EMAIL THREADS: Alcoholism and Grade Inflation

“I’d hate to be a teetotaler. Imagine getting up in the morning and knowing that’s as good as you’re going to feel all day.”
-- Dean Martin

One of the challenges in writing for a general audiences is deciding what they might find interesting, as opposed to thinking something is important in your own head, when in truth it holds no interest for anyone but you. So forgive me if this bores, and exit at your leisure (as if I have to tell you this). As a technical note, if you try this at home, you’ll have to cut and paste the e-mail into a word document and then reverse the order of the thread as a way of making the entire post reader friendly. I suppose some of you might prefer the Rubic’s rhetoric model, but I’ve reassembled the thread in a chronological way. Today’s topics are substance abuse, specifically alcoholism and its vicissitudes, and writing assessment, specifically whining students.

Context: The first e-mail exchange is between one Dr. A. and myself (he’s mentioned earlier in the blog in connection with suboxone, substance abuse, and pain management). My query was in regard to a Jane Brody article in the 05/12/09 New York Times suggesting that “the day is not far off when giving a pill and five minutes of advice to an alcohol abuser will be all that is needed to keep drinking under control.” The good doc knows his chemistry and the medical theories surrounding substance abuse, but his practical understanding of alcohol and drug usage demonstrates a certain naivete in terms of the diversity of addictive behaviors (Note his implication that weed -- the MJ reference -- is a “mind-bending drug”). It should also be noted that I confuse naloxone, the compound in suboxone, with naltrexone, the stuff discussed in Brody’s article.

The second exchange is between me and a long time athletic advisor I know concerning the matter of a student petitioning me to change his grade.

“The bulk of alcohol abusers could get well in primary care settings and not have to wait until they are at the end of their rope and forced into a rehabilitation program, which can be so stigmatizing.”
-- Dr. Mark Willenbring, director of the Division of Treatment and Recovery Research at the National Institute on alcohol Abuse and alcoholism

Randall Tessier 5/14/2009 6:06 PM >>>

Dear Dr. A.:
I think you remember me. I’m Randy, the fast dive suboxone escapee.Something I saw in the New York Times Science Times on Tuesday, May 12 intrigued me. Let me preface this excerpt with a little addiction talk.

As I recall, when I took the suboxone I noticed my desire in general ebbed. In that sense, I seemed to drink less, have less sex, and even eat less. So I had thought perhaps the lowest dose possible might be away to curb the desire to drink. But after further consideration, I decided I didn’t want the opioid presence.

Here’s the excerpt:

“Primary Care for Alcoholics:…The two [drugs] already available -- naltrexone and Topamax -- are not yet the equivalent of Prozac for depression, but they can help many alcohol abusers learn to drink more moderately or abstain altogether. Naltrexone, now a low-cost generic, was originally developed to control drug addiction but was found to be more effective at reducing cravings for alcohol. Topamax, an antiseizure drug not yet available as a generic, has also been used to treat alcohol dependence, among other conditions. Taken an hour before consuming alcohol, naltrexone blocks receptors in the brain that register “reward” and that reinforce a craving for alcohol. Within three to four months of starting treatment, naltrexone, when compared with a placebo, can reduce relapse to heavy drinking 20 to 40 percent, Dr. Willenbring said. Some European practitioners claim even greater effectiveness. By eliminating cravings for alcohol, the drug enables an abuser to drink more moderately or abstain entirely.”

This article came as a pleasant surprise, because, my companion has been taking Topamax for a few months for migraines, and now we find out, not coincidentally, there’s a good reason she hasn’t drank or had the urge to drink -- the Topamax! Correct me if I’m wrong, good doctor, but I believe naltrexone (anopioid antagonist) combined with buprenorphine (an opioid agonist) is what constitutes suboxone. My questions are these: is naltrexone addictive? I would assume it’s not; if not, wouldn’t it be wonderful to take something that puts one in a state of having little if any desire to drink? I also came across this on the web:
FDA-approved naltrexone, in a low dose, can boost the immune system -- helping those with HIV/AIDS, cancer, autoimmune diseases, and central nervous system disorders.
If naltrexone is easy on the system (liver), I’d like to try it.

Best - Randy Tessier

Quoting Dr. A.

Randy, You got some of it right. Naltrexone and Topamax are useful for preventing alcohol relapses. About Suboxone, it has nothing to dowith naltrexone. It has naloxone in it, a different antagonist. Taken under the tongue, naloxone has absolutely no action. It's there to discourage people from grinding up the tabs and injecting them. Opiate users would promptly go into withdrawal - ouch. As for drinking, are you hinting to me you're craving? Are you drinking? Naltrexone would be a good choice if you are not incontrol. Otherwise, you OK?  -- Dr. A

Dear Dr. A.:

I'm not craving, it's no longer a problem. Nor do I drink too much. It's just that, if there is a drug that is mostly benign, and it would reduce drinking 5 beers to two beers, why not take it, sorta use it like an anti-substance abuse vitamin.

Peace - Randy

Quoting Dr. A.:

5 beers at once? How often? You'll get fat if not worse.


Randall Tessier 5/14/2009 7:34 PM >>>

Dear Dr. A.:

Not at once, every night, and I'm already fat.

So give me the official scoop on naltrexone.

By the way, we're playing opening night at the Top of the Park, Friday, June 12.

Peace & Luv - Randy

PS: You're cool, but I heartily disagreed with your Ann Arbor News letter and have already applied for my medical marijuana card.


Subject:
Re: Randy Tessier, Local Musician

RE MJ, Don't go there. For some it's fine and should be decriminalized. As for involving doctors to legitimize it, that's a totally different story. In your case, you're an "addict" and mind-bending drugs are not appropriate for you. Try other ways to get hedonic tone: sex, chocolate, social good, work, AA meetings (try the Saturday night open meeting at St. Joe's - it's a blast), you get the picture. As for drinking, would keep it down to not more than 5/week or two in a day, given your history. I'll be out of town 6/12. Sorry to miss you this year. Dr. A


What follows is a series of posts regarding a student I had who couldn’t write a lick. He had been trying to contact me about a grade change, and I took pretty much the same attitude towards his e-mails that he did towards the class -- I ignored them. Seeing that I wasn’t responding, he contacted his advisor, #9., who I have known for a long time.

Quoting #9 :

Hi Randy,

How are you? One of my student-athletes, #1., who was in your section of ENGL 225 this past winter, has been trying to reach you via email. Is this the best way to contact you? He would really like to talk to you. If there is a better way to reach you, please let me know and I'll relay it to #1. Hopefully, they will still be in town next week, but it all depends on whether they win against Northwestern and how Illinois fares against Purdue.


-----Original Message-----From: Randall Tessier]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:09 AM
To: #9.
Subject: Re: Hi

Dear #9:

Hi, nice to hear from you. As you know, I am very sympathetic to the athletes. I've helped out M., and more recently, G., with grade changes. The deal is this, if a student has done poorly in all of his classes, which I suspect #1. has, why is it me he wants to convince to change it? I got the e-mail, just as I have from J., and didn't answer it. J. could have easily gotten an “A” in the class -- he's actually a decent writer. Problem is, he turned in most of the scheduled assignments way late, like the day before grades were due! What's the story with #1.'s semester? If I had some context it might help.

Best - Randy

Quoting #9:

Hi Randy, #1 did not do poorly in his classes, and this is not about eligibility. #1 works incredibly hard and is one of my more conscientious students. He wants to get into the SM program and is concerned about how a C+ will affect his application next year. He just wanted to understand why he got the grade that he did. He came in to meet with me about summer online courses and mentioned that he was disappointed with his grade and was trying to reach you. I am concerned that so many student-athletes -- that may or may not have done their work in your class -- are contacting you for grade changes if they are in trouble. Please do not group #1 in with those students, because this is not the case.

#9.

-----Original Message-----From: Randall Tessier]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:37 AM
To: #9.
Subject: RE: Hi

Dear #9.:

#1. may be good in those other subjects, but I'd be happy to show you some of his written assignments. I'm sure you're right about his conscientiousness, but when a teacher (Me) sees poor writing skills in an English class, it usually follows, and I emphasize usually, that they struggle in other classes. As for grouping him in with other students, each student is different. J. is a better writer, but got a grade equivalent to #1's. Many athletes are attending the U. because they generate revenue, which is exactly why I think they deserve a sympathetic teacher. I'm going to my office in a bit, and I'll take another look at his papers.

Best - Randy

Quoting #9:

Thanks Randy,

I realize that #1.'s writing may not be the best, and if he deserved a C+ then so be it. He needs to hear that message so he can continue to improve his skills. Please understand, I know that you have had some of my lazier and immature students and I just wanted to assure you that #1 was not in that category. I apologize if I offended you in any way.

#9.

Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:54:22 -0400 [05/14/2009 10:54:22 AM EDT]
From: Randall Tessier
To: #9:
Subject: RE: Hi

Dear #9:

You know you're one of my favorite people. You're right to care about your charges, and as soon as I'm done typing this, I'm going to open my next message, which is from, of course, you know who.

Peace & luv -- Randy

Where's the Transparency, Barack?

“The wish to hurt, the momentary intoxication with pain, is the loophole through which the pervert climbs into the minds of ordinary men.”
-- Jacob Bronowski 1908-74: “The Face of Violence” (1954)

Lest any of you think Ann Arbor is strictly the province of leftist intellectuals out of touch with political reality, I’ve included two letters, the second of which is a response to the first, that offer a conservative aspect of A2 that many of you may be unaware of.

If Mr. Buchanan was more in touch with current events he might laud Obama’s decision to stop the release of detainee abuse photos taken at Baghram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo. Obama’s justification for this, which I consider to be quite pathetic, is that making these images public would further inflame the terrorists. Oh really?

Even the novice student of war knows that applying logical conclusions to the irrationality of military conflict makes no sense. Believe me, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda suicide-bombers are not going to be any less suicidal for having not seen these photos.

Who does the Obameister think he’s kidding? This isn’t about domestic security, it’s about stopping an album of photos sure to reveal a narrative that documents a systemic pattern of torture authorized by the Bush administration, and not the work of a “few bad apples.” Now is the time for social justice, not governmental subterfuge. The public deserves better. We deserve the truth.


To The Ann Arbor News:

Interrogations should be free of restraints (5/8/09)

I give President Bush lots of credit for his efforts in keeping our nation safe. I only wish he could have been able to serve another term. I would feel now that with his steady hand at the helm he would continue to keep our nation safe from terrorists.
Methods used to get information from our enemies to keep our country safe should have no restraints of any kind, especially with enemies or terrorists who vow to destroy our country.
During past wars, that person who leaked or conducted any espionage with our enemies about how we were conducting our efforts to keep our country safe would be tried for treason (comes to mind Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, executed for espionage in the 1950s). They felt they were victims of fascism. Fascism is what this country appears to be headed for under Obama, after taking a good assessment of what Obama has done during his first 100 days in office.
Neither Nixon nor Clinton committed such heinous acts as Obama has by revealing top-secret information to our enemies, nor openly consorted with them. Obama should be impeached and put on trial as a traitor to his country. According to our constitution, no American is above the law, not even the president. I’m personally for impeaching him and treating him as an enemy of this country. Amen.

Billy R. Buchanan, Saline

To The Ann Arbor News:

Re: “Interrogations should be free of restraints” (5/13/09)

The Hand at the Helm

How pleased I was to hear a kindred voice in that left-wing wilderness, Ann Arbor. For you see, Billy, like yourself and, I’m sure, our sorely missed recent president, the venerable George W. Bush (we should have abolished term limits while he was in office), I too miss his “steady hand in keeping our nation safe from terrorists,” and couldn’t agree more that our interrogation “methods” should have "no restraints.” Those misguided “fascists,” like Obama, and Porter Goss, director of the CIA, who told a Senate Intelligence Committee that “torture doesn’t work, there are better ways to deal with captives,” are indeed, “enemies of this country.” What pains me most, and I’m sure Rush and Thayrone would agree, are those yammering bleeding hearts who argue we wouldn’t want our own soldiers to be tortured. Again, I smell a fascist. But how do we answer this disturbing sign of patriotic weakness? What do we do about this fascist element amongst us? How might we rid ourselves of the left-wing pestilence infecting this great land? It’s really quite simple. We take a lesson from that most anti of anti-fascists, the great Josef Stalin. We make sure our soldiers obey the Spartan warrior ethic, either on your shield or with it. This makes the treatment of our soldiers a moot point. Since only a “traitor,” like Obama, would allow himself to be captured, whether he is tortured or not should be of no concern to “the hand at the helm.”

Randall L. Tessier
Ann Arbor, MI U.S.A.

"In the merry, merry month of may."

“The more one gets to know of men, the more one values dogs.”
-- A. Toussenel 1803-1885: L’Esprit des betes (1847)

So there they were, two old fuddy-duddys with pooper-scooper-police written all over them. One of them had on a fanny pack that looked suspiciously familiar.

You see, a few days earlier I had spotted the same red, nylon yuppie accessory lying on the dog path. Thinking it might have a wallet in it with lots of dough -- and even making that instant self-congratulatory reflection that sours the milk of altruism -- I figured I’d unzip it, and return it to it’s rightful owner, noble good deed doer that I am. Yuchhh! You guessed it, they are as unmistakable as they are disgusting, the newspaper protector plastic sack full of dogshit. I smelled it, dropped it, and kept going. Shadow’s cackling yip at my disgust noise confirmed she thought all of this was pretty funny.

The man (she wore the fanny-pack), who was looking me up and down real good, finally
Spoke.

“Did you know it’s a $500 fine to not pick up your dog waste?”

I paused for a moment, reached in my pocket, brought out a stick of Black Jack gum, slowly rolled it up, and leisurely began to chew it, savoring the licorice as I let the spittle drool down my chin.

“Look, pops, you may be from Ann Arbor, and you may think you’re some kind of been everywhere know it all retired professor, but this is a hound of a different color. Shadow don’t do the doo-doo, if you get my drift.”

Upon hearing this, the old codger paused, looked at his wife, and reigned in their belly-dragging Basset hound.

“Sir, that’s preposterous, there is no such breed!”

I knew I had to say something, but all I could think about was the smell of that shit baggy from two days ago. I say it again. Yuchhh!

“Listen gramps, Shadow here, is a pedigree Mexican Shitless.”

“A what?”

“She’s a Mexican shitless. You see, what they did was to breed those German Shepherds particularly predisposed to eating their own shit with a Latvian Cadaver Dog-Toy Boxer mix. The result is nature’s perfect recycling organism, a species of canine that just might save the world. Beauty is, I only had to feed her once. She’s been completely self sustainable since then. One thing Shadow ain’t, is a global warmer.”

Well folks, if you can believe it, this pair of fossilized eco-nazis from the People’s Republic of Ann Arbor was speechless.

After a lengthy pause the old dude says, “that’s biologically impossible.”
Knowing this was one of them pedigree academic couples who think science is always right, I chose my words carefully.

“Sir,” I says, “biology is a theory, does Shadow look like an impossibility?
No. Shadow is an example of creative dog breeding. She’s the first generation of the kind of living, breathing, shit-eating, green-pooches the world’s been waiting for, and where better than Ann Arbor to introduce her. That’s why I carry no scooper-pooper-bag. Good day.”

And with that, we went merrily along our separate ways.

The End - Randy

HANDOUTS: 325.102 The art of the Essay

Spring ’09, 325.102, The Art of the Essay

Mark Twain’s “The Lowest Animal” (1906)

sat·ire

NOUN:
1a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See synonyms at caricature. 2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin satira, probably alteration (influenced by Greek satur, satyr, and saturos, burlesque of a mythical episode), of (lanx) satura, fruit (plate) mixture, from feminine of satur, sated, well-fitted.

Why are we willing to suspend our disbelief (think about the above definition) when Twain informs us that he is using the “scientific method,” and that his experiments “covered many months of painstaking and fatiguing work?”

Accepting Twain’s imagined experiments, how effective are his comparisons between animals and humans as a social critique of human folly.

How do these (so-called) experiments -- and the essay’s organization in general -- function as an ironic commentary on Darwin’s conclusion that humans occupy the pinnacle of the species chain?
Does Twain really believe animals are superior to humans?

What is the difference between taking someone literally and understanding them to be speaking figuratively?

How do the anaconda and the earl comparisons suggest the human behavior we know as cruelty?

What are we to make of the passage, “I know the ant?”

What does it mean to be avaricious? What’s the more common term?

Do animals other than man seek revenge?

In talking about cats and morality, how does the phrase, “not consciously,” fit with Twain’s contention that “the cat is innocent?”

How does his rooster reference imply gender inequality?

Why do we not think of animals as “indecent, vulgar, and obscene?

How does Twain’s paragraph on cruelty speak to contemporary issues, like torture?

How does he suggest these behaviors are universal traits in man?

What reasons does Twain give for why we “exterminate our own kind?”

What does he see as the “atrocity of atrocities?” What does the phrase, “Man has done this in all ages,” suggest about war?

When Twain moves to the subject of slavery, how does he frame economics as a form of slavery?

How is Twain’s contempt for patriotism evidenced by his allusion to the “universal brotherhood of man?”

In Twain’s humorously scathing indictment of religion, he laments that animals will be “left out, in the hereafter.” What, or to whom, is he alluding to in the phrase, “It seems questionable taste?”

If we consider the “moral sense,” the ability to choose, to exercise one’s moral conscience, as what makes us the noblest, most sublime animal, why does Twain describe this capacity as a “defect” and “primal curse?”

What might we say to his comparing the “moral sense” to a disease?

Do we agree with Twain’s assertion that “there can be no evil without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it?”

What’s with the final “Frenchman” reference?” How is Twain taking a poke at himself?

Finally, think about how all of the horrific behaviors outlined above apply to the Twentieth Century; and how prescient Twain was in implying horrors to come.

Spring ’09, 325:102
The Art of the Essay

Jonathan Bennett: “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn” (1974)

What distinction does Bennett make between moral judgment and sympathy?

Define the difference between using abstract phrases and describing something in concrete terms?

Immediately following Bennett’s mention of the “Final Solution,” does he succeed in concretizing this euphemistic abstraction?

How do references to Lehar’s “The Merry Widow”(1861) and Offenbach’s “Tales of Hoffman”(1881)” help Bennett achieve this?

Consider the theme of Bennett’s essay, “the relationship between sympathy and bad morality. How does he define bad morality? What distinction does he make between “proof” and “agreement?” Why does he see consensus as “all he needs?”

Bennett sees any morality, good or bad, as a conformance to one’s own principles. How does his use of the term “conscientiousness” apply to this definition?

In emphasizing the distinction between sympathy, or what Bennett calls “every sort of fellow feeling,” and moral judgment, he offers the argument that what Huck considers to be the wrong choice, acting against his bad set of moral values, impacts the reader as an instance where Huck’s “sympathy”, or “fellow-feeling” for Jim, overwhelms the “conscientiousness” required to stick to one’s principles, and thus compels Huck’s right actions. In other words, for Bennett, Twain’s literary example offers a fictional scenario where the reader agrees that since Huck’s is a bad morality, sympathy should dictate the morality of Huck’s actions.

Might the difference between bad morality and sympathy also be described as one of private conscience versus public duty?

Do we agree that Huck’s lying to the slave-hunters is the right thing to do?

Locate the passage where Himmler considers remaining a “decent fellow” in the commission of unspeakable atrocities as a heroic act. Why would Himmler consider, in Bennett’s words, “retaining one’s sympathies while acting in violation of them” as requiring courage?

How might the description of Himmler as having been plagued by a, “psychic division,” apply to a soldiers dilemma over whether to follow official, and, therefore, legal, commands that authorize the torture of one’s enemies?

Bennett provides three examples, Huck Finn, Heinrich Himmler, and Jonathan Edwards. In the Huck example, sympathy wins out over bad morality, with Himmler, bad morality trumps sympathy, but in Edward’s case, sympathy is missing from the moral binary Bennett sets up. How does Edward’s belief that no one should be spared from “an eternity of unimaginably awful pain” nullify the necessity of adopting an attitude of sympathy?

Why does Edwards say that the “saints in glory” will “rejoice” in our eternal torment and suffering?

What does Bennett mean in saying, for Edwards, “moral standards exist independently of God?”

What does misanthropic mean, and what psychoanalytical conclusion does Bennett imply in saying, “one suspects misanthropy in the theologian?”

What passage from “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” does Bennett select to show us that having no sympathy, according to Edwards, is the right thing to do?

Which passage from Twain suggests that, counter to Bennett’s thesis, sympathy expresses itself as a kind of moral pragmatism in the face of a subjective moral absolutism?

Might sympathy be considered as a component of moral judgment rather than a separate attitude of conscience?

Bennett cites the Wilfred Owen’s World War I poem, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (the title comes from the Roman Lyrical Poet, Horace (Odes iii 2.13) as evidence that “experience can put pressure on morality.”

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.--

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs

Bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori

When Bennett writes, “I don’t doubt that some of my beliefs are false; and so I should try to remain open to correction,” and that “I must keep my morality open to revision,” is he suggesting that one’s moral values should be thought of as shifting and contingent rather than fixed and absolute?

Locate the passage in which Bennett offers a justification for comparing a fictional character, Huck Finn, with the historical figures of Himmler and Edwards.

Given that Bennet’s piece is a non-fictional essay on moral judgment, and that it incorporates excerpts from a fictional example, Huckleberry Finn, do you think storytelling sets up moral conflict more effectively that philosophical models?

How do aesthetic narratives differ from theoretical discourse in framing our conceptions of attitudes like sympathy and moral judgment?

The Lowest Animal

“It takes little talent to see clearly what lies under one’s nose, a good deal of it to know in which direction to point that organ.”
-- W.H. Auden 1907-73; “The Dyer’s Hand” (1963)

Folks, imagine sending your 18 year old to destroy a meth lab in Tijuana, or a remote cocaine production operation in Colombia, or a drug warehouse in East St. Louis, or Detroit. This is Obama’s plan for Afghanistan. If you want to know what’s going on over there, read the dispatches in the NYT by Dexter Filkins: “American commanders are planning to cut off the Taliban’s main source of money, the countries multimillion-dollar opium crop, by pouring thousands of troops [20 thousand, to be exact] into the three provinces that bankroll much of the group’s operations.” Good luck, Barack. Read your Kipling.

I guess my idea of de-criminalizing, if not legalizing, hard drugs, as a way of cutting off the Taliban’s funding, is too preposterous to entertain. And oh, by the way, this might also be a strategy to end the menace of the Mexican drug cartels, and the incursion of their influence in the United States.

The West’s insatiable opiate addiction is not only a political sin in that it funds terror, it is also a moral sin in that it compounds the misery of the Afghani people. Filkins writes, “Afghanistan, the world’s largest producer of Opium, is drowning in a sea of its own making. [Here I would disagree with Filkin’s, since Europe and the United States are complicit in fueling the cultivation of poppys.] While the country’s narco-traffickers ship vast quantities of the stuff to Europe and the U.S., enough of it stays behind to offer a cheap and easy temptation to the people at home”(NYT 5/6/09). Lynsey Addario’s photos of a 20 year old mother smoking opium in front of her children is heartbreaking.

In Afghanistan, a country wracked by poverty where the tribal population lives by 13th Century standards, more and more rural children are being schooled in Madrassas. There is no instruction in history, geography, or mathematics. Instead, the day is spent studying the Koran and Koranic law. Couple this ideological indoctrination with the mounting indiscriminate killings of Afghan civilians by United States bombing raids and you have a recipe for disaster. Trust me on this: these budding insurgents are not future party-store owners. In the 5/6/ NYT, Carlotta Gall reports that, “Enraged villagers brought an estimated 30 bodies, including those of women and children, from their district to the capital of Farah Province to show officials….Villagers accounts put the death toll at 70 to 100.” Not only are we not winning the hearts and minds of the populace, we’re driving them into the arms of the Taliban for food, shelter, and indoctrination. "One villager, sayed Ghusuldin Agha desribed body parts littered around the landscape. 'It would scare a man if he saw it in a dream.'"

And what about Pakistan? It’s done. The technocrat class, doctors, teacher’s lawyers, and engineers in the cities will flee the country once the insurgency overwhelms the cities. Here's Filkins: "Hundreds first, then, thousand; tattered, woebegone, well dressed...nearly all of them lost and bewildered and wondering what fate awaited them next....The refugees...are fleeing the battles that are now unfolding across a 50 mile arc northwest of the Pakistani capital....Government officials say that about 40,000 people have already left and that a half million might ultimately be forced to run."

Know this, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. How about some good old Yogi Berra déjà vu all over again? Also recall when, in a reference to Viet Nam, Rummy said he doesn’t do quagmire. Most of you can remember when the U.S. trusted the ARVN (South Vietnamese Army) to defend the south from the Viet Cong and NVA, well this is exactly what’s taking place in Pakistan. We’ve put our faith in the Pakistan army to take back the provinces where the Taliban are in control. How strong is this fighting force? Not very. They lack the training and ideological commitment to fend off the insurgents. Add to this the fact that the Pakistani government won’t reveal where the WMDs are for fear that the Americans might pre-emptively destroy these sites and we’ve got trouble, a fundamentalist theocratic state with nuclear weapons. And how will India, having its own nuclear arsenal react to this. Look out.

Not having taken a careful look at what happened to the British at the turn of the last century, and blindly ignoring the fact that the Russians couldn’t prevail in Afghanistan, Obama is making a foolish, and tragic, mistake.

By the way, my scans were clear. I now go to a 6-month checkup schedule.

Peace - Randy