The Elephant And Insurance

So here's how it works. If I'm injured or killed in an attack by someoneⁱ riding an elephant, I'm entitled to full payment of medical or funeral costs – even if I'm merely stomped by the elephant. In fact, I get benefits even if I'm stomped by an elephant who isn't attacking. The benefits are lower, but I can count on them. There's a moderate deductible (larger if I'm not within twenty-five miles of my residence) and the insurance is only good in the United States. But it's solid insurance. The government stands behind the companies that issue it.

It has to. According to the new law I have to buy it. Perhaps it's of greater value to those who appear in Aida or work in zoos or circuses, but the cost for them alone would be too great, so everyone gets the insurance. And you never know. Anyway, that's the law.

And that's the way the new health care legislation works – at least to a degree. Everyone is required to buy the insurance or pay a penalty. It doesn't matter if they need or want the insurance. That's the law.

Actually it's contradictory to the concept of insurance, which is little more than gambling. The insurance company is betting on the insured, and the insured is betting against himself. But the payout, if there is one, is supposed to be large enough to cover the risk for which it is designed. As is the case with all betting, the house – the insurance company – will come out ahead. In this case, however, the individual who “wins” will be protected from a large loss. In reality, the government is forcing the individual to protect it from the lossⁱⁱ it would face if it had to pay for his health care. The program, however, forces those in good health, and who would prefer to take the risk of going uninsured, to buy in and, in effect, pay for those more likely to need help. There's a spreading of risks so that they're equalized among all participants. If there were similar equalization of salaries we'd call it socialism. But it's not that. It's more of a method for acquiring a national health service that is paid for without the risk of being accused of raising taxes. From the point of view of the taxpayer, however, it's a distinction without a difference.

Important features of the new health care system include the provision that no one can be excluded because of pre-existing condition, and the cost will be the same for men and women. Notwithstanding the evidence that it costs more to provide health care for women than men, there will be “gender”ⁱⁱⁱ equality.^iv Women will pay no more than men.^v And with programs like Medicare, we are already ensuring that those who don't smoke or drink will help underwrite the costs of those with lung cancer, emphysema, and cirrhosis. Those poor people are already suffering enough from their medical conditions and have had to deal with increased costs from the cigarettes and whiskey. They should have help from the rest of us. If they've worked some, and are eligible for Medicare, they'll get it.

Perhaps that will be viewed as reductio ad absurdum but it's hard not to conclude that obligatory participation is little more than a tax on the healthy and a method of shifting costs to the taxpayer in order to save the government money. Because the word “tax” is viewed negatively, a method has been found to change the label. And for those who elect not to participate, there is a “penalty,” not a “tax.” Well played. The government's done it again!

The case^vi has been argued in the Supreme Court and some time soon we'll learn where the Justices stand.^vii The law, however, seems to be in conflict with previous policy and with American thought. The Court decided that certain issues involved privacy and that individual decisions should be respected. Elective abortion is a matter of choice. It's difficult for a legal layman to understand why the decision to buy health insurance should not be a matter of choice, with that option having become a major factor in the country's thought. The termination of a pregnancy – what some view as the taking of another's life – can hardly be viewed as more private, and more a matter of choice, than the decision about payment for one's insurance policy.

I have health insurance, and there really is no mandate to have elephant-stomping insurance, so I'm in good shape. The principle, however, will have to be decided by the Court. More and more the extent of government intervention in our lives is likely to pop up in a variety of forms, and this is as good a time as any to decide on its propriety.

Next episode: “People Are No Damn Good” – Except me, of course.

i      Hannibal, for example.

ii     The government – or more accurately the governments, since it's usually paid for locally– is ultimately responsible through public hospitals.

iii    We don't say “sex” anymore.

iv    Other insurance is “rated.” Those with increased risks pay premiums proportional to the increased risk. That's business. And insurance companies usually have the option of declining to insure the really bad risks. “Assigned risk” is one answer to ensure coverage of drivers who are “accident prone” (some of whom, perhaps, shouldn't be driving for the protection of the rest of us), but their rates are certainly not the same as safe drivers. And drivers have the option of refusing to buy insurance. In some states this will mean that they don't get driver's licenses, but it's their option, and there is no monetary fine for the choice not to have coverage. Where uninsured driving is legal, the uncovered driver who is in an accident – he lost his bet that he could drive accident-free – will have to pay costs from his own resources.

v     The argument is made that an accident of birth should not affect the cost of insurance. It makes sense. But there are other “accidents of birth” that do affect an individual's standing and choices: intelligence, location of birth and subsequent citizenship and residence, and family income for example. Although we may wish it otherwise, a child born in Bangladesh is more likely to be hungry and poverty-stricken than an American. It may not be fair, but it's the case. Attempts to equalize situations like that and millions more will fail however much we wish their success. And despite what may seem unfair, most firms will not hire someone born blind to be a security guard.

vi     Regarding the new health care law.

vii    Actually, they usually sit.

An Eye For An Eye

An Eye For An Eye

(What follows is something I wrote several years ago and just rediscovered. It still applies so I just added a few notes. I'll slip it in between my regular posts.  I don't know where all the lines came from and I don't know how to get rid of them.)

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

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 produced "Make love, not war" and "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" stickers some decades ago -- 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.ⁱⁱ

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 were 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 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 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 not directly involved? We tried isolationism and it failed.ⁱⁱⁱ And what’s a "proportionate" response to mass murder? Should parents in Beslan 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 commit acts of terror? How do we discourage murderous acts, apart from giving in to 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"^iv of Muammar al-Qaddafi, 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 the ones who choose violence. Those 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. 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 ..." 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, Rwanda. And now we have Darfur and Taba.^v But 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.





 

i      Mohandas Gandhi said it and Martin Luther King used it in his exhortations. Both were assassinated.

ii     What I've written sounds a little self-righteous as well. But I still think the ideas are correct. At least for the most part.

iii    I'll have more to say about isolationism and interventionism in a future post.

iv    Now it's his death.

v     And many more since.

The Root Of All Evil

If a billionaire saves a hundred million or so on his taxes by the use of tax shelters, it's unfair. If you leave your car by an expired parking meter while you run inside a store for a minute to get a newspaper, and find a ticket on the windshield when you return, that isn't fair. The difference is that he hasn't broken the law but you have. And that's not fair either.ⁱ

Or is it?

We are ready to attribute all sorts of crimes and evils to those who are better off than we, but our eagerness to do so may not be justified. From early childhood we're taught that the love of money is the root of all evil. For some this is a prelude to a life of evil. For most, however, this is considered a warning not to treasure money – that we must forswear such a preoccupation. But the original claim is not true. And even those who believe it,ⁱⁱ ignore it. That's the way it is with most warnings. They have little effect.

The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil. Really? All? The two most serious evils are murder and rape. And of the murders, serial killing is the most reprehensible. Perhaps love is sometimes the reason for rape, but it is not the love of money.ⁱⁱⁱ Freud could tell you that – but you don't need Freud. And while the motives for murder may include financial gain, there are numerous other causes that have nothing to do with money. Among them (the list is far from all-inclusive) are jealousy, hatred, vengeance, lust for power, and envy. And the all-inclusive “psychological factors.” For serial killers the reason^iv is equally, or perhaps more complex. “There are many other motivations [besides sex] for serial murders including anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.”^v

I don't mean to minimize the power of money to govern our activities and to inspire evil activity, but we are all guilty to one degree or another. Human nature is unchangeable. All people share the same attitudes, whether we're rich or poor, and we all have the same failings, desires, and fantasies. We're ready to take credit for something praiseworthy that we didn't do and to shift the responsibility for our error. We resent the success of others in getting what we want for ourselves. We don't want to have to keep up with the Jonses. We want them to try (unsuccessfully) to keep up with us. If we view ourselves as members of the ninety-nine percent whose goal is to achieve what the one percent have,^vi who can blame us?^vii

There are some perfectly legal ways to get a bigger slice of the pie. In union there is strength. So if we join a union that threatens a rich industrialist^viii with a work stoppage^ix unless he increases salaries, pensions and other benefits, it's perfectly all right. In fact it's admirable. And it's all right to park next to the broken parking meter or go through a broken turnstile. After all, you didn't break them. Another thing – you certainly don't want to waste time and gas driving back to the supermarket because you got too much change. It was their error, not yours. And you can save on state taxes if you buy on the internet, or if you go out of state to make a major purchase.^x

Making money otherwise, however, isn't so easy. Perhaps we lack the creativity, connections, or monetary backing of those we envy, but we can try to make up for it with luck. The government is likely to promote such thinking by sponsoring get-rich-quick lotteries, but for most people this method is not likely to be rewarding.^xi It's easier to cut corners. If a friend, who works in a local store, tells you that the item you're about to buy will be on sale tomorrow, chances are good you'll put off your purchase.^xii After all, no one gets hurt. The store owner is going to put it on sale anyway and someone will buy it at the lower price. It might as well be you. But it's as much insider trading as that of a stockbroker who is being prosecuted by the Attorney General.

Perhaps you “forget” to report all your income^xiii when making out your tax forms. Or maybe you were “creative” in their completion. Perhaps you didn't present exactly right the facts regarding the accident you just reported to your insurance company. Maybe you weren't completely in the right. Perhaps, also, some of the scratches and dents were there before the accident. But you live in a “no-fault” state and they have deep pockets. And you've paid them for years. It's payback time.

And if all else fails, there's always bankruptcy. If you can't pay your American Excess bills, some lawyer or business will have a plan to get you out of money trouble, or at least make you think he is doing so. The trick is to work things out so that you can keep everything you have but not be required to pay for it. And then you'll need to get a new start so you can do the same thing all over again. Who loses but the companies that have too much money to begin with?

When condemning money, and its holders, as evil, though, we shouldn't overlook some of its positives. The one who wants to make a fortune with a new company will probably create jobs and hire workers. Many of our charities get a significant part of their income from wealthy donors who benefit from the tax deductions they get. And there are drugs which may make money for their manufacturers because they actually help others. The love of money will sometimes result in good as well as evil.

But the bottom line is that we're too quick to blame others for having what we want for ourselves. And we resent the fact that some have succeeded where we've failed. After all, all we want to do is walk a mile in their Pradas.

Next episode: “The Elephant And Insurance” – Massive coverage.

i     Some definitions are in order: “Fair”: If I benefit from it. “Unfair”: If someone else benefits from it. (Or benefits more than I do.)

ii     At least most of them.

iii    The argument may be made, moreover, that the love of money isn't evil at all. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are cited as unalienable [sic] rights in the Declaration of Independence, where “the pursuit of Happiness” is a generalization of “property” – including money – which was George Mason's terminology in his draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He was citing the philosophy of John Locke. The final version of the Declaration spoke of “the means of acquiring and possessing property.” However much we may strive for it ourselves, that's not something we admire in others.

iv     Actually reason has nothing to do with it.

v     Serial Murder – Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators – FBI, 2005

vi     More realistically, we want to bring them down to our level. Actually, we'd like them in jail with their wealth divided among the rest of us. Especially me.

vii    Ideally we'll get some of their money. It's not socialism to correct the deficiencies of capitalism. They got the money by soaking us anyway.

viii    Or the government.

ix     The possibility of the absence of government services is often all that is necessary to bring politicians into line, although bad publicity is also a threat. And since union votes will be important in the next election, the promise of union support is a powerful tool. If an industrialist offers money to help get the same votes, however, he is evil.

x     There may be a requirement that you report and pay taxes on those purchase, but that's far too complicated.

xi    Of course that doesn't mean people won't try. I heard on the radio today (March 30^th) that the Mega Millions jackpot for tonight's drawing will be over half a billion dollars. I doubt that any of the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd or other members of the ninety-nine percent will buy tickets, because if they win they'll become part of the despised one percent. But if that's the case, if ninety-nine percent of the population don't participate, how do the prizes get so big. I guess that they'll swallow their pride and accept the designation for enough money. I know that I would. Of course I'd never buy a ticket.

xii     Or if you overhear something. Eavesdropping isn't your fault. Someone else is talking too loud. And you'd be a fool not to take advantage of what you hear. The person revealing the information is to blame.

xiii    Especially that in cash. And you probably wouldn't hesitate to pay someone else in cash – especially if he tells you that he won't have to charge you tax that way.

Where Seldom Is Heard

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.ⁱ

Congress doesn't have to. As a people we do it all the time. Speech may be free – in theory – but the economic and social costs are staggering. Of the two, the economic costs are the lesser consideration. Loss of business because of political views and boycotts, legal costs associated with libel and other trials related to speech issues, and penalties imposed because of what some view as intemperate speech are costly, but only to a few.

But the greater cost is social. Whoever is listening may take issue with what we have to say. Consequently, much of the limitation on the significant part of our “Freedom of Speech” is self imposed. Whether as a result of self-censorship or self-delusion, being PCⁱⁱ is better than being honest. Too often we avoid saying what is controversial, substituting the acceptable and familiar. Why look for trouble? Why risk accusations of insensitivity,ⁱⁱⁱ bullying,^iv or verbal sexism^v and abuse? Why chance alienating someone whose help we may need or whose friendship we want? It's said that “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” Similar wisdom in the past told us that the earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe.

While, for the most part, we are not limited in what we can say, there are some restrictions which the State places on speech (shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is the most famous of these) but by and large these are minimal. There have been various pieces of legislation (like the “Alien and Sedition Acts”) that have limited speech – at least for a time – but, unlike some other countries, an individual who speaks out against the American government is not likely to disappear. Some secrecy is necessary in order for a government to function and to carry on relations with other countries,^vi though the Freedom of Information Act and the courts provide something of a break against the abuses which may result from unwarranted secretiveness. And otherwise we're free to say whatever we want, however mindless it may be.

But, in view of the risks, an argument can be made that an “excess” of silence is sometimes wiser than complete candor. Too many “leaks,” though sometimes orchestrated by those who complain most about them, may be counterproductive. Better to remain neutral and quiet. Silence is golden. But, as Churchill said, “The hottest place in hell must be reserved for those who, in the face of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Sadly, too many people fear that it is better to say nothing than the “wrong” thing. Conformity^vii is safer. No one has to know your views. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees privacy to all citizens,^viii but there are many legal and non-legal ways around such restrictions.

Our words are also limited by what we can think. To some degree the language we speak, crafted by our forebears, determines what we mean when we use particular words. Orwell, in 1984, demonstrated how that might play out if a strong government used language to limit and fashion the thoughts of the people ruled. Only the virtues of the government and its leader could be expressed.

At the other end of the spectrum, but equally misled, there are many who view self-criticism and criticism of their leaders, as a demonstration of “objectivity,” fairness, and an openness to the views of others. Some of America's greatest critics are Americans. They are not blind, but they wear blinders. Predisposed to favor the weak, they assume the strong are always wrong. They view their adopted position as one of justice and impartiality. Many see it as self-hatred, noting, correctly, that we are often critical of our own group to the exclusion of others.

At least that's our public persona: highly principled and laden with introspection and progressive philosophy. More privately,^ix however, especially on one of our electronic communicators,^x we indulge in the same inane gossip and sophomoric comments as everyone else – revealing much more of ourselves than we might if we reflected on the messages we transmit before hitting the “send” button. And once out of the can it is public forever. People are eager to “share” their thoughts,^xi but everything is recorded, and nothing is forgotten. There are no private thoughts on these media. You don't know the size of your audience or when your “secret” words may go “viral.” The only way to have private thoughts is to keep everything to yourself.^xii After all, we're all prejudiced against something, even if it's only prejudice itself. So we're better off if others don't know of our biases lest we be lambasted for them. Or accused of hate speech.

But it is difficult not to wonder how long that will last. With prostheses now available that respond to thoughts, it is likely that sooner or later there will be other devices that will transmit more complex thoughts to others. Or devices that they use to transmit their thoughts to us. Authorities have strong views on many subjects (not only the wish to guarantee their own acceptance by the individual^xiii) and they will want us to share their perspective. Mottoes, slogans, the “bully pulpit” and the power of the press may work for now,^xiv but more powerful tools will be available in the future.

What can I say? The monks have it right. Silence is golden. But not for long. Mind-reading and thought control are in the wings.

What can you say? This is one of those cases where “less is more.” Or at least it's more desirable. Silence may be golden now, but it won't work forever. Take advantage of it while you can. So, for the moment, say as little as possible, and only to those you trust. Then, when your trust is violated, and that, unfortunately, is inevitable, you won't be too much at risk of misinterpretation.^xv But it will happen. So whatever you're thinking or saying, fuggedaboutit.

Next episode: “The Root Of All Evil” – And, in the words of Milton Berle, “I'm right in there rooting.”

i     First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1791.

ii     Politically Correct.

iii    For example, we never speak of “blind” people when referring to the visually challenged. Nor do we ever talk about Islam except to praise it. Saying anything else labels us as bigots.

iv    Any criticism may be viewed as bullying.

v     Never speak ill of the opposite sex. Or your sex. Or at all.

vi    Even businesses and labor unions require some degree of privacy, as do politicians. Negotiations and compromise are difficult in public where more posturing is necessary.

vii    With the ideas of whatever group you currently adhere to.

viii   Even if that idea is nowhere to be found in the document.

ix     At least we believe it's more privately.

x     Dick Tracy's wrist radio has grown up.

xi     They assume that others actually care.

xii   “Thoughts” by public figures seem to be public by design. They're formed to elicit publicity.

xiii   Typical examples are the Church's reaction to Galileo and science, the Nazi response to music – especially that by Jews, and the Communists' view of art and realism.

xiv    See 1984.

xv    Human nature is human nature. Don't expect it to change for you.

To Each His Or Her Own

Have you ever noticed an article in the newspaper, or a story on the radio, about someone who is refusing to pay that part of his income tax which will go to support war. All you need to figure out the amount is the percentage of government spending that goes to the Department of Defense, and subtract the same percentage from your tax.ⁱ It's very simple, it's very principled and it's very interesting. But it's also very wrong. In fact, according to the Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States,”^ii,iii,iv meaning that the one thing that Congress can constitutionally use as the basis for taxation is defense and our physical protection.

Congress has, however, added to its functions and perceived responsibilities, and, of necessity , has also added taxes to pay for them. Indeed, we have gone into debt for a number of reasons, but an important one is that we have imposed many non-constitutional requirements on ourselves.^v Whether they are wrong or not, they are often expensive. The provision of food and housing for the hungry and homeless are certainly appealing policies, as is support of the arts, science, space travel, health care, and education, but it is not unreasonable to wonder who will pay the costs for these initiatives.

There are times, moreover, when laws are passed that conflict with constitutional principles. Usually these are voided by the courts, but that is not always the case. And there are times when the taxpayer is left with the responsibility of paying the costs of what, at least on the surface, appears to be a benefit resulting from such a conflict. Of course it's not always so. For example, although an argument may be made that taxation to pay the salaries of religious chaplains for the military, while seemingly in conflict with the First Amendment's clear statement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it is justified by the government's taking members of the armed forces away from their communities and their churches. But it is harder to understand why those same churches, when in their own communities, might be free of taxes. They are provided with the same governmental services as everyone else but don't pay for them.

Mandatory health care regulations, when required of Christian Scientists, also appear to present a problem. Indeed, the taxation of Christian Scientists to pay the medical costs of others would seem to be in contravention of their religious beliefs – the making of a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and violating their freedom to observe their teachings. In addition, requiring individuals to have health insurance in general – a function not mentioned in our founding document – is seen by many as an infringement on our liberty. And the congressional requirement that employers buy insurance services that are in violation of their religious tenets^vi is considered by many to be similarly in opposition to constitutional principles.

The same is true of state laws. The jailing of Amish in Kentucky for not having brightly colored triangles on their wagons (to indicate slow-moving) vehicles, which the Amish view as “garish displays” forbidden by their religion, is, at best, problematic. It might be argued that the law protects those who might be injured or killed in an accident involving such a vehicle. The ones most at risk, though, are those in the wagon – not the driver of the eighteen-wheeler which might hit it. Refusing to pay a fine and fees, Jacob Gingerich stated, “I don't have to pay them to prosecute me for my religion.”^vii Of course, he was violating a state regulation and may not be protected by the federal Constitution.

A Constitutional Convention, or even an amendment on the subject in the near future, is unlikely, but perhaps the tax-refuser had it right. The woman^viii who opposes abortion, might reject taxes which support it; the man^ix who considers government supported health care, and especially the requirement that he have health insurance, as illegal impositions, may decline to pay taxes for such programs; and the childless couple may feel it an imposition to have to pay school taxes.^x Even though these are not for “the Debts and ... the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States” all who might try to follow the Constitution would lose and be subject to fines or incarceration, because the courts seem to favor such efforts. They see entitlements as implied by the Constitution, even if they are not there. And they do not appear to recognize the right of an individual to demand exemption from what he views as an illegal governmentally assumed power. Rather, they favor the philosophy of what some call a “nanny state,” one in which the government takes care of every perceived need of society – whether philosophical or physical. And they're willing to have the members of that society pay any price for that.

So suck it up and pay the two dollars.

Next episode: “Where Seldom Is Heard” – You don't say!

i     Actually it's a lot more complicated than that since a lot of the resources that eventually go toward fighting a war begin in the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and other such arms of the national government.

ii     Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1.

iii     Over the course of time our government has also acquired a not inconsiderable debt, and, with the interest it generates, it is also a major drain on our economy. But the Constitution permits taxation to pay for it.

iv    The “general Welfare” being that of the country, not its citizens, and not referring to entitlements of individuals. In addition to the military that was covered by “the common Defence,” however, it might refer to police and fire services and other means for providing physical security.

v     Perhaps this is the way Congress has chosen to turn non-Constitutional acts into constitutionally sanctioned ones.

vi    Contraception and abortion come to mind immediately.

vii    Wall Street Journal, March 16, 2012, page A3. Amish Bridle at Buggy Rules.
viii   Or man.

ix    Or woman.

x     Indeed, if their condition of childlessness was unintended, it may be an emotional insult added to their “injury.”

Introspection

Every now and thenⁱ I give a little thought to what I'm doing. And to what I've done. At least in terms of this blog. I suspect that by this time you're bored with what I have to say and find it tedious, tendentious, and repetitious. Perhaps it is. But I'm writing this for me, not for you. And since that's the case, there's nothing to be gained by my reading previous essays to find out what I said. Doing so might make this more coherent and less repetitious, but it would really be a waste of my time,ⁱⁱ since there are some things I want to say now, if only to myself. And it's probably only to myself since I've made it a policy not to let anyone know about this effort. According to the statistics I've seen, some people have come across it by chance, but that's not my problem. And they're smart enough not to sign up to read these essays regularly. But I'll keep producing them. I've probably passed the point where there's anything to be gained by trying to read them all.ⁱⁱⁱ However that's your loss, and it's of no consequence to me.

In all likelihood, therefore, I'm repeating myself. That's what happens when you don't read previous essays and when your views remain static. It even happens when your not suffering from dementia. I've forgotten things all my life and age hasn't improved my memory.^iv Or anything else, for that matter. So I write whatever crosses my mind – whether I've done so before or not.

I'm thinkin', and clearly I'm not alone in the notion, “There are a thousand thoughts lying within a man that he does not know till he takes up a pen to write.^v” (Nowadays it's a computer.) Actually, I've been thinking that for a long time, and when I came across the quote I knew that I had found some vindication for what I had been doing all my life. Not that I needed one, but it's nice to know that I'm not the only one who writes because it provides the opportunity to think a matter through.

Most of my life I have written. I enjoy it. It's therapy and education at the same time. For the most part, I do it for myself, so once I've written something that satisfies me, I throw it away or I put it away and forget it. My files and my garbage can are bulging.^vi I take to writing when I have some thoughts on a subject that I'd like to work through. Setting my thoughts on paper^vii forces me to work them out in my mind.

And working them out means that there are times when I have to read about a subject which has interested me for some time, but was always peripheral to what I was doing. So I let it slip or forgot about it. Making the decision to write about something – to clarify it in my mind – means making the decision to do whatever additional reading and searching that I need to satisfy me that my thoughts are as I would have them. And that's not always the case. It isn't unusual to find that an idea I have – usually one I have had all my life – lacks the merit I attributed to it. I had been seduced into believing something years earlier with glib arguments which I didn't question at the time. Or I realize that the subject of interest to me – the one I want to clarify – is already well written about. Perhaps overexposed. As King Solomon said, “There's nothing new under the sun.”^viii

Of course that doesn't stop me. I'm smarter than everyone else. I don't call me “The Imperious Loudmouth” for nothing. Solomon may have been the smartest man of his time, but I'm well up there in mine. No one recognizes that because I haven't advertised it, but trust me. I am. So my thoughts on the subject are superior to the ones out there.

Having titled this essay “Introspection,” I realize there's a lot more about me that I'd like to say, but it will have to wait for a better opportunity. In the meantime I'll just think deep thoughts.

Next episode: “To Each His Or Her Own” – You don't like, you don't buy.  Maybe.

PS -- Happy All Fool's Day.

i     And now it's now.

ii    It would probably also be counterproductive. I would (according to someone who made up a dumb rule, “should” is preferable to “would.” Hard cheese. I don't care. I like “would” better) probably shy away from writing about something I had already discussed. Since the purpose of the blog is to give me the opportunity to vent whatever is on my mind it would be a shame if I decided against doing so because I had had the thought before.

iii    Actually, I probably passed that point a long time ago.

iv    Of course I have no proof that I haven't suffered dementia all my life.

v    William Makepeace Thackeray, cited in A Word A Day, by Anu Garg.

vi    So am I, for that matter.

vii    Actually it's the computer screen.

viii   Or anywhere else for that matter.