The Amazing Disappearing Woman

CNN politics reporter and editor-at-large Chris Cillizza just posted his analysis of winners and losers from the third Democratic presidential debate. He made some interesting points, but his most amazing assertion was this paragraph under "Losers":

*Elizabeth Warren: The Massachusetts senator wasn't bad -- she just wasn't super involved in the debate, which is weird given that she is widely seen as the strongest challenger to Biden at the moment. For a chunk of the first hour of the debate, Warren sort of disappeared. Some of that is a function of not getting questions from the moderators. But Warren also needs to find ways into conversations -- especially given how centrally located she was on the stage. When she got questions, Warren was solid, particularly when talking about teachers and her own personal narrative. But she didn't get enough questions.

We women know that it's easy to be overlooked and ignored when men are in the room, though Ms. Warren, standing at center stage in her red jacket, was plainly visible. Apparently, however, she was inaudible to Mr. Cillizza (did he wonder why her lips were moving?) Here's how often she actually spoke, and on what topics:

The graph may not be legible on your phone. You can look it up here, but if you're short of time, here's what it shows: Joe Biden spoke for 17 minutes and 22 seconds; Elizabeth Warren spoke for 16 minutes and 37 seconds. The other eight candidates spoke significantly less.

And here's something else you should have noticed, Mr. Cillizza. While Mr. Biden bumbled through many of his minutes (as even you acknowledged, despite declaring him the winner), Ms. Warren was focused and articulate throughout. If she had found her way into conversations even more than she did, would you have accused her of dominating the debate?

Fact-Checking Only One of Trump's Lies This Week

From yesterday's interview on Fox News:

“I had one of the greatest election victories in history, wouldn’t you say that’s right?” [Trump] then asked host Maria Bartiromo, who nodded her head and responded “Yes, absolutely.”

I suppose that depends on how you define "great." Even Trump knows that he lost the popular vote. Let's compare his percentage of the Electoral College vote with those of all the other presidents in his lifetime, shall we?

Six of those presidents had a lower Electoral College percentage than Trump's (though five of them, unlike him, won the popular vote). Eleven of those presidents had a higher Electoral College percentage than Trump's (and they all won the popular vote).

The average Electoral College percentage of all seventeen of those presidents - those with lower as well as those with higher percentages than Trump's - is 71.87%. Trump's percentage, an unimpressive 57.25%, lowers the average.

Apparently Trump has only one possible definition of "one of the greatest election victories in history": He thinks it was great because he won. And his Fox News interviewer "absolutely" agrees with him. 

In related news this week, George Conway, referring to the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, nailed it.

Truth and lies in the Kingdom of Catlovers: A grim fairy tale

[Remedios Varo, "Cats Paradise," 1955]

Once upon a time, in a land not far from here, King Leo the Thirty-Fourth ruled over the Kingdom of Catlovers. Everybody who lived in the Kingdom loved cats. They loved black cats, gray cats, yellow cats, and white cats; striped cats, spotted cats, fluffy cats, and sleek cats.

Some people thought cats should be allowed outside. Some people thought cats should be kept inside. Sometimes those people argued politely with one another, but everybody knew that everybody loved cats.

Alas, as usually happens, King Leo the Thirty-Fourth grew old and then older. One day, everyone knew, he would die, and then his eldest son would become king. There was a problem, though. His firstborn son was a twin - and nobody in the kingdom could remember which twin was born first. "Let the people choose," King Leo the Thirty-Fourth decreed. "It might have been Felix. It might have been Wiley. Which twin do you want for your ruler?"

To help the people choose, Felix and Wiley began walking from village to village, talking to everyone they met. "I love cats," said Felix. "I love cats," said Wiley. "Well," said the people, "that's no help. We all love cats."

"I want all cats to have a happy home," said Felix. "I am sad when I see cats living in alleys and under bushes. Some of those cats look very hungry. Some of those cats are sick. I will give them food and medicine. I will help them find homes." The people clapped and cheered, because they all wanted cats to have happy homes too.

"I want all cats to be safe," said Wiley. "I am sad when I see cats that live in alleys and under bushes. Some of them have been killed by coyotes, run over by oxcarts, and forced to eat disgusting rats. I will get rid of the coyotes. I will build bridges over the major oxcart routes. I will make sure no homeless cat has to eat rats." The people clapped and cheered, because they all wanted cats to be safe too.

[Engraving, Paris, 1880]

But the people weren't sure whether they preferred Felix or Wiley. They asked a wizard to help them choose, and he decided Wiley should be the next king. The very next day, King Leo the Thirty-Fourth died, and Wiley was crowned king of the Kingdom of Catlovers.

Now in the Kingdom of Catlovers there were ten Town Criers. These were people who ran through the streets of every village, telling the villagers what was happening in the whole kingdom. Some of the Town Criers were happy that Wiley was now king. Some were sad that Felix was not. But all ten of them loudly proclaimed, "King Leo the Thirty-Fourth is dead. Long live King Wiley the First!"

Oddly, one of the Town Criers added a few words to his proclamation. "Long live King Wiley the First," he said, "the first choice of all the people!" That was not true, but it made King Wiley's friends happy. It made King Wiley happy too.

"Everybody in the Kingdom of Catlovers loves me," said Wiley. "They do not love Felix."

Right away, King Wiley got busy. As promised, he had bridges built over the major oxcart routes. Unfortunately, the bridge-builders had never built bridges before. Many of the bridges quickly fell down, and some cats were pinned under them. The ten Town Criers ran through the streets again.

One of them said, "King Wiley is using bridges as weapons to kill cats." That was not true, but some of King Wiley's enemies believed it.

Two of them said, "King Wiley has built all the bridges he promised." That was true, but it was not the whole story.

Six of them said, "King Wiley has built all the bridges he promised. Half of them have collapsed. The number of cats being killed by oxcarts has not changed. The number of cats killed by falling bridges has increased." That was true.

One of them said, "King Wiley has built all the bridges he promised, and now no cats are being killed by oxcarts!" That was not true, but it made King Wiley's friends happy. It made King Wiley happy too.

"No cats are being killed," said Wiley. "If any cats are being killed, Felix is doing it. Seventy percent of the Town Criers are liars."

The people began to take sides for and against the bridge project.

[Charles Livingston Bull, 1911]

Next, as promised, King Wiley went after the rats. He sent soldiers to every village to spread rat poison wherever rats were known to gather. Soon the streets and alleys were full of dead and dying rats. The ten Town Criers again took to the streets.

One of them said, "King Wiley is using rat poison to kill cats." That was not true, but some of King Wiley's enemies believed it.

Two of them said, "King Wiley has killed most of the rats in the Kingdom of Catlovers." That was true, but it was not the whole story.

Six of them said, "King Wiley has killed most of the rats in the Kingdom of Catlovers. The villages stink, and homeless cats have little to eat. Some cats eat poisoned rats, and then those cats die too. Some cats die of starvation." That was true.

One of them said, "King Wiley has destroyed the rats, as promised, and our beloved cats are now eating well!" That was not true, but it made King Wiley's friends happy. It made King Wiley happy too.

"Nobody helps cats more than I do," said Wiley. "Nobody. Especially not Felix. Felix thinks cats should eat rats. Even poisoned rats. Felix is a cat poisoner. Seventy percent of the Town Criers are liars."

The people began to take sides for and against the rat eradication project.

And then something dreadful happened. Coyotes no longer had rats to eat, so they started eating cats. First they ate all the remaining homeless cats. The ten Town Criers ran through the streets with the news.

One of them said, "King Wiley has killed all the cats in the Kingdom of Catlovers." That was not true, but some of King Wiley's enemies believed it.

Two of them said, "There are no more homeless cats in the Kingdom of Catlovers." That was true, but it was not the whole story.

Six of them said, "All the homeless cats in the Kingdom of Catlovers are dead. Some died when they were injured by oxcarts and falling bridges. Some died when they ate poisoned rats. Some died when they could not find enough food. The rest were killed by coyotes." That was true.

One of them said, "Cats in the Kingdom of Catlovers are no longer in any danger!" That was not true, but it made King Wiley's friends happy. It made King Wiley happy too.

"I have ended cat homelessness," said Wiley. "Your cats are now safe. If Felix were king, your streets would still be swarming with dangerous homeless cats. Seventy percent of the Town Criers are liars."

[Jan Steen, "Argument over a Card Game," 1665]

Many of the people in the Kingdom of Catlovers turned against the Town Criers.

"Why do you tell lies about our great king?" some asked the Town Criers who spread bad news. "You must not like cats. We are happy that there are no more homeless cats in the Kingdom of Catlovers."

"We are only reporting the facts," the Town Criers said.

"You are biased," replied King Wiley's friends.

"You should move to the Kingdom of Rattlesnakes," said Wiley. "You should take Felix with you."

Meanwhile, the well-fed coyotes married and produced baby coyotes. The baby coyotes were hungry, and there were no more homeless cats to eat. So the grown-up coyotes raided people's yards and grabbed outdoor cats from happy homes. Soon there were no more outdoor cats. Most of them had been eaten. Some had joined the indoor cats. 

The number of coyotes continued to increase. They were still hungry, and they were also smart. They figured out how to open doors and windows. They sneaked into people's homes, grabbed the indoor cats, and fed them to their pups. Soon there were no more indoor cats.

Once again the Town Criers delivered the news. This time all ten of them agreed:

"There are no more cats in the Kingdom of Catlovers," they sadly proclaimed. "Hungry coyotes are roaming the streets. King Wiley has disappeared. Felix will be crowned tomorrow." That was true.

One of them added, "This would never have happened if people had only listened to us." That might have been true, but one never knows.

On the day he was crowned, this is what King Felix said to his people:

"I share your sorrow about what has happened in the Kingdom of Catlovers. I know we all love cats - black cats, gray cats, yellow cats, and white cats; striped cats, spotted cats, fluffy cats, and sleek cats. Some of us prefer inside cats and some of us prefer outside cats, but we can work together for the good of all cats.

"As my first official act, I shall adopt a dozen fertile cats from neighboring kingdoms. Let us all join hands and begin anew.

"And please, my fellow Catlovers, let us stop talking about biased Town Criers. Let us simply look for the truth: the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Nine Town Criers ran through the streets reading the king's message to people who could not attend his coronation.

One Town Crier said nothing. Some say she sneaked out of town while King Felix was speaking. That may be true.

The End

[Cat drawing used by permission of https://clipartxtras.com]

One way you can (maybe) help keep Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court

[Collins & Kavanaugh, 8/21/2018]

Have you been keeping up with the campaign to persuade Maine Senator Susan Collins to vote against confirming Brett Kavanaugh? You pledge whatever amount you please--$20.20 is suggested--which will fund her Democratic opponent in 2020 if she votes for confirmation. If she votes against confirmation, you will be charged nothing at all.

I'd heard about the campaign, but I was startled this morning when I learned how much has been raised. Less than a month ago, the organizers were talking about kick-starting an opponent's campaign with, say, $50,000. Last I looked, over $700,000 had been pledged. You can check current totals, read about why a lot of people in Maine oppose BK's nomination, and make your own pledge, if you like, at Crowdpac.

A few things to add, in case you think this is a wonderful or a terrible idea:

• Remember that she's not up for re-election this year. In 2020 she'll be almost 68. Maybe she won't care if she doesn't get to stay in the Senate until she's 74, who knows? If she does care, maybe she'll think that however much this campaign brings in is a drop in the bucket compared to the more than $6 million she raised to get elected in 2014. Or maybe she'll be so offended by all this pressure that she'll vote for confirmation just to show her independence.
• On the other hand, this may worry her. She might not want a Democrat to win her seat. If you're a Republican, you might not want that either. But if you're a Democrat, you might think it's a great idea.
• The media gives a lot of attention to the future of Roe v. Wade. BK might well cast the vote that would reverse that decision. If you think women should choose for themselves, you're no doubt hoping Collins will vote against BK. If you are opposed to legal abortion, you might want BK to be confirmed. 
• On the other hand, you might realize that BK's nomination is about a lot more than abortion.There are other important reasons to hope BK is not confirmed. Today's New York Times editorial,  "Confirmed: Brett Kavanaugh Can't Be Trusted," gives quite a few. Be sure to scroll past the "Related: More on Brett Kavanaugh" interruption and read the latter half of the article, where several serious concerns are raised. Most damning, in my opinion, is this: "He misstates facts under oath, and Republicans cover for him by making it hard, if not impossible, to get the documents proving it."
• Susan Collins's vote could make the difference. 

A man who can't be trusted is not a man I want on the Supreme Court, even if he's a really nice guy. Especially since he'd often have the tie-breaking vote. There are already enough people in Washington, DC, who can't be trusted. We don't need their accomplices on the Supreme Court; we need justices who will hold them accountable. That's what separation of powers is all about. And that's why I contributed to the Crowdpac campaign today.

Click this link to make your provisional contribution.

Yes, Mr. President, you should fix Google!

Dear President Trump,

Your tweet this morning was absolutely on target--a high percentage of online news reports about you are BAD. You are right in saying that this is a very serious situation (and you didn't even mention that the percentage of bad news may have gotten even worse since Google and Twitter started weeding out disruptive Russian trolls, bots, and political ads, which were mostly in your favor). Believe me, most Americans are glad you are onto this.

The good news is, YOU can singlehandedly fix this problem! Here's how:

1. STOP DOING BAD THINGS.

2. START DOING GOOD THINGS.

If you aren't sure about the difference between BAD and GOOD in any specific situation, you can ask people who read lots of books to advise you.

You'll be surprised at how quickly the news reports change in your favor!

Sincerely,
A friend who wants to make America great again

A Trump wall everyone will love

Here's an idea for President Trump and his supporters. Let's build an impenetrable border wall around maybe a third of the United States. Make sure that no immigrants can enter. Make equally sure that no Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter) who favor universal healthcare can enter. Likewise, don't allow any Democrats (or Republicans) who favor gun limitation and regulation to breach the wall.

To live inside the walled paradise, you must be an American citizen who wants to pay for your own healthcare or health insurance with no help from the government, or to go without healthcare altogether. You must own a gun, because only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. And you must be willing for everyone inside the wall to get any kind of weapon they wish to have. Don't worry - since everyone inside the wall will be a Trump supporter too, there won't be any bad guys to contend with. (Pssst - you can keep out people who aren't white, if you wish. I mean, you'll be armed. Heck, you can keep out anyone you don't like.)

Only thing is, you must stay inside the wall. Well, unless you change your mind and unaccountably want to have your guns regulated (or, in some cases, even confiscated) and be forced to buy health insurance. Insurance that would help your neighbor but might never help you! And you'd have to live with all those people you don't like. Some of them don't even speak English! Would you really want to do that?

I mean, look at the financial advantage of living inside your walled community. Treating gunshot wounds costs American hospitals some $2.8 billion a year. That adds up to a lot of insurance premiums. If you choose not to buy health insurance, you won't have to pay a dime of it! But anyway, since you'll all be armed, gunshot wounds won't be a problem. I mean, who would shoot an armed person, right?

And here's the best part - you won't have to pay for this paradise yourself. Tell those immigrant-loving, gun-hating, socialist-healthcare-promoting Democrats (and Republicans) that you'd like your own walled country, and they'll jump at the chance to build it for you!

And then, finally, you can make America - or at least your walled-off portion of it - great again.

Needed in America: a huge healthcare experiment

[Thomas Eakins, The Agnew Clinic, 1889]

So the House Republicans are having a really hard time coming up with a healthcare plan that all Republicans are willing to support. Apparently during their seven years of saying no to the ACA, it never occurred to them that they might one day be in a position to propose something better. They just never saw this coming.

Oh, they'll pass something all right. Maybe even tomorrow. The ACA, they have always maintained, is a bad plan. They are probably right: under President Obama, American  healthcare went from worse to bad. Under any proposals the Republicans have made so far, it will go from bad to worse.

If only our lawmakers read books. Eight years ago T.R. Reid, in The Healing of America, explained why our healthcare system doesn't work. He even used entertaining anecdotes and simple language that members of Congress could grasp, if they'd take the time to read it. It's unlikely that our current president would be able to focus long enough to understand it, but he could be overruled by a conscientious Congress (is that an oxymoron?).

What we Americans need is not a tweaking or even an overhaul of our healthcare system. We need a radically new-to-America approach. 

Pundits on the left argue in favor of a single-payer system. It works quite well in many Western European countries: everyone has healthcare; total costs are about half of what Americans pay; Western Europeans live longer than we do; and they tend to like their healthcare systems.

Pundits on the right argue in favor of a free-market system. No developed country has tried such an approach for at least 50 years, so they can't argue from real-world examples. They ardently believe, however, that competition would keep prices down, increase personal responsibility, and provide better care--and who's to say they're wrong?

Why don't we put it to the test? Let's have two healthcare systems. Let each state decide, by popular vote, which they want:

A. A single-payer system, financed primarily by state taxes, assuring all residents of basic, emergency, and catastrophic medical and dental care at low or no cost. Each state can decide what to do about deductibles and co-pays. Private insurance companies are welcome to offer supplementary policies for amenities such as private hospital rooms, cosmetic surgery, and excellent hospital food (joking! I don't actually believe that any U.S. healthcare system can manage good food, though a friend assures me that Swiss hospitals can, and do). States are permitted to negotiate prices with all providers, and may set caps on prices if they wish.

B. A free-market system, financed by private insurance policies purchased by individuals or corporations (to use as an employment benefit). Insurance is never required, and insurance companies are free to offer whatever benefits they choose and charge whatever they wish. States opting into this system may choose (or not) to subsidize insurance for people with low incomes. The only federal requirement is full, upfront, publicly posted disclosure of all prices--insurance, office visits, tests, procedures, hospital stays, equipment, pharmaceuticals--so consumers can easily choose among providers and provisions: otherwise the system would not be free-market.

What happens if a resident of one state goes to a different state for medical care? The person's insurance--whether publicly or privately financed--pays whatever they would pay in the person's home state, not exceeding the actual cost of the care.

After a few years of this, Americans might have a pretty clear idea of which system costs less, which one provides a  higher quality of care, which one covers a greater percentage of residents, which one operates more smoothly, which one has higher approval ratings, and so on.

I think the single-payer system is likely to work better, but maybe not. European healthcare systems work better than ours, according to Bradley and Taylor in The American Health Care Paradox, because Europeans spend a lot more on other social services than we do. By focusing on fixing problems rather than preventing them, Americans are no doubt capable of producing a single-payer system that doesn't work. Maybe, on the other hand, full disclosure of prices coupled with our entrepreneurial spirit would actually come up with something good. We'll never know unless we try.

If given the choice, would you prefer single-payer or free-market? Why?

If ignorance is bliss, Congressional Republicans want us all to be deliriously happy

Question: What effect will the Republican healthcare proposal have on (1) the number of people who have health insurance and (2) the federal budget?
Congressional Republican answer: We don't know and we don't care.

Question: Shouldn't we appoint an independent counsel to investigate all those possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign?
Congressional Republican answer: Not yet--and anyway, a Trump appointee is well qualified to handle any investigation.

Question: Does President Trump have financial interests that violate the Constitution's emoluments clause and/or affect U.S. relations with foreign countries?
Congressional Republican answer: We're not going to look, and we won't let you look either.

Question: Are President Trump's cabinet appointees ethically qualified for high government office?
Congressional Republican answer: Never mind the customary vetting, just confirm them on faith.

Question: What are the underlying causes of gun violence, and how can it be reduced?
Congressional Republican answer: Defund CDC research on guns and violence!

Question: Shouldn't public policy be based on knowledge, not ignorance?
President Trump's answer: "I love the poorly educated."

Well of course he does.

Maybe Trump WILL make America great ...

A lot of people are worried. Terrified, even. With Trump in the White House, they believe, we're flirting with World War III, a second Great Depression, a tyrannical destruction of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans except white billionaires with shriveled consciences.

Actually, that doesn't sound so far-fetched.

But before succumbing to a full-fledged panic attack, let's take a look at good things that have happened since November 8--things that probably wouldn't have happened without Trump.

1. Quite a few Super Bowl ads promoted compassion, working together, and respecting the dignity of every human being.

2. Organizations that advocate for civil rights are seeing a major increase in donations.

3. Republican pundits are saying complimentary things about the Clintons and Obama.

4. Democratic pundits are saying complimentary things about the Bushes and Reagan.

5. Men everywhere are realizing that hair dye and comb-overs are counterproductive.

6. People of various persuasions are phoning their lawmakers and marching on behalf of important causes.

7. Women are feeling empowered to report sexual assault, and men are realizing how many women have experienced it.

8. White people are starting to listen to what people of color have been trying to tell them for years about the pervasiveness of racism in America.

9. Comfortable people with secure jobs are learning that a large number of Americans desperately need adequately paid work.

10. More people are realizing that both major parties need serious overhauling.

11. More people are paying attention to what the Constitution actually says.

12. Republicans are trying to figure out a way to offer more Americans better healthcare at lower prices (good luck with that!).

13. Americans have become more aware of the need to reform our immigration system so as not to exclude the people who will work with us to keep our country great.

14. People know more than they used to about protecting themselves from narcissists and gaslighting.

15. The importance of the media - and of trained, responsible journalists who strive to tell the truth  - has never been clearer.

16. The corrupting influence of money in government has never been more obvious.

17. Someone invented an app that turns pictures of Trump into kittens.

18. A bright light is shining on our lawmakers, enabling us to see who will stand up for principle and who is willing to sell their soul for presumed votes or for access to power.

19. More people are advocating for reforming our electoral system so that every American can easily and legally vote.

20. Several striking videos have highlighted the importance of treating one's wife with respect.

21. More Americans are paying attention to what's going on in the rest of the world.

22. Millennials now know why voting is important, even if their favorite candidate isn't on the ballot.

23. "Saturday Night Live" is funnier than ever.

24. Americans have taken a sudden interest in European history of the 1930s.

25. Over to you--this list is just a start.

When danger threatens, people often forget their differences and pull together for the common good. Is that happening now? Are conservatives and liberals joining forces to combat selfishness, incompetence, and insanity? If so, then this worst of times could turn into the best of times, and America could once again be a place where people of differing opinions work side by side to craft solutions that benefit everybody.

Together, we can make America great the old-fashioned way--not through corruption, lies, and bullying, but through honesty, humility, respect, responsibility, decency, hospitality, humor, kindness, justice, and the openhanded, welcoming generosity that once defined our nation to the world.

Powerful Men: when philandering becomes misogyny

[Pablo Picasso, The Harem, 1906]

In its March 13, 1998, issue, Commonweal magazine published an article I wrote just as Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky began dominating the news. As far as I know, it received only one comment. Someone thought my language was crude.

I am reposting that article the day after the Washington Post released a video in which "Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women . . . , saying that 'when you’re a star, they let you do it.'” This happened in 2005, 8 months after Trump married his third wife, Melania, and 6 months before their son, Barron, was born.

More than 18 years have passed since I wrote the Commonweal article, and some things have changed--though not nearly enough.

If I were writing a similar article today, I would continue to encourage women--no matter their political beliefs--to speak out about Men Behaving Badly. Fortunately, women in 2016 are a good deal more vocal about sexual harassment and abuse than they were in the 1990s, though some are still trying hard to excuse the inexcusable.

I would definitely say more about how men--no matter their political beliefs--should speak out whenever a man demeans women. Fortunately, a number of prominent Republican men have finally denounced Trump's vulgarity--though unfortunately, few have named his behavior assault and adultery, which it certainly is, and it took most of them way too long to say anything at all.

Here's what I wrote in 1998 [lightly edited]. I am deeply sorry that it needs to be read again.

----------------------------------------

"Of course, this isn't about sex. It's about possible obstruction of justice." "Clinton's sex life is his own business. What matters is whether he's doing what we elected him to do." "If his wife can live with him, why should we care?"

Gosh, we're all so grown-up. Sex may have been all we thought about in the late sixties, but we're far beyond that now. If it weren't for those questions of perjury and the electoral mandate, we would certainly not be watching all those prurient commentators, now would we?

Well, I for one find sex fascinating, and having been grounded by the flu just when Monica hit the airwaves, I relentlessly watched the alleged scandal unfold. I confess I've been startled to hear countless fastidious people denying any interest in Clinton's sex life (though at parties, after a drink or two, they begin calling him the Unabanger, and worse). This is not because I'm a Clinton-basher. I voted for him twice, and I hope he is eventually found to be pure as the driven snow. But I am really watching because I am amazed at [some] women's willingness to overlook men's perfidy.

The subtext of l'affaire Clinton is that old law of nature: the most powerful male can have all the females he wants. In the West he is unlikely to have a state-supported harem, but he is allowed to keep a wife, a mistress, and any number of sexual servants at his disposal. Who allows him to do this? We all do--especially when we say that allegations of sexual misconduct are relatively unimportant, as long as the alleged perpetrator tells the truth about them.

If the top baboon can have all the females he wants, it's clear where he's sitting. His bright pink rump is planted firmly on the glass ceiling. Look up, women: you can't miss it. If you're young and nubile, he may beckon to you. Take a breathtaking ride up the elevator past that glass barrier, right into the inner sanctum of power. Make him feel good and be rewarded with small gifts and better jobs. Afterward, as you fly past your plainer colleagues on your way to the basement, console yourself: at least you have seen the view from the top baboon's penthouse, while they--with all their integrity and hard work and brains--will never get past the barrier.

Well, one of them might. For there is also a top female: the wife. She may be powerful in her own right. She certainly shares her husband's glory. She bears his children, speaks for him when he cannot be present, counsels him at will. And she can live above the glass ceiling for life--as long as she does not mind the eager young things getting off and on the elevator[, and as long as she is never replaced by a newer model].

According to one school of thought, men will behave if their wives play a prescribed role to perfection, whether the role be domesticity and maternity or professionalism and assertiveness. If men do not behave, it is because their women have somehow failed. Perhaps this idea works with lesser baboons (though it seems hardly fair to blame one person for another's misbehavior), but the top baboon does not generally subscribe to it. Their wives' dazzling beauty did not keep the husbands of Jacqueline Kennedy or Diana, Princess of Wales, from finding extracurricular interests. Brilliance did not protect Eleanor Roosevelt from the other woman; gentle reticence was no safeguard for Mamie Eisenhower; political astuteness was insufficient for Lady Bird Johnson. Did all these women simply make poor choices? Coretta Scott King and Kasturbai Gandhi married saints, but both had to endure the elevator that kept delivering fresh women (Gandhi, who presumably was not after power, also claimed not to be after sex: he wanted naked young women in his bed so he could strengthen his character by saying no).

Back in 1964, the year [before] Hillary Rodham graduated from high school and a year after publication of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, Jack Jones was crooning to nervous housewives: "Hey, little girl, comb your hair, fix your make-up...." You'd better look good when your husband walks in the door, advised Hit Number 14, "Wives and Lovers," because "day after day, there are girls at the office, and men will always be men." Is that really what it means to be a man--to be unable to resist attractive women? And are the only possible female responses either to "Stand By Your Man," if you're directly involved, or to argue that adults can do whatever they like sexually, so long as they're otherwise fulfilling their job descriptions?

I'll agree with the prevailing wisdom on one point: the current scandal is not about sex. But it's not about perjury either. It's about power. With enough power, we apparently still believe, a man can have all the women he wants. Some will throw themselves at him; others will be more subtle. Very few will turn him down, and virtually nobody will kiss and tell. And through it all, the wife smiles graciously and makes excuses.

This scandal is also about self-respect. Women--whether single or married, professionals or homemakers--are not tokens of winning, like poker chips, and we demean ourselves when we speak of adultery, sexual compulsiveness, and harassment as peccadilloes. I don't know how, when, or if women are going to get past the glass ceiling. It is more likely to happen in our lifetime, however, if we have the courage to say that philandering is misogyny. It's time to stop making excuses for men who see women as prizes in the power game--playmates, not players.

Where industrious ants get dinner

You know Aesop's fable about the ants and the grasshopper. Conservative libertarians think it's scripture.

One bright day in late autumn a family of Ants were bustling about in the warm sunshine, drying out the grain they had stored up during the summer, when a starving Grasshopper, his fiddle under his arm, came up and humbly begged for a bite to eat.

"What!" cried the Ants in surprise, "haven't you stored anything away for the winter? What in the world were you doing all last summer?"

"I didn't have time to store up any food," whined the Grasshopper; "I was so busy making music that before I knew it the summer was gone."

The Ants shrugged their shoulders in disgust.

"Making music, were you?" they cried. "Very well; now dance!" And they turned their backs on the Grasshopper and went on with their work.

But this morning I saw something far more sinister than heartless ants. A grasshopper was caught in a spider's web, and the ants were eating him.

No wonder the ants wouldn't share their food.

They're going to miss the concerts, though. And when the spider is done with the grasshopper, they'd better watch out.

Why this is the perfect time to vote for Bernie, even if you don't want him to be president

I voted for Bernie today. I am not sure he'd make a good president.

What I like about him--his refusal to be bought, his idealism, his modest lifestyle, his populist appeal, his independence, his concern for the common good--are the very characteristics that would probably make it hard for him to govern a nation that's in thrall to Money and Power.

But I voted for him anyway, even though it's highly unlikely he'll be the candidate in November.

And if you're a Hillary supporter in one of the 18 states still awaiting their primary, this is the very best time to vote for Bernie. Your vote will not make Bernie the candidate, but it could very well make Hillary a better president.

I voted for Bernie because Hillary needs to hear his message, over and over again. She needs to hear it so insistently that it will get through to her in spite of the power brokers who have financed her campaign.

She needs to know that a lot of us think she is dangerously hawkish. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war might be excused based on the misinformation available at the time, but her handling of Libya (and I don't mean Benghazi) shows her eagerness to rush in where better angels fear to tread.

She needs to face a continuing, relentless wave of public protest against her ties to big money sources including Wall Street and foreign governments.

If she becomes president, she needs to use her admirable skills to get Citizens United reversed and to do whatever it takes to assure that elections are never again bought and sold.

If she doesn't pay attention to those of us who wistfully admire Bernie's principles, the United States may soon be in big trouble. The rest of the world has gotten fed up with rich bullies. Despite their blustering, the sun did set on the British Empire, and it could soon set on ours.

I wish we had a candidate with Bernie's ideals and Hillary's political savvy.

But since we don't, I voted for Bernie because his heart's in the right place. And in November, I expect I'll vote for Hillary because her heart was once in the right place too... and maybe we Bernie supporters can help her see the light once again.

The 2016 Candidates and the Missing Middle

In this oddest of presidential election seasons, one odd fact is rarely mentioned: the curious age spread of the candidates.

At their first inauguration, our 43 U.S. presidents* have ranged in age from almost 43 to almost 70. More than half were in their 50s. Their median age was 55, and so was their average age.

But in 2016, now that we're down to eight candidates (Bush, Carson, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump vs. Clinton and Sanders), not a single candidate is in his or her 50s.

Rubio: 45 years, 237 days

Cruz: 46 years, 29 days
Bush: 63 years, 343 days
Kasich: 64 years, 245 days
Carson: 65 years, 124 days

Clinton: 69 years, 86 days

Trump: 70 years, 220 days

Sanders: 75 years, 134 days

A few 50-something wannabes have dropped out of the race (Christie, O'Malley, Paul, Santorum), as did some 60-somethings (Huckabee, Fiorina, Gilmore). If the polls are right, the remaining 60-somethings who have not yet reached Social Security's full retirement age (Bush, Kasich, Carson) will not be in the running much longer. If they drop out, we will be left with no candidate over 46 or under 69 on January 20, 2017. 

I made a chart to see how weird this is. The current candidates' ages are highlighted in yellow.**

To see a chart you can actually read, click here.

Cruz and Rubio are younger than every elected president except John F. Kennedy (Teddy Roosevelt was even younger, but he became president when McKinley was assassinated).

Clinton is older than every president except Ronald Reagan. Trump and Sanders are older than any president ever.

Looked at another way, the most likely candidates are either younger than my firstborn or older than me. I find this slightly scary.

----------------------------------------

*Yes, I know Mr. Obama is #44 - that's because Grover Cleveland, who was elected to two non-subsequent terms, is counted twice in most lists but not here.

**Red print indicates names and ages of the 16 presidents who served at least two nearly full terms. Except for Ronald Reagan, none of these was older than 62 at first inauguration.

A nonpartisan plea to American candidates, pundits, political marketers, and my Facebook friends

Please don't tell me what will work in 2016 and beyond unless you also show me what has worked in previous years, or what is working right now in other countries.

Take healthcare, for example. Don't tell me what will work in some theoretical universe. Show me what is already working in the universe we live in. It's not hard to find information about other countries' approaches, costs, successes, failures, and overall health results. If you want to change our current system of healthcare--and I think we all agree that changes are necessary--how about basing your recommendations on some system that is already more successful than our own? 

Or consider taxes. Forget ideology. Look at our own history. When the highest earners paid a lot more in taxes, did business prosper or lag? When the trickle-down theory became popular, did inequality increase or decrease? When taxes were lowered, did we find it easier or harder to pay for things we value like roads, bridges, and veterans' benefits? When was the average American most prosperous? What was the tax structure then?

Most of us want Social Security to thrive, though we have different proposals for how this should be achieved. To those who think the system should be privatized: how about showing us what happened to pensions when they were largely privatized a couple of decades ago? Who benefited? Who lost out? To those who think earned income over $118,500 should be taxed, how do other developed countries take care of their retirees? Are any of their systems more effective than ours?

Or how about the minimum wage? We all want people to be able to find work that will support themselves and their families. Did American businesses thrive or languish when our minimum wage was proportionately much higher than it is now? Was poverty more or less widespread? Many other developed countries have a minimum wage that is higher than ours. Has this helped or hurt their economies? Has it helped or hurt job-seekers?

Or gun control. Are we safer when citizens are armed, or when they are not? What has happened in countries that have restricted gun ownership? How do our homicide and suicide rates compare to those of countries who regulate firearms more strictly than we do? What proportion of our homicides and suicides are gun related? Do countries that restrict firearms have a large number of criminals who use them anyway? If not, how do they prevent this?

Or abortion, a contentious subject if ever there was one. Instead of positing a paradise (for either conservatives or liberals) where no unwanted child is ever conceived, how about looking at what actually reduces the abortion rate? Which countries have a lower abortion rate than ours? Which ones achieve this without increasing maternal death from unsafe abortions? What policies and practices enable women in the more successful countries to avoid unwanted pregnancies and to raise the children they have conceived?

Or foreign policy, or civil rights, or regulation of financial institutions, or immigration, or education, or the environment, or poverty, or ...

None of these issues are new to Americans. We have dealt with all of them before--sometimes with good results, sometimes not. Why aren't we paying more attention to what has worked, and what has not worked, in the past?

And none of these issues are unique to Americans. Other countries also deal with healthcare, taxes, pensions, wages, firearms, abortion, and a host of other concerns. We can see where they are succeeding and where they are failing. Why aren't we paying more attention to what works, and what does not work, elsewhere?

I'm tired of exhausted ideologies. I'm tired of tear-jerking anecdotes about individuals who illustrate your point of view, or mine (it is easy to find heartwarming or infuriating stories that bolster opposite viewpoints on every one of the issues listed here, but they prove nothing). I want real-life, broad-scale examples from history or from other countries, well supported by reliable data.

The information is readily available. If you want my vote, or my respect for your opinion, inform yourself--and then show me what works. In the real world. 

A Canadian who loves her health-care system

This morning a Canadian woman wrote such an interesting comment on an old post of mine, "Rationing is not a four-letter word," that I want to share it with you. I don't know the author, her full name (though she tells me her first name is LaVonne, so she's obviously a great person), or her contact information, so I can't give her full credit. But thanks, LaVonne-in-Canada: I learned a lot from you.

Here's what she wrote about how Canadian health care works for her. I've added a few comments in red, in case you want to compare the situation of LaVonne-in-Canada with that of LaVonne-in-the-United-States.

As a Canadian, I can't understand why a medicare plan such as we have is not feasible in the USA.

As a a retired person, I pay $65/mo. When I was working, it was less - employer paid a touch more than half. [As an American retired person, this year I paid $265.85/mo--that would be $104.90 for Medicare Part B (medical insurance), $44.10 for Medicare Part D (prescription insurance), and $116.85 for Medigap Plan G (to cover Medicare's very high co-pays). When my husband was employed, my insurance cost was half that amount because his employer paid about 3/4 of the total cost--but three months ago, the employee's cost for that policy at least doubled.]

Since 2008 I have had two major operations which didn't cost me anything except $35 per day for a private room in the hospital (my choice...a 4-bed ward would have been free). [In 2011, before going on Medicare, I had a major operation which cost me $2,111.35, which seemed like a real bargain since the hospital bill was originally $172,833.97. Insurance agreed to pay $116,748.28. Earlier this year--again, before going on Medicare--I had an outpatient procedure that cost me nothing, even though the hospital bill was originally $47,914.28. Insurance agreed to pay $15,763.77. It's a strange way of doing business.]

Moreover, no charge to Canadians for doctor's office visits. We don't have to delay need for care, might save worsening condition. [Because I bought a Medigap policy (Plan G), I first pay a $147 yearly deductible, after which I am not charged for doctor's office visits. Under our former Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, I was charged $20 to see my primary care provider and $40 to see a specialist.]

We have a population of less than 35 million. Our population can support a universal healthcare plan. The USA has more than 10 times the population of Canada. Surely 350 million people can support a universal health care plan successfully - many more people to pay into it, and as well, more healthy employed people than sick people by far to support the plan, I should think.

By the way, my $65/mo covers 60% of my dental care, too, however this is an option my former employee-plan (union job) allowed me to take. If I'd wanted to pay in more, I could have opted for 80% dental coverage, or 100%. Medicare without the dental would cost $57/mo.(rather than $65). [Alas, my $265.85 includes no dental coverage. And even though I pay for prescription insurance, I also pay out-of-pocket for prescriptions: in my case another $57/mo as long as I don't need anything next year that I'm not already taking.]

Do you think that if your legislators could corrall Big Pharma and Big Insurance Co., that maybe your country could get something even better going? The current Obama-care is not the whole way your President wanted to go (he wanted something more along the lines of the Canadian plan) but he was hog tied, he had to compromise.

We are not socialists in Canada. We have a capitalist system, too. However we don't fret at the thought of socially subsidized provision for people's health, and I think as a consequence we might have a healthier population. The Native Indian people in Canada have totally free healthcare - they don't have to pay any monthly premiums at all.

Now if you happen to think that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, in spite of what Jimmy Kimmel's interviewees believed) will give us a Canadian system, please, please, please read "Obamacare vs. Canada: Five key differences." The two systems are very, very different--and the differences help to explain why I pay hundreds of dollars more a month than LaVonne-across-the-border, and get significantly less.

And if you're itching to point out that Canadians have to wait longer than Americans for health care, or that Canadians stream over the border to American hospitals, or that Canadian seniors can't get hip replacements, please, please, please read "5 Myths About Canada's Health Care System" and learn what is really happening across our northern border. It's probably not what you think. It's certainly not what the U.S. anti-health-care lobby wants you to think.

These are short articles. You have time.

The truth is, as LaVonne-in-Canada noted, the Affordable Care Act is not exactly what President Obama wanted. He had to compromise, and as a result, Obamacare is not nearly as effective as Canadian health care--though it's somewhat better than what we had before. And Canadian health-care benefits aren't as amazingly good as, say, French or Swiss benefits (which still cost considerably less than ours, by the way), though if our aim is to keep costs as low as possible while still insuring everybody, we still  might choose to imitate Canada rather than some of the more generous countries.

But until the American people come to realize that our current mishmash of a system is costing them a lot more than a more centralized system could--and until our lawmakers find the courage "to grapple in a systematic fashion with the overall inefficiencies in health care delivery and financing, the administrative burden of multiple payers, providers and plans, and the cost pressures of defensive medicine," as the "Obamacare vs. Canada" article suggests--we will keep on paying more, getting less, and regularly shutting down the U.S. government and (who knows?) maybe crashing the entire world's economy.

A prominent Republican's views on health-care reform - in 1974

[From Loma Linda University Scope, summer 1974]

This afternoon while looking through old file folders, I came across the opening page of a 1974 article by Caspar Weinberger called "An honest look at needed reforms in America's health care."

Weinberger was chairman of the California Republican party from 1962-68 and served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense from 1981-87. When he wrote the article I found, he was Richard Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. His Republican credentials could not be stronger.

Here are some stunning paragraphs from Weinberger:

This can and must be a year of responsible reform for our nation's health care financing system. Right now, 25 million Americans have no health insurance protection at all. Millions more have coverage that is clearly inadequate.

Right now, medical costs are threatening to once again climb at a steep rate, following last month's ending of price controls.

Right now, there are communities and neighborhoods in our nation without doctor or dispensary....

What we need, to close the current gaps, is a national program of comprehensive health insurance.

Such a program must not only cover everybody. It must also ensure quality care, and end the wasteful misuse of our medical resources that our present patch-work coverage encourages.

This misuse is costing us heavily. And it is directly traceable to gaps in insurance coverage....

Nearly forty years ago, one of the nation's most prominent Republicans thought we needed - immediately! - a total overhaul of health-care financing that, truth be told, sounds a lot like what Hillary Clinton proposed in 1993, and far more radical than the Affordable Care Act.

So what has changed since 1974, when responsible health-care reform was urgently needed?

The percent of uninsured Americans has increased. In 2012, 48 million Americans were uninsured. That's 15.4% of the population, compared to the 8.5 percent that were uninsured when Weinberger wrote.

Medical costs have soared. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "the share of economic activity (gross domestic product, or GDP) devoted to health care has increased from 7.2% in 1970 to 17.9% in 2009 and 2010. Health care costs per capita have grown an average 2.4 percentage points faster than the GDP since 1970."

We still have a physician shortage, and it's getting worse.

What has changed, it seems, is the Republican Party.
____________________________________________

I wish I had the rest of Secretary Weinberger's article. It was published in the Summer 1974 issue of Loma Linda University's Scope, but their online archive does not include this issue. I have the one page only because it was the reverse side of the last page of an article by my father. Ironically, the title of my father's article was "A theology of hope."

Infant mortality - why is America in 51st place?

[Picture by Brian Hall, Wikimedia Commons]

After I blogged about expensive American childcare earlier this week, my daughter Molly directed me to a March of Dimes web page showing the extremely high rate of preterm births in the United States. "Born Too Soon," a 124-page report issued in 2012, "ranks the U.S. 131st in the world in terms of its preterm birth rate of 12.0 per 100 live births, almost tied with Somalia, Thailand, and Turkey. Nearly half a million babies are born too soon in the U.S. each year."

According to a 2009 report from the Centers for Disease Control, "the main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States" - in spite for the fact that "infant mortality rates for preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries." In addition, "infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are higher in the United States than in most European countries."

It costs a lot to keep those preterm babies alive and healthy.  According to a 2012 article in The Lancet as reported by US News, infants born prematurely account for "12 percent of U.S. live births per year, but their care consumes close to 60 percent - or $6 billion - of total spending on initial neonatal care."

How effective is the spending? Quite, if you compare America to Poland: for every 10 preterm American babies who die, says a CDC report, about 15 Polish babies die. Not so much, if you compare America to Sweden: for every 10 preterm American babies who die, fewer than 8 preterm Swedish babies die.

Here's the question: why does America have so many preterm babies?

• Is it because American mothers are waiting to have babies until they're older? So are Western European mothers. In fact, the birthrate for women ages 40-49 is higher in most Western European countries than in America (you can check it out here).
• Is it because Americans are really into assisted reproductive technology, which is more likely to produce twins or triplets? According to the CDC, just over 1% of American babies born in 2011 were the result of ART. However, "in Belgium, Slovenia, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden more than 3.0% of all babies born [in 2009?] were conceived by ART" (source: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology).
• Is it because "20 percent of U.S. women (18.7 million) ages 19-64 were uninsured in 2010, up from 15 percent (12.8 million) in 2000, according to a new [2012] Commonwealth Fund report on women's health care"?

That's my best guess: a lot of our babies come early because their mothers can't afford prenatal care. And because so many of us think it's somehow un-American to provide good quality healthcare for everyone, we end up spending huge amounts to save the babies who, lacking prenatal care, are born before their time.

Sadly, our efforts are too much, too late. Though we spend more than twice as much on childbirth-related expenses as any other country in the world, our newborn infants have a higher death rate than newborns in some 50 other countries.

Economically, this is a stupid approach to childbirth. Morally, it is reprehensible. For bereaved families, it is tragic.

CATASTROPHIC CARE: HOW AMERICAN HEALTH CARE KILLED MY FATHER--AND HOW WE CAN FIX IT by David Goldhill

This week the company my husband works for unveiled the health-insurance plans available to us beginning July 1. If we chose the plan closest to our current plan, our premium would nearly double and our office visit co-pays would increase 25-50%.

I am so glad we are going on Medicare in August.

Medicare isn't perfect, by any means. It isn't even cheap. Just the insurance (Medicare medical, Medicare supplement, prescription) is going to cost us more than $500 a month, and that doesn't include the deductible or the prescription co-pays. And that's for this year. Who knows what it will cost 10 years from now?

I was so ready to read a book that would solve America's health-care crisis.

Besides, David Goldhill's title is irresistible: Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father - And How We Can Fix It.

First the bad news. Goldhill, who is president and CEO of the Game Show Network, got interested in health care when his physician father "died from a hospital-borne infection he acquired in the intensive care unit of a well-regarded New York hospital." In his early chapters, he piles up statistics about how truly dreadful our health-care system is. Wherever you are on the political spectrum, you need to read his "eleven strange things we all believe about health care." (Goldhill is a Democrat who thinks Obamacare will not work.)

After the bad news, Goldhill gives all kinds of wonky explanations about why our approach to health care doesn't work. This section will probably appeal most to free-market-loving Republicans. Despite being a lefty who distrusts the market, I found it very helpful.

Finally what we're all waiting for: Goldhill's solution. My daughter Molly should have written this book: she recommended an almost identical solution to me a couple of months ago when we had a long discussion about health care. (Molly and I do not agree about a lot of political issues, but we have respectful and helpful discussions. We don't see the point in today's political polarization: differing opinions can increase clarity and come up with better solutions than either side could do on its own.)

In a nutshell: Insurance should be reserved for catastrophes - unforeseen big-ticket expenses like major surgery or cancer treatment. Anticipated health-care expenses should come from health-care savings accounts. And there needs to be some kind of safety net.

What Republicans will like: Consumers need to have control of their own health-care dollars. There's no reason to siphon off 20% or more to insurance companies. Besides, when we pay for things ourselves, we tend to be a lot more careful about what we buy. We comparison shop. We avoid unnecessary expenses. And to get our money, providers compete with one another to provide good care at low prices.

What Democrats will like: Everyone must have a health-care savings account - no exceptions. Most people will build up a good-sized balance when they are young. As they age, they will start to draw from it. People whose emergencies cost more than their savings can borrow to cover the additional expenses. At a predetermined level, they need borrow no more: the government will make up the difference. Nobody will be left without health care: the government will provide the safety net (though not by running the program).

What everyone except certain industries and lobbyists will like: Prices must be completely transparent and equal for everybody. The market isn't free if people don't have the information they need to make smart decisions.

What nobody will like: There will be limits. Just because something sounds good in the TV ads doesn't mean everyone should have access to it. Some treatments (especially those that have little proven worth in lengthening lives) will not be available. Some will be too expensive and most people will choose to forgo them. Some will be available, but only to people who have lots of money to spend.

My favorite health-care book is still T.R Reid's The Healing of America. (See my review on this blog or in Christian Century, if you subscribe.) The fact is that a lot of other developed nations have much better health-care programs than America's. They get better results. People live longer. And they do this for about half our cost. Before we do anything else about health care, we need to lay aside our prejudices and study what these other countries are doing.

But if Reid should be required reading for legislators, Goldhill should be too. As Goldhill points out, America's politicians are unlikely to accept a lot of features that make perfect sense in other countries. We need a program that fits with our own weird beliefs and behaviors--one that combines vigorous free-market competition with a safety net for everybody.

Someday we may actually come up with such a program. But probably not until we understand, as Goldhill says, that "at some point, we will have to decide whether our attachment to the idea of helping people is more important than actually helping them--a decision that will require a rethinking of our assumptions."

FAT CHANCE by Robert H. Lustig and SALT SUGAR FAT by Michael Moss

If you eat food, here are two newish books you should know about.

You may already have met Robert H. Lustig, author of Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease (2012). Lustig is the UCSF professor whose surprisingly riveting 90-minute lecture, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth," has already had nearly 3.5 million hits on YouTube. The thesis of his lecture: it's not dietary fat that's making Americans gain weight, it's sugar. And sugar is doing much worse things than increasing our clothing size. It's setting us up for a whole range of lethal diseases that are almost entirely avoidable.

In Fat Chance Lustig writes about sugar, going into much greater detail about what it does in and to our bodies. He also writes about how various foods cause physical addiction, how the food industry keeps us full of junk, how the government helps the food industry ruin our health, why people gain weight, why diets fail, how people can lose weight--he's all over the map. But if you're not enslaved to linear thinking, you may well enjoy this fascinating collection of data and explanations as well as Lustig's sassy attitude.

Don't be put off by the title, by the way. I think it and the cover illustration are both insulting and misleading, and the subtitle makes the book sound like either an extended scold or a dreary set of rules for would-be ascetics. No, no, no. Lustig goes to great lengths to avoid blaming or shaming people who wish they weighed less. His concern is with keeping people--both convex and concave--in good health, and he'd like all of us to join his battle against the Evil Food Empire that is doing us in.

Once you've read Fat Chance you'll be loaded for bear. Michael Moss to the rescue--he'll tell you where to aim your rifle.

In Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us (2013), Moss, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter, tells what the food industry has been up to during the last couple of decades. Food executives, Moss says, are nervous: people are figuring out that convenience foods aren't good for them.

Stripped of nature's nutrients and loaded with fat, sugar, and salt, most of today's grocery-store items are engineered to provide the maximum taste thrill for the minimum price so food companies can make maximum profits and give Wall Street maximum satisfaction.

As engineered foods have gained popularly, however, their consumers have gained weight. At the same time, obesity-related diseases have added billions of dollars to health-care costs.

"Obesity is literally an epidemic in this country, and some people's ideas for addressing this public health issue could directly or indirectly affect the entire agriculture industry, from farm to consumer," a Philip Morris vice president, Jay Poole, warned an agricultural economics group.

Yes, that Philip Morris. The cigarette manufacturer, who once fought any publicity indicating that smoking might be bad for you, owned General Foods and Kraft in 1999 when Poole issued that warning, and they acquired Nabisco the next year. The food giants--including not only Philip Morris affiliates but also Kellogg's, Coke, Oscar Mayer, Cargill, Frito-Lay, and Dr. Pepper--had no intention of letting customers slip away to the produce aisle.

They would fight back with whatever weapons they could muster: the science of addiction, misleading labeling, false claims, selling to less regulated countries, advertising to children, relentless lobbying of legislators and government agencies.

I especially enjoyed Moss's repeated observation, after lunching with one food company executive after another, that the executive looked trim and healthy--and would not eat his company's products. You might not want to either after you've read this book.

Oh, and never fear--Salt Sugar Fat is not a downer (unless you read it while drinking Coke and eating Fritos). It reveals, but it doesn't preach. You'll enjoy the stories Moss tells. He hopes you will find it a useful tool for defending yourself when you walk through the grocery store doors.