H O W A R D S B E N D

Every four  years, we hear the Republican presidential candidate promise to make America great again and to restore America’s respect around the world. Every four years, the Democratic presidential candidate promises to restore the opportunities for the middle class and to improve the quality of life for all Americans. These vague campaign promises are re-hashed rhetorical pledges from previous campaigns and only present to the voting public an abstract view of what goals and policies the new president might enact.  We are left to speculate on a greater America or on an America with more equal opportunities.

This year the campaign ideas and promises of one candidate are presented in a concrete vivid image presented on the magnificent technicolor wide-screen at your local movie theater.  Coincidently or not so coincidently, Michael Moore and Bernie Sanders have a similar vision for America and Michael Moore’s latest movie “Where to Invade Next” happens to hit the wide-screen as Bernie travels America promoting his vision for America during this current presidential campaign season.

Bernie talks of free tuition for public universities as a right for all Americans.  Moore takes his film crew to Slovenia and them Germany demonstrating that free college is a right in many European countries.  Kids go to college and university in these countries without accumulating the tens of thousands of dollars of debt needed to complete a degree at an American college.  These European universities are beautiful, well-staffed with highly qualified professors and filled with students receiving a top-notch college education.

Bernie talks of raising the minimum wage and treating workers more fairly.  Moore takes us to two European factories, one in Italy and one in Norway, where we see workers in comfortable factory settings getting two hour lunch breaks and receiving anywhere from six to eight weeks of paid vacation not including time for maternity  leave or time for personal leave including time at magnificent spas located in a beautiful countryside for mental health recovery all paid for by the government.  We meet the factory owners who claim that their workers’ well-being is as important to them as bottom line earnings.

Moore again takes us to Italy to see how removing the criminality of drug use and offering well funded government  drug rehabilitation has almost eliminated drug crimes and has led to a country in which drug usage has in fact dropped significantly.  Of course, the incarceration rate in that country is well below the rate of incarceration in our own country.  Moore then takes us on a tour of the Norwegian prisons where we see inmates treated as human beings and working to re-integrate back into society.  This re-integration includes education programs, job training and a level of independence all needed for their return to society.  Of course it is no surprise, but the rate of return to  prison for these prisoners is a fraction of this same rate here in the US.

Moore does not touch on universal healthcare in this movie, but it only takes a minute to find “Sicko” to see the benefits to individuals getting free access to healthcare and to see how the costs of providing healthcare to all have lowered the per capital spending on healthcare for the country as a whole.

Many pundits argue that Bernie’s programs are unrealistic and way too expensive for our society to afford.  We hear that Bernie is a “dreamer” but lacks the the specifics for his programs. We hear roar Bernie’s promises will cost trillions of dollars and bankrupt the country.  Well, I say, go see Michael Moore’s new movie and see Bernie’s vision for America brought to you in beautiful technicolor on a wide screen at you neighborhood theater.

For the past year, I have felt like John the Baptist preaching to anyone who would listen that we are in the “Age of the Great One”, the “Mesiah is Amongst Us”. I would coerce friends to watch Steph Curry perform his magic and mystical powers on the basketball court.  People were dumbfounded by this one person’s ability to glide around the court evading opponents’ vain attempts at defense and surreally lofting this round object effortlessy great distances into a round object only slightly larger than the diameter of the ball itself.  People instantly become believers.

This past weekend, I made the pilgramage to the Wachovia Center in Philadelphia to witness first-hand the miracles of this basketball saint.  The Center which lately is only half-full due to the persistent mediocre performance of the home team was full to capacity and buzzing with activity an hour before game time.  Fans came early just to watch Curry warm-up.  Almost all the kids under the age of 15 are wearing number 30 Golden State jerseys following their Pied Piper as he leads his team to the promised land.

A few nights later, the Golden State Warriors are on ESPN playing the Washington Wizards.  Curry was having one of those indescribable nights, where he made 8 of 9 three-point shots in the first quarter and when he wasn’t shooting the long range jumper from anywhere, he was making behind-the-back passes or stealing the ball from his opponents.  He finished the night with 44 points and sat out almost the entire forth quarter.  But, what was truly amazing was hearing the three sportscasters, who have been around the professional game for about 120 years collectively, go on and on about how Curry is the best shooter in the history of basketball and possibly the most entertaining person ever to play the game.  They ask how is it possible that the  MVP player from last season can win the Most Improved Player this year.

So why is Curry bad for the game of basketball?  The problem is that he makes the rest of the NBA look like an over 55 league at the YMCA.  The play around the NBA is slow, predictable and uninspiring.  Kobe, a former superstar looks old and tired.  King James looks stiff and clumsy.  Westbrook and Durant look too human as they miss key shots in big moments and Rose looks hobbled coming back from his knee surgery.

So how does an avid fan and sports junky like myself deal with the disparity between Steph Curry and the rest of the league.  It is very hard.  It is no fun tuning in to a mid-week came between Sacramento Kings and the Jazz or the Sixers and the Timberwolves waiting the entire game for one outstanding play. Curry promises a highlight clip every minute.  I change the channel looking for a good college game or flipping on the Flyers for two seconds.  The Australian Open was a pleasant diversion an now I only watch the NBA when Golden State Warriors are being televised.

It would ironic if league attendance and viewership suffered because of a player that is just too good that he makes the rest of the league look mediocre.  Can the NBA televise a Warriors’ games three or four times a week, or do we just need a Steph Curry app which gives you all the highlights from the previous Warriors’ game that you can re-play whenever you need a fix f good basketball.  I guess the NHL survived with Gretzky and the NFL survived with Montana , so I guess the NBA can survive with Curry.

For the past several years, the world has been plagued with two major crises in the Middle East.  The first crisis is the surge in refugees fleeing Syria.  The problem had its beginnings a few years ago when Assad began the wholesale killing and torturing of his own people.  People initially began to flee to neighboring Middle East states and as the problem grew many refugees are making their way into European countries.  The second problem the world faces is the emergence and growing power of ISIS.  As ISIS has moved from Iraq into Syria, it has further aggravated the refugee problem as more and more people flee the area to escape getting caught in the crossfire between Assad’s forces and the attacking ISIS army.

I am going to deal with the second problem first, the growing strength of the ISIS forces.  Here in the United States, we are frustrated that both the Iraqi Army and the Syrian freedom fighters lack the will to take on ISIS.  We have seen the Iraqi Army melt away as they are confronted with a smaller and less equipped ISIS army.  We asked ourselves why these Iraqi forces cannot mount a concerted offensive against the forces of ISIS.  We are inclined to contrast this failure with the success that our Founding Fathers had against a much larger and formidable English army.  This same frustration is aimed at the small bands of Syrian freedom fighters who are battling ISIS in Syria.

But the comparison to the American Revolution is misguided.  The media asks why are these armies so unsuccessful in fighting the evil force that threatens their country.  We expect the Iraqi army to carry the fervor of the American patriots when in fact, they are fighting one evil only knowing too well that they will be returning home to a war ravaged country that is in the midst on an non-ending civil war.  Is it worth dying for a country that is filled with corruption and where life is threatened by daily sectarian bombings?  Or, are we expecting more recruits to join the independent Syrian forces to battle ISIS knowing that one day they must return to fight the battle with Assad and his tyrannical forces?

It is accepted opinion that  ISIS will only be defeated with a coordinated effort between ground troops and supporting military airstrikes.  ISIS is well entrenched in several metropolitan areas and we need ground forces going door-to-door to defeat this menace.

How about if we asked these refugees to join a fight for a better life for them and their families?  How motivated would these fighters be if they knew that a home, a community peace and prosperity would be a real option for them and their families?  I am proposing the United States agrees to accept up to 50,000 (of course, vetted) refugees and their families with the stipulation that they must join the United States Army for a three year stint and be required to fight the terrorist group ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  The recruits’  families will be given asylum in the US and be provided a home, schooling and health services immediately.  After the soldier completes his or her three year service, both they and their family are awarded citizenship in the United States.

We would have an army on the ground fighting ISIS, composed largely of Syrian refugees, fighting in a country that they know well and understand  using the most advanced military equipment, employing sophisticated military strategy and backed  by U.S. air power.  We give our military leaders the full arsenal they need to defeat ISIS.   We can continue this battle against ISIS bringing in a second 50,000 (of course, vetted) refugees to America until ISIS is clearly defeated anywhere they exist in the world.

I believe that the new refugees and future citizens who have just defeated the “existential threat” to our country will immediately earn the respect of their fellow country men and will be welcomed with much more open arms.  The is a policy that should be popular with both Democrats and Republicans and the required  legislation should pass easily n Washington D.C.  It is a strategy that allows us deal with the mounting refugee problem while dealing with the growing threat of ISIS.