I have partisan political views, but for the purpose of this website, I tend to keep them to myself. But this being the end of the year, the time of reflections, it seems like a time to break some rules. We can set things right again next year.

Through the year, with the problems of Iraq, the renewal of the Patriot Act, and now the recent stories about the President ordering eavesdropping on private phone calls in the U.S. without a warrant, there has been a recurring theme. Exactly how much power should a president have? We live in a time when national security, especially from terrorism, is a very great worry for most of us. How much of our civil rights should we be prepared to give away for our safety?

At the heart of this issue is a longtime struggle for power in Washington – the struggle between Congress and the Chief Executive for leadership of America. We all know that the framers of the Constitution created three branches of government, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branch. It is understood that by dividing power among the three, and giving each branch the ability (and the duty) to check the other, that government will proceed more democratically.

That part is clear to everyone. What is equally important, but I think is less obvious to many, is that the Founding Fathers did not expect the three branches to share power equally. Congress was expected to take the lead.

We can easily see this intent in the first presidency. George Washington maintained a strict policy as President never to comment on legislation before Congress. He believed, as most Americans then believed, that the President’s job was strictly to enforce the laws on the books. He did not submit budgets. He had no “domestic policy” or “economic policy,” as presidents do now. Washington did not even think it was his right to veto legislation simply because he did not agree with it. For Washington, the veto was reserved solely for laws that he felt were unconstitutional. His Presidency was small, and unobtrusive, and it never would have occurred to him that it was his job to set the national agenda. That job fell to Congressional leadership.

Things have changed greatly in 210 years, mainly because of the arrival of the Fourth Branch of government, the Media. As the media in this country became larger and more important, it began to affect national politics. The media can pick and choose among major issues of the day, and in doing so, select which issues will catch the attention of the public. Note for example how Terry Schiavo became so famous that Congress tried to pass a law to save her, while a patient of mine in a New Orleans nursing home with identical medical issues died unnoticed.

Since the media can set the national agenda, this greatly empowers the individuals who can manipulate them. The President is one man. As an individual, he is a simpler focal point for the media than Congress. It is easy to cover the movements and statements of one man. Congress, on the othe hand, has 535 voting members, every one of whom has his or her own opinions and policies. It is much tougher to sum up Congress in two minutes than it is the President. So, over time, the President has been able to dictate the national agenda with increasing ease. He has become more powerful than Congress.

The relative primacy of the President is not necessarily a problem as long as Congress has the strength and the gumption to continue to check the President when he grabs for more power. The real danger emerges when Congress stops thinking it is its job to say no to the Executive Branch.

This has happened. It has happened because half of Congress, the half in the same political party as the President, has decided that it is more in their interest to support the growth of presidential power than it is to defend the traditional turf of Congress. I am not blaming the Republican party here specifically, because it has not been above the Democrats to do the same from time to time, especially in state legislatures. It just so happens that the Republicans have been in power lately, and lately this problem has been getting more serious.

From the point of view of the common citizen, it is critical that Congress and the President regularly butt heads. The Founding Fathers intended this. They also thought that Congress could and should win most of the time because it can make all the laws and is in charge of the money. To them, and to me, this is desirable. Every citizen has direct representation in Congress, and because members of the House stand for reelection every 2 years, Congress tends to be more sensitive to the public will. In general, in a democracy, we want a government that is sensitive to the wishes of the people.

The media have changed this balance. Because the President commands the immediate attention of the media 24 hours a day, because he is both the spokesman for government and the largest celebrity on Earth, singular influence tends to swamp the more divided forces of Congress. Thus the President leads the government nowdays. The members of Congress see that, and those in his party line up on his side, magnifying the power of the executive and reducing the legistative power. They do this because they are more interested in power than they are in keeping Congress separate and intact as a major force in public life.

How I wish the same pains taken to keep Church and State separate were employed to keep President and Congress independent!

We need a strong and independent Congress. Everyone likes to make fun of Congress, to deprecate it as a confused, pandering, illogical institution. Next to it the President looks firm, focussed, and calm. But we need Congress. If Congress is not strong, the voters are not strong. No one is immune to the tempation of power, and if Congress lets the President take all he wants, little by little he will be tempted to do it.

The Founding Fathers were afraid of the presidency. They thought it naturally engendered the characteristics of royalty and dictatorship, and they took great pains to limit it. Today, that job falls to Congress, and we need to make sure that our leaders are up to this important task.

I recently penned a letter to the editor of the McComb Enterprise-Journal that sums up my opinion on medical marijuana. You can read it here.

Briefly, what I said was that doctors should not be used as pawns in the game of legalization of marijuana. Legalization may have its merits, but marijuana's medical uses are few and far between.

I try not to get into religious issues too often on this site, because I cannot claim exceptional expertise on the subject. But I have read one time too many this Christmas season the argument that Jesus was born in Nazareth and not in Bethlehem, and I am getting tired of it.

I am not a Biblical literalist. I do not think the world was made in 6 days, or that Noah really had 2 of every creature on earth in his ark. But I am a scientist by training, and I do think that if the best evidence we have says something happened a certain way, then we should accept it as having happened.

There are 4 Gospels, or accounts of Jesus' life, in the Bible. Some critics argue that a 5th account, the Gospel of Thomas, also has some claim to authenticity. This is debatable, but even if true, it still means that only 2 of the 4 or 5 accepted gospels recount the birth of Jesus. Only Matthew and Luke tell the Nativity story; John, Mark, and Thomas completely omit it.

The two Nativity stories have some variation in their accounts, with Luke telling the story mainly from Mary's point of view and Matthew using the Joseph perspective.  But both agree that the birth of Jesus occured in Bethlehem.

Scholars base their argument that Jesus was born in Nazareth on two points. First, they say that all biblical references to Jesus refer to him as Jesus of Nazareth instead of Jesus of Bethlehem. Usually, they posit, when a location is used in a person's proper name during Jesus' lifetime, it refers to the person's place of birth. If Mark and John thought Jesus was born in Bethehem, they would not have repeatedly called him Jesus of Nazareth.

The second point scholars make is that the reason for the trip to Bethlehem is historically unclear. Matthew and Luke say Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to register for a census. Unfortunately, there is no historical record of any such census during Jesus' childhood. It would be strange for a man to take his pregnant and about-to-deliver wife on a walking trip of over 100 miles for no particular reason. Certainly, they argue, Mary and Joseph would have stayed home during her pregnancy, rather than risk the safety of both mother and child on an arduous journey in the desert. Especially if there was no census, as the scholars seem to think.

These arguments make logical sense. The problem with them is that they are unsupported by evidence. What the scholars are saying is that probably Jesus was not born in Bethlehem because probably there was no census and probably if the other gospel writers thought Jesus was born in Bethlehem they would have said so. That's a lot of probablys in an argument that is supposed to be scientific.

The truth is, we have no proof that Jesus was born in Bethlehem except that Matthew and Luke say so. We also have no proof he was born in Nazareth, except for the arguments of probability. 

Making assumptions from probabilities can get you in trouble in a hurry. The two most common causes of death in America are heart disease and cancer. If I read an obituary in the paper about a poor soul who died in a house fire, I could say to myself, "No, in America fire is an uncommon cause of death. He probably died of cancer or heart attack." Probably. Except he didn't.

We can probably ourselves from California to Calvary about Jesus, but we only have two accounts of his birth, and both of them say he was born in Bethlehem. If you argue otherwise, you are saying the Gospel writers made things up. They could have, but without a third source to dispute them, all doubt is conjecture.

Jesus is a very distant and shadowy figure, from a strictly historical point of view. Almost all of what we know of him is from Christian tradition and the Gospel accounts. The rest is filled in by Christians through faith. But scholars, who claim to be searching for truth through facts, need to stop this stupid oddsmaking. If they have an account, or physical evidence that points to Jesus' birth in Nazareth, then out with it. Otherwise, they need to be quiet.

As you can see, my Christmas entry is on December 26. Needless to say, I was too busy yesterday, but it also bears saying that today is Christmas too. The traditional Christmas celebration is 12 days long, and does not end until January 6, the Feast of the Three Kings. In fact, Christmas was not the preeminent celebration of the Christmas season until about 150 years ago. Before the 20th century and the days of birth certification, many people did not even know the exact date of their births; but most people knew their baptismal date, because churches kept records of that.

For that reason, and for many others, New Year's Day was considered the most important day of the 12 days of Christmas. New Year's is the day most Christian churches celebrate the baptism or circumcision of Christ. Consider this fact: the Catholic Church reorganized the calendar times during the Dark and Middle Ages, the last time under Pope Gregory in 1582. The Church could have easily assigned January 1 the feast of Jesus' birthday, but it did not. It kept Christmas day were it was and made the first day of the calendar year the feast of Christ's baptism. This was probably intentional and suggests the relative importance of the two holidays at that time.

Christmas became The Day I think because of commercialism. For the last month I have been listening to Christmas music on the radio. I turn it on this morning and the music selection it might as well be from July. The Christmas songs are gone and Fleetwood Mac and Fifty Cent again reign supreme. Because Christmas day is the big gift-giving day, merchants have no reason to promote the holiday past December 25. December 26, things are right back to business as usual. People, who are heavily influenced by what they see on TV, simply mindlessly follow suit.

I like the old way. I think the Christmas season should be celebrated, if not all the way to January 6, at least through January 1. Christmas is not just about buying and giving presents, and we should carry the spirit of this delightful holiday through more than a 24 hour period. The great thing about the days after December 25 is that the good feelings have not died out yet but no one is rushing around looking for gifts and worrying about the social calendar. Other than what New Year's Eve party we should go to, our plans are pretty much set. So we can enjoy our holiday(s) free of the advertising bombardment, free of the rushing and worrying. We can eat our Christmas turkey for lunch with a cold beer and no ruckus to trouble us. God bless this day!

In Canada and Europe December 26 is known as Boxing Day. It also is sometimes called the feast of St. Stephen. (Remember the old Christmas carol, "Good King Wencelas looked out, on the feast of Stephen . . . ") Boxing Day takes many forms, but it is generally thought of as a day, after the excess of Christmas parties, that the rich give to the poor. The carol "Good King Wencelas" is about a Slavic king who was good to one of his poor subjects.

This is the spirit of the Christmas season. We need to bring it back. It seems so artificial to go back to work the day after Christmas as if nothing has happened. Holidays are not about feeling better for a day, or even "recharging our batteries." They are about feeling better for a day and then making that feeling stick. It may be a cliche to say that we should have the spirit of Christmas year round, but it is not a cliche to say that we need to be open to letting positive experiences reflect into our daily lives. Charity is not just for December, it is for July also, and we should be making every effort to ensure that the good feeling we have now carries on just that long.

Joyeux Noel et Bonne Annee!

Yesteday (December 22), the New Orleans Times-Picayune kindly ran an essay of mine on its Op-Ed page. It is about an experience I had with a patient in Chalmette, Louisiana and how it affected me through Katrina. You can read it here.