A few thoughts about the Republicans who want to be President:

— The enthusiasm for Ben Carson, as predicted, is falling. The more he talks (when you can hear him), the less qualified he seems to hold the highest office in the land. He is, I presume, a decent man, but he is over his head in this race, and that fact is becoming increasingly obvious. Night-night, Ben.

— A writer for the Washington Post smartly leveraged the words and style of Donald Trump throughout his bigoted, rabble-rousing campaign and found a close parallel: with the words and style of the late Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. The Italian was a fascist; Trump is doing all he can to evoke that kind of political opportunism.

— Ted Cruz has seen his polling numbers going up a bit. But it seems he’s having some problems, according to The New York Times: namely, he’s finding it difficult to convince people he’s a nice guy. Apparently Ted comes off as a prick, no matter how much he tries to disguise it. This will come as no surprise to his senatorial colleagues, who tired of him two years ago.

— It’s still astonishing to watch the campaign of Jeb Bush disintegrate. And who could have predicted that a year ago? All it took was for Jeb to hit the campaign trail to allow everyone to discover that he seems not fit for the job. Heck, he doesn’t seem fit for the debates.

— Why is Rick Santorum still in the race? Ego? Idiocy? Hoping for a book contract?

— Lindsay Graham is way too hawkish and lacking in domestic policy chops to interest me. But I like his sense of humor and his occasional whiff of non-partisanship. And I give him credit for the best line of the campaign so far when, after Trump’s call for banning Muslims in the U.S., Graham replied, “Tell Donald Trump to go to hell.”

— Donald Trump got one thing right: Carly Fiorina is a loser. And was.

— At this point in the campaign — which is to say before most people are aware there’s even a campaign ahead — it’s hard to believe there is a Republican candidate who can be elected President. The leaders are too far right to win a majority of American voters in the general election, and honestly, there’s not a one of them at this moment who shows any presidential qualities. Sad. And sort of unbelievable.

What should we call bigots whose despicable utterances inflame, abet and further the aims of unspeakably violent terrorists?

Donald Trump.

It’s hard to know what to say after yet another mass shooting in the United States. As others have written, the fact t that we now average more than one a day can easily lead to a bizarre sense of normality, as in “another day, another massacre.” We can settle too comfortably into a cycle of anger, grieving and forgetfulness. Almost as a ritual. And how wrong that is.

We know, of course, the division over gun safety laws continues without apparent resolution. Never mind that a great majority of the American pubic wants stronger laws to try and limit gun violence, the facts are that with the National Rifle Association and its cowardly allies in and out of Congress, little is going to be done. Similarly, we need more far-reaching laws to deal with mental health issues, and while many lawmakers agree on this, there are many others who continue to vote down more money to accomplish this.

A dialogue between these sides isn’t happening. But it must. We simply have to talk rationally and with civility and respect about gun laws and mental health problems. The two are so connected. Isn’t there any shred of sense and sensibility that would lead our Congress to put aside partisanship (on all sides) and sit down to talk over these problems. Surely no one can ignore what’s happening.

And yet….

There is this satiric commentary that appeared in The Onion today. It is tragically ironic, and I happily acknowledge its creators. Please read it. And weep for us.

From The Onion:
SAN BERNARDINO, CA—In the hours following a violent rampage in southern California in which two attackers killed 14 individuals and seriously injured 17 others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Michigan resident Emily Harrington, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep these individuals from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six and a half years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

American Drug company giant Pfizer wants to merge with much smaller Irish-based drug company Allergan. Well, goodness, what could go wrong with that?

The answer is just about everything. The merger proposal is what tax experts call an inversion. That’s when an American company merges with company based on another country and shifts its “headquarters” overseas in order to lower the taxes it pays in the United States.

So, if Pfizer gets this, then the company will pay less taxes here and use the resulting profits to lower its drug prices for american consumers. NOT.

No, if Pfizer gets this, the company’s stockholders will get more money and American consumers will pay more, likely much more, for drugs from both companies. Count on it. Pfizer is at least upfront about why it wants this merger — to lower its tax burden. The combination of putting fewer dollars into the U.S. treasury and hiking prices for its drugs amounts to a two-headed hammer for U.S. taxpayers. Our drugs will cost more and the U.S. debt will go up. Thanks, Pfizer.

This is a shabby deal and one I seriously hope U.S. regulators will reject. Pfizer inevitable claim that being unable to lower its taxes means the company will have to cut back on its drug research is so much baloney; Pfizer, like other U.S. drug companies, gets most of its research money from the U.S. government. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you.

If you think this merger is a good deal, then you are either a Republican (or sadly), a Democrat who are unconcerned over health care issues for all but the extremely rich. That, and the fact that that you probably receive a good chunk of your campaign funding from drug companies like Pfizer. When this issue comes to debate, pay close attention to which legislators support it and you’ll quickly discover who is getting the biggest payoffs from Pfizer.

This is a shabby deal. It must be rejected.

The terrorism attack in Paris and in other nations has brought out so much good and honorable in people around the globe. Sadly — and disgustingly — it also has brought out rampant xenophobia here and abroad.

In America, what we’ve heard recently from too many Republicans and some Democrats is a sick mix of xenophobic ideas centered on keeping out refugees fleeing Syria and punishing Muslims already in the country. These ideas and the people who have proposed them, which includes some presidential candidates, show the very worst and most regrettable sides of America.

A host of governors have signed measures barring Syrian refugees from settling in their states. That in spite of the fact that federal law prohibits it, making the gubernatorial proclamations meaningless, except in their blatant appeal to the worst instincts of their state’s inhabitants. There have been suggestions that refugees be settled in internment camps similar to the used for Japanese-Americans in world War II. Presidential candidates have actually proposed that mosques be closed and that Muslims living in America be subjected to special identification cards and their movements be tracked by a new federal agency (thank you, Donald Trump). So what’s next? Maybe special colored armbands, using the Nazi model?

Honestly, is this what we’ve come to now? Is our democracy so impoverished and weak that we must turn our backs on the qualified and the needy? Are we truly prepared to abandon the ideals that have contributed so much to the strength of our nation? We are desirous to turn our backs to the rest of the world in some kind of perverted nationalism? No. I cannot and will not believe that. Shame to everyone who has subscribed to these ideas, and shame to those who silently acquiesce.

The facts are that only a limited number of refugees will ever arrive on our shores. Those refugees will go through quite an extraordinary period of vetting that will keep them from becoming a part of our population for at least a year and possibly up to two years. Does anyone really think terrorists will follow this restriction in order to pursue crimes here? And let’s remember, too, that a majority of these refugees are women and children under the age of 12.

Is it too late for reason and right to prevail? I don’t think so. I believe in the goodness of people, and I believe that faith is justified and that suspicion and fear and hate are not strong enough to survive. We know they exist because they always have, but let us have more pride, more understanding, more compassion, more good sense than to succumb.

Much more needs to be said in defense of truth, but let me give the last word to the governor of the state of Washington, who recently wrote a potent response to the anti-refugee believers in the New York Times. Please take a moment to read it:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-my-state-won%e2%80%99t-close-its-doors-to-syrian-refugees/ar-BBnfdGi?ocid=spartandhp.

This is very short column. And a simple one. It goes like this: with the threats from ISIS evident, with the shameful terrorist attacks in Paris, should we be led by a President without any discernible experience in international affairs?

Ben Carson?

Donald Trump?

Carly Fiorina?

If you answered “yes” to one of those three names, then you are clearly much more willing than I to risk this country’s well-being.

Rampant, unrestrained capitalism is a menace to the health of our society. Case in point: the nation’s pharmaceutical industry, beset with ugly greed and now forcing us to re-think the necessity of governmental regulation.

Why? Well, if you take any medications, or if you’ve been reading about Big Pharma lately, you know exactly what the problem is. Let me give you a personal example. I used colchicine, a drug to help in reducing arthritic inflammation associated with gout. A prescription for 60 tablets cost me under $5. That was five years ago. Now, 30 tablets cost over $100 — if you can find them. The reason for the jump in costs? The producer decided the drug wasn’t generating enough income and dropped it; another producer stepped in and stepped the cost way, way up. The loser? Me, and others who found the drug helpful.

Much more appalling are the recent stories of patients who have discovered the cost of their life-savings drugs have increased more than 500% — or more. And using a generic over a brand-name drug hasn’t lessened the cost, either. And the reason is that drug companies are now driven by profits and profits only. Health care concerns for the companies no longer seem to exist.

This is totally irresponsible behavior and totally reprehensible. And there’s little to be done about it since there is no regulation for these companies on the ways they price their drugs. It’s a terrible situation not just for patients and their doctors, but also for the insurance companies who are required to include many of these greed-priced expensive drugs in their coverage.

The reactions to this, finally, are coming. Congressional investigations are on the horizon. There are proposals to change the way and up the ante when drug companies face fines for malfeasance and are sued by the government. These are probably worthwhile steps. But it is time for us to look seriously into the possibility of requiring governmental regulation of Big Pharma.

And yes, I know that the drug companies shout that any kind of regulation will mean they will be forced to shut down production because they won’t have enough money for research and distribution. And the response to that is, of course, baloney. The federal government already pays a mammoth chunk of the the money that goes to research at Big Pharma. And more importantly, I know that drug are too important a product to be left in the hands of people by Martin Shkreli, the smug bastard CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals who has become, deservedly, the poster boy for the worst face of capitalism. (It’s not my words, but I note that a blogger recently noted that Shkreli is the best argument to be made for retaining the death penalty.)

Enough said. Let’s keep watching as see how actions unfold.

The debate among Democratic presidential candidates the other night was both civil and informative, particularly when contrasted with the clangorous, uninformed Republican debate a few weeks before.

Republicans seem no longer able to articulate issues; they instead loudly affirm talking points and throw around misstatements as if they were flicking dust motes. These are candidates who appear woefully unqualified to guide the affairs of this country. And interestingly, it is the three leading candidates in the polls who are the most spectacularly unqualified: Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson (who has somehow managed to make Trump seem smart). Trump is a celebrity egotist, Fiorina a bullyish failure, and Carson the craziest of the three, a man whose astonishing lack of knowledge suggests a serious degree of intellectual impairment.

But back to the Democrats. Surprising during their debate was the new willingness to take on the gun control issue, which Democrats have generally avoided for fear of offending gun owners and their powerful lobby the NRA. This is good news, but to be effective at all, the Democrats must frame the discussion in a positive and accurate way.

My view is that the right way to approach gun issues is through the Second Amendment, which in spite of some confused Supreme Court decisions refer to armed militias, not individuals. That, however, isn’t going to happen before we experience hundreds of new mass shootings in this country. So the next best approach is to acknowledge the Second Amendment and focus on gun rights, or gun safety, and not gun control.

What that means is to plug the most basic and most obvious holes in our current laws. Let’s start by making it clear no one is attempting to take anyone’s guns away from them. That’s just a witless blast from the NRA propaganda machine. No, what we’re talking about universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole, making sellers more responsible. And yes, it also means stepping up guidelines for mental illnesses (are you listening, Ben Carson?).

Surveys show most Americans — over 85% — favor expanded background checks. This is something the NRA doesn’t mention. They prefer the fear-mongering accusations that Democrats want to take away weapons from legitimate gun owners. I think — hope — the gun owners will see through this sham. The NRA has gotten its destructive way too often, and now more people are recognizing this. Maybe the time is right for the Democrats’ push for increased gun rights laws.

And finally, to emphasize what a dangerous, thoughtless group the NRA really is, please read this statement from a member of their board, that people trying to get new gun safety laws passed believe “that people with guns are somehow connected to mass murders.” Really. Someone actually said that. And it wasn’t Ben Carson. It’s a callous, disrespectful lie. Those innocent victims were shot with guns. People with guns. It’s way past time time to stop this madness.

I was going to write about Donald Trump. I was going to say — again — that he is a bully. And a clown. And that his so-called “tax plan” is as mindless as something a second grader might come up with. Donald Trump is a disgrace.

But you know what? An even bigger disgrace is the failure of politicians and lobbyists to do something honest about gun laws. We’ve had over 200 mass shootings this year. And the year isn’t over yet. We suffered another one in Oregon today.

I have no doubt the National Rifle Association — whose leadership, at least, qualify as terrorists — will tell us that we need to step up mental health programs to stop the mass shootings. But in other countries — in all other countries — mass shootings have led to tightened gun laws. And they have worked. The reaction by gutless politicians the NRA leaders is just so much window dressing.

They oppose sensible gun safety laws. No amount of deaths and murders and crazy shootings will change their minds. And these are laws that most Americans — the sensible majority of gun owners — support. Don’t let the NRA leaders tell you otherwise; they lie.

I don’t want to take guns away from people who are qualified to own guns. But let’s make it harder for unqualified people to get them. And let’s stop listening to the fanatical leadership of the NRA — I don’t believe they speak for a majority of the membership — and let’s stop electing politicians who lack the courage to confront an American tragedy.

And if you’re a voter: step up and start demanding new gun safety laws. It’s right. And it’s never too late.

So, Scott Walker has withdrawn his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. Which begs the question: why in the world did Scott Walker ever think he could win the nomination?

Politicians, of course, have gigantic egos. There seems no other way they could possibly be politicians. In Scott Walker’s case, he listed to his ego and the sycophants around him who all wanted a piece of the action if Walker won. Which demonstrates that it’s not just politicians with huge egos. And no sense of reality.

Scott Walker is, at best, a minor figure on the American political landscape. He made something of a name for himself as a pubic employee union buster in Wisconsin. In the earliest stages of his campaign, he earned a niche in the polls — as if they are believable any longer — but voters soon found that the more he campaigned the less appealing he was.

Scott Walker was exposed as unqualified, uninteresting and eventually under-funded. There was simply no reason to consider him a serious candidate (remember his idea to build a wall between the US and Canada?). It turns out — surprise! — that he has neither the intellectual chops nor the personal appeal to attract anything beyond a fringe element.

And so, Scott Walker joins Rick Perry on the sidelines. Actually, Jim Gilmore is there, too, he just hasn’t realized it. And by the way, they won’t be alone long. Pretty soon, in fact, we can watch the debate featuring all the candidates who aren’t candidates any longer. I’m afraid, however, it still wouldn’t add up to anything but more GOP babble.