Intermezzo 2

The previous blog told you a little about me – as an addition to the introduction to this series which I published in October of last year. It was not complete, for no such endeavor can be complete. We always hold back.ⁱ The current effort is intended as a supplement, but it, too, will be only part of the story. You'll learn more about me as time goes by. My original intentⁱⁱ was to avoid writing about myself – to delineate only my views of the world around me – but I now realize that whatever I enter here is a reflection of myself, even though I stated initially that I would avoid that topic. “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.” Walt Whitman knew better than I.ⁱⁱⁱ

In any event, if you haven't already figured it out, I'm relatively conservative in some matters and liberal in others.^iv That doesn't clarify very much, nor does the fact that I'm often, if not usually, not really either of the two. Labels, you see, aren't very useful. Descriptions are deceptive. They don't solve anything. Indeed, solutions cause problems. So since my words have caused problems, I'll try to clear up a few issues here.

I don't know if I mentioned it already (and I have no interest in reading previous blogs to find out) but I'm a retired radiologist. I've spent my life in hospitals rather than private practice so I never got rich, but that's all right. I'm certainly comfortable and I've had the opportunity to do a lot of teaching and that has given me a good deal of satisfaction. My mother was a teacher^v and so is one of my (two) sons.^vi I guess it's genetic, although we teach (taught) at different levels.

Teaching worked fine for me. It gave me the opportunity to express my views (not varying, of course, from the provision of the scientific “Truth”^vii of the material I presented) to those who would question them and help me clarify my own ideas. It is true, or at least it was true for me, that students are the best teachers.  Or, at least, they stimulate the most thinking. 

Because I was in radiology, I was able to satisfy another of my loves – solitude. I don't much like people, so interaction with patients didn't attract me. But the challenges and puzzles of medicine did. Radiology, for those unfamiliar with the field, involves some interaction but it's primarily with other doctors and limited to the enigmas which interest me, and the teaching is primarily “one on one” and controlled by me, so I could avoid the small talk and stick to the science.

Although I loved radiology, since my retirement I have made no attempt to “keep up.” In fact, I try to ignore anything that has to do with medicine in general. I discovered a long time ago that whatever “medicine”^viii reaches the media is either false or premature – usually the result of a single study and not (yet) confirmed. Hence I don't place much stock in it. I must admit that I'm troubled that others do, but if they didn't we wouldn't be able to sell newspapers.^ix

My main activity nowadays is writing.^x As I have noted before, I'm really writing to myself. These essays into essay writing allow me to experiment with my own thoughts and prejudices, and the intentionally limited audience – me – makes it possible for me to enjoy my treasured solitude, the privacy I seek.^xi I'll continue to use this format as my (silent) sounding board. In the past, whenever an idea or question crossed my mind I wrote it on a piece of paper and stuffed it in my pocket along with the others, but the computer has allowed me to “download” my pockets. I know I'll never get to most of the topics, but at least I have less to carry around.

Next episode: “Parenting For Dummies” – It doesn't take a village.

i     More about privacy in a future essay.

ii    I'll have more to say about that, too, in an upcoming blog. I'll be writing about our Founding Fathers, however.

iii    Song of Myself. I may not be large, but I contain multitudes.

iv    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance. I like to believe that I have more than a “little mind, ” but even if that isn't the case, I'm not troubled by consistency – foolish or otherwise.

v     And, for the record, my father was a CPA.

vi    Just to satisfy your curiosity, I also have one daughter. And a total of eleven grandchildren.

vii    One of my teachers, one for whom I have great respect, once told me that lying is a valid teaching tool, as long as the lesson was true. Of course I would never lie – or at least I'd never get caught lying if I could avoid it.

viii   I presume the same is true in other fields but I cannot judge them with any expertise.

ix     In all likelihood they'll disappear soon anyhow due to the internet.

x     I'm full of righteous indignation about the the perfidy, stupidity, and gullibility of others. But I doubt that I'd get very far – if I survived – confronting them, so I write to myself.

xi    Different societies treat privacy differently, and there is a wide spectrum of need for solitude within each. I probably would have made a good monk, but that kind of life isn't for everyone.

Intermezzo

 

It's now been four months since I started this blog and I suspect it's a reasonable time for an evaluation and, perhaps, a good time to supplement my original formulation with some additional thoughts.

First of all, there have been no comments. That's not much of surprise since no one is aware of the blog. I've been careful not to mention it to anyone. Which, of course, raises the question of why I'm bothering to do this. After all, what's the point of expressing my thoughts if no one is aware of what they are? Perhaps my answers to this question, and the existence of this intermezzo, are self-serving, but if no one will read them anyway it doesn't matter. It also gives me the opportunity to add some biographical information which probably won't interest anyone, but which I want a place to set down. Maybe after I'm dead someone will read it.

Let's go back a little. To my childhood. And my mother. Mothers. That's where everything begins, isn't it? And, as everyone knows (even if the idea is erroneous), they're to blame for whatever goes wrong. I was a smart kid. Knowledgeable about everything. But my mother, pleased though she was, complained that as bright as I was in all fields, I wasn't the best in anything.ⁱ (Actually, that wasn't completely true. I had the highest IQ in my class and probably even the school.ⁱⁱ And I did extremely well in the examinations for State Scholarships.ⁱⁱⁱ I had enough insight to know that I was an unusually bright child and I should take advantage of it because as an adult I'd continue to be smart but no one would kvell^iv over me.)

But there was no single subject that interested me much more than any other. I was (am^v) more interested in the relationships between things – associations which may not be obvious^vi – than in anything itself. And it was not important that others understood or shared my views. If I knew I was right, that was enough. Nonetheless, I was shy and in need of the approval of others – others whom I would not antagonize by expressing views that would be seen as at odds with whatever was acceptable thought. So I did whatever was necessary to get along.^vii

Like most people, I worked for a living. Unlike most, however, I did very well, achieving leadership positions in different institutions. As in my childhood, I was quite good in what I did. But when I got home I tried not to take my work there. I didn't always succeed in this, and there were times when I continued or completed tasks at home that were begun in my office. But I also started a wide range of projects which had no relation to my profession. They were explorations of whatever struck my fancy at a particular time. And completion was not a necessary component. If I was satisfied that I had worked out the problems, I was happy to dump the production in a drawer and go on to something else. The ideas were mine (and only mine, which was what I preferred^viii) and it wasn't relevant if they weren't finished and no one else saw them.^ix That was how I wanted it. I was satisfied with the result. So the drawer filled. I decided I'd deal with those half-completed projects after I retired.

That day finally came.^x It couldn't come soon enough. Leaving the job was liberating. Work was fun, but workplace politics had been oppressive.^xi I enjoyed certain aspects of my activities^xii but I had had enough. And there was the drawer. I had plenty to do and finally had the time to do it.^xiii

Much of what I had filed remains there. I realize now that it was the process, not the material, that gave me the greatest pleasure, and that process is one that continues. I enjoy exploring ideas and problems as I think of them,^xiv irrespective of the subject. Which is where the blog comes in. I still have no need for others to read what I have to say,^xv but the blog gives me the discipline I needed to work out and to complete the project. That should make my wife happy. Or, at least, it would if she knew about it.

But not my mother. I still prefer to investigate a wide variety of subjects^xvi than to limit myself to one. No matter how good I might be at it. I'll never be the best at anything, but I don't really care.

Next episode: “Intermezzo 2” – The saga continues.

i     Peggy Lee's way of expressing the syndrome was, “I know a little bit about a lot of things, but I don't know enough about you.”

ii    In those days they put a lot of stock in IQs.

iii    They were based on merit then, not need.

iv    See OED (Third Edition) if you're unfamiliar with the word.

v    I don't remember my thoughts of sixty years ago that well (I'll be discussing memory shortly – if I remember to do so) and I may be back-projecting subsequent attitudes, but my current SOP seems to correlate well with what I remember of the past.

vi    For example, and it is only an example, it seems to me that some political philosophies my be related to infantile feelings of connectedness with the rest of the world which is, in the infantile view, part of the self. Liberal thought is, in many ways, a remnant of this stage of development – but I'll expand on that issue another time.

vii    I have since learned to express my opinions in letters to the editor. Sometimes they're published, but even if that isn't the case I've had a chance to vent.

viii   Privacy “seeks to erect an unbreachable wall of dignity and reserve against the entire world. The free man is the private man, the man who still keeps some of his thoughts and judgments to himself, who feels no over-riding compulsion to share everything of value with others, not even those he loves and trusts.” Clinton Rossiter, “The Pattern of Liberty,” in M. R. Kovnitz and Clinton Rossiter (eds), Aspects of Liberty, 1958, Ithaca, New York.

ix    My wife knew about them and chided me for not finishing anything, even though I didn't care if they weren't completed in the usual sense.

x    In fact, it's still here. Retirement is more fun than work. It doesn't pay as well but the trade-off is worth it.

xi    A friend once took me to task for being “inflexible.” What he meant was that I wouldn't acquiesce to the view of a superior (in rank) if I knew him to be wrong. I wasn't cut out for politics.

xii    One of my functions was as a teacher, and the interaction with my students (doctors) was very rewarding and a lot of fun.

xiii   People have told me that they'll never retire. After all, what would they do? They never took the time to prepare.

xiv    Most important thoughts come to mind when I can't write them down. (Have you ever noticed that?) I'm in the shower, or I don't have paper handy, or something else is standing in my way. So I forget a lot of things including my best ideas. That may not be completely true, but I prefer admitting to a loss of memory than to a loss of creativity. Losing some memory – mostly for particular words – seems to go with the territory. I have a deal with my wife. She provides the words I forget and I fill in what she can't remember. So far it's worked, but the time will come when we both forget the same things.

xv    Actually I'm ambivalent on this point. I think I'd enjoy (favorable) feedback on what I write, but it's up to the reader to discover the blog. He won't ask, though, and I won't tell.

xvi    And I'm an expert on none of them. It's exhilarating to be able to shoot my mouth off without regard to facts. I avoid naming names so I have no concern about libel and, as far as I know, free speech reigns. In any case, with no readers, there shouldn't be any problems. If someone should, however, come across my blog and be offended, so be it.

Go Roe Doe

 

(In honor of noting/Remembering with regret – choose one) the United States Supreme Court decisions of January 22, 1973 in the matters of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, I am inserting, in place of my usual blog, an essay I wrote years ago on the subject. [It is, perhaps, of interest that Roeⁱ later decided that “abortion hurts women,”ⁱⁱ and Doeⁱⁱⁱ was apparently unaware that the suit was being filed, and she opposed it.^iv]

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

Ending the Endless Argument

A Modest Proposal

for disposing of a troublesome Issue,

one dividing our Nation, yet pregnant with

the Potential for just and productive Resolution

to the Satisfaction of all Parties.

One need only sit among one’s fellows at a neighborhood establishment, satisfy himself with a little to ease the parched feeling in his throat, and dilate on the problems of the day to discover that too many of our citizens lack a tolerance for the opinions of others. One need simply read the daily tabloids and broadsheets, or their electronic analogs, to discover that the fifth estate is a significant contributor to the situation, although it is wont to ascribe its attention to such issues as the public’s interest or its “right to know.” And because by doing so they can distract their constituents from attention to matters of greater substance, our public servants confound these questions still further.

Of all disputes, the most difficult to resolve are those based on moral or religious principles, and those in which the emotions take precedence over a rational desire to reach some sort of accommodation so the parties can move on with their lives. Certainly, when political issues require resolution there are usually statesmen skilled enough to find common ground on which disputing parties can walk together; businessmen with interests in settling issues can generally negotiate an agreement that satisfies the needs of all sided; and attorneys make a living bringing disputants to settlements and framing compromises which are acceptable, if not a source of rejoicing, on all sides.

But absolute principles, the true arbiters of “Right” and “Wrong,” do not allow much leeway in problem solving. A typical example is the controversy concerning “women's rights” and “human rights.” Those who are “pro-choice,” who favor legal abortion see those rights as belonging to the pregnant woman, while “pro-life” advocates assign them to the unborn child. Since the issue is one of life and death, there does not seem to be much room for compromise -- at least in relation to individual cases. Because the dispute is one in which some organized religions have existing opinions, many are tempted to view those opposing their points of view as either religious fanatics attempting to impose their standards on others, or sinners who are violating universal standards of behavior; since it is always women who are seeking abortions, many who favor its availability see the opponents as sexists who are trying to control women’s lives. Such arguments are difficult to counter because they are very strongly felt and are based on belief, not reason.

Nonetheless, a solution must be found to a problem that has been polarizing our society for so long. As with all such solutions, it must be seen to meet the arguments of both sides to a sufficient degree that each can portray itself as at least partially victorious. To obtain such a result would seem to require the simultaneous acceptance and prohibition of abortion -- two contrary absolutes -- a difficult objective to achieve. What might be considered, however, is the establishment of specific situational criteria under which one or the other of these absolutes would be applied; in the one instance criteria would obtain in which unrestricted abortion would be permitted (perhaps even made mandatory), while in the other situation it would be prohibited under almost any circumstance.

If such standards were to be established, the greatest care and delicacy would be required to ensure their freedom from any hint of race or class bias. Indeed, they should not relate to religious or moral principles either. These are, in large part, the underpinnings of the existing arguments for and against and, since there is an abhorrence on each side of the other’s moral position, these issues should be set aside as a solution is sought. The fact that this is considered a “women’s issue” -- that, as many argue, perhaps with some justification, if men were to bear children they would support abortion rather than leading the fight to abolish it -- may provide a basis for finding a solution to the problem. While it would be facetious to suggest that the differentiating criterion might be the sex of the pregnant patient (prohibit abortion in men but permit or require it for pregnant women), sex might still provide the answer. Indeed, it has provided the issue.

In a democracy like the United States the majority sets the rules for all. That applies whether the community is as large as the entire nation or as small as the nine members of the Supreme Court. It is clear that the large majority of women favor abortion, and, consequently, it is appropriate that the majority speak for all. It is almost a certainty that a randomly chosen woman would agree with the opinion of the many. On the other hand, most of the males of the species may oppose such an act and a randomly chosen male would probably oppose abortion. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to extrapolate these specific points of view to a group who have not expressed themselves on the particular subject -- fetuses. We can safely assume that a female fetus would concur with her mother on the desirability of abortion, while a male fetus might question such a move.

Having clarified the issues involved, the solution becomes obvious, as soon as a pregnancy is diagnosed, appropriate testing should be performed to determine the sex of the fetus and all female fetuses aborted while the males are preserved. (That preference, though apparent in China, has not been universal. The Bible records Pharaoh’s preference for Jewish girls. However he preferred post-delivery family planning to achieve his goal.)

It would be naive to expect this proposal to be universally accepted even though a majority of citizens would surely support it. Indeed, there are many reasons to do so. These may result both from the decrease in female births and the relative increase in males -- a boon for females. In addition, it is immediately apparent that funds for abortion would be spent on a women’s health issue, an area to which everyone agrees far too little of our resources has been devoted. That the abortions will involve female fetuses exclusively skews the funding even more toward gender (dare I say “sex?”) equality in terms of health-care funding.

Another salutary effect of such an approach would be the availability of female fetuses for research projects, including stem-cell investigations. Currently there is a reluctance on the part of many to permit such research based on the fear that such sanction would encourage the performance of abortions. Since this new availability would be the result of a program aimed at limiting the number of abortions (although it might produce a larger number than are now performed) it could not be faulted on this count. And it should be specified that such research programs, which would deal only with female fetuses, would be well suited for the study of female health problems, to the complete exclusion of the study of diseases of males.

Equally salubrious, and resulting from the halving of deliveries (including c-sections), would be the immediate decrease in the incidence of pregnancy related diseases, death in childbirth, and post-partum depression. That would be followed almost immediately by the elimination of the abuse of female children, there being none to abuse. Presently the battery of women in general would end. There would also be a decrease overall in health-care costs as pediatrics, and later adult medicine and geriatrics, becomes less important.

An additional potential benefit which might be derived from the termination of half our pregnancies is suggested by the late Dr. J. Swift, a pioneer in the environmental movement who, in his own essay on the subject, urged the killing of children as a method of dealing with excess births in Ireland, and the utilization of their flesh as a renewable food source for other members of the population. Clearly his audience did not, at that time, recognize the wisdom of his counsel, and no improvement in the situation was obtained. Even today it is likely that few would accept the prudent suggestions he made since, though we are not at all reluctant to abuse them, we tend to shy away from the actual killing of children after they breathe their first. (It should be noted that this “shying away” is anything but universal and many children are actually killed by their parents and others.) As a consequence, we should be most unlikely to accept children as table fare. Indeed, the average American would probably be too delicate to taste even a fetus, though it might not be recognized as human life from its mere appearance. (There are two exceptions to this rule: One is the existence of cannibalism in some societies and among some of our own population who suffer from particular socialization disorders. Another possible exception is the processing and flavoring of the material for use as a substitute for the earthworms said to be incorporated into meat patties in some “fast food” establishments.)

Nonetheless, the idea of not recycling this high protein material would be anathema to most Americans. It would not be unreasonable, though, to deal with these byproducts of pregnancy much as we do with other materials which we manufacture but for which there is no market locally. We must export them as a means of properly reusing valuable resources, feeding the hungry in the Third World, and, of course, improving our balance of payments. It is a most propitious combination of benefits from a single act.

Returning to the results of the selective termination of female pregnancies, it should not be overlooked that the exclusive occurrence of male births would eventually result in increased homosexual behavior -- a consequence that would be repulsive to many of the men who currently eschew the sanction of abortion. There would, however, be a contrary result of the program which would more than satisfy the same super-masculine personalities troubled by what they would view as the weakness displayed by gay men. The greater number of males produced (for it is likely that there will be some compensation for the end of female births) would certainly increase the likelihood of that paradigm of strong, positive male activities, war. It would not be surprising if this were viewed as a signal benefit of the program, and a preference for sending gay men to the front might result.

Nonetheless, we could anticipate the continuation of the debate both in and out of the courts until the issue were finally resolved. What is, perhaps, most important about a solution like this one, a side-effect which might be overlooked at first glance, is that if it is implemented and made mandatory, we can, within a generation, eliminate both the problem and the debate. It would be wonderful, and perhaps unique in human experience, to be able to solve such a perplexing problem so quickly and completely as this.

It's certainly worth a try.

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

Next episode: “Intermezzo” – Words, not music.

i     Norma McCorvey.

ii    The New York Sun, June 23, 2003.

iii    Sandra Cano.

iv    “Cano, who opposes abortion rights, has said that she was unaware that Doe v. Bolton was filed on her behalf.” (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 11/12/01)

Klutz or Kluznik?

 

Have you ever heard of the Kluznikian Calendar? Probably not. There's no reason why you should have. I came across it while doing research for a story I was writing.ⁱ That calendar is one of many that claim to reform our current system – to “correct” it by supplying one that is permanent, with specific dates occurring on the same day of the week every year. It does this by mandating thirteen twenty-eight day months, with time at the end of the year that is a holiday and not part of a week. Its creator views it as a rationalization, an improvement, but the meddling has severe repercussions for anyone who wishes to observe a Sabbath every seven days, since that won't be the same day each year. This was one of the themes I was exploring in the story.

That is not to say that our current calendar is perfect. I don't think it is. But it seems clear that any changes must take into consideration the realities of people and institutions that rely on the the one that exists. The concern over the “Y2K” problem a few years ago, and its implications for all of humanity, illustrate the extent to which we are governed by the calendar. That the concern was overblown and unnecessary does not mitigate its significance, and besides the opposition of the religious communities, attention should be paid to the implications for computers, commerce, and custom.

But there is a change I'd like to see and it does not require any alteration in the week or in any aspect of the calendar itself: only a change in our conventions. Although it is primarily a European celebration, “midsummer” is observed around the world. (In Australia, for example, it occurs at a time when the weather is cold, since the seasons are opposite to ours in the Southern Hemisphere.) In Europe its celebration is usually linked (within a few days) to the summer solstice. In actuality, then, “midsummer” occurs at the beginning of summer. (I'm not quite sure when the “midwinter jicker” takes place, but I have to admit I've never been to Solla Sollew.ⁱⁱ)

In any event, the “seasons” are a human invention linked to the origin of calendars in general. They are designed to help people (farmers) know when to plant crops.ⁱⁱⁱ Since the recurring cycle of planting weather is related to the earth's position (and the seasons have different implications in this regard in the Southern Hemisphere) it is not surprising that the identification markers should be determined by the stargazers. (There are others, though, who are guided by the seasons and the weather that accompanies them; who earn their livings or adjust their lives based on them. Among them are airlines, skiers, leaf-peepers, and bears.) But the realities of the stars and the weather are with us for the foreseeable future. Everyone talks about them, etc.

We needn't be stuck, however, with the seasons as we've defined them. It will take no changes in the days of the week or the months of the year to start what we call summer about forty-five days before we do now – May 5^th is as easy to remember as June 21^st – and, ridiculous as it may sound, that will put midsummer's night, and the longest day of the year, in the middle of summer. If we change the beginnings of autumn and spring to August 5^th and February 5^th we can have the equinoxes in the middles of their seasons rather than at the beginnings. Placing the middle of winter on the longest day of the year makes a good deal of sense, although a starting date of November 5^th may confuse those who celebrate Thanksgiving – an “autumn” holiday – at the end of that month.^iv But changing the way we name the seasons won't change harvest time, and farming based on the stars ended a long time ago, so there shouldn't be any agrarian repercussions. (And if farmers are still interested, they can still use the stars rather than an artificial schedule.)

That's a calendar change I can live with. It seems rational. It may not be “reform,” but it doesn't do any damage either.

Next episode: “Go, Doe, Roe” – No, it's not Dr. Suess.

i    “Home” – 2011

ii   “I Had Trouble In Getting To Solla Sollew” by Dr. Seuss. – 1965

iii   Actually it's only a help. The planting was based on celestial signs, not the calendar.

iv   Having Election Day in winter may offend some, but most Americans don't vote anyway. They just claim they do so they can take time off.

The Best And The Brightest

 

I don't really like any of our Presidents. I don't trust them. As a matter of fact I don't trust anyone who's even run for the office. Indeed, I have misgivings about anyone with the hubris to believe that (s)heⁱ can decide who should live or die, and especially those who would fight for such a position. And that's part of the job description – it comes with making wars (yes, I know only Congress is supposed to be able to do that, but I also know better than to believe they are actually meaningfully involved in such decisions), giving or not giving pardons, and a bunch of covert actions that cannot be disclosed for a variety of real or imagined security reasons. Those who got into office by accident – like President Ford – have something of an excuse, as do Vice Presidents who inherited the position when the President died in office. (Unless, of course, they became Vice President after failing in a presidential bid.) And even if they run for a full term afterward, there are often reasons other than conceit for doing so. So I'll give them a pass this time around.ⁱⁱ

Actually, I don't care for politicians in general. President Kennedy,ⁱⁱⁱ in his inaugural address, asked Americans to favor what they could do for their country over what it could do for them. But by and large, all who claim to represent us are in it for the gains.^iv For some that may be glory or the “legacy”; for others it's cash – by bribes, programs from which they can profit – or the benefits of the position, such as pensions, health care, “expenses,” and the like.

That wouldn't be so bad if they also accomplished something that helped the rest of us who may or may not have supported them. Especially if that help were given because it was “right” and not because they gained from it, whether directly or because it helped their supporters. But that's wishful thinking. The most I can hope for is that I benefit from programs brought to my area by a representative who wants to influence my vote in the next election. For politicians are an ambitious lot.

And that's a problem. To win election they have to take positions,^v and having taken such a stand they cannot back down.^vi That would be evidence of weakness – a lack of backbone. Or they are told by their party that a certain view is the “correct” one and that it would be wise (if they ever want to run for another office) to support it. Politics is supposed to be the art of the possible, but politicians make it a way of life to ensure that nothing worthwhile is possible. Their view is “my way or the highway.” Then they try to sell their stand as one of character. They will not compromise with something that is “wrong,” and they should be reelected because they're “outsiders,” and they stood up against the “politicians.“ Somehow I'm not convinced.

So on election day, after we have been forced to endure months of negative advertising, it boils down to a choice between a corrupt politician who has been lining his (or her) pockets (or pocketbook) with taxpayer money, and who is guilty of untold unethical acts and acts of misconduct – usually sexual in nature – or the candidate who brags that he has no connection with the politicians and is not beholden to anyone – even though it's also true that if elected (s)he will have no allies in government and would be totally unable to govern, assuming (however unlikely it may be) that (s)he knew how (or really wanted the position^vii). That's the usual description of third party candidates who want to throw out all the members of the major parties.^viii

But, we're told, it's easy to recognize problems. We're admonished not to raise them, however, if we can't do better and have no solution that is more likely to work. That's silliness. I can't pitch, but I know a weak bullpen when I see one. I do, however, know the solution to the pitching problem. It's money. Buy better pitchers. Buying politicians, though, isn't as savory an endeavor, even if it assures you of the result you want.

So we're left floundering for a solution. In this electronic age perhaps the answer is a computer program that would govern us. Our Constitution is excellent but it requires people to implement it, and people are not to be trusted. A machine wouldn't have that problem. A computer is too stupid to deviate from its program. But, of course, it would take people to write that program. Aye. There's the rub.

Winston Churchill once said “The Americans will always do the right thing ... after they've exhausted all the alternatives." I'm not so sure.

Maybe we should try monarchy.

Next episode: “Klutz Or Kluznik” – Hell freezes over.

i     I don't know why I bother with this PC silliness. But I guess political correctness is appropriate in an essay about politics.

ii     Chances are they don't deserve it but I'm in a good mood.

iii     He was quite a politician himself, coming from a family bent on saving the country. They all believed they were better equipped to do so than anyone else.

iv     They really do represent us.

v     Although some studiously avoid taking positions when they suspect some voters will disagree. They suddenly find themselves otherwise occupied when it's time to vote.

vi     Though, when necessary, they can usually find a way to make reality conform to what they said, no matter how different the two may be.

vii     During the New York mayoral campaign of 1965, when asked what he would do first if elected, William Buckley, candidate of the Conservative Party, said: “Demand a recount.”

viii   If they do manage to get elected, their corruption and misconduct will be demonstrated to the public before the next election.