The Children of Sandy

                                                                            

There seems to be an assumption that some time around the end of August and the beginning of September there's likely to be a marked increase in births on the East Coast, nine months following Sandy. It wouldn't be a surprise, but that's not my primary interest today though it is worthy of mention. Rather I'd like to consider some of Sandy's other spawn.ⁱ   They have been devastating, although behind every cloud ...

Too often we must deal with an “act of nature”ⁱⁱ and from its consequences. We view these situations as unavoidable and, while some of the results are predictable and can at least be modified by proper preparations, they rarely are. We can often offer warnings of the impending danger and sometimes, but not always, persuade the threatened individuals to seek protection. Not everyone is persuaded however, and many people elect to “ride out” the danger.

A few weeks ago “super storm” Sandy attacked the east coast of the United States and left chaos in its wake. New Jersey and New York were the hardest hit, but other areas were involved as well. The term “super storm” is not hyperbole. Many lesser events, however, have resulted in similar, if less severe, damage, and I shall list some of it here, because if we are to prepare in the future, it will be important to know some of the threats we face, and how we might have lessened the risks.

The greatest tragedy, of course, is the human one. It is a difficult one to avoid. Deaths and injuries occur,ⁱⁱⁱ but the risk of rebuilding in dangerous areas^iv should be recognized and the act discouraged, however we, as a society, support it.^v We do so with insurance, FEMA, subsidies, loans, tax breaks, and the like. However admirable that kind of assistance is, it would be better for the government to declare such a location a “dangerous area,” off limits – certainly an area where a similar avoidable tragedy awaits those who choose to put themselves in harm's way. As for those who are determined^vi to remain where they are, of course, we are obligated to rescue those people – whether the threat results from a natural disaster or from a risk taken voluntarily by the particular individual. That category would include mountain climbers, boaters, or others who need to be rescued from their own machismo; they battled nature and lost. But it is reasonable to charge them for the service, not have it covered by other taxpayers, people who are too intelligent to try to prove their daring with death-defying feats – and that includes living in a demonstrably dangerous area.

The human toll may not all be direct or immediate. Loss of power and heat in hospitals^vii and nursing homes may be responsible for physical harm, or may require the risks of evacuation and relocation as well.^viii As will the emotional injuries involved in these situations and in separations.

But while deaths and injuries (including those of pets) may be the most newsworthy results of the event, the greatest impact on most people in our country is financial, consisting of property damage, including, among other things, environmental damage^ix and the destruction of homes, as well as damage to utilities with its repercussions and damage to businesses, leading not only to the physical damage but to loss of business income and the loss of jobs.

With the devastation just cited, there is going to be a huge fiscal burden that both those directly involved, and the rest of us as well, will have to bear. Some will be for property – replaceable and irreplaceable – that was damaged or lost. And some will result from service losses. Those related to power and heat^x have been mentioned, but others will come up – like thefts from homes that have been battered and are in need of repair – during which time the inhabitants may be living elsewhere.

Another category of thefts involves the scams perpetrated on the victims. There come in the form of prepaid costs of rebuilding that doesn't occur and loans that are never given. Those are only samples. Ingenious crooks will certainly find other ways to profit from the losses of others.

Others certainly do. Many existing business, like construction firms, get additional jobs which arise from the destruction. And most advertisers alter their text to make reference to the incident and tell how they have suffered too. And they declaim their desire to be part of the solution. So, for a limited time, they're lowering their prices, especially to victims.^xi After all, they're victims too and know how important it will be to act now. And there are lawyers, moneylenders, and insurance companies that want to help as well.

But every disaster – indeed, every challenge – presents some opportunities as well. First of all, there is the opportunity to consider our responses to disasters generally, including plans to deal with them and to give greater thought to the propriety and ethics of permitting rebuilding at government expense in unsafe areas. And with every rebuilding effort there is the need to employ people who are out of work and the opportunity to utilize newer standards and materials that will lessen the possibility and severity of future losses.

What is also very important, though, is how we have responded to Sandy and to prior disasters. People have contributed time, effort, and property to the recovery efforts. Indeed, people are usually faster at getting to the scene of a disaster than governmental agencies, they're more willing to offer their services, and they're less hindered by red tape. The cost of a bureaucracy need not be deducted from that of their effort. It's true charity, and includes, in addition to the wishes and moral support we offer, direct contributions of cash, housing, food, concerts and other fund raising efforts. It brings out the good in our fellow men. Their efforts contribute to the present and the future, both physically and spiritually. They are a critical accompaniment to the preparation for whatever may be anticipated.

And that is where we should be focusing our thoughts. However heartbreaking the losses and however the consequences traumatize the survivors – and all of us as well – the chance to adopt policies to minimize future disasters and their results should be the favored response. More than mourning the past, however important that is, we need to deal with the present and plan for the future. Such preparations will be the best of Sandy's children.

And next autumn we can rejoice in those opportunities with our future.

Next episode:  "It's Their Job" -- Picking and choosing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i      I admit that I don't know if “Sandy” is a male or female name, and that “spawn” is really a female term, referring to strewn eggs, but the results of the storm are what is of interest, and they're the same irrespective of Sandy's sex.

ii     Acts of Man (generic) may cause some of the results described herein. Tragedies like that in Newtown, Connecticut, certainly led to deaths and there will be great psychological repercussions, as well as costs to the government and taxpayers, but they will be dealt with at another time.

iii     As does psychological damage, which may be devastating.

iv     That's a hard term to define, but after an area has suffered from a particular kind of disaster – fire, flood, tornado, mudslide, storm – a certain number of times, it might be prudent not to underwrite further rebuilding and habitation of an area where a repeat episode is predictable.

v      And when we aid in rebuilding in a place susceptible to a repeat of the disaster, we are encouraging that rebuilding, and the inevitable results in terms of the human, as well as the property loss, that are certain to occur.

vi     Some cannot afford to move and for them there should be assistance in relocation. FEMA and the Small Business Administration may help with immediate needs, but Government purchase of threatened land will often be a better start. Indeed, consideration should be given to condemnation and expropriation of property whose owner will not leave. Although the victims may not be enthusiastic about such a solution, compensation and relocation may be the least wrenching way of dealing with potential recurrences of both the calamity and of the pain they are currently enduring.

vii    And, of course, the loss of power and heat may result in illness as well as discomfort to homeowners, as well as food spoilage, which may cause further illness.

viii   Apart from the need to relocate those in threatened healthcare facilities both before and after the event, there are many healthy people who may need such services either before the event – to avoid death and injury-- and afterward who, because of damage to their homes or its destruction, are left homeless.

ix     For example, Sandy resulted in extensive beach and boardwalk damage.

x     Or anything else that eventuates in someone having to pay the costs of unanticipated transportation to the home of someone who was not directly involved in the problem, or the costs of other habitation, like a hotel. It also involves unexpected delays for those away from home and and unable to return because of the need to limit flights. That, by itself, may lead to loss of work days and the wages that would otherwise it. One more fiscal repercussion of the disaster would be the government's (the taxpayers' – your) contribution to rebuilding – especially public buildings like schools, whose students and staffs will lose classroom days.

xi     Previously advertised “sales” are forgotten and the disaster is now the reason for their magnanimity. It's often just a change in the text of their ads, not in the prices of their products.

Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood

                                                           

Quite a collection.

It's hard to know where to start, so I'll begin with a little background on each before getting to the point: Richard Brodsky was a New York State Assemblyman (1983 to 2002); Edward G. Robinson (1893-1973) an actor; General (George S.) Patton (Jr.) (1885-1945) was a United States officer during the First and Second World Wars; and Robin Hood, who may have been mythical, but if he lived at all, it was probably some time between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries.

What have they in common? It was a noteworthy view of human nature, responsibility, and man's relationship with his fellow.ⁱ Interestingly, the most memorable of them is the least believable. In all likelihood, the Robin Hood we all know was a conglomerate of various different legendary characters, and the act for which we most remember him – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor – wasn't attributed to him until about the nineteenth century.ⁱⁱ Still, whether or not he ever actually existed, his name will always be associated with this particular version of resource distribution – a kind of medieval socialism that was instituted by an individual rather than by the government.

Richard Brodsky's view – actually it was proposed as a governmental policy – was that an individual's most personal physical resources – his organs – would be up for grabs after his death. It would be presumed that he wished to be an organ donor unless he specifically denied such a choice,ⁱⁱⁱ and his heirs couldn't overrule his “wish,” whether expressed or assumed. One might wonder if it is ethical to impose such a policy.^iv However the view that the resource should be shared – that there is no inherent property right unless it is demanded – is considered more pressing than views in opposition. And there are many ethicists who support that view.

The ideas of these two – Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky – would be imposed on people irrespective^v of their wishes. Their views might be wise policies in some sense, and ethical in the view of those who want a share of the resources, but they are not voluntary. They reflected the philosophy of those who favor “the greatest good for the greatest number” – which is, in essence, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^vi That is another way of saying that we are may take property from those who have it, and we should give it to those who don't. It's up to us. We are entitled to dispose of the property of others if that is what seems fair to us. It's the philosophy of socialism and was the way Karl Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows.

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” That was General Patton's take on bravery and responsibility to one's country and countrymen. Patton was a soldier and a patriot. He knew about love of country, responsibility, and bravery. He knew of those who had died to protect their fellows and their country. But he also knew that such actions were not the general ideal, even if necessary in some cases. Better that the forces of the enemy die than that you do so; better to kill than be killed. Don't turn the other cheek or a blind eye to tyranny. Many might not view this as the ethical position, but they're usually those who preach from the sidelines.

Patton's position was more like capitalism than the others. His perspective was very different from that of Karl Marx, and from the way Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows. Patton instead believed that the best thing you can do for your country was to keep and preserve it and your own most important property – your life; not only weren't you obligated to give your property for your country, but he discouraged it. True, there were times when it might happen, and they might be the result of governmental decisions, but they were “collateral damage” and were regrettable rather than the specifically desired outcome.

Sol Roth, the character played by Edward G. Robinson in the science-fiction film “Soylent Green,” had a different view from that of his society. Living at some time in the future,^vii he learned of a conspiracy which was contrary to his view of human behavior, and he related it to his friend, Detective Thorn (Charleton Heston). Both were appalled by it. So much so that Roth chose suicide (in the form of government-sponsored euthanasia) while Thorn was shot^viii trying to expose and stop what was happening. It was a time of overpopulation and food shortages. And, unknowingly, society had turned to cannibalism. There were forces^ix that took and processed into “vegetable” wafers the corpses of those who submitted to the euthanasia provided by government, though those who chose this option presumably trusted society and were ignorant of what would then happen.^x Almost no one was aware of the next step for them, and there was no knowledge among those others about the source of their food.^xi The conspirators, who made large amounts of money in the process, used human remains in place of other food sources – sources that had been exhausted. The entire body was the possession of the state and there were no property rights at all. And it is hard not to wonder if this is the direction in which we are heading.

“Life, liberty, and property.”^xii These were the three legs of the stool on which our country was founded. They were the basis for our separation from Great Britain. Unfortunately they are no longer fashionable. Individualism and individual responsibility no longer exist. They are outmoded. General Patton spoke out for them and Sol Roth died for them, but Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky had other ideas and favored the redistribution of “resources” – society over the individual.^xiii

So always ask what your country can do for you. And whine about your need and the unfairness of someone else having what you want.

Never ask what you can do for your country. The politicians have already figured it out.

Next episode: “Sandy's Children” – First the bad news.

i      In Robinson's case he portrayed such an individual.

ii      J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, cited in Wikipedia.

iii    Actually, rather than his wish, it would be his denial in writing of a contrary assumption. If he disagreed with the policy he would have to opt out. But even if he knew about such a possibility, he might not take the time to act on his wish. So for most people the default position – one that could not be overridden – would hold sway.

iv     Is it ethical to impose such a policy? What are the ethics of preserving resources for future use and denying them to those not considered valuable to society? Is euthanasia ethical? Who decides in particular cases? Will presumption of wish to donate, along with the need for transplantable organs, lead to other medical decisions than would otherwise be taken? What are the religious implications?

v      Notwithstanding Mr. Brodsky's presumption, the failure to opt out of a program is not the equivalent of a decision to opt in.

vi    Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” (1875) – Many consider “ability” to mean property or resources. While this is not a precise definition, it expresses Marx's view.

vii    2022 to be precise. The movie appeared in 1973.

viii   And presumably killed, though this is not explicit in the film.

ix     It's never made quite clear who they are.

x      Roth did know, and it is ironic that he chose euthanasia. But it was an easy, and depicted as desirable, method of dealing with the intolerable situation. Both he and Thorn knew that irrespective of their efforts, there was no way to end the conspiracy. It was too profitable and too useful in wake of the overpopulation.

xi     In all likelihood they wouldn't have cared. Self-preservation was all that counted and as long as they had food it wasn't important where it came from. Dirty as they may have been, they were cleansed of morality.

xii    The “Pursuit (not achievement – emphasis added) of Happiness” – was the phraseology used in the Declaration of Independence instead of “Property” which had had been the term earlier, but it is clear that the Founders were referring to the right to own property which, at that time, was an evidence of liberty. Indeed, “taxation without representation” – the ability of a government to take your property without your consent – was viewed as tyranny.

xiii   Property rights no longer existed either for the deceased or his heirs. The dead gave all for society. It was the greatest good gone mad. Except for those who profited.

Richard

Chicken

                                                                               

Did you ever hear of the goose that laid the golden egg. You probably did, and I'm not going to tell you about it anyway. We have a better and a current example of a similar but also opposite phenomenon. Our government is in the process of laying an egg, but it certainly isn't golden. In fact, it may drain us of gold rather than bring it to us. And the cause of it all is that our leaders are playing chicken.

They tell us that they are willing to compromise, but their principles prevent them from going further, and they demand that the other side be more forthcoming. It's basically a difference in political philosophy that is bringing us closer to the “fiscal cliff.” And it was planned that way. Both the liberals and the conservatives, wanting to avoid a contentious fight over taxes and entitlements earlier, kicked the can down the road – they put off decision-making on our fiscal situation until after the election and assumed that the impending problem would force a compromise.

We're now down the road. And the can is just in front of us. But no compromise seems likely to occur. We're faced with a situation in which there aren't just two sides, but many. Intra-party disputes prevent a unified position even where that would seem to be possible. It prevents the Republicans, who control the House of Representatives – the body that is charged with responsibility for originating money bills – from even voting on a compromise approved by their leader. Disputes within the party are severe enough to eliminate the possibility that they will all support such a bill. And the disputes are framed as disagreements over principles and political philosophy.

And the negotiator for the Democrats is the President, who has the responsibility, as head of the Executive branch, of approving or disapproving acts passed by Congress – the Legislative branch. Having set preconditions to the discussion – he, too is acting on principle – he has declared that he will veto any bill that does not increase the taxes on the “rich.” Instead of simply exercising Executive function, he is in the middle of the Legislative process. The “Separation of powers” is a fiction.

So both political parties, and all factions in them, claim to be acting for the good of the country, as is demonstrated by their determination to stick to their guns and take no prisoners, refuse to reach a compromise. But the reality is that their hope is to strengthen themselves for the next election. For each of them the only course is “my way or the highway.” They'll find a way to protect themselves, however, and if others suffer it's for a good cause – theirs. The argument for refusing to find common ground is that doing so – compromising – will require that they accept something with which they (or those who might vote for them) abhor. “My way or the highway.” But certainly not your way. We won't cross the road to get to the other side. We won't even come to the middle of the road. That's too dangerous.
When the stock market collapsed in 1929, Variety's take was “Wall Street Lays An Egg.” Now it's the government's turn. Now it's the fiscal cliff that we're going over. We won't be rappelling and there's no bungee cord. It's free fall. In fact, “free” is the problem – free spending on those viewed by some as freeloaders versus free enterprise, what others see as a free ride for the rich. And neither side will give.

The result of this game of Chicken will be economic ruin for many of our citizens. But, as the saying goes, “You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.” In this particular instance the eggs are the American people, and those who say this are usually hard-boiled, and have their own shells intact.

Of course we can always kick the can a little farther and let someone else solve the problem.

Thank You, Eve

It was an apple.

Or was it a date?

Or a fig?

Whatever.

Whatever it was, when Eve gave it to Adam the human race grew up; free will came into being. Adam didn't sin – it was only Eve.ⁱ In fact, there's no evidence that Adam sinned even later on, except, perhaps, by not admitting – by trying to hide the fact – that in his ignorance he had violated Hashem's wishes. Let me explain.

It cannot be denied that Eve chose to eat whatever it was after G-d had placed it off limits. But that choice was not an example of free will. Eve simply did what she was told to do by the last person (in this case a snake) who spoke to her. It was a very child-like kind of obedience, trusting whatever she was told, and doing what she was told. She wasn't really sinning. For, at that point, the last thing she had been told was that she should not fear eating the fruit. So she ate. Clearly she should not have offered the fruit to Adam. But she did. And like a child, he did the last thing asked of him, and he ate it.

When Eve ate the appleⁱⁱ she had no knowledge of right and wrong, so it is hard to fault her for her decision. But by the time she gave the fruit to Adam she had already eaten and she knew. Giving it to him was an act of free will, demonstrating a desire to involve him in the wrong she now knew she had performed.

There has always been a problem among mortals of reconciling man's “free will” and G-d's omniscience. They cannot both be correct according to the logical principles we understand. In a previous messageⁱⁱⁱ I have addressed the issues of foreknowledge and Hashem's control of whatever happens in the world, and I pointed out that foreknowledge doesn't necessarily imply a choice to control. I was troubled by my own result, however, recognizing that both His control of the assignment of our DNA, and the environment into which we are born, ensure the result that is manifested in our behavior. Thus our “free will” is informed by a combination of Nature and Nurture, both of which He has determined.

So in order to move on, I have to accept the obvious – the recognition that there are some things I don't know and that, in fact, will never be known. (From a religious perspective, I don't understand G-d's ways, while from a scientific perspective it's hard to make sense of the idea of conservation of mass and energy when there is no logical explanation for the origin of either.^iv) There are some questions we can't answer, and shouldn't try. Better to accept our ignorance and move on – proceeding with the issue on the table. We may be begging the real question, but we have no choice.

So is there free will? It certainly feels as if there is. At every turn I face situations in which I must make choices. For many of them the choice is between “right” and “wrong” as I was taught them. But in many of those cases it may be advantageous to be “wrong.” I sometimes believe that I benefit from doing what I know is not approved. What should I do? It's up to me. That's what choice^v is about, and that's what is controlled by free will. When a governmental project conflicts with my wishes and I am required to pay taxes to support it, I have lost free will. When the government decides to use my tax money to feed the poor it is giving charity in my name. Without debating the need of the hungry or the moral imperative to give help – a virtue that should be a part of everyone's life – it has robbed me of my free will and of my personal opportunity to be charitable. The government has taken from me the chance to make my own decisions. It has done it for me. I no longer have the opportunity to freely obey G-d's will or to disregard it. Morality is mandated. When Congress chooses to make war, those who disagree have no say in the matter. They have no choice but to pay for it or go to prison.

And thus we have lost free will; we no longer have the option of choosing to do what we consider right. If that's the basis of the religious concepts of reward and punishment, they no longer make sense. Without free will there can be no justifiable consequences related to making “right” or “wrong” decisions. Even if we don't see those consequences, the belief that they occur implies the presence of free will in us. Lacking such belief we place ourselves back in the world of the Law of the Jungle. And of the government. Even if Adam and Eve never existed, the government will not let us sin.^vi In fact it will do that even if there is no such thing as sin.

Because she transmitted to me the free choice that G-d had given humanity, I am grateful to Eve. I'll make mistakes. We all do. But knowing that I may do wrong, I can choose to do right rather than be forced to do so – or at least what some politicians or bureaucrats decide should be done. It's my option.

But because our government, by mandating its particular brand of morality, has largely taken away that option from me and from^vii our citizens, I grieve for our future.

Next episode: “Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood” – Philosophy 101.

i      What he did, though, was to vocalize, for the first time, the most famous phrase in the English language: “Yes, dear.”

ii      Or whatever fruit it was. I'll choose apple because that's the usual term used.

iii     See “The Need To Know,” March 20, 2011.

iv     The whole idea of a debate between theists and atheists makes no sense at all. Both groups have well developed belief systems. They may argue vehemently about the validity of their systems – and there may be arguments between what are usually considered religions as well – but no one has the answers and no one is likely to get them.

v     The United States Supreme Court established “choice” – in a case centered on abortion – as a basic part of “privacy” which it viewed as one of our rights even if not listed in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. By doing so the Court, in essence, decided that we all have free will and the constitutional right to use it. Sometimes.

vi      Or perhaps they'll do it for us.

vii    Actually what's mandated if the kind of “choice” that will earn votes for those politicians who seem to support it. And for many of them morality is not their strong suit.

Mom, Spinach, And The Supreme Court

                           

“Put on a sweater. I'm cold.”

I bet your mother said that to you. And she insisted that you eat your spinach because Popeye and other trained nutritionists said it was good for you.ⁱ And besides, there were children starving in Europe.ⁱⁱ That's what I was told, and I did as I was told, but I never really understood the ideas behind these pronouncements. I knew it was “for [my] own good,” but the details were a little hazy. And she also wanted me to get a good education. She wanted me to do better than herⁱⁱⁱ and my father.

Now I know it was a little like an insurance policy. If I paid the price^iv I might get the benefit. Might. There were no guarantees. It was gambling. Like the stock market. Or the lottery.

If you're going to gamble, though, the lottery's the way to go. The cost is low and the payoff could be humongous.^v But the chance of winning is infinitesimal.^vi Wishing won't make it so.^vii

Well, maybe it will. The issue may have more to do with intent and wish than with fact. At least that seems to be the Supreme Court's stand, and since they make the laws we have to take their decisions seriously.

Last June, when it rendered a judgment on the “Affordable Care Act,”^viii the Court ruled that, for the most part, the legislation passed muster.^ix Specifically the decision was made that the “individual mandate” was defensible, even if not the way Congress wanted the law. But to do so – to make the act Constitutional – it was necessary to “interpret” the law in a way contradictory to what Congress and the President expressly wanted. The Court decides what's legal, though, so they can do that, and substitute whatever suits their philosophy.^x

In this instance the bill was constructed in a manner which was expressly intended not to raise taxes. The individual mandate would result from Congress’s commerce clause powers^xi and the act contained a requirement that those who elected not to have health insurance, as was their right, would be subject to a “penalty” – a “shared responsibility payment.” But there would be no tax. This was specifically stated because raising taxes was viewed as unwise politically. According to the Huffington Post, “the actual text of the bill^xii uses the word 'penalty' – not 'tax.' Even Obama, while the law was still being debated in Congress, insisted in a September 2009 interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos that his health care overhaul was 'absolutely not [emphasis added] a tax increase.'"^xiii But, as Derek Thompson, a senior editor of the Atlantic, noted in the publication's June 28, 2012 edition, “five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose^xiv using its taxing power. That is all that matters.” Consequently, in terms of legislation, the will of Congress – the Legislative Branch of government – is not relevant. Nor is that of the President. Congress could have legislated a tax if they wanted to, so even if they didn't want to do that, the Supreme Court has decided that what they view as Congress's intent trumps what it actually said and did.^xv Wishing can make it so. Congress wanted universal insurance and they could have legislated it. Therefore it's legal. It's also good for the individuals involved – whether they think so or not.

That was mom's view. She honestly believed that the sweater and the spinach were good for me and the children in Europe. They were a good insurance policy. Whether what she said made any sense, she could have made a logical case for her decision if she had chosen to. After all, she had the right to do so.^xvi And “That is all that matters.”

Which brings me to the lottery and my fortune. I'm sure the Supreme Court will support my contention that since I could have chosen the winning numbers – I was legally entitled to do so – I should be awarded all the prizes to date. My intent and my wish were to win. Wishing makes it so. Consequently I claim the $550 or so million up in the next^xvii “Power Ball” lottery. Even if I lack the luck to pick the right numbers, I'm certainly permitted to do so and “[t]hat is all that matters.”^xviii The Fourteenth Amendment, and all that's said about equal protection, make my claim as valid as those who favored the Affordable Care Act. At least according to the precedent set in deciding its validity. The Court will certainly see that my intent was to win, so even if I didn't choose the right numbers, I certainly could have chosen them, so it will be hard for the Justices to deny me the prizes without retracting their decision on Obamacare. They may not want to, but they've already decided that wishing, intent, and legal ability are what really count.

Oh. You have to buy a ticket? Well that shouldn't affect anything. I could have bought one.

Thanks mom. You were right about the sweater and the education. (I'm less sure about the spinach.) And some time soon I'll be able to buy a very expensive sweater. And one for you, too. There's no reason you should be cold.

Next episode: “Thank You Eve” – The Devil made me do it.

i      Spinach was believed to be very high in iron. As it turns out, the original calculations may not be accurate. In addition, the high oxalic acid content limits the absorption of iron. There are, however, high levels of vitamin A and antioxidants present, though the significance of their addition to a well rounded diet is not clear.

ii      Of course there were children starving elsewhere as well, but our focus was on the continent that had just gone through a world war, and we were Eurocentric – even though the word had not yet been coined. But we weren't self-conscious, nor were we guilt-ridden about our focus. Now you're more likely to hear a reference to somewhere in the “Third World” as we strive to prove that we are diverse, multicultural, sensitive, and inclusionary, in keeping with the modern vogue.

iii      Or is it “she?” I always have trouble with that construction.

iv      In these instances the price was directed at modifying my behavior (after all, how likely was it that my spinach would actually help the children in Europe, and who wants to get out of bed and go to school anyway – but mom's reassurance made it all worthwhile) rather than any fiscal layout, however to some even this seemed to be a little high in view of the negligible chance that there would be a specific payout. And if there were, we probably wouldn't recognize it.

v      Slang. It's not in my copy of the OED (Second Edition – 1991) but someday will Well not in mine, but in a new edition.

vi     Perhaps not. I think that it's possible to win every time. Legally. In fact, I could be a billionaire. And so could you. But more about that shortly.

vii    This, too, may need reevaluation.

viii   ACA and “Obamacare” are two ways that the more polite among us refer to this program. Others are not so generous, citing issues of individual liberty as the reasons for their concerns about the legislation.

ix    It was decided that the Federal Government could not withdraw existing Medicaid support from states that balked at significantly increasing the number of those eligible to receive this entitlement. Otherwise everything was copacetic.

x     The concepts of “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” no longer apply. The Supreme Court, like mom, is in charge, and there is no appeal from its decisions.

xi     Of course nothing in this clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution) that deals with this issue or even implies any connection to health care, but the Court has expanded its scope at will. According to Wikipedia, “During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited.”

xii    I must admit that I never read the bill. It's far too long. In all likelihood, though, it wasn't read by most of the people who voted for it. They simply did what they were told.

xiii  June 26, 2009. Of course Congress's position, and that of the President, were well reported elsewhere as well, so that taxpayers would know that no one was raising their taxes.

xiv    If it wants to.

xv     What makes it a little harder for me to understand, however, is that the Court decided, when ruling on the legality of the individual mandate, that, despite Congress's wishes, which it ignored, this was a tax (intent was not relvant) and the commerce clause didn't apply, but, when dealing with the argument that the case should not then have been in court and decided, because taxes cannot be challenged until they have been paid (as per the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867) – and that has not happened yet – ruled on the case because, according to the Court, the act does not apply in this case since Congress used the word “penalty” instead of “tax,” signaling Congress’s intent that the Anti-Injunction Act should not apply in this case. The Court ignored Congress's wish that it not a tax, but after deciding it was a tax ruled that laws regarding taxes didn't apply to it because Congress didn't want a tax (intent was all that was relevant). I guess I don't understand because I have no legal education and lack the legal sophistication (sophistry?) to appreciate the nuances of the decision.

xvi     Some children's rights advocates might not accept this view. 

xvii    As well as the prizes in all previous lotteries.

xviii   Everyone else is equally entitled to win, so don't tell them my plan. At least not until I collect my fortune. After that I won't care and they can divide it all among themselves.

Growing Down

                                                        

The states of our health and our well-being, have never been greater. And, to a very great degree, we have medical science to thank for that. That's what has happened with time, and there is every expectation that continued research will lead to further improvements. We have made childbirth – the continuation of our species – less hazardous, we've improved nutrition, conquered many diseases once believed to be incurable, lessened pain and other feared symptoms making the end of life more bearable for many, and advancements in care have increased our lifespans significantly.

But life could be better, and society as well, with some changes in our normal development, and it is in this area that I think medical research can have its greatest impact. Let me explain.

It's normal for a baby to soil himselfⁱ making extra work for his motherⁱⁱ who is trying to deal with the other children – her own and those over for a play date – who are running and screaming like wild animals.ⁱⁱⁱ In addition, as teenagers, it will be normal for them to know everything (ask them if you don't believe me) and to find fault with their parents and grandparents, who actually have greater knowledge along with experience and wisdom. Those in their twenties and thirties are likely to be physically stronger than those older or younger, with the elderly being especially frail.

And the same young and middle-aged adults can be expected to have prodigious appetites for everything, especially food and sex.^iv It's the time when most young women want to have children^v and there are always men eager to indulge them (and themselves). Once those children have completed their education and are out of the house and beginning their own families, and once the parents have recouped some of the expenses they incurred rearing the children, they're put out to pasture. It's harsh to characterize retirement that way, but many people consider it in those terms. And, sadly, that's the way it often is. As one of my friends put it, “anyone who considers these the 'golden years' must be young.” With them come aches and pains, memory loss, the loss of other capacities once dear, and loss of energy and strength to tarnish those years. Oh well, you can always look forward to dotage.

The various stages of life are described by many great writers. Over the years not much has changed in the order of things. But I suspect that with a little tinkering by our medical scientists, geneticists, biochemists, and their ilk, we could rearrange things a little.

For example, it would be a relief to mothers (and fathers, too) if babies weren't incontinent. They're likely to have that problem in their eighties or nineties (if they make it) anyway, so why not combine it all in that stage. And give the energy of children to that group of seniors so that we don't have to take care of them. In exchange perhaps we could take their wisdom and experience and give them to the teenagers so they can start to realize that they don't know everything. Soon enough, with the proper education to provide knowledge to accompany the wisdom, they may start acting like human beings. Meanwhile, with their energy levels reduced significantly, children will be easier to manage by overworked mothers. And possibly, if some of that energy could be transferred to fathers, they could help a little when they came home from work.^vi

We need to work on dad a little, too. In the first couple of decades of the marriage his energy at home seems to be focused, in large part, on mom and the bedroom. Mom often has mixed feelings about the whole thing because of the possibility of pregnancy and nursing in the middle of the night. Society has convinced her that she is a bad mother if she resorts to a bottle, so while dad can ignore the problem at two AM,^vii mom has to get up and feed the baby. The best solution is to lower the sexual appetites of the two – to put their peaks off until later in life. In the meantime they can get the rest^viii they need to help them through the day.

A good time to restore the urge to mom would be just after menopause. There would be no fear of an unwanted pregnancy that way.^ix Perhaps we should wait a little with dad just to be sure. Give mom the opportunity for a fling or two. Many of the men with sexually transmissible diseases will have died off, or become less of a risk, which will be of great benefit. But when dad does return to the field of battle it will be with less strength than he had a couple of decades earlier. In fact there's a good possibility^x he'll have ED by that time and have lost his ability, if not his interest, in becoming a dirty old man.

I'm sure you can think of other changes you'd make. It's a new science. But soon enough we'll have perfect specimens to clone. We're already working on designer babies so it's simply a matter of deciding what we want. And the alterations that I'm proposing would not only benefit the individual, but society as a whole.

There's a Nobel Prize waiting out there. Go for it.

Next episode: “Mom, Spinach, And The Supreme Court” – Food for thought.

i      I know that's not PC. Make it “herself or himself” or, if your grammar is faulty, “theirself.” And make appropriate changes when necessary in the remainder of the essay.

ii     Don't criticize me for sexual stereotyping. I'm simply recognizing reality, not prescribing what some members of society want to be the case.

iii     No slight on wild animals is intended.

iv     The appetite of teenagers for sex is also great, although fantasy is often more the issue than reality. A teenage boy (there I go again) however, is likely to indulge his huge appetite for food the moment it crosses his mind.

v      Leading, of course, to the situations described above.

vi     I'm stereotyping again.

vii    And four AM, and midnight, and whenever else it's necessary.

viii   I should have said “sleep.” “Rest” is subject to misinterpretation.

ix    It would be good for society as well. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would minimize the political problems, as well as the medical costs, of abortions.

x      A very good possibility for many wives. Anyway he's a pig and it serves him right.