Christopher Hitchens dies at 62

Posted on December 16th, 2011 in Biography,Religion by Robert Miller

Christopher Hitchens (From The Guardian)

Writer Christopher Hitchens has died at age 62 from esophageal cancer. Roy Gleenslade comments on his life in The Guardian. Doubtless many others will weigh-in on Hitchens’  life in the next few days. Most news sources have obituaries for famous people prepared ahead of time.  At one time or another Hitchens alienated just about everyone.  But he went through several iterations of self-rescue. What has always struck me about him is the remarkable range of subjects in which he could find comfort and display at least the veneer of competence.  He appeared to be a quick study. I appreciated his views on religion, perhaps his most enduring contribution, and, provided that he had enough alcohol on board, either with him or in him, his interviews on television could be a delight: Rapid fire responses interspersed with little escape vignettes of reliable composition and always guaranteed to offend someone.  I stopped listening to Hitchens when he got the war in Iraq wrong and tried to excuse water boarding as non-torture. Anyone who wants to defend the American invasion of Iraq is going to have to explain why so many Iraqis died or got dispersed to the countryside or wound up in other neighboring countries. These are the people that Iraq needs to build a functional society. Then too there is the issue of how so many museums and rich discoveries of past civilizations are now buried under American cement and asphalt.  Scholars tried to warn Rumsfeld about the rich archeological sites in and around Baghdad, but Rumsfeld was only interested in where the ministry of oil was located.  I think of Hitchens as an essayist and a writer–a good one. But it was hard to take him all that seriously.

RFM

    Print This Post Print This Post
  • Comments Off

Things to think about if you want to play hockey

Posted on December 16th, 2011 in Brain Function,Sports by Robert Miller

Derek Boogaard (from the NYT)

No doubt many of you have already read the New York Times articles on the short life of Canadian hockey enforcer Derek Boogaard who was initially drafted into the NHL by the Minnesota Wild.  In May of this year (2011) he was found dead by his brothers in his Minneapolis apartment,  after a night of consuming pain pills and alcohol.  He was 28 years old, an age at which a professional hockey player normally expects to be in the prime of his career as a player. But at the time of his death, Boogaard’s mental health had deteriorated; he showed signs of emotional instability and depression. Several months after his death, the results of his brain postmortem analysis came back: it revealed serious signs of brain degeneration with extensive deposits of “Tau” protein in many different brain regions: he was suffering from severe Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy  (CTE).  Dr. Ann McKee, the Boston expert in CTE, who carried out the analysis of Boogaard’s brain,  informed Derek’s parents of the diagnosis and said that had he lived, he very likely would have suffered from mid-life dementia.   Thus,  it was  more than alcohol and drugs that caused Derek’s problems. Friends and family all noticed that he had gone through significant changes in personality before his death and it now seems clear that his brain had been traumatized into an emerging state of dementia.

After more than six months pursuing Derek’s past history, including extensive interviews with members of his family, doctors and NHL officials, reporter John Branch published a three part series in the New York Times on Derek Boogaard’s rise and fall as a hockey enforcer.  Derek’s role as a hockey enforcer meant that his job was to fight the other team’s enforcer. He was not drafted into the NHL for his skating skills or goal scoring. In fact during his entire NHL career he scored only three goals. He was drafted for one role only–his ability to hit others, while being hit at the same time. The National Hockey League, which claims that fighting is against the rules (after each brawl, both fighters must go to the penalty box for five minutes); they also argue that the enforcer arrangement helps keep violence on the ice minimized, because if players know they might have to face the other team’s enforcer, someone that might deliver a blow that could break a nose or a jaw, they themselves are less likely to start a fight on their own. If you have ever been to an NHL hockey game and sit close to the plastic partitions at either end of the rink, you quickly learn how violent the sport is, even without an enforcer.

Every Canadian boy who plays hockey wants to make it to the NHL as a goal-scoring standout. But for those who don’t make it that way, if you are big and tough and willing to fight, you can get to the NHL through the side door as an enforcer. Derek was drafted in 2001 by the Minnesota Wild  for his success as an enforcer while playing in the Western Hockey League for several years. Team enforcers must always be ready to assume their role: as tensions and rough play of a hockey game escalate, the likelihood that the enforcers from each team will  square off in the rink, with gloves dropped and fists flying, becomes all but inevitable, even though a fight does not take place in every game.  Once a member of an NHL team, Derek quickly fulfilled his role as an enforcer and became the single most feared player in hockey. As a result, he was one of the most popular, widely recognized players on the Minnesota Wild hockey team.

Most players and fans believe that fighting is part of an NHL hockey game and everyone who profits from the sport believes that fighting is essential to maintain fan interest and attendance.  By the time Derek died, his performance as a skater and fighter had badly deteriorated. He was addicted to pain killers and alcohol, but in addition, he was confused and depressed, as he faced an uncertain future. Though he was seemingly addicted to pain medication, he probably had no idea that his addiction and consumption of Oxycontin could not relieve him from the confusion and depression he felt as a result of  the brain damage he suffered from his life as an enforcer.

Derek had been drafted by the Minnesota Wild, not because of his skating ability, but because of his fighting skills. At 6 feet 8 inches he was an imposing opponent and quickly gained a reputation as the best enforcer in the league. His parents had sent him for additional training as a boxer to hone his fighting skills in hockey. Fans in Minnesota loved him and he always attracted a lot of attention in the bars he went to in Minneapolis.

Reporter John Branch has provided an intimate account of Derek Boogaard’s rise to prominence as a hockey enforcer and his decline in performance, at least part of which can be attributed to the brain damage he suffered from numerous fights and many concussions. No one knows with certainty how many concussions Derek suffered during his hockey career, but then too, no one knows if simply adding up the number of concussions a player has increases his risk of CTE. Does merely getting hit hard without an ensuing concussion also contribute to the development of CTE? The three parts of the published articles include Derek Boogaard: A Boy Learns to Brawl“, “Derek Boogaard: Blood on the Ice“  and  “Derek Boogaard: A Brain ‘Going Bad’“; these articles appeared on December 3-5 of this year. A video that covers Boogaard’s  life and the postmortem diagnosis is part of the supporting material associated with the publication. Numerous other links are available that reveal more about the pathology of the brain in CTE, and the likely etiology of the disorder, though the details of the disease remain poorly understood. The figure below shows the dark staining material based on immunostaining techniques that reveal the tau protein for different sections of the cerebral cortex obtained from three different individuals (A-C), while the figures below (D-F) are higher magnification microscopic sections revealing the dark neurofibrillary tangles characteristic of CTE and other degenerative disorders. These regions of the brain are associated with nerve cell destruction and glial reaction. To a pathologist, these images reflect serious brain damage and functional incapacity.

From McKee (J Neuropathol Exp Neurol, V 68, July 2009, Fig. 2)

Perhaps contributing to the rapid decline in Derek’s mental state, was the manner in which he fought [from another player about Derek's fighting]: Derek would take two or three punches to land one good one. He wasn’t a defensive fighter. I remember he said: ‘I hate guys that hide. When I fight, I’m going to throw, and I’m going to throw hard. I don’t have an off switch.’ Anytime a fight didn’t go his way — a draw or maybe he thought he lost — that would eat at him.”  As an indication of Boogaard’s mental deterioration, at one point during Derek’s career (quote from the article), “in the fall of 2009, a team doctor asked Boogaard to name every word he could think of that began with the letter R. He could not come up with any.”

When his brain was examined in the laboratory of  Dr. Ann McKee she was shocked to see such an advanced level of CTE in a person so young. The “tau” protein has numerous functions, including  its service as an important envelope protein for microtubules, one of the main transport highway systems for moving material from the soma into the axon and back. If that system is damaged, nerve cells are at increased risk of cell death.  The “Tau” protein is also abnormally present in Alzheimer’s disease and other degenerative disease states, including some cases of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gerhig’s Disease–the acquired not the genetic form)  that are referred to as “Tauopathies.” When Dr. McKee talked with Derek’s parents and conveyed her diagnosis, Derek’s father found it somewhat reassuring that his son’s brain deterioration was so advanced that, had he survived, he very likely would have become senile in middle age.

Ann McKee, a neuropathologist, runs the Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy at Boston University School of Medicine. Her collection of brains from athletes now includes 80 and while each of them suffered from some level of CTE, Boogaard’s brain revealed the most significant level of damage she has seen, quite shocking for someone so young. The study of traumatic brain disease first began with boxers, then moved to football players and more recently has focused on hockey players. Unfortunately, at the present time, the disease can only be diagnosed at autopsy and not during the life of the athlete. Although the Center has only four brains from deceased hockey players, each of them showed signs of tau pathology.  Initially the NFL was suspcious about the connection between brain trauma from football injuries and degenerative brain disease, but they now support studies of the Center and force players to sit out at least one game if they experience a concussion.  Currently the NHL has rejected the idea that hockey is associated with CTE, although awareness is increasingly focused on preventing players from playing after experiencing a concussion. The trouble with this rule is that every enforcer realizes their special vulnerability: if they shows signs of weakness, the will soon be traded. Boogaard was let go by the Minnesota Wild in 2010 and wound up playing a few games with the New York Rangers so pressure exists among enforcers not to reveal the depth of their injuries and to keep playing when hurt.

Vertebrate evolution, with an increasing emphasis on expansion of the brain cavity and its support for enhanced cerebral function,  developed a marvelous fluid encasement  and meningeal system for protecting the brain and preventing acute injury from violent, sudden movements. As sports were introduced and became more violent, helmets were developed to enhance the protection of the brain, but we now realize that this additional protective method does not work effectively when someone is holding the shirt of an opposing player and trying to drive their fist through his jaw. Ejection of the helmets during a fight usually happens, even though it is against the rules to play without a helmet. Both boxing and hockey celebrate and promote the contact sport of a fist from one opponent meeting the jaw of another. The emerging analysis of traumatic brain injury from such collisions means that to continue on with these sports without dramatically improving the protection for athletes engaged in them will put our culture back to the era of Rome and the coliseum events where human destruction was a sport.  Perhaps we are there already.

Minnesota, right next door to Canada, is a hockey state. When we moved to Minneapolis from St. Louis  in 1988, our two sons were 11 and 8 years of age. They were both eager to try and play hockey. So we signed them up for skating lessons during the summer. In many ways, I was relieved to see that they were so far behind their peers in terms of skating skills, such that they had very little chance of catching up, without putting in some extraordinary additional effort. Nevertheless, both played “neighborhood hockey” which was a much milder form of the game and more suitably tuned for transient interest. We had neighbors whose sons were more serious about hockey, some of whom wound up playing for the high school team. At that level, many young hockey players in Minnesota, like their Canadian counterparts, harbor a strong desire to play in the NHL and the quality of ice hockey at the high school level in Minnesota is quite impressive. But one of our neighbor’s sons experienced several concussions as a star of the high school hockey team, which seemed to permanently change his mental state to one in which he showed signs of confusion. I was grateful that neither of my sons took up hockey or football in any serious way. What outweighed any passion they had for sports, was a passion for reading and learning. I believe that my wife’s constant reading to them while they were evolving in the womb was an important element in creating their strong bond for literature and their pursuit of English Literature as a major focus in their lives. Now, if we only had a culture that was strong enough to support such interests.

RFM

    Print This Post Print This Post
  • Comments Off

Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas

Posted on December 9th, 2011 in Politics by Robert Miller

Poster in Osawatomie Kansas

E.J. Dionne, a columnist for the Washington Post, has written an excellent article in TheNationalMemo, based on Obama’s speech earlier this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, the site of Theodore Roosevelt’s legendary “New Nationalism” speech 101 years ago. It was in that speech on August 31, 1910 that Roosevelt laid out a plan for the Federal government to initiate radical changes in the services they offered to all citizens, including national healthcare service, social insurance, limited injunctions in strikes, a minimum wage law for women, an eight hour work day, farm relief, injured workers compensation, the introduction of a Federal income tax, women’s suffrage, an inheritance tax and the direct election of Senators. What Roosevelt was really about in that speech was his opposition to the control that big business had in politics, government and unfair labor practices.

Though maybe a bit shy of Roosevelt’s sweeping, revolutionary hopes for a more expansive role of government, I found Obama’s speech highly significant and, as Dionne points out, it “was the Inaugural address Obama never gave”;  its obvious link to Teddy Roosevelt’s speech on progressivism gave Obama a platform to launch his 2012 campaign and, during that speech, he denounced neoliberalism without using that word, but nevertheless cited the failure of the economics of the neoliberal system, including terms like the “free market” economy and “supply-side” economics both still rigidly doctrinaire for Republicans.  The success of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement had a lot to do with shaping Obama’s speech. He finally looked comfortable moving to the left and, at least in his speech content, he effectively  converted to a more progressive shift in his campaign strategy.

With the disintegration of the Republican Party leadership,  and the success of the OWS movement, Obama had little choice but to move towards a more progressive campaign image. He can no longer attempt to triangulate between the Republicans and Democrats–he tried that for nearly three years and what did it get him–he further angered his own base and got zero Republican support. Now he needs to hammer the points he raised in his speech again and again using redundancy as one of the new weapons in the toolbox. In Minnesota, where the Republicans took both the state Senate and the House in 2010 and came within a whisker of winning the governorship, the Chair of the state Republican Party just stepped down, leaving the party in disarray, with as much as $ 2 million  in debt, while they are having a very difficult time raising money–all in less than a year after steamrolling into political power. The rise and fall of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann probably had a lot do with the party’s downward projection. Her story has been a meteoric rise and fall and her projection into the future seems to have an unlimited bottom; for now it seems her fortunes have been mirrored by those of the state Republican Party. The state of Minnesota is also feeling the remnants of the disastrous leadership of Tim Pawlenty.

With the rise of Newt Gingrich as at least a temporary star in the Republican Presidential nomination process, he will unavoidably defend Neoliberalism (Reaganism) and hopefully that will lead to the national discussion we never had on the subject. Perhaps in the long run, we can rename Ronald Reagan National Airport in Washington back to just plain National Airport. I will personally feel a lot safer flying into Washington with a return to the previous name. But, naturally, you are all asking why Roosevelt give a speech in Osawatomie, Kansas?  I looked into that. From the Kansas Historical Society:

  • ON AUGUST 31, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt delivered what was perhaps the most important speech ever given in Kansas. Surrounded by 30,000 enthusiastic listeners at Osawatomie, he developed a political creed which became a milestone along the road to the modern all-powerful state. This speech, later called the “New Nationalism Address,” evoked a wide variety of responses. It was labeled “Communistic,” “Socialistic,” and “Anarchistic” in various quarters; while others hailed it “the greatest oration ever given on American soil.” What then were the circumstances surrounding the address? What was the Kansas role in the drama at Osawatomie? Why was that town chosen for such an auspicious moment in history? And why did an ex-President devise a comprehensive political program such as the “New Nationalism?“”

You might ask why Osawatomie, Kansas for Roosevelt’s speech–that is also addressed in the same article from the Kansas Historical Society and hinted at with the speech poster image–he was commemorating a park dedicated to the anti-slavery actions of John Brown.

  • The ostensible occasion for the speech was the two-day dedicatory ceremonies at the John Brown Memorial Park. The park, located at the southwestern edge of Osawatomie in the vicinity of a well-remembered skirmish between Proslavery forces and the men led by Brown during the “Battle of Osawatomie,” was a gift to the state from the G.A.R.’s feminine auxiliary, the Women’s Relief Corps. It was the brain child of Anna Heacock, Cora Deputy, and the property’s former owner, Maj. John B. Remington. Remington, allegedly John Brown’s nephew by marriage, had induced Deputy and Heacock to buy the land for their organization and then donate the 22-1/2 acres to the state for the memorial. Not all the ladies supported the proposal as zealously as Commanders Heacock and Deputy. For example, Minnie D. Morgan objected to the way money was subscribed by the corps’ leadership without formal approval from the W.R.C. She also argued against the project since the place had “never been owned by John Brown. He never lived on it. The John Brown cabin…[was] not there, and …while Brown and his men fired upon the gang of pro-slavery men from…[the] locality, no Free State men were injured and no blood was spilled” there. [1] But, these details did not deter Heacock. Long before the $1,800 was raised to purchase the site, she, with the help of Gov. Walter Roscoe Stubbs, had secured formal acceptance of the area from the legislature. [2]

I found Obama’s speech in Osawatomie was especially strong when he criticized the “supply-side” economic idea that Reagan introduced, from which we have never recovered   [referring to the supply-side argument] they said “if we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. But here’s the problem. It doesn’t work. It has never worked. It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.” When was the last time you heard a Democratic Presidential candidate denounce supply-side economics with such a strong voice? Hubert Humphrey (who came before Reagan of course) would have done something like that, but that was a very different time and place. Obama has denounced one of the pillars of Republicanism–one of their Holy Grail issues and it will be interesting to see if the press picks up on this and whether it becomes an issue in the next Republican debate.

The best thing Obama can do for his own Presidential candidacy is help the Occupy movement grow and borrow from its well-known lines. It would help immensely if he had the courage to denounce the police brutality that has existed in several OWS encampments and also denounce the use of weapons grade pepper spray because it was never developed for application against non-violent First Amendment rights demonstrators. But you don’t have to blame the one percent as sinful practitioners of an evil system–they are operating with a system that got started decades before they arrived. As we went from manufacturing to a financialized country in the 1990s, we allowed the creation of a system that works against our own interests and continues to put our economy at risk of another meltdown. Obama will also benefit from getting more involved in bringing the banking system to account for not renegotiating mortgages instead of foreclosing and making people homeless. He should have taken over the banks when he was elected, but with that opportunity seemingly gone, he needs to revisit the problem and face it for what it is–a major drag on our economic development. As I have said before, I never met a homeless person until Ronald Reagan became President. And I have characterized the Reagan Presidency as the worst in our history because of the more successful system (New Deal) he began to destroy in the stealth manner known to all Republican politicians. We have an immense amount of repair work to do to our economy and our social fabric, but Obama now has some wind at his back and if he continues with this more liberal strategy, his sails will be full and he can move more progressively to the left, reminiscent of what FDR did when he accepted his party’s nomination for a second term, as described in E.J. Dionne’s article.

Of course, we all know what happened to Teddy Roosevelt. Out of office as President, where he served from 1901 to 1909, he was disenchanted with his replacement, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt wanted to see a much more progressive country develop along the lines of his speech in Osawatomie. He tried to take the nomination away from Taft in 1912 and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. Although Roosevelt lost the election to Woodrow Wilson in 1912, he was the only third-party candidate in history to come in second place, as he got more votes than Taft. So, let’s hope Obama’s electoral future turns out to be different than that of Roosevelt after his Osawatomie speech.  But Roosevelt crystallized the progressive movement that had been going on for years before his speech and he is generally considered to be one of our finest Presidents; that is why his image has been chiseled into Mount Rushmore. You can read more about Roosevelt’s progressive nationalism proposal here.

RFM

    Print This Post Print This Post
  • Comments Off
« Previous PageNext Page »