The Age Of Enlightenment – See It Now

There was a time when everyone believed in something. Most people accepted some form of worship, and only a few weren't convinced of the reality of religion.

The Age of Enlightenment changed that. In the view of many it was a change for the better. The exposure to new ideas, and the discrediting of many of the views and beliefs of the past, however, left some confused. To a degree, the same process had already occurred both during the Renaissance and the Reformation, but an entirely new dimension was lent to scholarship during the period of “enlightenment.”

Earlier explosions of learning had helped people understand the past; it had increased their knowledge of the ages that had preceded them – that had helped to form them. Or, when it came to the Reformation, it had rationalized their belief system by providing a group of new theologies more acceptable to a disenchanted populace than what they had been practicing. And in doing so it left them with ideas and faith that were stronger and more palatable than the ones which they had been taught, and under which they had lived.

But the Age of Enlightenment was one that tore down rather than built up. Certainly there was an increase in the appreciation of the natural sciences and of philosophy, however the new knowledge that was being developed had the effect of teaching everyone that what had been experienced in the past was erroneous. Old rules were abandoned, and old governments overthrown.

The American and the French Revolutions provided liberty to people who had been oppressed for as long as they could remember, and the exhilaration of self-rule and of freedom from the control of the unjust system that had enslaved them marked the beginning of a new era of Good.

Good, but not G-d. Nothing couldn't be explained rationally. There was no need for the mythology of the past. And that's all religion was. There was a scientific justification for everything. There was no need for any extra-rational system of thought. Religion was “the opiate of the masses,” and its only value was to keep everyone quiet and subservient. It was debunked. Stephen Hawking has taught us that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” That finished off whatever was left of faith. There was no need for an extra-rational explanation.

While Hawking's “explanation” simply pushes creation back, and doesn't really explain anything, it, and the societal changes and dogmas – Hawking's and those that came before it – that have accompanied “rationality” and the Age of Reason – another term for the period of “Enlightenment” – left many with a spiritual vacuum. Unfortunately it is a vacuum that too many were eager to fill.

For many the path to fulfillment involved a return to the religion of their past and of their family, but others had nothing in which they could believe and they sought both a new set of truths that would make sense of the world around them and a teacher or a guru who would lead them. They were a mass ready to follow a prophet who promised them the foundation they lacked. And they were ready to follow the teachings of their new leader without any thought about their validity. The invalidation of religion was the opiate of these not really liberated masses.

Sadly nothing has changed. We've had Jonestown and Heaven's Gate but people continue to seek the answer to the emptiness they face. And too often the prophets of our day have single item agendas – political, religious, or scientific – and they are impervious to reality; submissive followers are unable to deal with any views but those of their leaders, for those views have been accepted as their own. They are unable to compromise on political or social issues. Or, when it comes to religion, they are unwilling to allow others the choice of accepting another set of beliefs.

An example of such religious intolerance, and of the terror to which it may lead, is the San Bernadino massacre. Tashfeen Malik's allegiance to the Islamic State and its leaders, and Syed Farook's loyalty to a cause, are sad reminders of the power of an idea and the weakness of hollow individual wills. All it takes is a single-minded Svengali and people desperate to believe in something. It is the blindered leading the blind. Unfortunately we have too many of both. And we have too many examples of the violence that accompanies the intolerance of some.

There is no returning to the past. The jinii is out of the bottle. And we see what horror it can create. The Age of Enlightenment solved some problems but caused others. There are many paths to political, social, and religious truth – not a single one that everyone must follow. Until that idea becomes our path to enlightenment, intolerance and the refusal to accept other views will continue to cause societal dysfunction. A new Age of Reason in the future, one that has the dimensions of spirituality and tolerance, will be needed for that.

Fear Of Flying

I hate to fly. Yes I know that, notwithstanding Icarus's disobedience of his father and its disastrous consequence, flying is the safest form of transportation available. People say that takeoff, approach, and landing are the most hazardous parts of the air travel, but I know that the most dangerous leg of my flight is my trip to the airport. Other drivers just can't be trusted. Many more people die in automobile accidents than in those involving aircraft. Even in time of war. And the statistics are even more lopsided when the determination relates to the number of deaths per passenger mile.

Yet I hate to fly. But it's not any particular fear of flying. Certainly not a rational fear. (I'll admit that every now and then I have a fantasy about the airborne bus falling from the sky, but it doesn't really constitute fear, and the image disappears quickly in the face of common sense.) Every now and then there's a story in the media about an airplane disaster somewhere or other, but that's not because flying is dangerous. Quite the reverse. Accidents are newsworthy because they're so uncommon, and because they sound so horrible. What is not reported is that there are about three billion airline passengers each year with a total of 173 fatalities in 2013. That compares to 1,589 knife-related homicides in the United States alone that year. And over 33,000 deaths in American automobile accidents. Worldwide, of course, the numbers are higher.

Still, I hate to fly. And that's a little inconvenient since my daughter and her husband and six children live in Jerusalem. And another granddaughter with her husband and daughter live there as well. (There's also an assortment of other relatives, but I'll spare you.) So my wife and I take a couple of trips to Israel each year. Flights. And we take some other air trips as well, so it adds up.

I remember my first flight, in the late 1940's. It was just after the Second World War and my family flew from La Guardia Field in New York to Albany (NY) on a DC 3. Then I was scared, but by 1950, when we flew to Chicago, that was less of an issue. I can't even remember the flight. It made no impression on me. We took a tour of the States by train from there (train travel is very safe – only a little over ten times as dangerous as flying) and I recall that I enjoyed the trip greatly – especially the sleeping car. Clearly I wasn't devoid of awareness of the world around me, but I guess that flying no longer inspired fear. Even more pertinent, a few years later my brother and I traveled to (and from) Europe on the Ile de France. I did get seasick but I never worried about the ship sinking and all of us drowning, despite the fact that the likelihood of dying while on a ship journey is more than fifty times that of flying. But I digress.

If I'm not worried about flying, then, why do I hate it so? Well, let's start with getting on the plane. No. It begins long before that. The first trick is negotiating the airline's web site, and that of the ticketing agent. Perhaps it's my computer, but the sites never seem to work right. Choosing an airline for me is based almost entirely on the lowest price and flight times most similar to my schedule. I have no loyalty to a particular company so it should be easy. But it isn't. I guess the same is true for those who use other modes of travel however, so I won't pursue the issue. But I do blame the airlines for sometimes forgetting my seat or food choices. They solicit the information from me, but that doesn't always get translated into the right seat or the right meal.

I also blame them for wasting all my time with printing boarding passes which are then redone by them when I check in. And there are delays caused by a long line of passengers waiting to do so, along as well as secondary to the security check-in which requires me to undress first and re-dress afterward. I certainly feel reassured by the security, but I've never been blown up on the subway even though they lack the sophistication of the airlines.

I have other, more significant beefs though. Cabins on cruise ships may be small, but they're luxurious compared to the narrow seats on planes and the lack of adequate leg room. (And the available space – actually its absence – in the dirty toilets.) Each inch that they take from every seat may translate to more rows and more seats and, most important, more revenue for the carrier, but it only adds to the discomfort of the carried. (You can be sure I'm not going to pay the obscene premium that they demand for a first-class seat.) The lack of space also makes balancing a meal on the plane a real challenge. I guess that's just as well though since the food isn't very good. I only wish that they'd pick up the garbage more promptly rather than leaving it for me.

If there was a long wait to board the plane, it takes even longer to get off after the plane has landed. First you must retrieve your carry-on luggage from wherever it is. It's almost a sure thing that the overhead bin intended for your seat will be filled by the time you get there and the space under the seats is inadequate, and filling it with anything makes sitting even more uncomfortable. Then there's a lot of rushing and pushing to get into line to leave the plane, but that's not really of any consequence because it takes a long time for the line to move, and even after you disembark everyone has to wait by the same carousel for the baggage. If yours hasn't been lost, it will surely be the last to arrive.

And then there's the dangerous trip home from the airport.

I haven't mentioned a number of the problems like the crying babies, the cramping caused by the passenger in front of you who lowers his seat back, and the child behind you who kicks your seat throughout the flight. And the people standing in the aisle next to your seat so they can talk with their friends. But by now you get the point. What's a traveler to do?

So the next time I visit my daughter I'll probably … fly. What the hell. It's the only game in town.

The Library

There's an article on the Billboard web page of September 1, 2015. It tells of the discovery of the only known manuscript of “Good Morning to All,” by the Hill sisters (Mildred and Patty), which you know better as “Happy Birthday to You.” It was found in the music library of the University of Louisville. The article dealt primarily with the copyright of the song, but that's not of particular concern to me. I'm more interested in the manuscript itself, a manuscript lost for a long time – over half a century – but rediscovered by chance when a librarian was looking through an old sketch book.

It's hardly the first time a “lost,” or an unknown manuscript has been discovered by chance in a library somewhere. The manuscript may be music or text, but what is most exhilarating is the surprise associated with unexpectedly finding a remnant of the past – often documenting not only the thought expressed, but also the handwriting of an author who may have lived centuries earlier. (It may no longer be the case, but people used to write out their ideas rather than entrust them to a computer. Indeed, there were no computers. So you'll never find an honest–to–G-d undiscovered manuscript using a search engine.) 

Such discoveries tend to be the rarely received rewards of the dedicated researcher, although occasionally they result from a cleaning or an inventory; they're not the reason why most of us go to libraries. There was a time when people went to their local libraries to borrow books, but with the internet and Kindle^®, that use is diminishing. In fact, the sales of print books is decreasing rapidly. Not only that, but the lead of children's and young adults' books is most striking and disturbing. Our youth are preoccupied.

And, despite the treasured beliefs of college librarians, campus libraries are frequently of primary use as meeting places – both planned and unplanned. They're good places to find reasonably intelligent members of the opposite sex (or of the same sex if that's what you prefer).

But there are other libraries – ones of more interest to some of us older folk. (We have memories and longings too.) Perhaps I'm only describing my own fantasy, but the library in which I'd like to find myself has room after room of richly carved woodwork, and more books than I could possibly want, but which somehow provide a feeling of security and stability. The library is warm and quiet (though I can listen to classical music – harmonic and accessible, not discordant and modern – through my earphones) and the chairs are comfortable. The lighting is perfect, and nothing around me moves except for those who are intent on providing for me all the services of which I dream. They're people who exist elsewhere, but in my library their main interest would be in my satisfaction.

Librarians, for example, are not at all the way we tend to picture them. We usually view them as dowdy spinsters who have no life except telling others to be quiet. A more accurate picture is of someone who knows a lot, and knows how to find out what he or she doesn't yet know; the librarian is a person dedicated to helping us find what we seek – whether it's a specific fact or a book. And that's just what the librarians in my library do. Of course they anticipate what will interest me and have it at the ready as soon as I want it. (I'd have to find a way to browse through the books where I might find an unexpected treasure – either a random book or some other goody. An unknown Vivaldi Concerto, for example. But one way or another I'd manage to browse.) And, interestingly enough, the books they hand me, no matter how trashy the contents, are all beautifully leather bound. How much better it is to hold such a book in my hands, and to turn the pages than to simply view the contents on some sort of electronic device.

There are others I'd have in my library – mostly the kind of people who might otherwise find employment in a private club. It would be nice to have someone bring me a snack or a drink and clean up after me when I'm done. In most clubs they'd be spending much of their time delivering and refolding newspapers, rather than locating books, but I'm sure they'd learn. (And every now and then I want to read a newspaper.) You can be sure my library would also have another club feature – a dining room featuring exotic and delicious dishes (kosher, of course) however I'm dismayed at the thought that I might have to get up and walk into the next room. But there would be a way. Better, I'll have the food brought to my chair.

Another model with some of the features I treasure is a monastery (except for the kosher food, of course). Theirs, as far as I'm concerned, is an overly active life, but in a setting in which the monks have taken a vow of silence and there is no socializing I'd probably be very comfortable.

That's the fantasy. It's the dream of a hermit like me. I suspect, though, that if it were real and I had access to it, it would be hard to find the time. I'd have to leave my computer. But it would all be worth it for that dusty sketch book.

Keeping Up With (All The) Traffic (Can Bear)

If it sells, we'll sell it. We'll make it; we'll market it; and we'll sell it.

Good, bad? They're irrelevant issues. How do they affect society? Who cares. And R and D are moving faster than the law, so we can do it, and no one can stop us. In fact they (the IRS and the lawyers) may like what we're doing. Or, a least, the public may. They're gobbling up (Thanksgiving is coming soon ((as I mentioned in the past, I write these long before they're published)) and I like to keep up with the season) all the electronic devices that are produced – especially the ones with the most idiotic gadgets and applications.

Electronics, actually, are (is?) a good case in point for what I'm saying.

Most of the population has some kind of hand-held device. It started with cell(ular) (tele)phones. That was several decades ago. (Portable communications units date back to World War I, but the phones we now use weren't very widely used until they were miniaturized and improved near the end of the last century.) Cameras, wi-fi, streaming video, and other applications were added, making use as telephones a less significant function. And they've swept the world. It doesn't matter where you are. Look around you and there will be someone – probably a lot of people – using their tablets, phones, or other devices to work, communicate, or amuse themselves. It's hard to know how the world got along without them. (Actually, some of us still do, believe it or not.)

The “social media” developed rapidly, relentlessly, and universally, and cell phones became even more the carriers of communications than they had been. But it wasn't as telephones – their main use was for “texting” (and “sexting”). And with that, eye to iPhone contact increased logarithmically. Leading to a problem with a far greater impact: texting while driving – “distracted driving.” And resulting from such driving there were numerous accidents with injuries and deaths. Safety was a major issue.

Of course there are numerous other causes of distraction – the radio, conversation with passengers, thinking, eating, looking at maps (for those who don't have GPS), putting on makeup, etc. – but none entered the popular imagination, and the centers of fear (the amygdala and places like that), as did texting. Something had to be done.

At this time it should be remembered that the automobile has faced safety issues before, but its reaction has been different. When air-bags were first discussed for example, car makers fought the concept claiming that they would raise the cost of cars. Economics was more important to them than safety. When the government forced their adoption, prices did go up (they always go up even without change) but the manufacturers then ballyhooed the safety of their products and made the air-bags into a selling point. Economics remained their primary concern.

Reaction to electronics, however, has been very different. Manufacturers have welcomed the revolution, and incorporated it into their vehicles. They're vying for dominance in the number of digital gadgets they can add. They sell. Blue Tooth has become a major component of the modern automobile. (Not even Pepsodent can stop it – it can only deal with yellow. Buy a vehicle. You won't have to wonder where the Blue Tooth went. It's right there.) And now they're putting wi-fi sources in the cars. That may increase the amount of distracted driving, but it's good for the industry's bottom line. And economics remains the driving (sorry) force. The most logical response to the safety problem would seem to be the removal of these capabilities from cars, or at least their blocking in the front seat (if they can provide bags to keep EZ Pass from triggering, they can block texting and other signals), but quite the opposite has occurred. They've increased the capability to ignore the world. And it's helped their profits. (Coincidence? I think not.)

Don't think the car makers are insensitive to safety concerns though. They just have another way of dealing with them – better and more complex self-driving cars. It may require an increase in the number of gadgets, but people can text all they want, and they can watch movies to while away the driving time. They certainly won't have to watch the road. Perhaps that will cause a further increase in car prices, but sales and profits are likely to go up as well. Everyone gains. It's win-win. It's even good for the banks that make car loans. And electronics manufacturers, insurance companies, and auto repair shops. It's the American Way.

If we hawk it, they will buy. And there's an app for it.

At Least They Tried

About a week ago, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed or injured thirty-five people during a rampage in San Bernadino, California. They had several pipe bombs with them and additional weapons, ammunition, and bombs at home. It took less than two days for the F.B.I. to conclude that this might be a terrorist act. Quoting his father, the Daily Mail said of Farook that he “was a 'momma's boy' who supported ISIS [and] wanted to see Israel wiped off the map.” His wife had pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook. The President, however, warned Americans not to blame Islam because we should be free of prejudice. It's not the American way.

The President showed admirable restraint and concern about the possibility of Islamophobia, as he had often done in the past. This was consistent with past practices. He opposes the categorization of terrorists, and all other forms of hate speech. When terrorists in Paris had murdered Jews in a kosher supermarket, he properly asserted "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." He carefully avoided any hint of bias by calling the Muslim terrorists “vicious zealots.” And to avoid any suggestion that anti-semitism might be involved, he said that those assassinated were shot “randomly.” They were just “a bunch of folks.” It's legitimate to be “concerned.” As long as we go no further. What a relief.

But that doesn't mean that the leader of the free world didn't have potent proposals about the actions we must take. Although he may not have made any suggestions, or announced any policies (nor even the consideration of them) concerning increased security at public sites, better monitoring of potential terrorists, supervision of threats on the social media, visa procedures, or enhanced review of contacts and of travel patterns of those who might be involved in terrorist incidents, the President was emphatic in his demand for stronger actions in gun control. We all know that guns kill people and we needn't be concerned about terrorists. Our greater fear should be of members of the other party who oppose what we propose.

The New York Times concurs. Noting that some countries have strict gun control laws but have killers who “obtained weapons illegally,” the American newspaper of record reminds us that “at least those countries are trying.” The terrorists in those countries had violated the law when they obtained their guns but fortunately those whom they faced, law-abiding citizens, were unarmed. That is certainly reassuring to the families of those killed. And there is no question that strong gun-control measures are obligatory for backward nations (like ours) in which regulations are either absent or not muscular enough.

But gun control is not a universal solution to violence. In some countries violence has different expressions. For example, Sayed Farook “wanted to see Israel wiped off the map” but there the preference is for stones, scissors, knives, bottle bombs, and automobiles, so different laws would be required. Let me suggest the following:

1. Stone control, making it illegal to use stones without a background check. The check would require a minimum age of four, and a determination that the applicant have no history of mental disease. All stones and sling-shots would be photographed and registered.

2. The user of scissors would have to participate in safety training, including the caution against running with scissors. All scissors would have to have rounded tips and safety catches to keep them closed.

3. The purchase of knives would require a license – whether the instrument is intended for kitchen or outdoor use. Background checks on chefs and all women would be instituted. Knives could not be concealed. The individual implements would have to be stored between murders in child-proof closets. If used for kitchen work as well as murder, washing with an anti-bacterial solution between uses is recommended.

4. Bottle-bombs are complex combinations of glass bottles, inflammable substance such as kerosene, and flame. All require controls. The bottles themselves must be approved by organizations supporting BDS to ensure their origin in an acceptable location; the kerosene would be required to have certification by OPEC; it would be necessary to register the flame. While this may be difficult, law-enforcement agencies must be supplied with tools to detect flames and they must be authorized to confiscate illegal combustion. An exception would be made for cigarettes. The banning of matches would require further study.

5. It is noteworthy that automobiles are frequently used in order to kill Jews. While existing motor vehicle regulations are extensive, it may be necessary to outlaw all motorized vehicles since they are potential killers. Camel travel should be explored.

No change would be made in current regulations involving other weapons since that would limit military training and use and, more important, would impose an unfair burden on smugglers.

In the United States, however, the answer to all violence is gun control. It will certainly be comforting to anyone who has been shot to know that his attacker, by carrying a weapon, was doing something illegal and that no one was so unpatriotic as to try to categorize, or use an illegal weapon in opposition to the attacker.

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

My intent is not to denigrate the importance of reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons available, but to suggest that the willing disregard of important parts of the problem in order to remain politically correct and to promote a political message ensures only the opportunity to blame someone else for your failures, rather than policies that deal with all of the causes of a problem will be likely to solve at least some of them. The desire to assign responsibility is probably the case. But the goal has to be to solve problems rather than fault someone else.

People Don't Need People

I lied. Well I didn't exactly lie, but I've changed my mind – and several other things. At the end of my last essay I wrote “Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Past” – Or the forgetfulness.” Maybe I'll get around to that and maybe not, but I realized when sitting around that I'd already achieved my purpose.

Since I began spawning these narcissistic forays in October of 2010, I've written close to 375. I've spoken quite a bit of what's on my mind and, by and large, virtually everyone must agree with me since only one person has taken issue with what I've said. I refuse to believe that the reason for this is that no one is interested, but even if that were the case, if others actually read what I write, there would be concurrence with my thoughts.

Anyway, the first of my essays, “Prolegomenon,” appeared on October 5, 2010, and in it I wrote

I hope that others will benefit from my wisdom (which is a given if they read this), but even if not, just putting ideas on screen allows me to consider and develop them. I can confront my own rare logical weakness when I see (and recognize) it in front of me, and, since I always agree with the point I am trying to make, that helps me reinforce and strengthen my arguments. I make no pretense as to fair and balanced opinions. The views are my own. If I present someone else's, it's only to expound on why it is wrong.

I'm sure that the message is clear, but just in case let me explain myself. I've used this tool to help me work out some of the questions that have occurred to me – to try to come up with a better understanding of the issues and to decide on the correct answer (not just for me, but the TRUTH) to the problem I've been pondering. And I did this without even consulting Douglas Adams's computer. The answer – and it is the ultimate answer to cause of the world's problems – is not “42,” but “people,” and the computers they construct and program. If there were fewer people there would be fewer problems. And if there were none, there would be none.

The idea is, at least as far as I am concerned, worth some dilation.

Whatever issue I consider – politics, hostility in the Middle East, religion, constitutional freedoms, or almost anything else – the cause of the difficulty is human. For example, if the government isn't working (“Why,” you ask, “did he use the word 'if?' The government never works”) it's because no one is willing to hear the views of anyone who disagrees with him or to compromise; when (not “if.” I know it will happen, and I know that you'll smirk at “if”) an instance of terrorism occurs in the Middle East, it is because of people's beliefs or fears. Some people who call for freedom of speech demand that right only for themselves and would deny it to those who disagree with them; and those who are believers blame evil on people, who have free will, while those who are atheists have no choice but to agree that people are to blame.

Pogo put it best. “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We're our own worst enemies. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) practices “one-upmanship.” It's as important to us to defeat the “other” as to be right. Too often our goal is not just to help me (a more or less “acceptable” aim), but to beat you (which is more “problematic”). We're always looking for an angle or a loophole. We can't get along with each other because we always want to come out on top. Right and wrong are irrelevant.

Whether you're a Darwinist or a believer, your object is survival. It may be personal, patriotic, or religious – or there may be some other aim. But in order to accomplish it you must conquer your enemies. Life is a zero-sum “game.” Everyone's in it for himself. The one who dies with the most, wins.

The recognition of human responsibility for all our ills confirms my wish to be a hermit on a desert island. The fewer the people the better. The fewer the people, the fewer the problems. Cooperation is an illusion. Some information is OK. It's nice to be connected to the world – to know what's going on – as long as no expectations or obligations accompany that connection. Any interactions with the other participants is certain to lead to disharmony at least, with deception and competition more likely outcomes. Who needs that? I'm from the live-and-let-live school, and that will only work if I stay away from others.

And I've achieved my goal because that's the answer. It's the answer to all our problems. People are responsible. (Other people, of course.) So to have the fewest problems, stay away from people. And recognize their position as the sowers of discontent, as I do. So having clarified the issues I had five years ago, it seems to me that I have nothing to gain by continuing this series. At least not on a regular basis. If there's a particular situation or subject I want to discuss, I'll do so, but there won't be any pattern to my postings.

You're on your own.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Well, maybe there'll be more.  People may be bad, but I'm not.  And I have more to say.  I can't help it.  Tune in next week ...

Say It Isn't So

According to Reuters (and many other sources) “Princeton University has pledged to consider renaming buildings dedicated to former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in the latest U.S. campus effort to quell student complaints of racism.”

It's about time!

Students have pointed out, quite rightly, that those of the past have not lived up to our twenty-first century standards and should be held accountable.

And the New York Times agreed. “Student protesters at Princeton performed a valuable public service last week when they demanded that the administration acknowledge the toxic legacy of Woodrow Wilson, who served as university president and New Jersey governor before being elected to the White House.” If the Times says it, it must be true.

But the protests do not go far enough. We should begin by renaming our capital's most striking monument. George Washington was a slave owner all his life, only agreeing that they be freed after he died. In fact, we should rename the city itself. Racism is wrong and we cannot condone it, especially in the name of our capital. Instead we should switch to the District of Columbia – except Columbus oppressed Native Americans and took their land. (Indeed, we're obliged to change the name of the school which has hosted so many protests.) That won't do for a country as great of the United States of America. (Actually we'd better rename our great country since Amerigo Vespucci “captur[ed] some 200 Native Americans in the Bahamas to take back to Europe as slaves.” – check the internet and see http://ageofex.marinersmuseum.org/index.php?type=explorersection&id=166

Clearly this is a matter that the Democrats should discuss at their next Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner (both were slaveholders), and they should then rename the occasion – except I don't know to what.

Republicans can deal with the issue at their Lincoln Day Dinner (of course the Emancipation Proclamation was a political statement rather than a philosophical one, even though Lincoln favored a policy of no new slavery) after altering the appellation.

Changes in thought, beliefs, and preferences have occurred over time and we must not honor those who shared the views of their times if those ideas are now considered reprehensible. Those who favored expansion of our country at the cost of Native Americans, often breaking treaties with them, should be shunned; slaveholders and other racists should be reviled; religions that proscribe women as leaders cannot be tolerated, nor should we memorialize their members. (We can, however, ignore the fact that President Roosevelt turned away the St. Louis, and the founder of the New York Times was determined “not to have The Times ever appear to be a ‘Jewish newspaper.’” If we were to apply the same rules to anti-semitism we'd wind up with no one to honor. And, as that great philosopher Tom Lehrer said, “Everybody hates the Jews.” Always have, always will. Let's let that one pass.)

Our problems are that we're arrogant and we're revisionists. We're convinced that our principles are absolutes, and violation of them invalidates the rest of someone's life. We second-guess the past in the light of current beliefs and rip pages from the history books if they don't conform to our standards. We don't want to see and honor the past, we want to transform it into a prior present. Dogma trumps education and achievement.

But we shall be judged by the standards of others in the future as we judge those in the past. Perhaps our descendents will consider abortion to be murder, or our attitudes toward prostitutes to be too restrictive, or too lenient. Perhaps they'll feel that those who favor incarceration of criminals or the use of service animals are wrongly restricting the freedom of members of the animal kingdom. They might even consider protesters to be disrupting the freedom of others. And they may obliterate any reference to anyone holding such views, or tolerating those who do so. They might require a “donor's advocate” to defend the placing of a philanthropist's (or anyone else's) name on a university building, in order to prevent the pollution of future seekers of truth.

Or perhaps we should recognize that times and prejudices change, and that we only harm ourselves when we suppress the knowledge of what actually happened before, and when we deny honor to those who may have accomplished great things but who had opinions that differ from ours.

The Earth Moved

“What these streets need are new streets.”

That's what my wife said as we were driving along in our community. The street was bumpy. In part that was the result of some work by Con Ed, who had put in some new gas lines recently (allegedly repairing the roadbed when they finished – however they left the streets far worse than they found them), but there were also numerous contributions of the weather, age, and previous repairs of various types. So after all the years, the street was a mosaic of different materials and levels, with potholes, cracks, and broken asphalt and concrete.

No, that's being too generous. “Mosaic” suggests beauty, and the road is anything but beautiful. It's literally a patchwork, disturbing to the eye, to the rest of the body, and to the vehicle. They didn't patch it very well. In addition to wreaking havoc with the automobiles, it also punishes pedestrians, who often choose the street as a pathway to some place or other. It's especially hazardous at night when, because the holes sometimes go unobserved under non-functioning street lights, tripping and falling are especially common.

But sometimes people use the streets because the sidewalks are similarly dangerous. Since they're maintained by the various landowners, they aren't all of the same material. And many of them are broken. Some portions are at different heights from the adjacent sections – either because of tree roots or aging – and they're very narrow in spots. In autumn, when they're covered with leaves, you can't even see them. And when, after a storm, they're covered with broken tree limbs as well, they're all but impassable.

So I was relieved when I saw construction vehicles and repair trucks appear, though I didn't know where they'd start with all the work that needed to be done. It didn't take long to find out. Their work was at the corners, where they were constructing ramps from the impossible streets to the impassable sidewalks. Some of the ramps weren't even down to the level of the streets, ending an inch or two too high. Some terminated in broken areas in the street. They had been built, presumably, to ease the transit of wheelchairs to and from the sidewalks, but the poor construction, and the fact that they were only on some of the corners, made them ill-suited to the task. Because there were sewer grates at some of the corners and obstructions at others, the construction seems to have been done only where it was convenient.

But that was okay. I've lived in my neighborhood for nearly fifty years and I can't recall ever seeing a wheelchair – motorized or manual – on the streets. I suppose there are some and I've missed them, but there certainly aren't many. I'm reasonably observant, having earned my living as a radiologist, and I've spent my life seeing large things and noticing small ones. There was, however, an alternative explanation which should have been obvious to me. Those who cannot get around without a wheelchair were simply staying home because of the lack of ramps. They would come out when the work was done.

Unfortunately they didn't. I looked for them but my search was futile. Actually that didn't surprise me all that much. I sometimes deliver meals to the home-bound, and I've never seen a wheelchair in any of their homes. I don't think they hid them when I came, however I can't be sure. I guess it's just as well, though, since it would be a rough ride for them.

However that leaves open the question as to why the ramps were built now. And the question of why there was no repair of the streets and sidewalks. For those befuddling mysteries the only conclusions I can come up with are that there was money available for this specific project, and the deadline was coming up soon. Or another possible explanation is that the Federal (Feral?) Government mandated them everywhere – whether they were needed or not; they were required whether it was a wise use of taxpayer money or an offering to the gods of political correctness. The differently abled (see, I know the drill) among us are entitled to help, no matter what it costs us. (The politicians certainly won't pay for it, though. We will.) It might be cheaper in some locations to purchase chairs that can climb a step (and if they don't exist commercially I suspect they can be constructed for far less than the cost of the ramps), but that probably is not an approved use of whatever grant is paying for the work. (I hope the next grant of tax money isn't for “wheel” as well as “walk,” buttons to stop the traffic at all corners. Of course the buttons would have to be built low enough for the wheelchair bound to reach, and also made child-proof.)

Nonetheless, we can all be relieved that our leaders are taking responsibility for those who require help. And I'm glad my car isn't disabled yet, so I don't need smooth streets.

Yet.

Next episode: “Remembrance Of Things Past” – Or the forgetfulness.

DWI – Turkey

No. This is not a new crime show based in Europe and Asia. In fact television has nothing to do with it. But let me not jump the gun. First let me relate what just happened. I'm too tired to get involved with side issues.

I was driving home from Thanksgiving dinner which we had with my sons and their families. We do that every year, on the Sunday after Thanksgiving. People usually have more obligations than they can handle already on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day, so we've taken to observing it on Sunday. We merge the celebration with one for Hanukkah, which almost invariably takes place at a later date (last year was a rare exception).

Anyway, we had turkey with all the fixings, even though I'm not a big fan of the bird. Finished off with pecan pie which I do like. By that time it was getting a little late so we decided to drive home. I'm a slow, law-abiding driver and we wanted to beat the Sunday night traffic jam.

I was in the slow lane (of four) when I saw a sign saying that the lane would end in one-and-a-half miles. Since there were no cars near me I moved one lane to the left. Almost immediately I saw red and blue flashing lights behind me, so I moved back into the right lane. There was still plenty of time before the lane would disappear, and I wanted to give the police car plenty of leeway to go after the lawbreaker. To my surprise, though, it moved right also – immediately behind me. I hadn't been speeding and I assumed the trooper's concern had something to do with my moving out of the slow lane.

I'm a good citizen so I pulled off the road – way off the road so I wouldn't confuse any other drivers. The police cruiser pulled up behind me and stopped with its lights still flashing. Two policemen exited from it and one came up on each side of my car. I must admit that I was relieved that their guns weren't drawn. I lowered my window.

“License and registration, please.”

“I moved over because the lane is ending.”

“License and registration, please.”

“I wasn't speeding.”

“License and registration, please.”

So I gave him my license and registration which were both up to date. And my car had been inspected. I couldn't figure out what he thought was wrong.

“Were you texting?”

“Of course not!”

“On the cell phone?”

“I don't even own one. Or any of those modern devices. I don't believe in them. I even have manual transmission in my car.”

“Been drinking?”

Now I have to admit that I had a glass of wine with the meal, but that was almost three hours earlier and I couldn't imagine that it was affecting my driving.

The other trooper didn't wait for my answer but pulled out a couple of funny looking devices and handed them to the officer next to me.

“Breathe into this.”

I did. Then he handed me the other.

“Breathe into this one too.”

Again I did as I was told. But I was completely confused, and I demanded an explanation.

“Why did you stop me? I was obeying the laws and I was driving safely.”

“You were swerving from one lane to the other. I'd call that distracted driving or driving while impaired.”

He looked down at his instruments.

“Your blood alcohol is normal, but you have an elevated tryptophan. Looks like you overdosed on turkey. That's illegal in this state. The tryptophan in turkey makes you sleepy. Everybody knows that. Your wife can drive you home.” He took a quick sniff in her direction. “Her breath smells okay.” That lifetime supply of Sen-Sen really paid off.

I should have expected it, but I had paid no attention when they started putting up signs saying that turkeys wouldn't be sold to people under 18. It didn't apply to me so I didn't bother to think about why that was the case. Anyway, the officer said the level was only slightly high, but it's better to be safe than sorry, and he didn't think the judge would be too hard on me since this was a first offense. But I'd be wise in the future not to eat turkey before driving. It's a dumb recommendation, but it's fine with me since I don't ordinarily eat any.

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

Alright. I made it up. And turkey doesn't have any more tryptophan than lots of other foods. Less than some. But “everybody knows” that turkey makes you sleepy (not really), and it's “better to be safe than sorry.” Something doesn't have to be true to be sanctified and codified by society. It just has to appear on the front page of the Times to be accepted as gospel. Confirmatory studies are of no interest, and if they appear at all it will be on an inside page. So we jump the gun. Why take the risk of immunizing your child. It may cause autism. It doesn't matter if people die because they, or their peers, aren't immunized. And depending on the latest news, fats, or coffee, or carbs, or vitamin C, or something else, is good for us or bad for us – but it's better to be safe than sorry.

And that's one of the many problems with our society. We have a great need to do something. Especially something everyone knows is good. It may be that we follow some old wives' tale, or an untried treatment for a disease that doesn't exist. It may be a policy change in politics or education or security, but we have to do something. “Don't just stand there, do something.” No one is comfortable wasting the time to find out if what they heard is really true. They'd prefer to look for the solution before they've explored the problem. So there will be a committee, or a law, or some new bureaucratic regulations. But it's better to be safe than sorry. After all, what can go wrong?

Oh well. That's the way we are. I'll tell it to the judge.

Love And Marriage

It shouldn't be taken as cause and effect. It's just coincidence. My last essay dealt with the death sentence and this one with marriage. But there's no relationship between the two. At least not in this case. (The Gentleman doth protest too much, methinks? Nah. The essay is all true. And I consider being called a “Gentleman” an insult.)

Sex, love, and marriage. They're three very different states and acts, but there are also times when they're connected. The order of the three, however, – if, in fact, all apply in a particular instance – is quite variable. What used to be conventional, and is still often the case, is love, marriage, and sex (l/m/s).

The original pattern, which pre-existed any emotional or legal attachments, was sex. Period. It was practiced throughout the animal kingdom – usually, but not invariably – without any hint of monogamy. It was instinctual and enjoyable, and contributed to the survival of the species. And, prior to the institution of religion and secular law, unaccompanied sex was also the pattern among members of our species. (Unaccompanied by love or marriage. Wash your mind out with soap if you put another construction than that on my words.)

But homo sapiens became “civilized,” and adopted the trappings of a civilized society. And that society demanded formalization of the pattern and the creation of the family. (The pattern was formalized at least on paper – or pottery or parchment – however less “civilized” practices persisted off the books.) But that pattern (l/m/s) has withered as the polite rules of society have broken down. (It may have worked in my time – and it's still practiced by many – however it no longer seems to be the standard.) People are less “hung up” on the strictures that previous generations mouthed. The taboos of the past are gone. What used to be called “free love” – now simply termed “benefits” – is considered the norm. The incidence of “out-of-wedlock” babies and single parent families has risen rapidly in recent decades, and the rate of abortions has also grown in order to clean up the mess that our new morality encourages. Sexual mores (read: “more sex”) have changed, times have changed, and so have societal expectations.

A rabbi I heard (I can't remember who it was) pointed out the current pattern in American society (and, presumably, others as well), was l/s or s/l, and sometimes m. Pleasure and emotions take precedence over order and the future. In Orthodox Judaism, however, the pattern is the opposite – m/s/l – with marital stability most important and the raising of children a priority over the physical aspects of sex (at least in theory). It results from the disposition to arrange marriages – the province of the parents rather than the participants. Interestingly, divorce rates are lower than the norm and, by definition, so are single parent households. (The same, of course, is true in other cultures that favor arranged marriages.) Not all of the unions are happy or survive, but most do because the expectations of the participants are different from those of other wedded couples. Their commitment is to the marriage and the family, not as much to themselves. Of course the same can be said of many marriages based on love.

The idea of an arranged marriage, however, is anathema to the romantic notions which our society promotes. There's a lot to be said for love, but outside of movies, magazines, and fairy tales, it is, itself, a novelty. Actually movies, magazines, and romantic novels today are more reflective of the new concept of morality than the old. And television seems to be leading the way. Sex seems to be the focus of relationships, with love and marriage only secondary features. Freud would approve. The pleasure principle has triumphed over commitment.

I found the following on the web site of the American Psychological Association. It's adapted from the “Encyclopedia of Psychology.”

Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.

(The point is often made that in a home where there is discord, it is better if the parents divorce rather than try to make a go of it for the sake of the children, who will be scarred by the environment in which they are raised. While there's much that can be said for that perspective, a union based on passion rather than pragmatism is more likely to fail and necessitate divorce.)

Robert Epstein, a Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology reports:

“... feelings of love in arranged marriages tend to gradually increase as time goes on in the relationship, whereas in so called “love marriages,” where attraction is based on passionate emotions, a couple’s feelings for each other typically diminish by as much as fifty percent after only eighteen to twenty-four months of marriage.”

That's not so unexpected since in arranged marriages love was not a consideration prior to the union, whereas in marriages based on love – love often misrepresented in the media and in romanticized mythology and fairy tales – there's a lot of room for unmet expectations and dashed hopes. So if a marriage is based on unrealistic dreams rather than a commitment of a family, it's less likely to survive.

The primary component of a successful marriage is commitment. (My wife and I have been married over 55 years.) Love changes over time and, under the right circumstances, deepens. Finding the right mate based on passion and “love at first sight” is all too often a myth. Mr. Right is in her mind, and Ms. Right in his. Their commitment and cooperation are necessary, along with a reasonable of shared likes and dislikes.

Sex can be a nice bonus, but when it comes to marrying, sex is no substitute for real love – or for the wisdom of one's parents.

Next episode: “The Earth Moved” – At least the sidewalk.

The Olympics, Academia, And ISIS

The Greeks had a word for it. In fact, they had two words: Ολυμπιακοί αγώνες, Olympiakoi Agones, the Olympic Games. According to Wikipedia, the “athletic competition was tied to worship of the gods, and the revival of the ancient games was intended to bring peace, harmony and a return to the origins of Greek life.” So that the games could take place, a truce was declared suspending ongoing battles. And the prize for winning an olympic event was an olive branch. That's not to say that olympic ideals were always met, but those were the goals.

When the games were reinstituted at the end of the nineteenth century, they were restricted to amateurs, the “lovers” of sports, and they were designed to bring peace between nations. Indeed, one of the olympic goals is to “[c]reate a window of opportunity for dialogue and reconciliation, separate from any religious, economic or political influence.”

Unfortunately, the olympic ideals have been sacrificed over the years to dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity. Officials have been involved in corruption, competitors have used drugs to improve their performance, professionals have been accepted into the events, and, worst of all, as time goes by the “games” (they aren't really games any more) have been more a matter of politics than sport. Hitler politicized the games in 1936, and the Palestinians ascended to the world stage in Munich in 1972 by attacking and killing Israeli athletes. High ideals were betrayed – both by the people who were promoting them, and those with a political message.

Academia has seen the same kind of dishonesty. Universities have been functioning for centuries. For most of that time they have been viewed as places of learning, where our youth would be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and to explore the merits of scholarship other than that which they had met earlier. They would have the opportunity to consider and debate views that might be inimical to them, but which they never completely understood before. They expected others to be tolerant of their views as they would reflect on the ideas expressed by those others. That was the point of education: to determine if your preconceived notions stood up to challenges, and to offer counter-arguments to the contentions of others. It was a safe place to express yourself – whether in a formal setting or a bull session.

In recent years, however, those ideals have themselves been challenged and often betrayed. “Relevance” and anti-war sentiment were the themes of students toward the end of the twentieth century, and they were accompanied by the demand for free speech. They insisted that they be heard. It was a time when political sentiment was moving to the left, and they were a part of it. They were liberals and concerned for everyone. So much so that they avoided any reference to others that might be considered derogatory. Language was changing and euphemistic terms replaced the blunt descriptions we had of others (eg “disabled,” “short,” “retarded,” “blind,” “fat,” and the like). You had to be careful when you spoke. But you could speak.

However you can't always do that anymore. Times have changed. Free speech and the exchange of ideas aren't always tolerable on a college campus. That's an overstatement. Free speech is available to protesters and protected classes, but not to those who disagree with them. The “safe space” that once existed in order to allow those who disagreed to air their views without disparagement – and gave others the chance to hear them and, possibly, to learn from them – has been supplanted by a place where only your truths may be spoken and no one may disagree with you. You'll be comfortable and not face the “risk” of exposure to unacceptable views. You may not learn anything, but for your (parents') tuition money you can rebel and protest in peace. Those who disagree will be shouted down (much to the delight of protest organizers and the press) or, if they're faculty members or members of the administration, denounced, and forced to recant or resign. That's not the conventional way to learn about the USSR or Orwell, but it's as close as many college attendees (I hesitate to use the word “students”) will ever get.

It's also close to the procedure of ISIS. They're a bunch of people with fixed, if somewhat frightening views (and a huge income from stolen oil). And they don't tolerate disagreement. So while rioting college students may sometimes force university officials to apologize for disagreeing with them, at the risk of having to face sanctions – they must plead for their (academic) lives – from their faculty organization or the administration, ISIS requires more. There must be an admission of evil deeds and a demand that the subject's government change its policies to suit their needs. It is part of a ritual which they videotape in order to get publicity. Then they behead the one who has done the pleading (that's the French Revolution's approach to the problem), unless he converts to Islam and accepts their views. Even then, his future is not certain. There is no truce and the only chance to achieve peace and harmony is on their terms – by acquiescing to their view of the “worship of the gods.” It was good enough for the Greeks, though they were unbelievers and would also have lost their heads.

Dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity.

Perhaps there are times when the end justifies the means. Perhaps there are times when the end is justified. But that's not always the case.

Bully For You

We are a society that is confused. We have conflicting views both about the value of life and the conditions that justify its ending. (The end justifies the end.)

And the confusion – or better the inconsistency of our views – is manifested in very contrary ways. There are those who cry out loudly at the possibility of abortion, while promoting the death penalty and supporting the gun industry, and others who favor abortion and assisted suicide but consider the death penalty as sanctioned murder. Of course, there are some who are more consistent in their outlooks, but they're not newsworthy.

The rewards for the killers of animals are often higher, and the outrage louder, than for humans. We've come to accept the death of our fellow men as usual. In times of war the body counts may be in the thousands or tens of thousands – and sometimes large multiples of these. Unfortunate, but c'est la guerre. And we, in America, rarely face war ourselves. We even pay “volunteers” to fight and die for us when a conflict arises abroad. We can express our views without any personal risk. Medals aren't that expensive.

War at home, however, is more chancy for the average citizen. According to the New York Times (not the most reliable of sources, but I'll leave that for another time): “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities.” And the murderer is often caught, but that presents us with a new problem – what do you do with him (or her)? What should be the penalty for murder? In 2007 the United Nations (like the Times, quite unreliable despite our hopes) called for a moratorium on the death penalty (Resolution 62/149). According to Wikipedia (itself not the most reliable of sources, but you get the point) there are 102 countries that proscribe it entirely, with an additional seven countries that only permit it for war crimes. Nonetheless, there are still 87 countries around the world that permit it under some circumstances. The majority of our own states still permit it, although many of them have not practiced capital punishment in recent years. (And the Bible permits it for certain offenses.)

But the reality – that of the existence of capital punishment – raises the question of whether it should be practiced at all. Some family members of individuals murdered would forgive the killers, but the majority are less understanding. Whether they seek vengeance, or simply justice, they call for the punishment – often the execution of those who have taken their loved ones. And they fear the possibility that the killer will one day escape or be released, or that he will murder again either in the prison or outside.
However there are many who believe that the government should not be involved in killing people, and that our tax money should not be used to support such a practice. They argue, quite convincingly, that there are inequities in its application, plea bargains by those who can afford good lawyers, and there have been instances when innocent people have been executed. Their primary solution to these problems is imprisonment – often a life sentence without the possibility of parole. That, in their view, is more humane. 

But is it? Or is it cruel and unusual punishment? What would be the perspective of a twenty-year-old who knew that he would die in prison after years of abuse by other prisoners and by sadistic prison guards? Would the prospect of fifty years of bullying affect the thinking of someone who already felt guilty for taking the life of another person? And if he preferred to die, would we let him? We may favor assisted suicide in general, but might prohibit it in this instance, believing that our government should play no part in the taking of a life. (Only the free are entitled to kill themselves.) Not only that, but there are many who would argue that lifetime imprisonment with no hope of anything but solitary confinement or bullying is fitter punishment of a murderer than letting him off the hook immediately. Perhaps this perspective contributes to the frequency, by murderers, of “suicide by cop.”    (Admit it.  You're opposed to the death penalty because you think that life in prison is crueler, and more deserved.)

The pragmatic, discarding emotion, may balance the costs of lifetime imprisonment and execution, remembering that the latter, if not the former, would be accompanied by years of appeals – some mandatory – placing a great burden on the judiciary. It would be cheaper not to seek, try, or punish murderers, and that would also eliminate the possibility of convicting the wrong person. If the family suffered because of the lack of closure it would be a necessary and acceptable forfeiture on their part to favor the economic and ethical needs of the community. As would the losses suffered by the families of additional victims of murderers. And there is plenty of room for debate over whether the possibility of capital punishment has any preventive effect on future crimes.

It is too much to expect anyone to view all killing as wrong, or to caution against any. War will always exist as will the call for defense, rather than turning the other cheek.  For both soldiers and civilians we allow murder, and even encourage it, during war.  (We cannot forget the firebombing of Dresden and other cities, the atom bomb, and the refusal to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, in addition to the straightforward killing of enemy combatants.)  Whether abortion is acceptable will also remain a subject of debate as will euthanasia and suicide. But remaining blind to the justifications, various implications, and results of particular kinds of killing is not a service to the community. 

 And, when dealing with individuals convicted of murder, "sensitivity" and "understanding" are not always services to them, or to the families of those murdered.

Next episode: “Love And Marriage” – And all the variations thereof.

Pot Luck

“When was using heroin, she lied, disappeared, and stole from her parents to support her $400-a-day habit. Her family paid her debts, never filed a police report and kept her addiction secret – until she was found dead last year of an overdose.” New York Times, October 31, 2015.

It's a sad story but, unfortunately, not unique. In 2013, the last year for which I could find statistics, nearly 9 thousand others suffered the same fate. (Additionally there were numerous deaths from other addictive drugs, including prescription medications.) There's a lot more to consider in the story, though. And many questions that are raised by it. [See also “Bowerman, Fixx, And The Mexican Cartel,” March 6, 2011]

The Times report makes us grieve with the parents, while noting the fact that they had contributed to the problem both economically, and with their silence – their cover-up to protect their own, and their daughter's reputations. We grieve even more for the girl who, for reasons we cannot imagine, became addicted, and lost her life to the addiction. They are all responsible for a preventable death and for the sorrow that surrounds it. They share the guilt, though only the parents are left to suffer, and they will do that for the rest of their lives.

But responsibility is ours as well. We are a society that deals with the drug problem more emotionally than rationally. If there are people who gain riches from the drug trade we spare no expense to track them down and prosecute them, whether high or low level, whether American or foreign. Indeed, we spend large sums to destroy poppy fields in other countries, and to aid in programs that identify and capture drug profiteers in other countries. Consequently our expenses for law enforcement and foreign aid to deal with these goals is tremendous.

And there are additional costs incurred in the justice system – the police, courts, prisons, rehabilitation facilities, etc. – and in medical facilities and funeral costs. There are certainly questions about where a young girl can get $400 each day to support her habit. It can't all have come from her mother's purse but, more likely, resulted from other violations of the law including stealing from others and placing them at risk. The costs of helping an addict's victims – money, medical costs, psychological help – and for the policing that accompanies an addict's crimes, are other drains on tax revenues. If someone is mugged or murdered to help an addict support his habit, it is destructive and expensive for society.

There are, of course, other ways to gain the funds necessary. They include the sale of stolen property, the sale of drugs to others, and the sale of self. Prostitution and illegal drugs are closely-linked “industries.”

So to deal with all these problems, we are attempting a “war” on drugs. It is our goal to eliminate the scourge. But prohibition didn't work when we tried it before. It simply created a criminal industry. Clearly it isn't working now. Nor are existing drug laws. We simultaneously delegitimize most narcotics while making the use of marijuana legal, and even praise its effects. (How fortunate for pot and its users.) What message do we send? And what are our youth to learn from a society that makes other drugs illegal because they are addicting and dangerous, while taxing us to support a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? (Its budget, by the way, is over $1.2 billion annually.) The Bureau helps us tax these addictions while paying more tax to support the agency itself.

Why do people take drugs? Certainly peer pressure and the quest for adventure contribute. And there are those who take drugs (or drink) to escape reality. An important additional factor, however – one on which the other reasons may build – is rebellion. Most addicts begin at an age when it is fashionable to mistrust authority and to taste “forbidden fruit.” If your parents, teachers, or other authorities say “no,” it's obvious that you'll want to try. If no one cares, neither will you.

Suppose narcotics were legal. Suppose they were provided by the government (along with education and rehabilitation) at low cost and without stigma. The savings in law enforcement (and supervising government bureaus) would more than pay the costs of such a program. And the revenue from taxing producers could also be used for this purpose. The distribution by the government might also remove the attraction for some users and lessen the numbers, as well as lower the incidence of associated crime, because costs will be far lower. Taking the profit out of narcotics is likely to have a greater influence on the drug trade than policing or payments to foreign governments. (And it will eliminate, or at least sharply decrease, the injuries and deaths that occur during drug raids.)

For those who do take drugs, however, the distribution by the government would allow better supervision, education, medical and rehabilitation. (It will also take away the temptation to defy the government – at least this way.) And the materials distributed would have a known potency rather than pose the risk of drugs purchased on the streets from unknown and unregulated sources. That, by itself, should decrease the incidence of overdoses and other toxic reactions.

The families of addicts may complain that we're sanctioning a deadly substance, and that someone who hasn't lived with an addict can't imagine how horrible the disease is. And they're right. But the goal is to control the disease better and – as cynical as it may seem – to face reality. That's the approach we've taken with alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, automobile deaths and those that happen in the construction industry are predictable, but we try to regulate rather than criminalize them.

Perhaps that's the way we should go with drugs.  It's worth a try.

Next episode: “Bully For You” – I hope you like bullies. There are lots of them in jail.