigue combined by the lead character getting lucky on-camera at least once per episode.

Did better than expected and was picked up by Cinemax who decided to join the prime-time drama game played so successfully by its parent, HBO, as well as other pay-cable networks like Showtime and Starz. Cinemax’s decision to pick up this series is a bid to appeal to a young-male audience, taking what it works best (sex) and adding the traditional component, gratuitous violence.

“Strike Back” won’t make anyone forget “24” but it has its pleasures for the aficionado of guns and flesh in exotic locales. There’s something viscerally satisfying about crisp British 007 detachment and cinematic licentiousness.
The production is fast moving and consistently interesting. The characters come alive and their interactions feed the plot. The production and on-location scenery is captivating. The plot is aggressive and not afraid to kill of primary leading men, to replace them in the same episode. It’s a strong production. Third season opening episode this Friday, Aug 17.
Recommended by me.

All the previous episodes are available on Netflix, all the premium cable channel repositories and the Torrents (The Pirate Bay).

DISCLAIMER: There’s no guarantee that future seasons or episodes

Film Review: “The Borne Legacy”

0

Aptly titled, “The Borne Legacy”, is a diluted adaptation of Robert Ludlow’s novel series that has essentially nothing to do with Jason Borne. Turns out there were more than one “Borne”, and the new franchise introduces one of them, Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker- 2008) as Aaron Cross.

In the original series, Matt Damon spends a lot of time, energy and three movies trying to find out his true identity. In the “Legacy”, new guy Aaron Cross knows who he is and spends 135 minutes trying to find out why his former handlers are trying to kill him and virtually everyone associated with him.

Rachel Weisz is a skittish scientist who escapes being assassinated and tags along with Cross to avoid the all-seeing eye of very effective villain Ed Norton. Interesting concepts are the probably true fact that virtually anyone can be tracked anywhere by the millions of ubiquitous cameras in the world. Shades of “Person of Interest” (CBS TV).

Impeccably relentless villain Ed Norton uses some interesting technology to track both protagonists, and he does it well. Norton is the last guy you want to see tracking you. Shades of: “Who are those guys?”- (from Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid-1969).

Best part: The car/motorcycle chase at the end. However, it must, like all such events, be compared to the two gold standards: “Bullitt (1968) and The French Connection (1971). In comparison, It’s serviceable, watchable and updated, although a bit long.

Worst part: The persistent techno-hit man tracking Cross doesn’t quite fit.

It’s been long enough now since the Borne Trilogy that a separate updated story line can be created much like “Total Recall (2012). Jeremy Renner does a serviceable job as Cross, but the film doesn’t quite contain the writing kudos to make Cross as complex or interesting a character as Jason Bourne. It will take me a while to get used to Renner. That said, I initially felt the same about Daniel Craig as 007, but I quickly acclimatized as Craig is now said my many to define the role in the new millennium.

All factors considered, I liked the film. It was consistently interesting and suspenseful.

I give it 3.75 of 5 little blue pills.

Film Review: “Total Recall” (2012″

0

The original “Total Recall” (1990) starring Ah-nold Schwarzenegger was Director Paul Verhoeven’s vision of Phillip K. Dick’s short story: “We can remember it for you wholesale”.  Phillip K. Dick was an incredibly original and imaginative science fiction writer whose works were made into movies through the years.  “Blade Runner” (Do androids dream of electric sheep?).  Minority Report”.  “The Adjustment Bureau”.

This rehash of the 1990 original starring Colin Farrell shares the same basic idea in a radically different setting.  As a fun diversion, a mundane working guy elects to inject some adventure into his life at an artificial reality service. He then starts living the adventure in real time, but as it progresses, it becomes very unclear what’s real and what’s Memorex.

Re-runs rarely match originals, the obvious exceptions being Godfather II and Aliens (2).  Accordingly, the 2012 version is not getting stellar reviews. Rates a miserly 31% from the Tomatometer, but more viewers (56%) liked it.  Still, not a particularly good showing.

But I must disagree with the other reviewers.

The production is imaginative, well constructed and the action sequences and computer generated effects are first rate. Brings together some of the facets of “Blade Runner” and “Star Wars”. Colin Farrell does a competent job of pulling the fantasy and reality together while maintaining convincing confusion and wonderment.  Technically, I think he’s better than Schwarzenegger was in 1990. Getting chased down by a female that might resemble your soon-to-be-ex wife looking for the hidden money is well done and plenty scary by Kate Beckinsale.

And of course, the most important part of the film that half the attendance of the 1990 film stayed for a second showing to see again……. the scene everyone demanded, some refused to consider seeing the 2012 version if it was omitted…….of course I mean……the three-breasted lady. Yes….she’s there.

I think the 2012 version of Total Recall is entertaining, well done and well recommended.

I give it a solid four LED hand-phones out of five.


			

Film Review: “Dark Knight Rises”

0

The inaugural showing of this film made the release of “Gone With The Wind” look like the first showing of “Plan 9 from Outer Space”.  Theaters around the country sold out entire days worth. Scalpers on EBay were getting US$300.00 per ticket.  People stood in long lines like there might be an iPad at the end. Audiences packed in like sardines were said to offer up standing ovations at the conclusion. A critic that gave it a poor review got death threats.

About half way through this thoroughly mediocre film I started wondering how all that came to pass. I think it was because of Heath Ledgers magnificent performance in “The Dark Knight” (2008).  Somehow everyone expected a reprise of that film and expectations grew out of proportion to the reality that Heath Ledger was forever gone.

Gentle readers, I must now sadly inform you that there was nothing in this film that justifies all that hoopla.

It was too long at 164 minutes. Christian Bale is getting a little long in the tooth for the role, and I think sleepwalked through it.  The Catwoman role was extraneous and went nowhere except parallel to the plot. Anne Hathaway’s lipstick was too red. The villain wasn’t all that believable, nor was his upbringing. Most of his voicings were unintelligible through his mask, the rationale of which made no sense.  Mickey Roarke did it better in Iron Man II (2010). The city citizens gathering to rebel against a seemingly omnipotent villainous force has been done many times before, at least as well if not better in “Independence Day” (1996). Gary Oldman’s formidable talents were wasted on the perpetually perplexed Commissioner Gordon.

There are too many too many overstuffed and underdeveloped digressions, over-ripe with pointless violence and too many characters, few of which are developed to any coherence. It channels Eyes Wide Shut (1999). A bunch of humorless, colorless, ambiguous masked figures indulging in desultory, pointless horseplay. Oddball mania in a world with pretensions to reality.

I give it a whopping 3 of 5 ominous voiceovers, and only because I’m otherwise in a good mood.

 

I visit Israel (July 2012)

0

For the Israeli Society of Critical Care Medicine, July 12-14, a meeting I previously reviewed on Postcards from the Road.

The real fascination to me was learning about this fascinating place, the Jews, some things about orthodoxy and how a combined Church and State works. Sadly I missed a visit to Masada because of the intense heat. Will remain on my bucket list for another day.

The old city of Jerusalem is an interesting place with an over three thousand year history.  It’s split up into four sections, Christian, Jewish, Moslem and, interestingly an Armenian quarter dating back to 95 BC. Unlike the majority of Christians in Israel, Armenians ethnically and religiously separate, a homogeneous group, intermarrying over the years and keeping their culture intact.

The Christian quarter contains what is traditionally said to be the path of Christ carrying the cross to Golgotha, the hill where the crucifixion took place. Constantine built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher around the whole site around 333 AD. Stations are identified where certain events occurred during the trek with the cross, and a burial site said to be compatible with what it would have looked like at the time is a short distance from the preserved rock formation the cross is said to have been erected upon.

There is some suspicion that this whole arrangement has been molded as a tourist attraction as it would be highly unlikely that anyone would know exactly what happened at any of the stations 2000 years ago. Similarly, in the town of Tombstone, AZ, the reconstructed town cemetery probably doesn’t really contain many of the infamous figures of the old West, but the site is a popular tourist visit.

One of the high points was the food. The cuisine was just incredible, some of the best food I have ever had. The wine (grapes grown locally) was also excellent. Very authenticBeef Stroganoff in one bistro by the sea.  Lots of tasty local dishes prepared in picturesque restaurants. A real treat.

Here are some of the photos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlFVhWXfjps

(Screen size can be enlarged- bottom right of viewer)

Starts with photos in and around Tel Aviv. Then Jerusalem, grave sites of Jews who live in other areas but come back and be buried in Israel. The Wailing Wall, some open markets, Christian areas. Then the Roman era ruins of Caesarea, much of which is remarkably preserved. A road unearthed, an aqueduct that goes for kilometers, well preserved statues. A chariot racetrack like in Ben Hur, rooms with much of the original floor detail intact.

On the plane, I read the latest and seemingly most informative book about “Lawrence of Arabia” T. E. Lawrence, his life and accomplishments: “Hero”, by Michael Korda (2011).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/books/22book.html

It turns out that his involvement in the shaping of the Middle East was very significant and interesting. I have endeavored to summarize some of the fascinating history below just to possibly pique your interest in reading more.

———————————————

In 1914, Turkey joined World War I on the side of the Germans and specifically against their traditional enemy, Russia.  The British analyzed the situation and decided the cheapest and safest way to neutralize the Turkish war effort was to tie them up with an Arab revolt in what was then Arabia, a major part of the Ottoman Empire.

In the spring of 1915, the Allies (Britain and France) undertook operations in the Dardanelles intended to break the back of the Ottoman Empire with one blow and open the waterways for the passage of supplies to Russia. Amphibious landings at Gallipoli failed due to unexpected Turkish resistance. Subsequently, the Ottoman army defeated a British expeditionary force at Baghdad in 1915.

It was quickly discerned that the Brits weren’t adequately equipped for a desert war. It was decided to pay the Bedouin tribes of the area to harass the entrenched Turks. The Bedouins were happy to accommodate in return for gold sovereigns. In this way, the Turks could be kept busy on an irrelevant front and out of the major European theater.

Into this arena arrives lieutenant T. E. Lawrence, a square-peg-in-a round-hole minor military mapmaker with archeology experience, selected to go to Arabia as an intelligence officer because of his extensive knowledge of the area and his fluent Arabic. His charge was to look around and report to his superiors in Cairo what was going on in the desert.

What was going on was that the Arab revolt on horse and camel back, using outmoded shoulder arms including some muzzle-loaders, was out gunned and out manned by the Turkish aircraft, artillery and mechanized army. At best, the Arabs were simply an irritating inconvenience for the Turks.

Lawrence’s superiors had no idea what they were getting involved with by sending him to Arabia. Lawrence had a strong interest and loyalty to the Arabic dream of throwing out the Turks and establishing a Pan-Arabic political State. Aligned with Prince Feisal, Lawrence quickly evolved to a position of guerilla leadership with the aim of throwing the Turks out of Arabia. He became involved n blowing up Turkish trains and tracks, tying up the Ottomans with repair to maintain supplies to their occupation troops.

The big break in the offensive came in 1917.  The route to protected Damascus (held by the Turks) was guarded by the 12-inch guns lining the mountains surrounding the port city of Aquaba, part of what is now Jordan. It was virtually impossible for an invading party to approach Damascus via the Red Sea. The entire defense was pointed toward the sea.

It was inconceivable that Aquaba could be approached via the extended and brutal inland desert route.  On 6 July 1917, Lawrence and his rag-tag Bedouin followers survived a month is one of the most inhospitable deserts in the world (The ”Sun’s anvil”) to overwhelm Aqaba’s small and unprepared Turkish garrison from the unprotected rear.

Once Aquaba was taken, Damascus lay unprotected. Accordingly, Lawrence and his Arab invaders entered Damascus in October 1918. Lawrence was instrumental in establishing a provisional Arab government under Faisal, which, following localized arguing and bickering amongst the various factions, collapsed quickly.  The French Forces entered Damascus shortly thereafter, destroying Lawrence’s dream of an independent Arabia.

Of course, it was always a foregone conclusion that the British and French never had any intention of giving up the spoils in favor of an independent Arabic nation. It continues to be a bit of a controversy whether Lawrence knew about the (poorly kept) secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, prospectively dividing up the geography of the area to benefit the Brits and the French, with a nod to the Russians. It’s inconceivable that he wasn’t aware of this agreement. He had years of experience in the area and it’s history and he almost certainly knew the transparent motives of his superiors.

It’s thought that his ultimate reasoning was to get the Arabs ensconced in Damascus as a force the Brits/French had not counted on, thereby making them a political force to be reckoned with in subsequent negotiations. Lawrence hadn’t counted on generations of feuding between the various tribes ultimately collapsing any potential for them to work together as a cohesive political force.

The results of the Sykes-Picot agreement split up the Middle East according to the extremely complex Paris Peace Conference of 1919.  Britain was given much of what are now Jordan, southern Iraq, and the port of Haifa in Palestine to allow access to the Mediterranean.  France was allocated portions of Turkey, northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.  Russia got Istanbul and portions of Armenia.

The division of Palestine was a special issue, crafted by Lloyd George of Britain, and is extremely complicated, much more that can be described briefly. However, Jerusalem ended up being carved up on the basis of the religious interests of the Allies, Brit Protestants, French Catholics and Russian Orthodoxies.

Lawrence eventually left Arabia frustrated and depressed at his failure to bring the Arabs to a political bargaining position with the allies.  He never sought a political position of leadership again in his remaining lifetime, ultimately enlisting in the Royal Air Force as an aircraft mechanic, desiring nothing more than mechanical busy work (as described in his later book “The Mint”).

In May 1935, Lawrence was killed in a motorcycle accident near London. Swerving to avoid unexpected bicyclists on a country road. He suffered an isolated head injury (probably a brain contusion) and died 6 days after the accident, never regaining consciousness. He was 46 years old. He rode a Brough Superior SS100 motorcycle, considered to be the Rolls Royce of two wheel vehicles at the time. It is currently on display at the Imperial War Museum in London and a stone pillar marks the site of his accident.

 

Editorial on the Affordable Health Care Act of 2008

0

 

The discussion the Affordable Health Care Act of 2008 (hereafter called the ACA) is no longer political. It’s the law now and the overturn movement has about the same likelihood of success as the O.J. Simpson appeals. I’ll also assume for the purposes of this missive that Romney won’t be elected in 2012.  If by some stretch he is, then it will be a different conversation we can have then.

In order to understand the impact of the ACA, you have to understand two other concepts;

1.  The creation of Medicare/Medicaid in 1965 via Lyndon Johnson.

2.  The evolution of the Medical-Industrial Complex in the USA and where it’s headed.

In 1965, although we didn’t appreciate the impact it would have at the time, those in my age group watched the President use his bully pulpit to establish health care indemnification for the “elderly” (over 65) and the “poor” (below an established poverty line). I recall my father the general surgeon howling in anguish at the thought of “Government Medicine”. He and the rest of them thought this was the first step on the road to inevitable perdition, but the reality was that it made my father’s generation of physicians rich and created the American Medical-Industrial Complex.

It created the Complex by altering the supply and demand curve of health care financing into a situation where consumers of medical services bore no responsibility for the cost thereof. Cost of services was borne by third parties who had no idea if the services were needed or necessary.  Providers could create demand for services and then create supply to meet it, all financed by third parties who paid for it on the basis of correct paperwork. Today, the government in the public sector, including such programs as “Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration, provides 60-65% of health “insurance” (such as it is).

American health care is the most expensive in the world. The Congressional Budget Office reported that “about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in (expensive) technology”. In 2009, the United States federal, state and local governments, corporations and individuals, together spent $2.5 trillion, $8,047 per person, on health care. This amount represented 17.3% of the GDP, up from 16.2% in 2008. The Health and Human Services Department expects that the health share of GDP will continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5% of GDP by 2017. Growth in spending is projected to average 6.7% annually over the period 2007 through 2017. But the United States ranks poorly in, among other things, preventable mortality, below Canada, Ireland and Portugal.

The reality is that a government throttling a public that views health care as a right is political anathema.  Their only option is to let the public have their fill and cut back at the level of providers.  But all such attempts to control this spiral have failed. In the past, the government tried to control demand by limiting supply. Managed Care during the Clinton years generated little other than public anger.  Rationing by provider inconvenience (endless convoluted paperwork) generated only the creation of expert professional paperwork managers. The current ploy of refusing to pay for “events that shouldn’t happen” (urinary tract infections, pneumonia) will be met by creatively re-defining these disorders.

Hospitals routinely accept a relatively small percentage of reimbursement from negotiations with insurance companies. UPMC bills US$1480 for a bedside percutaneous tracheostomy and Medicare reimburses US$480.  However, if the patient has no insurance, they are billed full freight (US$1480) and the facility is quick to turn the debt over to a collection agency.  Accordingly, an unexpected medical emergency has the potential for ruining a family’s finances permanently.  A 2007 study found that 62.1% of all personal bankruptcies involved high medical expenses.

This issue cries out for justice, and the rest of us will be involved in it.

In the new millennium, an escalating cost spiral feeding unlimited and unrestrained demand with the government and other indemnifiers cutting expenses at the provision level has the REAL potential to collapse the entire system. SOMETHING has to be done to address it. Standing around hoping it spontaneously improves is NOT an answer.

Into this overheated death spiral now comes the Affordable Health Care Act of 2008 (ACA), a political attempt to accomplish at least three previously unrequited goals:

1,  Increasing affordable health care for more American Citizens currently unprotected and at risk for financial disaster if they get sick.

2.  Making health care indemnification portable, once you get it you can keep it.

3.  Forcing insurance companies to stop “cherry picking” clients least likely to make claims, refusing to pay for services after they’ve been rendered and increasing their premiums ad lib while at the same time decreasing their covered services.

This is a bold move and it remains to be seen whether it will survive intact for a number of reasons:

1.  It has become less of a proprietary social issue and more of a political football. Political opponents use it as a wedge to lessen the influence of the particular political party.  Any utility it may have for the general public is lost in the fight.

2.  All insurance companies provide more or less cost effective service by managing risk.  Clients with a history of drunk driving and lots of speeding tickets pay more for insurance, or are uninsurable. This is a fact of life.

The ACA purports to provide “new” indemnification for an estimated thirty one million patients not currently insured without addressing their previous risk. However, in our current social ecosystem, high-risk patients with alcohol related cirrhosis or smoking related COPD demand and get the same service as less risky patients at the same rates. This situation is unsustainable for any insurance company.

There is only one way to make “insurance” for all comers regardless of risk happen in an ecosystem where all the players MUST be treated on demand. That’s to spread the liability out through the entire population net. Unless we’re prepared to deny service to those that refuse to pay (we’re not), everyone MUST participate, whether they want to or not. The fewer participants, the less likely the indemnification will stay viable.  If we allow recalcitrant to refuse to pay for any reason, they will eventually show up and demand treatment on the backs of those that did.

So we’re all going to have to pony up, like it or not. The alternative is a government and private insurance system that’s unsustainable, especially following the global financial crash of 2007. It isn’t “if” it will crash, it’s “when” and it will be soon at the rate they are increasing rates and denying service.

As a practical matter, it doesn’t matter if it’s technically a tax or if it’s a tax by some other politically friendly name. It’s the price to pay for getting “most” Americans affordable health care coverage, deterring financial collapse for fault-less serendipity. The rest of the global medical village does it and we will too, or we will quickly price ourselves out of any ability to do so for any of us.

Don’t care about your fellow citizens’ potential for financial collapse if they get sick?  Refuse to pay increased taxes for people you care nothing about?  That’s a separate issue and a separate argument. It remains to be seen whether you will be allowed to do that in our society.  Don’t have to pay auto insurance if you don’t want to drive a car?  Good. Ride a bicycle ten miles one way to work and watch your wife push a cart to the grocery store for a while and see how that works for you.  Concerned that the sky is falling and any addition to the National Debt will collapse society?  To that I say, how many guaranteed current disasters are you willing to ignore for a future that may or may not occur?

The IDENTICAL arguments currently being used against the ACA were used in 1965 against Medicare/Medicaid, which turned out to be a great benefit to Americans and now an authentic sacred cow. The ACA isn’t perfect by a long shot, and there is no guarantee it will solve most of our current problems, but it’s a start solving some of them. In time, both consumers and providers will get used to the ACA, just like they did Medicare/Medicaid. It’s a proactive move to try to do something positive.  Not relying on our current system, the continued escalation of which is increasingly ineffective and inadequate, accomplishing nothing but endless spending into a black hole.

The risks and values of the ACA cannot be evaluated in an isolated snapshot. It’s basically a comparison issue. It’s value must be looked at compared to something. The alternative is doing nothing but allowing our current situation’s death spiral to tighten. The ACA is a risk, but it’s a reasonable calculated risk. We have to take that risk and make the best of it because the alternative is an inevitable, guaranteed disaster.

Further discussion in a multi-national forum will be out probably this September (see enclosed book cover).