On his first day in office, the new far right governor of West Virginia issued an executive order allowing for extensive exemptions from the school vaccination mandate. When taken with the nomination of a virulent anti vaxxer for Secretary of Health and Human Services, I am concerned that we are in a rush to allow our children to die of easily preventable diseases. With this in mind, I’m reposting my article The Triumph of Ignorance from last April. At that time—as you will see in the first paragraph—I had some hope. Those hopes have since been dashed.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”– Søren Kierkegaard
Saturday morning, I was reading in the newspaper about the resurgence of measles in West Virginia. I find it appalling that this disease should be returning, given that we have safe and effective vaccinations. What is next, polio, smallpox, or even plague? It is only through the unexpected veto by our governor that the ill-advised bill passed by our legislature to make all vaccinations virtually optional did not become law.
Some people may wonder why vaccinations are important. There are two principal reasons to ensure that a large portion of the population is vaccinated against communicable diseases. The first is that it reduces the individual vulnerability to disease. The person who is vaccinated is protected. But there is also a second, sometimes not well-understood, reason. That is herd immunity.
Communicable diseases require a large susceptible population to spread. When a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated the disease does not have the core of potential victims to allow spreading. This means that the vaccinated are protecting the non-vaccinated. However, it does require a large portion of the population to be vaccinated. The idea is that herd immunity will protect those who are unable to be vaccinated either due to age, allergies, or other medical conditions that would prohibit vaccination. It is never going to protect a large proportion of the population who just choose not to be vaccinated. For example, about 90-95% of the population needs to be vaccinated against measles to provide herd immunity.
So why do people who otherwise can be vaccinated choose not to be?
There are, of course, those who have true religious objections to vaccination. There are others who object to vaccination on the basis of personal autonomy. They believe their right to refuse vaccination outweighs any consideration of the health concerns of the frail members of our community.
There are many who mistrust the medical system. There were some cases in the past where unethical studies were conducted on unsuspecting populations. Given the rigorous oversight of medical research now, this no longer happens. Information about research into vaccinations and their safety and efficacy can be found on websites for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization among others. (Website references are provided at the end of this post.)
What concerns me most are those who refuse to believe reputable medical authorities, government agencies, and mainline news services. They prefer to get their information from anonymous websites or from conspiracy theory websites that still give credence to the now-discredited 1999 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism. They completely ignore the fact that 10 of the 11 reported co-authors disavowed any part in the conclusions of the study. They also ignore the fact that the principal author was found guilty of fraud for personal gain as he was employed by the manufacturer of rival drugs. They also ignore the fact that he lost his medical license over his falsifications in this study. Yet, he is still cited in anti-vaccine literature as an expert source.
Equally disturbing is the fact that vaccine resistance has become a part of political identification. Certain reactionary political groups have, for some unfathomable reason, decided that refusing vaccination is a badge of their political allegiance. They seem to care more about maintaining their political purity than they care about science, public health, or even the welfare of their family and friends. Politicizing public health is dangerous for all of us. I’m not sure how we overcome this. It is easy to find the truth and verify it through fact-based studies, yet people refuse to do it.
I encourage everyone to work hard to ensure that our political leaders do not remove vaccination mandates for school children. For those of us of my age, we already have immunity through vaccination or prior exposure to the disease. It is our grandchildren and their children and their children’s children who will suffer through the return of these deadly diseases.
Thomas Jefferson had strong views on the separation of church and state, and based on his writings, it’s likely that he would have opposed any attempt to inject religion into public education. Jefferson’s views on religion were deeply influenced by Enlightenment principles, particularly the era’s emphasis on reason, skepticism of traditional authority, and commitment to individual liberty.
While Jefferson respected personal religious beliefs, he believed religion should remain a private matter, free from government influence. His 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom declared it immoral to compel anyone to support or participate in religious activities, emphasizing individual choice in matters of faith. This stance guided his actions, including the disestablishment of the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia after the Revolution.
He famously wrote about the need for a “wall of separation between Church & State” in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. This idea became one of the foundational principles behind the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
Although Jefferson was not opposed to religious belief, he supported individual freedom of conscience and he was adamant that religion should be a personal matter, not one enforced, promoted, or influenced by the government.
Religion in Education
When it came to education, Jefferson was passionate about public schooling and saw it as essential to maintaining a democratic society. He believed in the importance of a secular education system that promoted knowledge and reasoning. Jefferson envisioned public education as a way to cultivate informed citizens who could participate in self-governance.
Jefferson’s University of Virginia reflected these ideals, excluding religious instruction and ensuring a secular educational environment. He insisted that religion be studied alongside philosophy and ethics, rather than as a doctrinal subject.
If Jefferson were to assess attempts to inject religion into public education today, it’s reasonable to assume he would view such efforts as a violation of the principles of religious freedom he worked to establish. Jefferson would likely argue that public education, funded by taxpayer dollars and serving people of diverse religious backgrounds, should remain secular to respect the individual rights of all citizens. For him, blending government and religion risked infringing on personal freedoms and undermining the equality of all citizens under the law.
He would probably agree with later interpretations of the Constitution, such as Supreme Court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state in the context of public schools. These decisions typically uphold the principle that government institutions, including public schools, should not promote or endorse any particular religion.
Thomas Jefferson’s views on religious freedom, the separation of church and state, and public education suggest that he would strongly oppose any attempt to inject religion into public education. He believed that the role of public schools was to educate citizens in a way that fosters critical thinking, civic engagement, and respect for individual liberties, including the right to practice any religion or none at all. For Jefferson, keeping religion out of public institutions was essential to preserving a free and diverse society.
Jefferson’s unwavering commitment to individual liberty and reason over dogma continues to resonate, emphasizing the enduring value of secular education in fostering democratic principles.
Today citizens get their news from a kaleidoscope of sources, some reliable many not—and we’re pretty sure it’s the other guy, not us, who is being taken in by partisan propaganda and fake news.
How Governments and Organizations Influence History
The reshaping of societal memories by governments and powerful organizations is a complex, often subtle process driven by political, cultural, or economic goals. At its core, it involves shaping collective memory—the shared pool of knowledge and information within a society—so that certain narratives or interpretations of events are emphasized, while others are diminished or erased altogether. This process can occur overtly through official policies, education, or media, or covertly through subtle shifts in cultural emphasis. This post explores historical precedents, modern examples, the methods employed, the role of large organizations, and the ethical implications of manipulating collective memory.
Historical Precedents and Modern Examples
Governments have long engaged in the manipulation of collective memory, and history is filled with examples of this practice. In the Soviet Union, leaders who fell out of favor were frequently “erased” from photographs, history books, and public memory—a practice similar to the ancient concept of damnatio memoriae, the Roman practice of condemning those deemed enemies of the state by erasing their existence from public records. Similarly, in the aftermath of revolutions, new governments often attempt to rewrite history to legitimize their rule and justify their actions. Monuments, statues, and even place names can be altered or destroyed to erase the memory of a prior regime and reimagine the past in ways that support the new political narrative.
In more recent times, authoritarian regimes have used similar tactics, from China’s control of information surrounding the Tiananmen Square protests to North Korea’s highly curated historical narrative that glorifies its leaders. Even in democratic societies, where manipulation of collective memory is often less overt, there are still examples of governments attempting to control public discourse and memory.
Methods of Restructuring Collective Memory
The restructuring of collective memory can occur in a variety of ways, ranging from subtle shifts in emphasis to overt censorship:
Education and Curriculum Control: By shaping school curricula, governments emphasize certain historical events or figures, creating narratives that align with political or ideological goals.
Media Control: State-influenced media outlets shape public memory by controlling the flow of information, ensuring that only certain versions of history or current events are disseminated.
Censorship and Information Suppression: Governments may restrict access to documents, films, or books, effectively controlling the narratives available to the public.
Commemorations and Public Symbols: Through monuments, statues, holidays, and public spaces, societies decide what to commemorate, reinforcing specific narratives.
Role of Large Organizations
While governments are often the primary actors in reshaping societal memories, large organizations such as multinational corporations, international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and global media companies also play a significant role. Corporations often use “corporate social responsibility” (CSR) initiatives to align their brands with social movements or values, subtly shaping public perceptions of historical and current events.
Media conglomerates, by controlling vast networks of information dissemination, influence which stories are told, retold, or forgotten. Social media platforms, through their algorithms and content moderation policies, significantly influence collective memory by determining which narratives remain visible and which fade into obscurity. As a result, collective memory becomes fragmented, influenced as much by corporate interests and technological algorithms as by government policies.
Ethical Concerns and the Struggle for Truth
The ethical implications of reshaping societal memories are vast. While some argue that reshaping collective memory is necessary for social progress, particularly when it comes to rectifying historical injustices or fostering reconciliation, others view it as a dangerous form of manipulation that can obscure truth and stifle dissent.
This tension reflects a broader debate about the nature of memory and history itself. Is there an objective “true” version of history, or is all history inherently subject to reinterpretation as societal values and perspectives evolve? This ongoing tension between interpretation and truth underscores the need for a careful and inclusive approach to shaping collective memory, with a responsibility to ensure that the process remains open, inclusive, and truthful, rather than driven solely by those in power.
Conclusion
Restructuring societal memories is a powerful tool that governments and large organizations can use to influence culture, politics, and identity. The methods they use, whether through education, media, censorship, or public symbols, can have profound impacts on how societies understand their past and imagine their future. While some reshaping of collective memory is inevitable, it is essential to approach this process with caution, prioritizing the public interest over the narrow objectives of the powerful. With the rise of digital platforms and globalized media, the struggle for control over collective memory is more relevant than ever, raising important ethical questions about who gets to shape the stories we live by.
New Year’s resolutions—a practice where individuals set goals or make promises to improve their lives in the upcoming year—have a rich and varied history spanning thousands of years. While the concept of self-improvement at the start of a new year feels modern, its origins are deeply rooted in ancient civilizations and religious traditions.
Origins of New Year’s Resolutions
The tradition of making promises at the start of a new year can be traced back over 4,000 years to the Babylonians. During their 12-day festival, Akitu, held in mid-March to coincide with the spring harvest, they made vows to their gods to repay debts and return borrowed items. Success in fulfilling these promises was believed to curry favor with the deities.
When Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar and established January 1 as the start of the new year, the practice took on a more formal tone. January was named after Janus, the two-faced Roman god of beginnings and endings. Romans offered sacrifices to Janus and made promises of good behavior for the coming year, reflecting on the past and looking forward to the future.
By the Middle Ages, the focus shifted to religious observances. In early Christianity, the first day of the year was often a time of prayer, reflection, and making pious resolutions. One of the most interesting New Year’s traditions was the “Peacock Vow”. Christian Knights would reaffirm their commitment to chivalry at the end of the Christmas season and vow good behavior and chivalric deeds during the coming year. The vow was taken while eating roast Peacock at a New Year’s celebration.
In the 17th century, Puritans made revolutions that focused on spiritual and moral improvement. Common resolutions included commitments to avoid pride and vanity, practice charity and liberality, refrain from revenge, control anger, speak no evil of others, and live a life aligned with religious principles. They also resolved to study scriptures diligently, improve religious devotion weekly and renewed their dedication to God.
In 1740, John Wesley, founder of Methodism, created the Covenant Renewal Service, held on New Year’s Eve or Day. These gatherings encouraged reflection on the past year and resolutions for spiritual growth.
The first known use of the phrase “New Year’s Resolution” was in a Boston newspaper, Walker’s Hibernian Magazine, in 1813. The article humorously discussed people breaking their New Year’s vows almost as soon as they made them. It would appear nothing much has changed over the last 221 years.
The Modern Evolution of New Year’s Resolutions
The secularization of New Year’s resolutions began in the 19th and 20th centuries, with self-improvement and personal growth taking precedence over religious vows. The rise of print media helped popularize the practice, with newspapers and magazines publishing advice on how to set and achieve goals. By the 21st century, resolutions were firmly embedded in Western culture as a tradition of hope and renewal.
Common New Year’s Resolutions
Resolutions tend to reflect cultural priorities and individual aspirations. A survey of common resolutions reveals recurring themes:
Health and Fitness:
Lose weight
Exercise more
Eat healthier
Personal Development:
Learn a new skill
Read more books
Manage time better
Financial Goals:
Save money
Pay off debts
Stick to a budget
Relationships and Community:
Spend more time with family and friends
Volunteer or give back to the community
Breaking Bad Habits:
Quit smoking
Reduce alcohol consumption
Limit screen time
The Success Rate of Resolutions
Despite their popularity, New Year’s resolutions are notoriously hard to keep. Studies estimate that about 80% of resolutions fail by February, often due to overly ambitious goals or lack of specific planning. However, setting realistic, measurable, and time-bound goals (e.g., SMART goals) can improve success rates. It seems that most people approach their New Year’s resolutions more for fun than with any anticipation that they will be kept.
The Significance of Resolutions Today
New Year’s resolutions persist because they align with a universal desire for self-improvement and fresh starts. Whether rooted in ancient traditions or modern goal-setting frameworks, they represent a belief in the potential for change, even if it takes a bit of effort to achieve.
My personal New Year’s resolution is to increase The Grumpy Doc’s subscribers to 50. Then I’ll only need 9950 more to be able to attract advertisers. $$$$$
A Blueprint for Better Government or a Road Map to Authoritarian Rule?
Introduction
During the recently concluded presidential campaign, we heard much about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. It was generally discussed as a plan for a conservative restructuring of the government. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he knows nothing about the plan or its contents. Given his general lack of interest in policy details during his previous administration, I believe him.
I didn’t know much about it either. In what I now recognize as magical thinking on my part, I assumed there was no way the American people would return him to office, so I didn’t bother learning about it.
The day after the election, I went online to find a copy of the Project 2025 report. I started with the Heritage Foundation’s website, where they described different elements of the plan, but there was no way to order a copy. I checked other online sources, including Amazon, but still could not find the full report. I did discover that it is nearly 900 pages long, so even if I had obtained a copy, I doubt I would have read more than a small portion of it. Ultimately, I decided to purchase two summaries of the project, both claiming to be bipartisan. I believe they are generally balanced, as they present both positive and negative aspects of the program.
What is Project 2025?
The Heritage Foundation describes Project 2025 as a comprehensive initiative aimed at preparing for a conservative presidential administration beginning in January 2025. It is notable that the plan does not explicitly reference a Trump administration, but rather a generic “conservative” one. My interpretation is that this allows the Heritage Foundation to appear supportive of conservatism without explicitly endorsing Donald Trump, protecting their nonprofit status.
The project is structured around four key pillars:
Policy Agenda: Developing a detailed conservative policy guide, titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, which outlines strategies for governing major federal agencies.
Personnel Recruitment: Establishing a database to identify and recommend qualified individuals for presidential appointments, ensuring alignment with conservative principles.
Training: Launching the Presidential Administration Academy, an online educational platform designed to equip prospective appointees with the necessary skills and knowledge for effective governance.
180-Day Playbook: Crafting a strategic plan to guide the initial actions of the administration during its first 180 days, focusing on implementing conservative policies and reforms.
At first glance, this seems straightforward and unalarming. However, delving into the details reveals a much broader scope. The plan includes discussions about eliminating certain government agencies, overhauling civil service, extending presidential control over independent agencies, and substantially revising (though not eliminating) the Affordable Care Act.
I believe that the ultimate intent of the plan is to fully implement the Unitary Executive Theory. Therefore, understanding Project 2025 requires a basic understanding of this theory.
Unitary Executive Theory
The Unitary Executive Theory is a legal and constitutional doctrine asserting that the President of the United States holds absolute control over the executive branch. Proponents argue that Article II of the Constitution, which vests “the executive power” solely in the President, provides a constitutional basis for this authority. Critics contend it undermines checks and balances and concentrates too much power in the executive.
Key Points of the Theory:
Presidential Control: Advocates claim the President should have direct control over all executive functions, including hiring, firing, and directing agency heads and officials.
Limits on Congressional Power: The theory asserts that Congress cannot infringe on the President’s control over executive agencies by creating independent regulatory bodies or restricting the President’s ability to remove officials.
Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has addressed the concept in cases such as Myers v. United States (1926), Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020). These cases reflect an ongoing debate about the extent of presidential control over the executive branch.
While proponents emphasize the need for a strong, centralized executive, critics warn it could erode the system of checks and balances envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
Historical Perspective
The roots of the Unitary Executive Theory trace back to debates about the Constitution’s structure of executive power, particularly interpretations of Article II. Key historical examples include:
Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist No. 70: Hamilton argued for a single, vigorous executive, emphasizing unity as essential for accountability and effective governance.
Abraham Lincoln: During the Civil War, Lincoln exercised expansive executive power by suspending habeas corpus and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: FDR used executive orders extensively to implement New Deal programs and manage the war effort during WWII.
The term Unitary Executive Theory gained prominence in the late 20th century, championed by conservative legal scholars and the Federalist Society.
Application to Project 2025
Project 2025 seeks to leverage the Unitary Executive Theory to expand presidential power through the following measures:
Consolidating Control: Bringing the entire federal bureaucracy, including traditionally independent agencies like the Department of Justice, under direct presidential control.
Streamlining Decision-Making: Allowing the President to directly implement policies without interference from career officials or Congress.
Personnel Changes: Proposing the removal of job protections for thousands of federal employees, enabling their replacement with political appointees loyal to the President.
Agency Overhauls: Restructuring agencies such as the FBI, which the plan criticizes as “bloated” and “lawless.”
Eliminating Departments: Proposing the elimination of the Department of Education and restructuring others like the Department of Justice and Homeland Security to increase presidential control.
Concerns Raised by Critics:
Concentration of Power: Critics warn of an unprecedented consolidation of power in the executive branch.
Politicization of Agencies: Traditionally nonpartisan agencies may become tools for advancing political agendas.
Erosion of Checks and Balances: The system designed to prevent excessive power in any one branch could be undermined.
Civil Service Protections: Removing job protections for career civil servants risks creating an unstable and politically driven workforce.
Supporters argue these changes are necessary to combat entrenched bureaucracy and improve efficiency. Critics, however, warn that this could push the U.S. toward authoritarian governance.
Conclusion
I have only touched on a few elements of Project 2025. Other aspects, such as policies on immigration, reproductive rights, and protections for minorities, are also deeply concerning but beyond the scope of this discussion.
Even just within the framework of the Unitary Executive Theory, I see significant risks. Will this plan lead to better government or pave the way to authoritarianism?
While everyone will reach their own conclusions, I find myself deeply distressed by the implications. I am concerned that the restructuring of DOJ, DHS and the FBI may lead to creation of a “Department of Political Vengeance”.
If you share these concerns, I recommend reading my post from September 8th, which reviews On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder.
As we age, maintaining good health becomes increasingly important to ensure a high quality of life. While everyone’s health needs are unique, there are universal strategies that can help seniors stay fit, independent, and active. Below are ten key health tips tailored for senior citizens, designed to promote both physical and mental well-being.
1. Stay Physically Active
Regular physical activity is one of the most important ways to maintain overall health as you age. Exercise helps improve cardiovascular health, keeps muscles and bones strong, and enhances flexibility. Engaging in activities like walking, swimming, or gentle strength training can also help reduce the risk of falls. Most health experts recommend about 150 minutes of moderate exercise per week. Be sure to consult with your physician prior to starting a new exercise program to get a check-up and discuss any concerns or limitations, particularly if you have not had a regular exercise program for a while.
Begin with low-impact activities to avoid injury. Gradually increase intensity and duration. Consider joining an organized exercise group. It will make your time more enjoyable and give you a ready source of motivation. Additionally, the group will increase your safety should you fall or become injured.
If you have mobility issues, start with low-impact activities like chair exercises, tai chi, or yoga, which are great for improving balance and joint mobility. Stretching is also important for maintaining flexibility. Don’t forget to hydrate before, during, and after exercise. Our thirst cues decrease as we get older, making us more susceptible to dehydration.
2. Maintain a Balanced Diet
Nutrition plays a critical role in maintaining health and vitality. As we age, our metabolism slows down, making it important to eat nutrient-dense foods that provide essential vitamins and minerals without excess calories. Focus on a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats.
Incorporate foods that are high in fiber to support digestion, and make sure you’re getting enough calcium and vitamin D to protect your bones. Stay hydrated, as seniors may sometimes feel less thirsty but still require plenty of fluids.
3. Get Regular Health Screenings and Checkups
Preventive healthcare becomes increasingly important with age. Regular checkups and screenings allow doctors to catch potential health issues early, when they are more easily treatable. Seniors should monitor blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood sugar to detect conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease. Managing chronic conditions is important not just for physical health but for mental well-being too.
Annual vision, dental, and hearing checkups are equally important. Additionally, keep up with vaccinations, including the flu shot, pneumonia vaccine, and shingles vaccine, to prevent serious illnesses. Take advantage of any home health services that are available.
4. Prioritize Mental Health
Mental health is just as important as physical health. Seniors are sometimes at higher risk for depression, anxiety, and loneliness, especially after the loss of a spouse or friends. It’s important to stay connected with family and friends and to stay purposeful whether through social activities, religious activities, community centers, or volunteering. If seniors are struggling with anxiety, depression, or loneliness, it’s important to seek professional help. Many people benefit from counseling, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or support groups. There’s also growing evidence for the effectiveness of telehealth mental health services, making access to care easier.
5. Get Enough Sleep
Sleep patterns often change with age, but seniors still need about 6-9 hours of sleep per night for optimal health. Poor sleep can lead to increased stress, weakened immunity, and a higher risk of falls.
Create a restful environment and stick to a consistent sleep schedule. Avoid excessive napping during the day and limit caffeine intake in the evening. If you’re struggling with insomnia or sleep disorders, consult your doctor to address underlying causes.
6. Manage Medications Wisely
Many seniors take multiple medications for chronic conditions, which can increase the risk of drug interactions or side effects. Keep a current list of all medications, including over-the-counter drugs and supplements, and review it regularly with your healthcare provider.
Take medications exactly as prescribed, and don’t hesitate to ask your doctor or pharmacist about any concerns regarding when or how to take your medications.
7. Stay Socially Connected
Staying socially engaged is vital for mental health and emotional well-being. Isolation can lead to depression, cognitive decline, and a lower quality of life. Make an effort to nurture relationships, whether with family, friends, or through community groups.
Consider joining clubs, classes, or volunteer groups where you can meet people with similar interests. Regular social interaction has been shown to improve mood, reduce stress, and even boost immune function.
8. Focus on Fall Prevention
Falls are a leading cause of injury among seniors, often leading to serious complications such as fractures and other joint injuries. To minimize the risk of falling, make sure your home is safe by eliminating tripping hazards like loose rugs or clutter, installing grab bars in the bathroom, and ensuring adequate lighting.
Regular exercise can improve balance and strength, reducing fall risk. Additionally, vision checks and proper footwear can further lower the likelihood of accidents.
9. Keep Your Mind Active
Cognitive decline is a common concern for aging individuals, but staying mentally active can help delay or even prevent this process. Regularly challenging your brain with new and stimulating activities can improve memory, attention, and problem-solving skills.
Try hobbies that require mental effort, like learning a new language, playing a musical instrument, or tackling crossword puzzles. Engaging in lifelong learning through online courses or local adult education programs can also provide mental stimulation while keeping you socially connected.
10. Practice Stress Management
Chronic stress can take a toll on both physical and mental health, leading to issues such as high blood pressure, sleep disturbances, and weakened immunity. Seniors may face unique stressors, including health concerns or loss of independence, but there are effective strategies to manage stress.
Mindfulness, meditation, deep breathing exercises, and spending time in nature can all help reduce stress levels. Engage in hobbies that you find enjoyable and relaxing, whether it’s gardening, painting, or simply spending time with loved ones.
Conclusion: Embracing Healthy Aging
Aging is a natural part of life, and by adopting healthy habits, seniors can enjoy a fulfilling and active lifestyle well into their golden years. Staying physically active, maintaining social connections, and prioritizing mental health are key to aging gracefully. By following these ten essential health tips, seniors can significantly improve their quality of life and continue to thrive.
While it’s important to tailor these suggestions to your personal needs and health conditions, small changes in daily routines can lead to big benefits over time. Remember that your healthcare provider is a valuable partner in supporting your health, so maintain open communication with them about any concerns or changes in your health status.
How Democrats Can Regain Momentum After the Election: Part 1
Following a disappointing election, the Democratic Party faces a familiar yet challenging task: rebuilding and re-energizing its coalition. Electoral setbacks, though disheartening, provide valuable opportunities for self-reflection and strategic recalibration. Drawing lessons from recent elections and historical precedents, I’ll be exploring how I believe Democrats might regain their footing and prepare for future success.
But first, in the spirit of full disclosure, I am not and have never been (except perhaps briefly in college) a registered Democrat. I was a Reagan Republican who progressively became disillusioned with the Republican Party beginning in the 1990s and finally in 2016 I reached the point where I switched to “no party affiliation.” While I can’t fully embrace the Democratic Party and some of its fringe elements, it more closely aligns with my beliefs than the current Republican Party. It may seem inappropriate for a non-Democrat to offer advice to the Party, but sometimes it takes an outsider to bring clarity.
There are several areas where I think the Democrats need to reassess and refine their programs. In subsequent posts I’ll mention ideas about a number of them. But first things first. If you want to win at the national level you’ve got to be organized and ready at the local and state level.
There needs to be an honest assessment of what went wrong. Ignoring electoral losses or solely blaming external factors without self-reflection won’t give insight into a winning program.
After their 2012 election loss, the Republican Party conducted a comprehensive analysis, resulting in the “Growth and Opportunity Project” report. This internal review highlighted areas for improvement, including outreach to minority communities and the need for a clearer economic message.
For Democrats, a similar post-mortem analysis will prove invaluable. By examining voter data, exit polls, and demographic shifts, the party can identify why key groups, such as working-class voters or suburbanites, have turned away. Addressing these issues directly and transparently can rebuild trust and demonstrate the party’s seriousness about listening to voters’ concerns.
State and local elections are critical in shaping a national party resurgence. The Republican Party’s “Red Map” project in 2010 targeted state legislatures to influence redistricting, giving them significant advantages in subsequent elections.
Democrats should adopt a similar strategy, investing in local and state races to build a pipeline of strong candidates for future national campaigns. By organizing at the local and state level and supporting local and state candidates, the National Party can develop a better understanding of what is necessary to develop a winning national campaign.
A winning national platform has to come from the bottom up reflecting the desires of the average voters. It cannot be imposed from the top down. The Democratic Party has unfortunately begun to develop a reputation as a party of intellectual elites trying to force their opinion on the common people. While it may be a misconception, failure to counter that misconception with a viable local and state presence allows the Republicans to frame the narrative. That is an approach that is bound to fail.
By focusing on local and state elections, the party will have a better understanding of the “bread and butter” issues that have driven voter turnout in recent elections. You can’t win local elections unless the local people know you and trust you and believe that you will work for them. That knowledge and trust has to be carried all the way from the local and state level to the national level.
Significantly, in 2024 the National Democratic Party failed to provide any meaningful support to state and local candidates in states they deemed to be “too red”, thus ensuring continued Republican dominance. There was a time, not that long ago, when many of these “too red” districts might have been considered “too blue”, but that didn’t stop the Republicans from doing a grassroots program designed to appeal to the concerns of the average voter.
Whether the Republicans accomplish anything for the average voter remains to be seen. But the important point is they convinced the voters that they were listening to them and cared about them. That’s a lesson that the Democrats should take to heart.
Next time, we’ll look at what else I believe can be done to rebuild support for the Democratic Party.
Key References:
NBC News: Five Democratic Assumptions Shattered by the 2024 Election.
Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project (2013).
Pew Research Center: Voter Turnout Trends and Demographics.
New York Times: Bill Clinton’s 1992 Campaign Strategy.
The Atlantic: The Red Map Project.
The Nation: Democrats Need to Fundamentally Rethink Everything.
Ignorance Redux
By John Turley
On January 16, 2025
In Commentary, Medicine, Politics
On his first day in office, the new far right governor of West Virginia issued an executive order allowing for extensive exemptions from the school vaccination mandate. When taken with the nomination of a virulent anti vaxxer for Secretary of Health and Human Services, I am concerned that we are in a rush to allow our children to die of easily preventable diseases. With this in mind, I’m reposting my article The Triumph of Ignorance from last April. At that time—as you will see in the first paragraph—I had some hope. Those hopes have since been dashed.
“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”– Søren Kierkegaard
Saturday morning, I was reading in the newspaper about the resurgence of measles in West Virginia. I find it appalling that this disease should be returning, given that we have safe and effective vaccinations. What is next, polio, smallpox, or even plague? It is only through the unexpected veto by our governor that the ill-advised bill passed by our legislature to make all vaccinations virtually optional did not become law.
Some people may wonder why vaccinations are important. There are two principal reasons to ensure that a large portion of the population is vaccinated against communicable diseases. The first is that it reduces the individual vulnerability to disease. The person who is vaccinated is protected. But there is also a second, sometimes not well-understood, reason. That is herd immunity.
Communicable diseases require a large susceptible population to spread. When a significant portion of the population has been vaccinated the disease does not have the core of potential victims to allow spreading. This means that the vaccinated are protecting the non-vaccinated. However, it does require a large portion of the population to be vaccinated. The idea is that herd immunity will protect those who are unable to be vaccinated either due to age, allergies, or other medical conditions that would prohibit vaccination. It is never going to protect a large proportion of the population who just choose not to be vaccinated. For example, about 90-95% of the population needs to be vaccinated against measles to provide herd immunity.
So why do people who otherwise can be vaccinated choose not to be?
There are, of course, those who have true religious objections to vaccination. There are others who object to vaccination on the basis of personal autonomy. They believe their right to refuse vaccination outweighs any consideration of the health concerns of the frail members of our community.
There are many who mistrust the medical system. There were some cases in the past where unethical studies were conducted on unsuspecting populations. Given the rigorous oversight of medical research now, this no longer happens. Information about research into vaccinations and their safety and efficacy can be found on websites for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization among others. (Website references are provided at the end of this post.)
What concerns me most are those who refuse to believe reputable medical authorities, government agencies, and mainline news services. They prefer to get their information from anonymous websites or from conspiracy theory websites that still give credence to the now-discredited 1999 study linking the MMR vaccine to autism. They completely ignore the fact that 10 of the 11 reported co-authors disavowed any part in the conclusions of the study. They also ignore the fact that the principal author was found guilty of fraud for personal gain as he was employed by the manufacturer of rival drugs. They also ignore the fact that he lost his medical license over his falsifications in this study. Yet, he is still cited in anti-vaccine literature as an expert source.
Equally disturbing is the fact that vaccine resistance has become a part of political identification. Certain reactionary political groups have, for some unfathomable reason, decided that refusing vaccination is a badge of their political allegiance. They seem to care more about maintaining their political purity than they care about science, public health, or even the welfare of their family and friends. Politicizing public health is dangerous for all of us. I’m not sure how we overcome this. It is easy to find the truth and verify it through fact-based studies, yet people refuse to do it.
I encourage everyone to work hard to ensure that our political leaders do not remove vaccination mandates for school children. For those of us of my age, we already have immunity through vaccination or prior exposure to the disease. It is our grandchildren and their children and their children’s children who will suffer through the return of these deadly diseases.
SOURCES:
World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_1
CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/index.html
WV DHHR: https://oeps.wv.gov/immunizations/Pages/default.aspx
Immunise.org: https://www.vaccineinformation.org/