Seasons Of Our Discontent

 

                                                                                  

I like where I'm living. The seasons change from time to time. It's not like living somewhere that has the same weather all year round.ⁱ And even if they may vary by a day or two some years, the variation in the seasons is only on the calendar – not affecting the change in weather that occurs.

That's reassuring. Every year the same seasons lasting the same length of time. I might like to fiddle a little with the dates on the calendar,ⁱⁱ but I know there will be a cold season, a hot one, and two in between. We'll get our weather more or less in 91 day doses.

Each season is about three months. “About,” because the way we've chosen to define them – using the equinoxes and day length as our markers – provides us with periods of this length. They're arbitrary and not really necessary. The weather would change without them.ⁱⁱⁱ But we've decided to create a system by which we recognize four seasons, and it's the same every year. And even if the weather on a particular day may not fit the mold, on the whole it is relatively predictable. Nature has its act together and we accept its dictates.

But people have an ax to grind. Money.^iv So “seasons” that are governed by human criteria seem to change from year to year. They get longer.^v For example, at one time Christmas was on December 25^th. A few days before may have been necessary to prepare, but the focus of the holiday was religious, and the 25^th itself held the greatest importance. But later, with an increasing emphasis on presents, the “Christmas Season” was advertised as soon as Thanksgiving ended, and eventually there was a day by day count of the number of shopping days until Christmas. Now we don't even wait for Thanksgiving before we start hawking presents, with the season beginning months in advance.

Other seasons have lengthened too, usually with the same motive. What was once a single day remembrance of our first president has become “Presidents'” week with big sales to mark the week. Of course it lasts more than a week, but that gives the various vendors – usually automobile companies – more time to convince you that their products are just what you need. It's a real hustle.

Sales abound, and often they're associated with holidays. Whether it's clothing for Easter, electronics for Labor Day, food for Thanksgiving, or any number of other products, no opportunity is missed to remind us that we need all of those things to celebrate the season and the holiday properly. The day when we used to celebrate our independence has become the season when we can buy grills, charcoal, and all the trimmings necessary for a barbecue. And what better time to sell flags and flowers than the weeks before Memorial Day. Capitalism has its attractions, but it's too bad that it flourishes by the sacrifice of occasions that used to have real meaning.

Even more striking has been the way we enjoy sporting events. At one time there was a baseball season, a football season, one for basketball, and one for hockey. There was some overlap, but not too much. That, sadly, has changed. Regular seasons have lengthened, playoffs have been added, and, naturally, revenues have gone way up.^vi Now that press attention to football practice games begins during the summer and the regular football season extends nearly to the baseball spring training season, there's almost no time to rest. No. There's no time at all. Basketball and hockey seasons fill in the autumn and winter, and even extend into the spring. What used to be well-defined seasons are now long economic opportunities. Like the Olympics.

Perhaps the longest season, however, is the election season. And it's the most annoying. It's said that the campaign for reelection begins on the day after Election Day. Or if it's not the campaign for reelection, it's the campaign for nomination. Politicians always seem to be fighting with each other, whether the battle is between parties on the basis of party “principles,”^vii or within parties to demonstrate someone's worthiness for nomination. So all year round we're sent campaign literature – often disguised as information for constituents and paid for by the voters through the incumbent's franking privilege. However you frame it though, the election “season” is never ending. There may be an acceleration of activities a few months before Election Day^viii but the partisanship, politicking, and posturing are always with us. Before the rise of national media and before the institution of the primaries, the election season was relatively short. Now it's interminable. And it's a real hassle.

We need some time off. We need some time between the long seasons we've produced. That can only come about if we go back to a time when seasons were shorter and more predictable; when there was a time between seasons when we could catch our breath. It was a time we were concerned about filling the leisure time that modern inventions would produce; a time when we didn't anticipate the lack of leisure time that modern society would impose on us.

But a return to the past won't happen.^ix At least not soon. So until then I propose that there be a new holiday – a nothing day. It will be a day between seasons. A day that nothing happens. Except, of course, the mammoth sale of leisure items, beginning at 4 AM.

Next episode: “ Watch Your Language” – Be careful or you may say what you really mean.

i     Even paradise can get boring.

ii    See “Klutz or Kluznik,” January 14, 2011.

iii    At least it would where I live.

iv    Or is that the whetstone? I'm having a little difficulty with the metaphor.

v     Last week (I'm writing this on July 24^th) I received a leaflet telling me of the back-to-school sales that were taking place at a nearby office supply store. The “back-to-school” season is beginning earlier and earlier every year.

vi    So have players' salaries and ticket prices. Sporting events are among our most popular entertainments and promoters are happy to pay the entertainers well for bringing in the crowds, since the audiences leave a lot of money behind not just for the tickets, but for the food and souvenirs. And by popularizing the entertainment itself, the television revenues increase.

vii    I don't believe that any more than you do. They're taking a stand that they can point to in the next election – one that they'll claim shows that they're more attuned to the wishes of the voters than their opponents.

viii   It may be years rather than months when an individual concludes that he or she is fit to be President.

ix    We've even found a way to outwit Nature and the original seasons. Now we start selling fashions many months before the time when they'll be needed. Commercialism wins again.

7

7ⁱ

 

                                                            

I know what it's like to limit one's appetites and one's activities. I know how rewarding self-discipline can be. In fact I'm troubled by the lack of self-control of so many of our children and adults, who have been taught that no one should judge anyone else, and all of us can have what we want. I fear that the idea that we should have no limitations placed on us leads to a kind of narcissism and lack of concern for others – and, indeed, for religious doctrine – that says, “I am the measure of all things.” It's hard to fault the approach of modern parents, that of building a child's-self confidence and self-image. That behavior is meritorious, but too often such an approach is substituted for the control that emphasized limits, and respect for others, that were considered critical parts of child-rearing in previous generations.

I'm an observant Jew. Specifically, I observe the Sabbath – which means that for one day a week I do not ride any motorized vehicle, cook, or turn electricity on or off. It's a challenge, but for me and many others it's a rewarding way of life. The restrictions are quite limiting, but I accept them as “right,” and build my life around them.

And every day of the week – not just the Sabbath – I limit what I eat. The foods permitted to me have been supervised and approved by various agencies I trust, and are free from any non-kosher content. That means I refrain from, among other things, pork, shellfish, and even kosher species not slaughtered according to specific standards,ⁱⁱ and by an individual learned in the laws that are applicable to this practice. The laws are strict and they're difficult to follow, but they conform to the traditions of my people and to a respect for the feelings of the animals that form a part of our diet.

I've written before about veganism.ⁱⁱⁱ I noted that I really didn't understand it. There are various reasons given for the philosophy, including sensitivity, morality, taste, and self-discipline, and I understand them all in the abstract. But it was my view that the restrictions would be impossible to actually carry out without many compromises being made. I haven't changed my view. In addition, however, other restrictions have occurred to me that reinforce my wonder. The one of greatest concern – in addition to previous limitations I've mentioned, is the one made famous by the 1967 movie, “The Graduate.”

Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics.

Plastics. Almost the foundation of our society, these materials are based on dead dinosaurs. It's hard to find a manufactured product that does not include them. They're obvious in most packaging, but are less visible in automobiles, electronic devices, washing machines, and just about everything else. Mr. McGuire was prescient in an economic sense, however the material itself limits the use of all these products by those who abjure anything that derives from animals.^iv After all, fossil fuels are off limits.

But there are alternatives.

Although mostly derived from petrochemicals, and, therefore, anathema to vegans, there is a form of plastic^v that is produced from purely vegetable sources. It's called polylactic acid and is manufactured from vegetable starch – corn starch in the United States. While it is only used in a small number of products at the moment, it must be reassuring to know that its applicability may increase.

But there's a large cloud in front of that silver lining. Along with the use of corn ethanol as a substitute for gasoline, the origin is likely to be problematic. According to Wikipedia, it will have “a negative impact to human food supply. It takes 2.65 pounds of corn to make a pound of polylactic acid, the commonest commercially compostable plastic. Since 270 million tonnes^vi of plastic are made every year, replacing conventional plastic with corn-derived polylactic acid would remove 715 million tonnes from the world's food supply, at a time when global warming is reducing tropical farm productivity.”

There are other limitations as well. Not all types of plastics can be used for every task. And polylactic acid can't be expected to replace all the other varieties. Which means that some limitations will remain.

When you consider these restrictions along with all the others,^vii the burden of a truly observant vegan becomes obvious. I can only marvel at the dedication of those who would observe a scrupulous observance of these principles.

But I still don't understand them.

Next episode: “Seasons Of Our Discontent” – It ain't over till it's over – and maybe not even then.

i     Actually the “7” should be within a triangle made up of arrows, as a symbol of a particular type of packaging.

ii    In some locations these standards are outlawed in the name of “animal rights.” Other methods of killing animals are perfectly acceptable, but from their perspective, if it's kosher, it's not kosher. There are many who see the legal restrictions as a way of legitimizing and sanctifying anti-semitism. It's a way to pretend bias is motivated by virtue.

iii      “The Amoeba And The Oak Tree,” June 17, 2012.

iv    And that includes living animals as well as those killed for what they can provide. Milk and wool, for example, even though they can be derived from their sources without requiring slaughter, are seen as products of the “exploitation” of animals and, therefore, unacceptable.

v     It's recyclable, too. Number 7. “Other.”

vi    It's the British version of Wikipedia.

vii   No transportation in any vehicle that uses fossil fuels, no use of electricity – even to power vehicles that don't use gasoline, avoidance of non-meat products of animals – products like leather and felt, and, of course, the food itself. No good deed goes unpunished.

Fats, Fads, and Futility

                                                                                              

There's nothing more important than your health.ⁱ Trite, but true. Another strong component of most people's thinking is belief. We all believe in something, even if it's the idea that we can't trust Congress. For most the issue of belief relates to religious teachings; for others it's the belief that all religion is fraud. (Even atheism is a religion – a belief system.) But people have belief, and if you put health and belief together and you have a powerful force – one that controls most of us.

Unfortunately, much of what we believe has little support. For example, two of my favorite foods – fat and salt – are widely believed to be detrimental to our health. I never let that stop me, however. As it says in Genesis 45:18, “Ye shall eat the fat of the land.” I certainly wouldn't want to argue with the Bible. If it says that fat is good, who am I to dispute it?ⁱⁱ I see no benefit to following the contrary teachings.ⁱⁱⁱ

But wait. The warnings are what you read in the newspapers, so you know they're true. However you read the opposite as well. A recent article in the New York Times^iv raised questions about our view of the harmful effects of salt.^v The article pointed to “a slew of studies suggesting that reducing [emphasis added] sodium to anything like what government policy refers to as a 'safe upper limit' is likely to do more harm than good.” Such studies were widely ignored however. They didn't correspond to the dogma of the times. The author of the newspaper article also stated that “(t)his attitude that studies that go against prevailing beliefs should be ignored on the basis that, well, they go against prevailing beliefs, has been the norm for the anti-salt campaign for decades. Maybe now the prevailing beliefs should be changed.”

And the harmful effects of fat, about which we're warned all the time, my be less well established than what the enemies of fat say . Another New York Times article,^vi by John Tierney, wrote, “The notion that fatty foods shorten your life began as a hypothesis based on dubious assumptions and data; when scientists tried to confirm it they failed repeatedly.” He attributed the view to a “cascade” effect in which a theory was presented which sounded plausible and subsequent experts deferred to that theory even if they couldn't confirm it. It sounded like the right thing, and most people – even scientists – aren't eager to dispute what seems true. Especially if it agrees with what they already believed.^vii

In both of the case cited above there is the disagreement among experts, but the message to the public doesn't suggest this. Salt and fat are bad. So we're told by doctors, nutritionists, newspapers, and all the other experts. Science is sloppy. It doesn't matter if the popular perception is true or if it isn't. Once an obviously correct idea captures the imagination, it is hard to dislodge it. If the media proclaim it to be true, it's true. After all, there's a scientific study which comes to this conclusion. Or, at least, a scientist. The authors of papers may have to reveal funding sources and their scientific affiliations, but there is no requirement that they disclose their political views and their pre-existing notions.

But there are also reports based on outright deceit. A single study,^viii with what has been described as “falsification” and “fraud,” led to the widespread belief that immunizations cause autism. And that view has persisted in the public mind, although scientifically disproved. As has the persistent belief that breast implants cause autoimmune disease.^ix Popular perceptions, like the ideas that megavitamins, anti-oxidants, foods said to strengthen the immune system, natural, and organic foods are good for you and genetically-altered and irradiated foods are bad, don't require proof.^x Everyone knows that electric power lines cause cancer. Why do some reject such an obvious truth? Such ideas are intuitive and, therefore, correct. Never trust a scientist or doctor.^xi Trust your intuition. Trust your gut.

But the biggest source of misinformation,^xii and a popular preoccupation of the public, can be found in the plethora of diets and the books that promote them. The simple version of weight is that the more calories you ingest, the more you'll weigh; the fewer, the less. Weight is a matter of calories.^xiii But people want magic – something that will allow them to eat what they want while shedding pounds. So there are diets that cater to every taste: diets that permit carbohydrates while limiting fat, diets that emphasize protein, high fat diets, low fat diets, low glycemic-index diets, diets that are accompanied by exercise, and those without, some supplemented by vitamins, some not, and variations of all of these. Diet books are published at almost the same rate as cookbooks. With most diets there is an initial loss of weight which sparks the enthusiasm of the followers of the plan, and their spreading the gospel of the new regimen. But later on the lost weight is usually regained – and sometimes more weight is added than was lost initially. The early results may originate in diuretic and laxative effects, as well as the enthusiasm and willingness to sacrifice of the dieter. All of these effects disappear and pall later on. So, ultimately, the diets fail.

People want THE ANSWERS to all their health problems, and they don't want to wait. They look for magic and “feel good” solutions to those problems. Belief is substituted for scientific study. And it's a strong force. So strong that convincing a believer that he's on the wrong track is almost impossible. Facts are irrelevant when compared to “obvious” and “logical” answers. But those answers are ones that the people who control our society don't want you to know. You can't trust authority.

So like other fads, most diets are doomed to failure. If any one worked there would be no need for alternatives, and no market for them. Rather, there are so many that it seems clear that none of them is worth its salt. In fact, the salt is probably more worthwhile.

As Craig Claiborne said, “Man is born to eat.” And, in the inspiring words of Orson Welles:

Ask not what you can do for your country,

ask what's for lunch.

Next episode: “7” – Other.

i        For some, politics is a strong force but many people wisely ignore it.

ii      And most of the sacrifices had salt added. Can I criticize the the desires of the One to Whom the sacrifices were made?

iii    John Mortimer's observation also has merit: “I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

iv     And, consequently, fit to print whether true or not.

v     “Salt, We Misjudged You” by Gary Taubes, described as an independent investigator in Health Policy Research for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The article appeared June 2, 2012.

vi    “Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus,” NYT, October 9, 2007.

vii   When it comes to the question of “global warming,” many attribute the statements of various scientists to political beliefs rather than scientific facts.

viii   By Andrew Wakefield.

ix     Indeed, although scientifically unsupportable, it has cost some manufacturers large sums and driven some of them out of business.

x     In fact any dispute of these views probably reflects scientific bias or conclusions driven by the deep pockets of those who gain by the controversy. It took a long time for the public to accept the fact that Laetrile was not only useless but it kept patients from getting valuable help in a timely manner.

xi     Actually that's an excellent idea if observed in evaluation of single studies, like the ones in newspapers – usually on the front page. But those are the ones that the public believes. Most scientists won't accept such studies until they've been duplicated and verified, however the failure of a study that was highly touted is not nearly as interesting, and will only be printed in an inconspicuous place on an inside page, if it appears at all.

xii    And a major source of revenue for authors and publishers.

xiii  The concept of calories was first introduced by Clément in 1842, and it referred to heat production. Later in the nineteenth century the relation to food was noted.

Double-decker Democracy

                                                                              

In the beginning was the soup.ⁱ

There were a few elements and compounds in it, and a lot of gas and lightning outside. And, according to the scientists, it was from this brew that life arose.ⁱⁱ Eventually, though it took a bit of time, there developed both jungle and the animals within it. And survival of the “fittest.” “Kill or be killed.” It was the Law of the Jungle. “Live and let live” and “Turn the other cheek” were not viable alternatives when survival was at stake.

But the beginnings of civilization – of people living together – required a rethinking of the doctrine. “Every man for himself” might have been a necessity when early humans survived as individuals, but it was not suited to group living. So the “Social Contract” was developed. People banded together to form communities to which they surrendered some of their freedom in exchange for the protection that the group offered.ⁱⁱⁱ America's founders went a little beyond that in establishing a government whose primary responsibility was defense, but there were other jobs to be performed in governing and legislating for the newly fashioned nation, so they did so. Followers of Locke, among others, they favored the idea that freedom was a critical goal, one that any rational individual would accept, and that those who did not accept the idea of freedom should be forced to do so – or at least to a limited extent – by accepting the rules of American society.

The belief in “Natural Rights” was a major stumbling block to the acceptance of the Constitution since the Federalists were reluctant to include individual rights in the document, but eventually the original document was approved with the agreement of the Federalists to pass amendments which later became known as the “Bill of Rights.” In effect, the initial Constitution and the Bill of Rights together comprise the document by which our nation was originally defined.

But times have changed. And with them, so has our Constitution. There are new amendments and new laws. Lots of them. And there is “reinterpretation” of the Constitution itself, as well as the subsequent statutes designed to implement it. As for the Bill of Rights, there is freedom of speech and the press, except …; we're free to assemble, when we're not prohibited from doing so. Religious freedom is guaranteed – freedom both of and from religion – but within certain limits; there is protection against self-incrimination unless …; and certainly we have the right to bear arms – sometimes.

There have been numerous other changes in the law and new regulations as well, and many of our citizens believe them to be worthwhile. The conviction is widespread, in the United States and elsewhere, that it is the responsibility of the State to care for its citizens, especially those who cannot, or will not, care for themselves. And the cost of such care must be borne by those who can afford it. Some consider this to be socialism, others the granting of simple Natural Rights, including, the right to food, housing, health care, and the like. It's hard to dispute the wish to help those in need.

But not everyone believes that the provision of that help should be mandated by government at the expense of all. Perhaps the idea of Natural Rights is understood differently in the various cultures around the world. There is certainly disagreement in different nations about what a government must provide for its citizens and what it can demand of them. A quick reading of the newspaper^iv will illustrate this situation. Not only do we disagree on what these rights are, but we have different understandings about their origin. Are they man-made or are they divine? Have we the right not to have the definitions of others imposed on us? Or have we the obligation to force people to be free and equal?^v

It's the age-old disagreement between conservatives and liberals. Among liberals the concept of equality is paramount. The focus begins with Hobbes's laws of nature,^vi the fifth of which reads:

The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.

But they see every man's obligation as far greater. Not only should he “strive to accommodate himself to the rest,” but he should make sure that society provides equally for everyone. Being “sociable” may not be possible without the use of taxes. Hence it is perfectly permissible to mandate charity.

Conservatives, especially libertarians, reject what they regard as a “nanny state.” They seek a situation in which, beyond their own safety, there are few controls on what they do.

Recent inventions and business methods call attention to the next step which must be taken for the protection of the person, and for securing to the individual what Judge Cooley calls the right "to be let alone."^vii

Warren and Brandeis were referring to privacy when they wrote this,^viii and it was a liberal concept, however conservatives would now apply it to all aspects of life. The uninterpreted Constitution is, for them, an estimable structure for society. The two philosophies are so different that accommodation between them is difficult to imagine. And compromise doesn't seem likely.

But there is a solution. It's a little radical, however it should not be dismissed out of hand. It would require the “reformatting” of our democracy into two parts – the first one that views the care of the needy as mandatory, and the second that wants “to be let alone.” Land would be distributed roughly in proportion to the number of those opting for each system with freedom of individuals to move from one to the other at any time, though land redistribution (according to population changes) would occur at fixed times.

Those in the first group – the one that viewed care of the needy as mandatory – would probably consist of those receiving aid from the state, as well as those who considered it their duty to provide such aid. There would eventually be an equalization of all resources so that everyone had a “fair share.”^ix People would, of course, be free to give more to the needy, but there would be certain minimums. There would be no exceptions from the mandates, including members of the government. Education would also be mandatory, but would be provided by the government, which would set the curriculum for it.

In the second group would be all those who want “to be let alone.” While they would be free to give charity, they would not be taxed to do so. Indeed, apart from what is in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, there would be no taxation. Thus, security would be provided by the State. Other services, however, would be provided on a “fee for service” basis. If you wanted your toilets connected to the sewer lines or your garbage collected, there would be a fee. And if you wanted water or other utilities you would pay for them. Schooling would not be free, and it would probably be expensive, but if you had no children you would have no bill.

Clearly there are some details that need to be worked out, but the choice of political philosophy is tempting. After all, choice is what America is all about. And the choice of where to live would give people a chance to “vote with their feet.” Chacun à son goût.^x

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where you ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,

'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.^xi

Next episode:  "Fats, Fads, And Futility" -- All I know is what I read in the newspaper.

i     In France it was the potage.

ii    There are those, especially fundamentalists, who think that the scientists, themselves, were drinking a little too much brew when they came up with this explanation.

iii    It was a little like a union. Now we pay our union dues in exchange for the organization's clout. The original ideas were developed by, among others, Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, but existed long before.

iv    Or some other medium. Nowadays everything can be found on some hand-held electronic device.

v     Whatever that means. It most likely refers to political rights, but even these vary from country to country.

vi    In Leviathan. 1651. Hobbes writes of the need for defense but goes well beyond that.

vii    Thomas Cooley. A Treatise on the Law of Torts, 1880.

viii   “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, December 15, 1890.

ix    Whether the poor all over the world would be entitled to move to this Utopia is uncertain, but the ideals it embodies suggest that they would.

x     To each his own soup.

xi    Shaker hymn.

The Court In Action

                                                                                                 

It's hard for me to determine if the Constitution is the best form of government possible, but it's what we have. I don't presume to be the best interpreter of it. That's not my area of expertise. I'm neither a historian nor a Constitutional scholar.

I can't comment on the validity of the Affordable Health Care Act that was given the green light by the Supreme Court. It's legal. They said so, and since they claimed the prerogative to make such decisions in Marbury v. Madison I have no standing to do question it. I'm not a lawyer and it's not my area of expertise.

But is it better to be healthy or sick? I can offer an informed opinion on that. I'm a doctor so I have the expertise. Even if I weren't, I suspect that I'd opt for good health if given the choice.

But I don't think that is the issue. Congress passed a statute that provided, under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, that everyone would be required to have health insurance or pay a penalty. It would not be a tax. Raising taxes is a dicey political issue and Congress made great efforts to avoid that pitfall.

Not only that, but when arguing for the validity of that law, the Executive Branch of our government emphasized the fact that this was not a tax and that its sanction lay within the Commerce Clause.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument declaring that while it was not Constitutionally valid under that clause, it could still pass muster as a tax, since Congress had the right to pass such a levy.

The President declared victory since the Court left the Act standing, but he stated flatly that it was a penalty, not a tax. He denied the underpinning of the Supreme Court opinion while accepting the decision itself. He denied the appellation of a tax, which is toxic at any time, but even moreso in an election year.

Whether Congress has the power to assess a tax on those without insurance is not the subject of the debate. Clearly Congress did not want to do so. And the Executive didn't want to defend the statute on that basis. And that is a perfectly valid point of view and action, but the Supreme Court wasn't prepared to accept the will of Congress and the view of the President. The Court, which had assumed the responsibility of deciding what the law was, preferred to declare and legitimize what the Justices thought it should be.

One of the main concerns of many Americans is about what they consider “judicial overreach.” There is a view that the courts have usurped legislative power and made decisions regarding legislation based upon their views of societal needs rather than Congress's. Even without training in Constitutional Law, I doubt that this was the intent of the Founding Fathers.

This decision cannot be seen in any other light. Although the Court rejected the wishes both of Congress and the President, the majority found a way to approve the Act. Referring to a power of Congress which it had chosen to reject, the Court allowed the new law to remaining force even as the President rejected the Court's reasoning. The Court had based its view on a right that Congress had not claimed, because it existed – even if Madison meant something different when he wrote it. The majority found a way to achieve the desired goal of universal health care in spite of the other branches of government. It legislated what Congress had not wanted.

It is hard to argue against health and for the denial of care to everyone, but it is also unreasonable to insist that the State knows better than the citizens who created it. If the courts can justify whatever they consider appropriate, whether or not Congress wants to do so, there is no longer any real balance of powers – no checks and balances. The Court claims the right to decide on Constitutionality, but as such, its mandate is to judge the laws that have been passed, not to find a way to pass their own laws and then find them Constitutional. At that point, Congress, and the Executive, which is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the will of Congress, become irrelevant. If Congress acts in a way that the courts find to be wrong, but the goal is one of which the court approves, the judiciary can write its own law, irrespective of the wishes of Congress.

Our health is critical, but so is the health of our country. And it's our country and our Constitution that are the real victims of the Court's therapy.

Forethought

                                                                                                

Young people are invulnerable. They don't think about death.ⁱ It's not on their agenda. Ask them. Perhaps that's why “risk-taking behavior” is common among the young. And there is little consideration of the consequences. They put themselves in dangerous situations and try dangerous substances convinced, sometimes, that nothing bad will happen and the situation itself will give them a “rush.”

The significance of this behavior can be seen by looking at the statistics. The first five causes of death in the 15 to 24 age range are, in order, road traffic accidents, violence, suicide, poisoning, and other injuries. For the entire population these rank tenth, twenty-fifth, twelfth, seventeenth and twentieth.ⁱⁱ Some of that discrepancy reflects the unusual nature of some causes of death in that age group, but some of the propensity for violent death is based on the fearlessness of youth and their interest in “fun,” and in the present rather than the future.ⁱⁱⁱ

We used to blame mothers for all the ills of mankind.^iv Now we conclude that evolution and DNA are responsible for most of what we are and how we act. The current idea is probably the more accurate one. The frontal lobes,^v including the prefrontal cortex and the motor and premotor cortex, as well as the underlying white matter, are considered to be the seat of “executive function” and social function, the regulators of how we act. And the greater the reliance on planning as opposed to instinct, the greater the proportion of frontal lobe size to that of the whole brain. The proportion is greatest in hominids, primates of the family Hominidae of which human beings are examples.

But just as time was required (billions of years) for the development of these regulators in living beings, time is necessary (even if it's only a few years) in the maturation of the regulator, the frontal lobes, in individual humans. Until the middle of the third decade, those lobes aren't fully developed. So in the young, reason, judgment, nuance, fear, forethought, and caution aren't all there yet. Nor is the superego.

And damage to the frontal lobes is likely to be disastrous. A wide variety of pathologic processes have been linked to that damage. “[F]rontal lobe abnormalities commonly result in major cognitive, perceptual, and emotional disturbances, such as schizophrenia, catatonia, mania, depression, obsessive compulsions, aphasia, confabulatory delusions, and the 'frontal lobe personality.'”^vi Such results have also come about through iatrogenic frontal lobe damage,^vii which, though practiced in the mid-twentieth century, is no longer an acceptable therapy because of the problems it caused.^viii

Knowing the functions of the frontal lobe, however, and the fact that it's not fully functional until the mid-twenties, thought might be given to the steps society should take to properly utilize, and intelligently limit, these incomplete people. For example, use of the young in the military makes sense. The young relate to trauma, and haven't fully developed their fear and judgment, as well as control mechanisms like the superego. Impressing them into military service makes sense – whether the service is mandatory or voluntary. They'll usually do what they're told, even if the task is dangerous.^ix Some forces routinely use children for cannon fodder. They don't think independently and can be convinced to kill and be killed. All it takes is the proper brainwashing. Those who survive, when they get older, can be made into officers since their experience will be useful along with their increased caution and forethought in the planning of military actions.^x

But a far more important consideration is that the lack of development of judgment and the ability to evaluate all available information makes the young too subject to outside influences. Respect for experience and the wisdom of their elders is certainly to be admired, but sometimes those elders take advantage of them. The “youth vote,” for example, may be manipulated by cynical politicians in the same way that they manipulate the remainder of the population. The young tend to be idealistic and very much focused on the present and the injustices of the world. They are less likely to think ahead and consider the long-term implications of the changes they support. They are prone to see one side of a story and give no credence to any other perspective. They see black and white. No gray. Good and bad. And anyone who disagrees with them is bad. Fed the proper propaganda, they can be recruited into even the most illogical position, and not recognize the folly of their conviction.^xi

The founders of our country, in the Federal and in state constitutions, were cautious. In defining the electorate for the offices which they created, they were very careful in the manner in which they set standards. Criteria included age, sex, race, and property ownership. Perhaps we would not agree with their standards, but it is clear that setting qualifications for voters was extremely important to them. The Federal Constitution left the choice of rules to the states, so there was a lack of uniformity regarding the specifics, but there was no disagreement about the need for well qualified electors – mature and “solid” citizens. And age was a critical factor.^xii Although they did not think of it these terms, experience and frontal lobe development were great contributors to measured judgment and intelligent voting.

The trend in modern times, however, has been to lower voting age. There is a view that if individuals are old enough to join the armed forces, they're old enough to vote. It's a bad comparison, since the criteria for the two are so different. One requires bravery and the ability to follow orders without question, while the other requires judgment and independent thought. Lowering the voting age to a time of lesser development of the frontal lobes simply means that we're creating a group of voters who are more subject to suggestion and propaganda than we'd like to believe we are. It will enlarge the ranks of voters, but make the words of a populist or demagogue more appealing. It would make more sense to raise the age of suffrage.

Science has helped us to learn more and more about human development and its implications. We'd be wise to make use of our knowledge. Including that about the frontal lobes. Perceived equality for the young may be at the front of our thinking, but the consequences for the next generation should not be an afterthought.

Next episode: “Double-decker Democracy” – Two for the price of one.

i     Clearly that's not a universal. Those with psychological problems – especially those serving in the military and those who suffer bullying – may see suicide as a “viable” alternative to their situation. But the concept is true for most young people.

ii    http://worldlifeexpectancy.com

iii    Some older individuals share these characteristics. Some act like children because they believe in and identify with the goals of the young, and some have just never grown up. Not much can be done about them.

iv    Generic. It includes womankind as well.

v     As the name tells you, the frontal lobes are in front; they make up the anterior portion of the brain and control such operations – among many others – as those relating to judgment, aggression, anger, fear, and personality, and the integration of many other functions.

vi    “The Frontal Lobes,” Psychiatry, 62:138:1999.

vii    “Frontal lobotomy” or “Prefrontal lobotomy”

viii    And because other therapies have been developed for some of the processes for which the procedure was used.

ix    It would be wonderful if the need for soldiers would be eliminated with an end to war. That, certainly, is the ideal of the young, but reality and mature judgment tell us that there will always be “bad” people in the world and the need to defend against them will persist.

x     However unfeeling and insensitive this sounds, it cannot be dismissed out of hand when the realities of international competition are considered.

xi    There are many “mature” individuals with the same traits, but since their thinking is as developed as it ever will be they're beyond hope. Perhaps they should play no part in society's decision-making process, but, unfortunately, they form a significant part of the population and cannot be excluded.

xii    The New York Constitution of 1771 required that a voter be of “full age.” According to Black's Law Dictionary this means that he had to be 21 for matters of common law and 25 when it came to civil law.