Katrina Blog Project
Search
Archives
Restricted
Now Reading

Victor Hugo, Les Miserables

Gary Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg

Stephen Greenblatt, Will of the World

Donna Tartt, The Goldfinch

James Martin, Jesus: A Pilgrimage

Disclaimer

The contents of this website are for contemplative purposes only. No medical advice will be given, and emails asking for medical advice will be ignored.

Although patient vignettes are based on my experiences with real individuals, I liberally change details to maintain patient confidentiality.

I also reserve the right to change old postings to correct errors, and to delete comments that include obscene language or that I deem abusive to me or other commentators.  If you are looking for a open mind, I suggest you consult a neurosurgeon.

Thursday
Aug252016

The Great Louisiana Flood of 2016

Two things emerged last week as South Louisiana dealt with with a deluge of over 20 inches of rain in 72 hours: the scope of the damage was much worse than originally thought, and the American media proved ill-equipped to cover it.

The raw statistics of the terrible downpour is enough to give anyone pause. Forty thousand homes flooded, 20,000 people rescued from their homes by boat or special flood vehicles, 7,000 people in shelters, 70,000 registered for emergency federal insurance, 13 dead.

Some people have the misconception that, as with Hurricane Katrina, the flooding occurred because the victims were living in low lying areas. This is not so. Baton Rouge is 53 feet above sea level. Not mile-high, to be sure, but high enough for flooding to be rare in that part of the state.

The area needs help, and a lot of it, but from all reports the federal response has been adequate. Unlike Katrina, where standing water persisted for weeks, in the Baton Rouge area the floods have receded, which means getting emergency help to those who need it has not been as difficult a task as it was in 2005.

The Red Cross has called it the greatest American disaster since Hurricane Sandy, four years ago. The devastation is serious, and it deserves serious national attention.

But here is the problem: It has not gotten serious national attention. The flood waters started rising on Friday, August 12th and there was little or no media attention until the following Monday. And even then, it was anemic.

The Flood of 2016 had the misfortune of occurring during the Olympics, the Donald Trump campaign, and wildfires in California. It had much to compete with.

This exposes a serious problem in the American media, which at times seems so vast, but in reality is very limited. The media concerns itself mainly with personalities, conflict, and photo-ops, not to natural disasters that don't feature the face of Ryan Lochte or the Donald himself. The media is conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to respond to certain stimuli, but not to others. Since Baton Rouge didn't provide the right kind of story, the necessary sound bites, it was not paid attention to.

When a police officer shot a black man in Baton Rouge a month ago, the media roared into town. When the city was hit with a all-time record rainfall, it couldn't be bothered to get up in the morning.

I wonder how we go forward as a country when our media has to have ice water poured on its head to pay attention to truly important events, instead of ones that merely titillate. It won't be easy. Our current choice of presidential candidates is proof that the media can't focus on the important things. Otherwise we wouldn't have the candidate with the most donor money and the greatest ability to buy attention on one side, and the candidate with the biggest and foulest mouth on the other.

Friday
Aug052016

Winston and Hillary

On a recent vacation trip to London, I had the pleasure of visiting the Churchill War Rooms, a complex of underground offices in central London that Winston Churchill and his cabinet used during World War II to direct the British war effort.

The War Rooms are extraordinary, one of the best historical sites I have ever visited. In 1945, a week after V-J day, the War Rooms were sealed, hardly disturbed again for 40 years, until Margaret Thatcher authorized their opening to the public. After several years of preparation the War Rooms were opened in the late 1990s, and since then have been one of London's great tourist sights. And they are a treasure: Rarely have I seen such a well-preserved historical site, and one that casts such a clear light on an important moment in world history.

One of the many things I learned about Churchill during my visit to the War Rooms is that, besides being a great political leader, he was a terrible security risk. This surprising discovery changed my perspective on Hillary Clinton's current email scandal. Hear me out.

Sir Winston Churchill was an tenacious and brilliant leader who formed the backbone of British resistance to the Nazis throughout World War II, but especially during the Battle of Britain, the period when Britain stood almost alone against the power of the Axis. For a short time after the fall of France, the Nazis planned to cross the English Channel and invade southern England directly; however, the German Navy was mostly composed of U-boats and was limited in troop carrying capacity. Britain, while reeling from defeats in France, still had more surface ships. The Nazis decided not to risk a Channel crossing, and instead focussed on intensive bombing of London and industrial cities in England such as Coventry and Birmingham.

The British called this time the Blitz, and it was during the Blitz that Churchill and his cabinet were driven underground into the War Rooms.

Churchill was a reluctant resident of the War Rooms. He felt that to hide from the Germans was to admit to a kind of defeat. He was dragged kicking and screaming underground, and his reluctance to stay down there made him a major intelligence risk. One that makes Hillary Clinton's email scandal pale in comparison.

Churchill said that living underground in the War Rooms made him feel "cooped up." He refused to concede anything to Hitler, and therefore, even after war operations were transferred underground, he insisted on continuing to work on occasion at his above ground address at 10 Downing Street.

One evening while he was enjoying his tea and cigar at 10 Downing, the sirens went off, signaling an air raid. Stubbornly, Sir Winston refused to go underground, but he did eventually permit his kitchen staff to evacuate. Not long after the evacuation a bomb landed nearby, destroying the kitchen. Although the blast left the Prime Minister unhurt, it almost certainly would have killed his cooks.

At that point, Churchill conceded that even if he had no concern for his own safety, he ought to spend more time underground for the sake of the people who were working for him.

Even still, after that near-death experience, Churchill continued to risk his life (and thus all of British national security) by sleeping aboveground in a facility known as the 10 Downing Street Annex. Although he had a bed in the bomb shelter, he only slept there three times during the entire war. Sir Winston seems to have preferred running water and fresh air, as well as the defiant boldness of facing direct bombing, to the relative safety of life in hiding in the War Rooms.

Perhaps even worse than the risk he was taking for his own person, Churchill was, by being above ground, allowing himself to be seen. The War Rooms location was classified, and if the Nazis had known where it was, they certainly would have attempted to bomb it. Churchill's regular appearances on the surface in the immediate vicinity of the War Rooms could have tipped anyone off who was paying close enough attention. Luckily, in five years, no one seems to have put two and two together.

It gets worse. Churchill had a notoriously loose tongue, often spilling classified information on his numerous phone calls. Since there was no trans-Atlantic cable available at the time, all of the PM's phone calls to the U.S. were by radio, and vulnerable to interception. Churchill's team pleaded with him to be more careful about what he said on the phone, and finally got him to concede to using the name "Mr. Martin" as some semblance of cover when he made his calls.

Unfortunately, the "Mr. Martin" ruse only lasted two weeks. After that, British Intelligence arrested one of Churchill's personal assistants, a man named Mr. Martin, for revealing classified information on phone calls traced to the War Rooms. Embarrassed, Churchill had to explain to Intelligence that Martin was innocent, and that it was the Prime Minister himself who was making the calls in his friend's name, and breaking classified protocol.

Here is the best story of all. The Prime Minister hated not knowing what was going on during air raids, and often left the War Rooms by himself to inspect the damage from attacks. One day during an air raid, the War Rooms started to fill up with smoke. Fearing the building had been hit, security ordered the facility evacuated. But no one could find Sir Winston. As the smoke built up, someone remembered that the PM had a habit of going up to the roof to watch the bombing, and so an officer was sent up there to check. Churchill was found, as expected, on the roof of the building, during an air raid, cigar in hand. And sitting on one of the chimneys.

As it turned out, there was no fire at all. The smoke in the War Rooms was caused by the Prime Minister's bum, which blocked its escape through the vents.

All of these behaviors represented an uncomfortable disregard for safety and security. In today's America, it would have been grounds for impeachment, to listen to critics of Hillary Clinton. If you think using emails on an unsecured server for State Department business is reckless, imagine the entire classified staff of a war department standing on a London sidewalk because the boss needed a place to sit while he watched a bombing.

If Churchill were alive today, I think he would say this about his recklessness: He was in no way trying to damage the war effort. No one wanted to win the war more than Winston Churchill. But winning the war was such an all-consuming effort that the PM did not have the energy left over to worry about protocol. Sometimes, when you are obsessed with something, you forget about everything else, including your personal safety and the safety of those around you.

Winston Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century. No one would argue that Hillary Clinton measures up to the great British Prime Minister. That isn't the point.

The point is that if a man as great as Churchill can make mistakes like this, anyone can. This isn't to forgive what Clinton did, or what Churchill did, but only to point out that even titans make mistakes. In fact, titans tend to make titanic mistakes. Churchill certainly did. If you want to know what a titanic mistake by a titanic leader looks like, Google "Gallipoli," and learn how Churchill was significantly responsible for 140,000 Allied casualties during one of the most disastrous failures in Britain's incredibly long military history.

The point is that people make mistakes. Even big ones. Sometimes very big ones. What counts in a mistake is two things. The ability to learn from error, and the ability to bounce back from it. Churchill had both.

As for Clinton, she has admitted her mistake with the email scandal. While I wish she would be more forthcoming and direct about the error instead of talking out both sides of her mouth, she did nevertheless admit to wrongdoing. While she did make a mistake, her error was almost certainly the same error Churchill committed 60 years earlier. She was so concerned with the complexities of her job that she ignored security protocol.

There is no reason to think that Clinton was intentionally giving anything away to our enemies. That is conspiracy thinking, and conspiracy thinking rarely has any relation to fact. The Secretary was, like Churchill, completely absorbed in the complexities of her job, and wasn't paying attention. Although this is not a good thing, it is also not something that should disqualify her from being president.

Imagine if the leaders of Great Britain had thought Winston Churchill's actions disqualified him from being the Prime Minister of Britain? Where would Britain be today?

Saturday
Jun252016

California's Right-to-Die Law

If I tried to write everything I could about California’s new right-to-die law, and, by extension, about euthanasia, I would have to write a book. But I will strain to be brief.

There seems to be a movement, at least among liberal states, to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Five states — Washington, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, and now most recently California -- have some type of legal provision that allows doctors to write prescriptions for lethal doses of medication, for the purpose of facilitating the suicide of patients.

And I understand the reasoning behind these laws. The miracles of modern medicine, while remarkable indeed, sometimes enable people to live long beyond their time. Patients can be brought back from the brink of death again and again, up to the point where extreme pain and suffering make death a considered alternative to fighting on.

No one wants to live on indefinitely in misery. No one wants to suffer. Modern people, who enjoy so many comforts courtesy of technology, are unused to hardship and seem to fear physical pain especially. We are used to anxiety, depression, stress, divorce, loneliness — but are terrified of the dentist.

I can understand the fear of dying of a dread disease (usually cancer), the fear of having no way out and nothing but a long path of pain — physical pain — to look forward to until the end. This very thought often leads people to also desire the power to end it.

But one thing is never discussed when the right-to-die comes up: Right-to-die laws have little to do with the right to die. From a practical standpoint, everyone already has the right to die. In most states, suicide is technically illegal. But has anyone ever been prosecuted for it? If someone attempts suicide and succeeds, that person is beyond the reach of the law; if he attempts suicide and fails, he goes into psychiatric treatment. No one is ever prosecuted for attempting suicide. So strictly speaking, the "right to die" is not the issue here. People who want to kill themselves can do so if they choose.

Right to die laws are really about authorizing certain people to help others commit suicide. And who is permitted — even mandated — to help? Doctors. That’s the long and short of it — the right to die isn’t about the right of suicide, it is about making it legal for doctors to kill their patients.

Oh sure, the laws pussyfoot around. They are larded with regulations, such as that the patient has to be terminally ill, and that the doctor is supposed to provide the means of suicide, but not to actually administer it. And that, I guess, is supposed to absolve the doctor. As a physician, I am expected to explain to the patient that he is terminal, that he will die a horrible death, that I am going to write him a prescription that could allow him to end it, and then turn him loose, to do whatever his conscience allows.

That isn’t absolution, legal or otherwise. And I don’t see why a physician should be forced to do it.

Forced, you say? No way -- no one is forcing anyone to do anything. The doctor can refer the patient to another doctor. Right? But while that is technically true, the reality complicated. The very existence of physician-assisted suicide has the potential to sabotage the doctor-patient relationship. As a doctor, I may take care of a patient for years, but then, when the patient is diagnosed with a terminal illness, because of my objections to euthanasia I am forced into a very difficult situation when the final days begin. And the patient slips in to a difficult situation as well.

I have to tell my patient I am personally opposed to euthanasia and must require that they agree never to ask me to do such a thing, and if they wish to pursue this option they must seek another doctor. What this means in practice is that the majority of doctors who have objections to euthanasia will refer all of their terminal patients to the few doctors who will assist with suicide. In other words, the medical community will divide itself the same way it has over abortion, with a large majority who won’t do it and a rare few who will, thus leaving all abortions to a handful of full-time abortion doctors.

But the circumstances with the terminally ill are not the same as they are with abortion. In the case of abortion, most doctors can avoid the problem by choosing not to take care of pregnant patients on a regular basis. They simply go into internal medicine, or cardiology, or dermatology, and avoid the problem altogether.

This cannot be the case with the right to die. Since the dying process is a natural endpoint in almost every area of medicine, there are very few doctors who can avoid caring for the terminally ill. A small number — the pediatrician, the dermatologist, the psychiatrist — can largely evade dying patients because of their patient population, but none have the ability to run a death-free practice. Eventually every doctor will be faced with counseling a dying patient. And it is wrong that a doctor who has treated a patient for years should be forced to send a dying patient away simply because he has moral reservations about assisted suicide.

If you are one of those people who wants suicide as an option when facing a terminal illness, fine. But understand that if you want to die in the face of terminal illness, that decision should be yours. It is not fair to ask another person, let alone a medical professional, for a seal of approval.

Because that is what assisted suicide is. To qualify for the right to die in California, you have to have the opinion of two physicians that you are in a terminal condition and have less than 6 months to live, and that you are mentally competent. These are all medical decisions. Thus, the ball sits in the court of the doctor. Not a lawyer, not a judge, not a counselor, not a clergyman. Lawyers and politicians carefully wrote themselves out of this law because they are smart, and don’t want people coming to them from the street asking for permission to kill themselves. So they dumped the responsibility on doctors.

As a doctor, I don’t have the ability to make decisions like this either. I never, ever tell my patients they have 6 months to live. I don’t own a crystal ball. I have seen patients I thought had six months last 2 years. I have seen patients I thought had 6 hours last a month. Any doctor will tell you -- there is no magic book in our libraries that we can consult to look up the patient’s diagnosis and physical findings and get a lifespan estimate. Everything is a guess, and any doctor who says differently is not telling the truth.

The matter of patient competence is even more difficult. If a patient comes to me who has a terminal illness, this is a person who is likely to be depressed and very anxious. Is such a person fully competent? Would you, under most circumstances, think a person who is depressed is in a place to decide if he or she wants to die or not?

Standard medical practice says otherwise. Psychiatrists are authorized to lock up a suicidal patient against his will precisely because the medical community does not believe a severely depressed person is mentally competent.

And there is more. People with terminal diseases are profoundly ill. They may be taking chemotherapy, they may have cancer metastases in the brain. They may be on painkilling drugs. Again, how do you judge competence in such cases? While I would agree that many of them are competent, not all of them are, and as a doctor I certainly would not be comfortable standing as judge in such difficult circumstances.

In my medical career, I have never had a patient or a patient’s family approach me and ask to euthanize a patient. And as a physician who specializes in hospital medicine, I have seen many, many terminal patients. Perhaps this is a function of the community I live in. Mississippi culture is different from the culture of California and Oregon in many ways.

But also, I think it is a function of life. The number of people who are actively dying and want to be euthanized is vanishingly small. In a state like Oregon, who has legalized assisted suicide for quite some time, the practice is rare. I am sure that most Oregon doctors, like me, more often have the opposite problem. The most common problem I run into with dying patients is not that they want to die, but that they continue to struggle against death when death is inevitable. I see patients suffer mightily from this. I see family members who think their 80 pound grandmother will one day walk again, or that a patient whose brain is riddled with metastatic cancer will be cured if he just gets one more chemo treatment.

We are all born to die. It is the great human equalizer. There is nothing any of us, including us doctors, can do about it. Many patients cannot accept this, and I watch with sadness as they struggle against an invincible opponent. Instead of making the best of the time they have left, they spend their time extending their suffering to no good end.

Death simply is. You don’t get out of it by fighting until the end. And you don’t get out of it by committing suicide before your time. While some people think those who seek physician assisted suicide are bravely facing death, I do not. I think people who want their doctors to help them die are mostly looking to the doctor, one of the few authority figures modern society has not discredited, to agree with them that they are justified in seeking suicide.

As a doctor, I am not willing to extend my seal of approval to anyone’s suicide. If a patient wants to die, he can do so without my help. And it is not right that state governments, frightened to accept responsibility for the right to die themselves, are now writing laws to absolve themselves of responsibility in the matter, and turn it over to the people whose jobs are to heal, relieve suffering, and comfort in the hour of death.

Monday
Jun132016

About the Orlando Shooting

The recent shooting in Orlando prompts the following thoughts.

The difficulty with the gun rights debate in America is that when you ask a gun totin’ conservative why he feels it is good to carry a weapon, he says that he is safer when he is armed.  He will sometimes take this a step further. He will say, when you are with me and I am packing, you will be safer, because I know how to use a gun correctly.

Let’s just assume this is true. (In fact, it is nowhere near true, but I won’t concern myself with that particular argument right now.) But even if it were true, it raises a second question. Maybe you in particular are safer because you have a Glock in your purse. Maybe, to take the argument further, you are a superhero and all the world is safer because you have your trusty Glock and will only use it for God and country.

But what about the person sitting next to you who is also packing? Is he a superhero? Can we trust him to use his gun as safely as you will? If everyone packs, is everyone safer? Or is it more likely that if everyone is packing, a large number of people who aren't safe to be handling guns will be carrying them?

Note that I am not talking about "bad guys" who are carrying guns. We can address that problem later. For now I am concerned about "good guys" who lack the physical skill, smarts, and judgment to handle a weapon in an emergency.

There are two kinds of safety -- safety for me and safety for everyone. I could be a skilled tightrope walker. For me, walking a tightrope could be perfectly safe. If I live in a 40 story building and want to visit my friend in a neighboring 40 story building, it might be perfectly safe for me to cross over on a tightrope.

But that would be illegal. Not because it isn’t safe for me, but because it isn’t safe for everyone. The government is in no position to decide who is able and who is not able to walk a tightrope. What might be fine for me could be dangerous for someone else, and there is a real danger to the people on the street below if inexperienced tightrope walkers are crossing the street 300 feet above.

The problem is that while tightrope walking may be safe for me, it is not safe for everyone -- and when the wrong people do it, there is danger to everyone.

In the same way, there are some people who are safe to carry guns. Who have good judgment. Who don’t have a tremor or cataracts. Who can handle the recoil of a weapon powerful enough to take a chunk out of a brick wall. Who have the coordination and athletic skill to get a gun out of their pockets, click the safety off (yes, you DO have to have the safety on if you are going to carry a pistol in your pocket or purse), take aim, and pick off a bad guy with one clean shot before the bad guy can turn his AR-15 muzzle back at them.

Maybe. Sounds like a tall order to me, though, and I sincerely doubt 100% of the "good guys" possess that kind of skill. I strongly suspect a substantial number of people who choose to pull a gun in a high-risk situation will in fact make the situation more dangerous.

The fact is, since no U.S. state requires a license to possess a firearm, since no one is asked to pass a competency test before getting one, there are all kinds of people carrying them. There are people who have won shooting competitions. There are people who couldn’t lift a full glass of water to their lips without spilling some of it. Both types can legally carry semiautomatic handguns in the US.

Let us assume you are perfectly competent to shoot a pistol. Is it therefore safe to say that every other person who has one is also perfectly competent to shoot a pistol? That is to say, is what is safe for you safe for everyone?

This is where the problem begins. Laws are for everyone. The government can’t know every single person who is competent to fire a handgun. It is doubtful that the government could identify with even 80 percent accuracy people who are safe to carry one in public. Gun possession on a public street is a matter of safety. Since everyone can’t do it, society might be better off limiting who can do it.

It may be that carrying a gun is safe for you. But if everyone does it, is everyone safer? I don’t think so.

It is extremely difficult for a private individual to successfully challenge an armed killer when a mass murder is happening. As I suggested above, to be successful you would have to get your weapon out, take it off safety, aim, and get off a clean kill shot before you are seen. If you miss your first shot, you have to re-aim, which is very difficult because the recoil of the gun puts you off target, and while you are doing that the killer has turned in your direction. Then it is a fifty-fifty game at best. This probably explains why, with all the mass murders that have occurred in recent years, there has never been a story of an armed hero who was able to stop the murdering in progress, without police help.

The problem with carrying a weapon to prevent events like Orlando is that such events are extremely rare, but handgun deaths are not. It remains a fact that most people who are murdered by handgun are murdered by people they know. And more people use their own guns for suicide attempts than ever use them to stop an attacker.

So when you leave your home with a pistol, you are carrying a deadly weapon with you that has the potential to kill you or one of your family members, all to prevent the extremely unlikely possibility that you end up in a public place with a rampaging member of ISIS with a semiautomatic weapon.

Put another way, you are carrying dynamite around with you just in case you get caught in a mineshaft and need to blast your way out, when the greater risk is that the dynamite will accidentally blow you up. Statistically, carrying a firearm makes no sense.

Finally, to lay to rest the argument that if honest people don’t carry guns, only the bad guys will have them:

As noted above, since a gun poses more of a risk to you than it ever will to a bad guy, you are going against the odds.

Second, even if you have a gun in the right place at the right time, if you don’t use it correctly you could get killed or end up killing an innocent.

Third, you always have your cellphone and can call the police, who are much better equipped to deal with the matter than you are.

Last, if there are reasonable gun laws in this country, the police can do more. Do you know what a cop does when he stops a man who has a semiautomatic weapon in his car? When somebody goes online and buys 10,000 rounds of armor-piercing bullets? Nothing. It is isn’t illegal.

The police can’t stop these crimes because it isn’t illegal to possess weapons of mass murder. Imagine how hard it would be to stop drug dealers if it were legal to possess cocaine, just illegal to use it, and you have grasped the situation exactly.

Sunday
May152016

The Woman (Race) Card

Although Bernie Sanders would have it otherwise, the final round of presidential campaign, Trump v. Clinton, appears to be underway. Mr. Trump’s opening broadside was (no surprise here) a personal attack on Ms. Clinton, in which Trump opined that if Hillary Clinton were not a woman, she would be at “5% in the polls.” Secretary Clinton, Trump charged, is playing the “woman card” to get ahead in the campaign.

In response, Secretary Clinton said that if fighting for equal rights for women is playing the woman card, then “deal me in.”

“Woman card” is a euphemism, and it is incumbent upon us political observers to unpack euphemisms. What does it mean?

Woman card is a derivative of the more often-used term race card, and so to understand the one we have to look at the other. Race card is a derogatory term applied to people who are perceived as using the accusation of racism to advance a political idea or cause. In its original, standard usage, if a political candidate appears to be calling his opponent a racist, he is using the race card.

Recently, the term has often been expanded into a second, broader meaning, and can to refer to anyone who complains about racism or racial oppression in the political arena. When used in this sense, the implication is that anyone who brings up racism in politics is doing so to advance his or her own interests. That is, when someone is playing the race card, he or she is using the accusation racist as a weapon to bash opponents. The word racism becomes nothing more than a form of character assassination.

I would agree that calling your opponent a racist in a political contest is non-productive and should be avoided. It is demeaning, and very hard to prove or disprove. It does nothing to improve debate, and often has the opposite effect of shutting down the conversation. No one thinks of himself as a racist, not even real racists. More importantly, there are only a few people who qualify as pure racists — the majority of people who could have that label applied to them have a combination of views that cannot easily be reduced to plain hatred. To call these individuals racists is to inflame them when calm conversion is what is needed. For example, the civil rights conflict in the 1960s was decided not only by the brave protesters, but also by the millions in the middle of the road who chose to reject segregation, even if they could not reject prejudice in its entirety.

In this narrow sense of the term, the phrase race card has some validity. It is not a good idea in most situations to accuse opponents of racism. To do so hurts rather than helps the cause of racial equality. It is probably helpful in some contexts to point out that a person who indiscriminately accuses others of racism, thus playing the race card, is making a tactical, if not a moral, error.

But that is not the way the phrase race card is often used. Instead, it is frequently hijacked by people who want agitators against racism to shut up and go home. Members of the Black Lives Matter movement, for example, are sometimes accused of playing the race card. In this context, they are not being accused of calling individuals racist (the first sense of playing the race card) — they are being accused of bringing up race as an issue in the first place, something it seems polite company would prefer that people no longer be allowed to do.

This is an inversion of political correctness, perpetrated by the very people who claim to despise it. Shouldn’t honest political discourse include grievances? An African-American has as much right to complain about perceived prejudice as anyone else. Black Lives Matter is not necessarily accusing any individual of racism. It is demanding better treatment of black people by police, and this is something African-Americans have a right to ask for.

Back to “woman card.” When Trump complained that Clinton was playing the “woman card,” he was implying that Clinton is using her womanhood to political advantage. He was not accusing her of calling him a misogynist (which, to my knowledge, so far she has not); he was accusing her of benefitting politically from being female. That is to say, he wasn't using the woman card idea in the first sense, but instead in a broader, "sit down and shut up" sense.

And my complaint here is the same objection I have people who use the term race card in the broader sense. Which is: So what? Doesn’t a woman have the right to complain about perceived injustice? Isn’t complaining about injustice what politics is all about? Hillary Clinton is a woman. It is not unfair for her to use that reality to inform and even advance her politics. Just as a 7 foot, 2 inch center has a right to use his height advantage on a basketball court, a woman has a right to incorporate her gender into her politics, and even take advantage of it if she wants to. We aren’t all eunuchs here. We are individuals, men and women, and our opinions have to come from someplace. Ovaries are just as good as testicles for that purpose. And anyone who thinks testicles have never been a source of political opinions needs a good shot of steroids and a very long stretch in a history classroom.

But just as race politics has limits, gender politics has limits, too. The limit is that no woman has a right to say an opponent is an inferior candidate just because he is male. But since no female candidate has ever done that, this charge is null. On the other hand, a woman certainly has a right to argue that her experience as a mother, or her experience of succeeding in male-dominated fields, is relevant to politics. An Army Ranger would claim military experience as a qualification. A teacher would claim classroom experience as an advantage, and a doctor would claim medical experience as well.

I have no objection to a female candidate using her gender as part of a campaign. Sarah Palin’s entire political career has been based on this, and no one ever accused her of playing the “woman card.” Because Palin didn’t. She used a female perspective to bring interest to conservatism. For all the odd things Sarah Palin has done, I don’t ever recall her calling a male opponent sexist, or claiming womanhood made her superior to a male.

No woman has ever played the woman card in this sense. This is the sense in which Donald Trump used it, and this is why his charge is vacuous.