Wasting Money On Women

 

Perhaps it's the liberal in me speaking, but I'm convinced that we waste too much money on “Women's Health.”

Yes. I know that sounds perverse. And yes, I know that it sounds more like sexism than liberalism, but that's not the case. You're feeling, not thinking. The usual message is that women have been ignored too long when it comes to medical research. All the medical studies have focused on men's diseases and those of women have been ignored. And even when ills are studied that affect both sexes, women are under-represented in the study populations. It doesn't matter whether I may personally agree or disagree with the premises, the conclusion represents emotionalism, not rationality. It is certainly not the message of liberal theology.ⁱ

But what does liberalism teach? Wikipedia (a sometimes reliable source) defines it as “the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.” And “Classical Liberalism” was “committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.”

Well, we can dispense with the latter statement. No one believes in limited government or free markets anymore. Certainly not liberals. But the idea of equal rights remains a hallmark of that philosophy. In addition, it is the goal of liberals to help the poor and needy, the underdogs, to achieve that equality. Money should be spent on programs that bring equality, and that's the point.

Mortality rates are higher among males than females in almost all species, including humans, according to a study completed for the Society of Actuaries in Schaumburg, Illinois.

The study cited (which is not unique, but indicative of facts worldwide) tells us that this has been the case at least since the 1300s. It is even true of fetuses. And another study tells us that a white girl born in 2005 has a life expectancy of 80.8 years while a white boy can anticipate only 75.7 years. The difference is even greater for African-Americans.

Interesting, but diseases like breast cancer – “women's diseases” – are the real scourges and we have ignored them for too long. Well that's the mantra. But men can get breast cancer too, and we haven't ignored it, anyway. The American Cancer Society, which funds much of the research into breast cancer, was founded in 1913 by men, and men head it today. And breast cancer – which affected 119.3 women per 100,000ⁱⁱ – isn't nearly as frequent as prostate cancer (which never affects women) whose incidence the same year (2006) was 152.6 per 100,000.

And the same is true of other diseases. For the most part men are more frequently affected than women and, consequently, die younger. Look around any senior citizens' center and you'll find a shortage of men. So they're at a premium. Lengthening their lives will not only benefit them, but the women who are looking for them.

The bottom line is that men are not equal to women in length or quality of life. Our liberal values, therefore, dictate that preference should be given to them when funds are disbursed for health care. To achieve equality, therefore, and to live up to a true liberal philosophy, less publicⁱⁱⁱ health care funding should be given to “Women's Health,” and more to men's.

Not the teaching of the times or the “correct” point of view? Sorry about that.

Next episode: “The Best And The Brightest” – The failure of democracy.

i    For too many, liberalism (or conservatism for that matter) is a knee-jerk reaction – a set of beliefs – rather than a considered and well thought-out philosophy. It commands the same unswerving loyalty as a religion.

ii     CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) figures.

iii  Private funds, of course, should go wherever the donors want. Public funds, though – taxpayers' money – should be used in a manner that will contribute to equality. That's what America is all about.

Hot Flash

 

There are those who hold that global warming results from a regular cycle the earth goes through periodically, while others attribute changes to human behavior, such as damage to the ozone layer. As the story goes, they're both right.ⁱ

For some the only way to end the world's problem would be to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and chemicals that may destroy ozone, and if we don't follow those principles we are all doomed. For others, the perceived crisis is a political contrivance, the result of “junk science”; the measures proposed will destroy industry and take us back to the nineteenth century. And, of course, they are both wrong.

But what they have in common is a belief – or even stronger, a conviction – that Truth is on their side.ⁱⁱ They loudly proclaim the virtue of their positions and reinforce the values of their supporters, claiming that they are the path to salvation. They decry the views of their opponents as self-serving, and rally their forces to pursue the only policies that can save our planet. They denigrate the words of those whose ideas are contrary to their own. They are both deaf.

There is no disputing the general worsening of our weather. In some instances this results directly from a warmer climate and the melting of icebergs, while in others the problems seem to be based on other severe weather conditions resulting – floods, winds, waves, and the like – which our meteorologists tell us are themselves all based on the global warming that we are undergoing. There does not seem to be any dispute of the contention that warming is occurring, but there is disagreement about the cure. So I'll answer the question once and for all.

There is no cure.

That's not to say that we should throw up our arms and ignore what is happening around us, only that we recognize that much of it is beyond our control, and rather than overreact to what we cannot master we are better off preparing as best we can for the problems we realistically anticipate. To the degree that we can minimize the human contribution to global warming by lowering fossil fuel use and converting to other energy sources, we should do so. But we should have no illusion that this will solve the problem. And because it will not provide “the cure,” we should not view it as the stick to break the back of the “evil” ones.

What can we do? Apart from seeking what are usually called “alternative energy sources” – and it will be decades before they are of significant help if that ever happens – are we powerless to govern our fate? It's hard to know. Our understanding of the earth's normal cycles – cycles which may last hundreds or thousands of years – is tentative. We may have been through it all before, but there was no analysis of it at the time. We're left with the views of our scientists – views that are at times more political than scientific – that things are going to get worse unless (that itself is political – things are going to get worse even if) we take immediate and draconian steps to avert the crisis. And we should not lament a missed opportunity in the belief that had we taken such steps earlier everything would be fine now. Nothing momentous would have changed. Things are bad and they're going to get worse.

We're left with the knowledge that our best defenses against the inevitable involve improved prediction of problems while putting better warning systems in place, and steps aimed at the prevention of some of those effects. Following Katrina, levees are being constructed in Louisiana, but shouldn't such barriers be built wherever flooding reasonably can be anticipated? And shouldn't building codes be upgraded before stronger buildings are needed? The current economic downturn has resulted in limited construction, but perhaps some of the money being invested in saving industry and creating jobs would be well spent in the building of places to which large numbers could retreat at the time of severe storms or other disasters. Such buildings should be designed to have alternative uses – offices, factories, schools, meeting halls – during the majority of the time when there is no disaster. In the meantime, however, the construction industry would benefit as would those who would get construction jobs. And perhaps there should be an attempt to relocate people away from areas where damage from nature is recurrent and can be anticipated. Right now all we do is subsidize their insurance.

The placement of power lines and other cables underground, in addition to minimizing the likelihood of power losses during major storms, would provide additional jobs, as well as enhance the appearance of areas now decorated by those lines. It is also likely that car radio reception would improve and that people who fear radiation would feel safer if power wires were no longer visible.

It's a start but it's not going to eliminate the difficulty no matter what we do. The planet is warmingⁱⁱⁱ and the weather is changing. Turning the problem into a political one – one designed to gain points for the next election – helps no one. Neither does struthious^iv inaction, but we may be able to mitigate some of the effects if we build for the future rather than bury our heads; if we act rather than accuse.

Next episode: “Wasting Money On Women” – Health care costs cost us all.

 

i    You're right, too.

ii   “Green” is not a color but a religion. But so is its opposition. No evidence is as important as the belief each side has, and evidence that disputes the belief is of no importance. Indeed, it must have been falsified.

iii    At least for now.

iv   Look it up.

Blow-Up

 

I was watching preparations for the Macy's Thanksgiving parade recently. They were busy inflating Sancho Panda. (Or was it Sponge Boob Square Bra, Spaniel Boone or Lady Kaka. I'm not sure. But I know it wasn't Richard Reid, who didn't need inflation by others – he'd be happy to blow himself up. In any case, I remember that it was one of those bloated, larger-than-life cartoon characters.) It was a red-letter day, just before “Black Friday.” And Macy's was preparing for one of its two major events of the year.

It struck me that the other major event Macy's sponsored also involved blowing things up, only the subjects of our awe were not balloons but exploding fireworks, with exploding colors far more impressive than the cardboard, paper, and powder objects from which they had been made. They were full of sight and fury, but their significance, apart from spectacle, escaped me.

Then I realized, of course, that both events were really fancy, though not overly sophisticated, advertising efforts which turned out to be money-makers on their own, what with television rights and the value of the publicity itself. People on-site, and sitting at home on their couches,ⁱ got their jollies from watching things blown up or, at least, out of proportion. And they would be grateful to Macy's for providing the entertainment.

And I also realized that both were really representations of advertising itself. Both were intended to enlarge on whatever it was that they were showing, and to make more of it than was really the case. They were making something out of nothing. That's advertising.

You start by finding some sort of minor problem or condition, or even a non-problem, and blow it up into what can be marketed as a major catastrophe which the consumer desperately needs to address. The recognition of the very existence of what is a newly discovered “problem” suggests that some other creative merchandiser hasn't thought of it first. The next step is to “discover” a solution to the problem, or a cure for the condition. And, fortunately, your store (in this case Macy's) is selling it. You don't even have to identify a product if you've indoctrinated your audience as to where they should look first for anything they need – the remedy to any problem. It's important to inflate the value of the remedy since you're sure to inflate the cost far beyond what it costs to produce or obtain. And consumers know that you get what you pay for. If the price isn't highⁱⁱ the product is probably not very good.

Sometimes the product is the latest version of one that already exists. Clothing is a good example of this situation, and a department store is likely to be a major vendor of such products. In this case it's important to expand the importance of change for the sake of style, or even for its own sake. Either way, though, the seller will make a big issue of it. The consumer is gullible and profits are more important than honesty. One of the major reasons why profits are high – especially for some women's clothes – is that “less” is often “more” – the less material used, the higher the price.

But back to the metaphor. The parade and the fireworks show were nothing more than advertisements for Macy's that had become annual events which advertised New York City as well as the retail store. The more people talked about the shows – and that was a lot – the more Macy's benefited. And the images of happy, appealing, and excited New Yorkers, both adults and children, had the priceless effect of countering all the negative images which allege the coldness and aloofness of Metropolis's citizens. Prime-time publicity. A boon for both store and city.ⁱⁱⁱ

It's obvious, as well, that the balloons themselves have another resemblance to the advertisements, and especially to the sales which will take place the next day. Let out a little of the helium and Derek Cheetah and Betty Burp will still fly high. Similarly, if you overprice your product, you can afford to cut back on the price and still make a good profit.

So if you sponsor an event of this type you get lots of good will, international publicity and a boost in sales. Blow things out of proportion and it's easy to satisfy the dreams of those mesmerized by the images. Don't believe me? Ask Greta Garbanzo or Tiger Wolf or Miss Twiggy.^iv

Next episode: “Hot Flash” – The universal bane.

 

i    That's not what I originally wanted to say, but it will have to do. Referring to an expanding part of the anatomy – one on which people sit – would probably be viewed as indelicate.

ii   That is, the list price. I'm sure you can get it at a discount or in a generic form at a lower price.

iii   The lighting of the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree is another annual event that New York City uses as an advertising too. It also brings in the tourists and, with them, the money.

iv   Actually she's underblown, not overblown.

Out At Home

 

Now that the season's over and the various awards have been made, consider a baseball team.ⁱ

A winning team.ⁱⁱ

An amazingly winning team – way in front of the league, more than any team has ever been at this point in the season. And every day getting even further ahead. Sure there are problems, including rowdies and ticket scalpers, but the bottom line is a record unlike anything that has ever preceded it.

So what should be done? Over the manager's protests, the front office fires some of the old team and hires new players so that there is now a majority of new players, both position players and pitchers. Makes sense, doesn't it? After all, the existing players are doing well, so why keep them – a change is certainly advisable. Still the momentum continues for a while, with the team's lead lengthening.

For a while, but only for a while. Then, with the new team in place, the bottom falls out.ⁱⁱⁱ There is loss after loss, and a point is reached where the team has forfeited a good deal of its advantage. It's still far ahead of where it was at the beginning of the season, but not as far as before, and the losing is continuing.

The following season the decline continues, although after a while there is a reversal of the team's fortunes. Several changes are attempted but they don't seem to have much effect.

So what should be done now? Clearly the problem is that there are still too many members of the old team – the one that was winning. The front office fires some more of the pitchers. That makes sense too. The new team wasn't doing well, but maybe more of them, with an inexperienced manager who claims he can solve all the team's problems, will change everything so the front office fires the old manager and brings in a new one as well as more of the the new players. – both position players and pitchers. However to the front office's surprise and consternation, the losses continue. For a couple of years.

So they get cold feet. And wish for the “good old days.” They fire many of the players to bring in some additional ones – mostly from the old group but with a few others who are new – so they anticipate, for the following season, an old-school majority among the position players though the majority of pitchers are still newbies. The manager, who has an unbreakable long-term contract, stays on. The post-season games remain though, during which the previous players still predominate in all positions. The newly chosen players are barred from the action because they came onto the roster too late. But those still there are confident that they can battle back and achieve all their goals before the season ends and they're traded away.

That's where we are now. Only it's in government.^iv The year it started was 2006. The stock market was more than 2,000 points higher than it had been in on Election Day of 2004 (12,105 on election day 2006 versus 10,054 in 2004. A Republican was President and the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. At that point, in the November elections, the electorate decided on a Democratic House of Representatives (233 – 200) and a Senate, which, while equally split (49 – 49), was effectively Democratic controlled because two independents voted with them. The market continued upward and reached a high in early October of 2007, but then began to fall. It had gone down to 9,324 on Election Day of 2008 when the voters gave the Democrats large majorities in both the House (257 – 178) and Senate (57 – 41, with two independents who voted with the Democrats) and selected a Democratic President. And they had the Vice President (the President of the Senate) on their side in situations that required it.

The next two years, 2009 and 2010, with a great deal of stimulus, have brought the Dow Jones Industrial Average back to about 11,000 – higher than the previous low, but lower than when the Democrats took over Congress. The reasons were obvious to true believers. The greedy Republicans were answerable for the losses (their policies, a few years earlier, were the cause of all that ailed us) ; the gains were generously bestowed by the Democrats.

There are, of course, other measures of our economic situation. Unemployment on election day in 2006 was about 4.3%. With a Democratic Congress it had reached about 6.5% by election day 2008 and the most recently available figure at the time of the election – for October, 2010 – was 9.6%,^v having come down from 10.6% which it reached in January. It will be interesting to see what it is next January when the “post-season,” the lame-duck Congress, is over and a final attempt has been made by the party currently in power to right the wrongs of our situation. They claim that they'll pass all the legislation that they put off until after election day. It's not clear that they'll be able to deliver on their promises.

Are the Democrats to blame? Certainly not. But neither are the Republicans. It's too easy to put this all into a political context and start pointing fingers. Nice guys may not finish last, but this isn't a baseball game. We have to understand that the economy is a complex issue and to look for “good guys” making hits and “bad guys” making errors is to trivialize it – to use it as a vote-getting device rather than a springboard for national unity and action.^vi

We'll recover. We've been through cycles like this before and whatever happens will not be based on the greater wisdom of one set of politicians over another. Perhaps some day we'll learn to treat the economy with greater respect than a national sport. But I doubt it. We're too enamored of looking for someone to blame. So if our team isn't winning of course we won't blame them, but we can always kill the umpire. No. Wait. That's us.

Next episode: “Blow Up” – The inflation explosion.

i      Not the Mets.

ii     Now you know why.

iii   The Mets don't need a change of personnel to collapse.

iv   I don't suggest this is a perfect analogy. There's no such thing and this one is far from perfect. But perhaps it will provide the opportunity to consider the rationality of our actions by comparing this national exercise with the national pastime.

v   In November it reached 9.8% but this was after the election.

vi  Actually sports events have better headlines, so the media prefer a competition to an accomplishment.

It Goes Without Saying

 

I don't like homosexuals.

Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike them either. The whole thing is none of my business and frankly, I'm not especially interested. And all of my views of homosexuality are irrelevant – whatever they are. I'm free to express them. The Constitution says so. However no one cares, so why bother.

But there's one thing I have to say, and I don't care if no one is interested. It has to do with members of that cause. I'm against their perversion. No. Once again it's not what you think. It has nothing to do with their choices for companionship. Rather it's their ongoing attack on the English language and on our culture. I have no problem with homosexual unions nor with their being accorded the same economic and insurance benefits as marriage. In fact I support such policies. But I take issue with the hijacking of the word “marriage.” The insistence that homosexual unions be called marriages will, in effect, take away a perfectly good word from our language – one that indicates a particular relationship of a man and a woman. (Over time we have lost the idea of “common-law marriage,” and “partner” now has a totally different meaning from what it used to have.) Nothing but political points is gained by blurring the meaning of the word, and the insistence that this word be used seems to me to be contrary to what was originally demanded.

Following the Stonewall Riot of 1969, homosexuals were encouraged to “come out of the closet.” And they did so. More power to them. They demanded that they be permitted to be who they were, and to be accepted as such; that their sexual orientation was no one's business but their own.ⁱ Differences between people were irrelevant. In fact, differences should be encouraged. So far, so good. That was fine for their community and it certainly did not represent a threat to anyone else.

But soon there were demands on others. They forced much of the rest of society into the closet. One of their demands related to languageⁱⁱ Although there was a long history of “gay” having sexual connotations (though this was a secondary understanding of the word), these connotations were usually heterosexual. In the mid and late twentieth century, however, the term, which was generally understood as “happy” and “carefree,” came to be related, through their efforts, to homosexuals, because “homosexual” was considered too clinical and pejorative, and because, up until 1969, homosexuality itself was a crime in England. Homosexual men, considering themselves happy and carefree, preferred the term “gay,” though women continued to label themselves, and be labeled by others, as Lesbians.ⁱⁱⁱ In any event, the term “gay” was lost in its previous sense, and there is no good substitute.

Perhaps this is all “a phase we're going through.” I hope so. I hope that in time labeling will disappear. In the meantime, however, our language^iv will be impoverished as it has been by other groups. Notwithstanding my views of equality, I regret the changes in our language that have come about with Black Power and the feminist movement. “Holocaust” and “ghetto” used to have specific meanings and connotations which are now buried in history. And the reinvention and removal of gender^v from much of our language – like the substitution of “their” for “his” or “her” and the neutering of other terms – leaves us with such monstrosities as “To each their own” and “chairperson.”

I know that language changes over time, but I'd be happier if it were enlarged, not diminished by change. And it is being diminished in terms of descriptive words as time goes by.

I agree with the view that we should enlarge our view of others as our brothers and sisters. We should welcome everyone irrespective of his or her practice, as long as others aren't detrimental to us. But by welcoming them, by widening our community, we should not be diminishing our language. We should be enlarging it as well. Our union should be one that allows our language to flower along with our population.

Next episode: “Out At Home” – Baseball and the world in which we live.

i    They demanded that there be no discrimination against them.  Fair enough, but, of course, discrimination should not be permitted against any citizen or, for that matter, against anyone anywhere.  Statutes outlawing such biases were passed even though they, and similar laws, should not be necessary.  (When you pass a law forbidding discrimination against some groups it is logical to assume that intolerance displayed against groups not specifically named is perfectly legitimate.  But that idea deserves its own essay, so I'll have no more to say about it here.) Indeed, “hate laws,” – or, more accurately, anti-hate laws – seem to me to be silly and “un-American.”  I suspect I wouldn't care, if someone killed me, that he uttered a slur before doing so.  I'd still be dead.  And the same is true for theft, assault, or whatever.  What we need more than additional laws is the enforcement of the ones already on the books.

     Not only that, I'm offended by the stricture on name-calling. I oppose such insults of course, but I don't think there should be laws against them. It seems to me that the First Amendment makes such behavior legal, however reprehensible it may be.  When I was growing up we were taught that “ … words will never hurt you.”  They do, but it was accepted that name-calling was usual, and part of life.  If any action is to be taken against it, that should be educational.

ii  Another was the interpolation and explosion of homosexuality in popular culture.  Nowadays there is a homosexual or a reference to homosexuality in many, if not most, plays and television programs.

iii  Presumably they had a different self-image.  (By the way, some other terms are used as well.)

iv  American English.  But it's probably like that in other languages as well. I can't imagine that Americans are the only ones foolish enough to place political before correctness and to value sensitivity over sense and fads over facts. But I could be wrong.  Perhaps we are the only ones dumb enough to hoodwink ourselves.

v “Gender” – from genus, meaning “kind” or “type” – properly refers to differences of characteristics and was largely related to language and, in some tongues, the assignment of “male” or “female” characteristics to certain nouns.  Only more recently has it come to mean “sex” or, often, a self-assigned “nature” – how we feel about ourselves, and what should have been. We treat ourselves like words, but treat words, themselves, badly.

Invitation To The Dance

 

I was looking forward to the evening. There was a great football game on TV that I could watch in my pajamas. There's nothing like high definition and a fifty-two inch screen. And a nice soft couch. And beer and snacks. And a game that starts at six thirty so I'd be able to get a good night's sleep even though it's likely to take three or four hours. I don't know why they have so many ads and so long a half-time show. But that's the breaks of the game.

“What's for dinner?”

“What would you like? I'll make you whatever you choose.”

“How about a steak. And maybe some French Fries.”

It was getting better and better.

My wife opened the refrigerator^.

“We have some left over spaghetti and meatballs in the fridge. It's been in the back for a couple of weeks and I'd like to use it before it spoils.”

“It's not what I had in mind but if that's easier for you, okay.”

“Or maybe you'd like some lasagna or tuna salad. They're here too. I'm not sure how old they are but we've got to get rid of them.”

“Whatever's easiest for you. I just want to finish eating before the game begins.”

There was a pause, and then:

“I have a great idea. A new Chinese restaurant opened a couple of weeks ago and all my friends say that it's wonderful. Perhaps we can go there. If we leave in the next few minutes we'll be back in time.”

“You know I don't like Chinese food. I'd rather go to a delicatessen and get some real food. But we'd better leave soon.”

“There's a wonderful fish house not far from here. Gourmet Fillet. It's supposed to be very good. I think you'll be more comfortable, though, if you put on a sport jacket or suit.”

“Fine. But let's go. It's getting late.”

“Just give me a minute to change.”

So I did, and we went. And the food was terrible and, I think, spoiled. But the service was worse. No matter how often I pleaded with the waiter to speed things up, we finished after the game began. My wife was very sympathetic.

“I know that took longer than you anticipated, but now that the game has already started and you can only see part of it, why don't we do something else?”

I wasn't ready to give up.

“There's still the second half. Let's go home.”

“You can find out the score from the TV or the newspaper later. Now that we're out and you're dressed, we really shouldn't waste the evening.”

It was after seven o'clock already and I was beginning to get tired. I was certainly tired of the debate. But my lovely wife filled in the gaps.

“Which would you prefer? The ballet or the opera? Both start at 8 o'clock and we can get there in time.”

“I hate both of them. Anything but ballet. And opera's not much better”

“Whatever you say. If you prefer, The Story Of Our Love is playing at the multiplex a few blocks away. I checked this afternoon and it begins in about twenty minutes.”

“As long as it's not ballet or the opera.”

Like all “chick flicks” the movie was terrible. And it seemed to go on forever. And apart from the movie itself, the advertisements were interminable. The time that my wife claimed to be the start of the movie was actually the start of those ads. My stomach was already beginning to bother me. That never happened with beer and munchies. But eventually we went home. It was long after I had planned on being asleep but we finally made it. I tossed and turned all night – at least when I wasn't in the bathroom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The evening was a bust. I missed the game; instead of real food I had a piece of bad fish that gave me the runs; I had to sit through a tedious and mawkish movie; and I missed the game and got to sleep late. I couldn't help myself. I had to tell my wife how bad everything was. As usual, though, she had the last word.

“But you chose all the things we did. Next time I'll decide.”

Next episode: “It Goes Without Saying” – Why I don't like gays.

Wishing Will Make It So

 

God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference.

This was Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer dating back to the mid-1930s. It was known as the “Serenity Prayer,” and its message carries that emotion.

In January, 1946, addressing the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, Pastor Martin Niemöller said

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

It was for the wrong reasons, but Pastor Niemöller made the right decision. He acted from apathy – from a lack of concern about others – but had he spoken up, nothing would have changed, except for the likelihood that he, himself, would have been taken away sooner. It wasn't that he had the wisdom to be able to distinguish between what could and could not be changed; it was simply that he didn't want to get involved. But that was because even in retrospect – his poem was composed after the war – he saw words as his only option. Words. As if the pen were mightier than the sword. But it isn't. Words are certainly powerful, but that power has its limits.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More words: Every now and then I see a bumper sticker that reads, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

It's nonsense, of course; it's the kind of self-righteous and vacuous pronouncement that characterizes much moralistic rhetoric; the kind of philosophy that, some decades ago, produced "Make love, not war" and "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" stickers -- stickers sported by people blinded to reality, who felt morally superior to those aware that the world contained individuals who preferred war to love -- who would come to a war -- people with whom we had to deal.

The unwritten message is that if someone attacks you, turn the other cheek; don't fight back. But that leaves you blind while the attacker can see. Or perhaps you are already blind. Turn a blind eye to evil and only the good are disabled.

An eye for an eye won't work. Certainly no eye for an eye rewards the "bad guy," putting him further ahead of the good. Even "an eye for an eye" merely allows him with more eyes to continue, coming out even or benefiting from the situation. It's the strategy of the war of attrition, of the uncaring who force those who do care to capitulate in order to prevent further loss of life. It's carried out by those who don't value the lives they sacrifice – especially if they're other people's lives, most especially women and children. President Reagan said, "History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

But must we wait to be blinded before responding? Should we not care when we're not directly involved? We tried isolationism and it failed. And what's a "proportionate" response to mass murder? Should the relatives of those who died on 9/11 be satisfied that those directly involved were killed? How do you dissuade those willing to die, or have others die, for their cause: those who know they'll ultimately be freed if captured before completing their missions – given another opportunity to murder? How do we discourage terrorist acts, apart from giving in to the terrorists or blaming their victims for existing? Sadly, the views of too many are governed by politics and economics rather than concern for right, wrong or justice. But I doubt that the families of the Lockerbie victims are comforted by the "rehabilitation" of Muammar al-Qaddafi,ⁱ or that the families of those killed on September 11th, 2001 get closure knowing that Saudi Arabia is our "good friend" and ally.

But what, if not "an eye for an eye?" If we cannot prevent murderous acts, two eyes for an eye or three or four will lessen the advantage, punishing those who choose violence. Disproportionate? Not really. They who would try only to limit rather than stop terrorists may feel morally superior, but any tyrant will gladly yield the moral high ground for the terrestrial low ground. They'll concede morality in a shot. But it's you who will be shot.ⁱⁱ Terrorists mustn't be appeased. Those who send others to murder are themselves murderers and should be punished appropriately. In times of peace the death penalty may be fit for debate, but wars must be fought with complete victory as the goal. Were we too quick to reject Senator Goldwater's 1964 "[E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" and to veto our generals' call to fight wars to win rather than to achieve a stalemate? Nearly one hundred years before Goldwater, President Lincoln spoke of "firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right ..."ⁱⁱⁱ Perhaps these should be our watchwords. "Firmness" and "Right." We shouldn't be embarrassed by fighting for what we know is right. We mustn't be blinded to what is right by moral relativism or self-defeating breast-beating. Our actions should be swift and overwhelming. "Shock and awe" may have been too limited geographically, and ended too soon. If our acts seem harsh, the costs of inaction must also be considered. After the "War to end all Wars" came the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) which outlawed war entirely. Then came Chamberlain's proclamation of "Peace in our time." But these were followed by the Holocaust and, more recently, Cambodia. And now we have Darfur, Rwanda and Mumbai. Still we have not reacted. The world is not Hollywood. Wishing won't make it so. Action is required.

Turning the other cheek, accepting less than justice may make us feel morally superior, but there is no superiority in death over life, no virtue in slavery over freedom. Refusing to fight back may make us feel good, but it will leave us, and the world, blind and in chains. Words have meaning. But without actions to accompany them – to back them up – they are self-indulgent tributes to our vanity, to moral superiority irrespective of the physical cost.

Though he believed we must accept the things we cannot change, it is worth noting that Reverend Niebuhr, in his “Serenity Prayer,” urged us to have the “Courage to change the things [we] can.” He was a “liberal” but supported interventionism and power politics, rather than depending on words and hope alone. We can all learn a lot from him.

Next episode: “Invitation To The Dance”

i     Or the “compassionate” release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

ii    Of course your mortality will be accompanied by morality. You'll die happy and virtuous.

iii    Was President Lincoln a war-monger and extremist? Should we reevaluate him, or our criteria for “extremist?”

Lessay Fare: Sir Oracle's Five-Percent No-Exercise Guaranteed Twelve-Step Weight-Loss Diet

 

I read somewhere that overweight is one of our country's greatest problems.ⁱ According to the papers, things will get worse as time goes by. As a public-spirited citizen, I feel obliged to offer the following personal weight-loss plan for your consideration. Diets abound, and their creators get rich, so I'll try as well. (Since I won't be selling any books, please send me cash – preferably crumpled, unmarked bills.) The diet is simple and straightforward. It requires no pills or shakes. And, contrary to other twelve step programs, it isn't linked to declarations of faith or spirituality. It requires action – though not exercise. (In that respect, sloth is greatly to be preferred.) Here it is. Just follow this plan to end obesity. You need take only one step per day. After all, a journey of a thousand calories starts with the first step.ⁱⁱ

     Step One: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday. (That's one-twentieth for the math challenged. You can do that.)

     Step Two: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Three: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Four: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Five: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Six: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Seven: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Eight: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Nine: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Ten: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Eleven: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

     Step Twelve: Eat five-percent less than you did yesterday.

If my calculator is correct, you'll wind up eating about fifty-four percent of what you started with. Keep it up for a while. If that doesn't cause you to lose weight, you're cheating.

Remember: No pain, no loss.ⁱⁱⁱ

And in addition to being obvious, it's been scientifically shown that exercise makes you hungry. So don't exercise to lose weight.^iv The whole idea is a loser.

You should also cut back on fluids. All that propaganda about drinking lots of water is wrong. Water weighs sixty-two and a half pounds a cubic foot. It's bound to reflect negatively on what your scale tells you. If you've been brainwashed and you insist on water to clean the rest of you, however, don't waste your money on bottles. Drink tap water. You'll better maintain the weight of your wallet that way.^v You'll also get extra minerals. And, eschewing bottles, you'll avoid inflicting extra plastic on the environment. Isn't that special?

Is the diet safe. How should I know? What am I, a doctor?

Next episode: “Wishing Will Make It So” – Don't you just wish?

i     Personally I think it's the politicians, but there's little I can do about them.

ii     Please forgive me if I've misquoted Lao-Tzu. I'm confused.

iii    Or something like that.

iv    You probably won't have the strength for it anyway.

v    And the same is true if you cut back on your eating and spend less on food. “Organic,” “green,” and “natural” have little meaning apart from higher profits for their producers.

Politics As Usual

 

Conservatives and Liberals: they're all the same. Both Democrats and Republicans have been found to violate ethics standards; both engage in sexual abuse and extra-marital affairs. But that's because they're human; it has nothing to do with politics. Politicians are just interested in scoring points and getting elected.ⁱ The policies they claim to support are simply those they think will help in their quests. It's a problem for those who really believe in the policies.

Those in office press legislation that is likely to sound appealing to voters irrespective of the content of the bills. In fact, the congressional supporters may not even be aware of what is in the bills, but they're willing to back them in exchange for votes for their own legislation, for the inclusion of earmarks bringing benefits to their own constituents, or because there is a need to support the party position. Those out of office oppose any such legislation although they, too, may be completely unaware of the contents of the bills. It's a rare member of the opposition who will support a government initiative “on principle.” At the moment it is Democrats who are supporting proposals which are long, complex, and confusing, and though they may containing local or personal benefits, they are likely to be expensive, and, in the long run, short on the values they claim to promote. Many of them are unpopular for these reasons.ⁱⁱ And the Republicans oppose virtually any proposal by the Administration ostensibly for these reasons, but more likely in order to stymie any action which may benefit their opponents. As was recently said by a commentator,ⁱⁱⁱ if the Democrats favored motherhood,^iv the Republicans would oppose it. The same kind of behavior would hold, of course, if their roles were reversed.

But they're the only game in town. The various “third” parties usually have no chance of winning, or of governing if, by some miracle, they won. Not that it really matters. The middle level people – the “functionaries” – are the only ones who get anything done and they have no interest in official policy, only in what is likely to benefit or interest them and ensure their continuity in what are tenured positions. It really doesn't matter who is in office, except to those running for election.^v

That's a cynical position. I know that. But each time there is a new President or Congress it blames its failures on its predecessors and claims any successes for itself. And it winds up doing pretty much the same as that which preceded it. That's certainly true of the President who, during the campaign, may have sworn to make changes in the Government, but whose actions, when in office, usually mimic those of the previous President. That's not surprising. It's easier to make claims when you have no responsibility; and the desire to score points encourages such behavior.

That's the way our democracy works. Conservatives and Liberals have a lot in common. But many of our policies will remain unchanged irrespective of who's in charge. Typically these are foreign policy issues, however even some of our social policies have taken on lives of their own and their continuance is assured. We rant a lot and demand change, but fortunately we have one of the world's most stable governments, even if we are very negative about it.

The only solution is to be more positive and to play the hand we were dealt. It's a good one that really should please us. And it would if we took it more seriously. Not enough of us vote because not enough of us care. In reality, I'm not sure the result would be any different if there were greater participation, but it's worth a try. The Founding Fathers set a course for us that may not be perfect, but it seems to work.^vi And despite our efforts to change everything, our democracy is holding up. We've tried all kinds of changes, toward more conservative and more liberal, but we come back to the same overall policies no matter who's in charge. Maybe we've tried too hard to change and not hard enough to follow our original principles. Perhaps we should return to them.

It's worth a try. We've exhausted the alternatives.

Next episode: “Lessay Fare” – That's easy for me to say.

i      As well, of course, as their general human interests in the earthly pleasures.

ii     Who knows what it will be after Election Day.

iii    I don't remember who it was, but I heard it on the radio. It's got to be true.

iv    This is not the best place to discuss abortion policies.

v    They tell us it's critical to us, but the only change that will occur if they're elected is that they get the paycheck and the note on their resumé. It really won't help us at all.

vi    The main interest of the political parties is in the Funding Fathers.  They have little interest in the Founding Fathers.