The Imperious Loudmouth

I used to view myself as an imperious loudmouth – a curmudgeon who knew everything and wasn't interested in the views of others. But it's clear to me that I have to surrender the title. There's no question that Donald Trump is dark years ahead of me in the category: a veritable black hole.

As a Republican running for president he has negative views of possible Democratic opponents. Clinton is “a major national security risk” and “not presidential material,” while Sanders is a “wacko.” (Actually I'm concerned about both of them, but I'd describe them otherwise.) Indeed, the entire Democratic Party shows “total weakness and incompetence that gave rise to ISIS.” Not surprising. He's running against them.

But he doesn't have the nomination yet, so he's still insulting the other Republicans in the race for the nomination. “Hypocrite,” “clueless politician,” “loser,” “ liar,” “weak,” “nasty,” “dumb,” “weak,” “puppet,” and “lightweight choker” are just a few of his appraisals of other contenders, and he is quick to say aloud, or to “Twitter,” offensive remarks about anyone who disagrees with him or with whom he disagrees. Being Trump “means never having to say you're sorry.”

Donald Trump is a man who has never spent a day in public office and, without any knowledge or experience (or program), wants to start at the top. And he has several advantages that may make the quest a little easier: first of all, he's rich and can generously fund his own campaign. He has no record in office and, thus, none to defend. Having offered virtually no platform apart from the derogation of others, he has provided little of substance for others to evaluate and criticize. His past attempts, however futile, to establish a gambling empire, fade in light of his wealth and know-nothing populist charisma. The latter is really a strong point. He has no filter, and, on the spur of the moment, says whatever comes to mind. As such he says what many others are thinking but are afraid (too smart?) to say. (In fact the only thing that most people remember him saying is “You're fired.”) Like all populists and rabble-rousers he radiates strength. He's afraid of no one. And no country. And he can whip a crowd of true believers into a frenzy of mindless passion. Lenin would view them as “useful idiots,” but Trump considers them a power base. And he would never accept the idea that anything Lenin said has any veracity, even if he would ape his tactics.

But Trump is a bombastic bully. His approach is combative – to “shoot first and ask questions afterward”; to “shoot from the hip.” He's a “loose cannon.” He swings wildly. He not only calls a club “a club,” but he seems eager to use it. Perhaps his threats will play well among potential voters, but there is a grave risk, if he wins, that the leaders of other nations will consider those threats too stark to be ignored. And they will be especially wary, recognizing his brash behavior and his unwillingness to listen or to lose. Or to learn. He's a man who won't back down, even when he has created a dangerous firestorm. Others will have to take him at his word and act accordingly. (The only time he “explained” one of his remarks occurred when he saw public reaction to his refusal to condemn David Duke or to refuse his endorsement. He was asked about that and blamed his reaction to a “faulty earpiece.”) They will be especially alarmed at his lack of experience in diplomacy and compromise, and the uncertainty that this causes may goad unfortunate acts on their part.

Perhaps what he says reflects the views of advisors in regard to winning the nomination, and he'll change afterward. But I doubt it. His past media performances suggest that we're seeing the real Donald Trump. Even if that is not the case, however, any candidate who would choose advisors as cynical as his might be, is “more knave than fool.” Whatever is the case, however, he is not one to be trusted with leadership. Apart from being rich and a star of “reality” television, his only public record is as a failed gambler. Perhaps he can lead a mob, but not a nation.

Sadly, though, the day is coming closer. Competitors are dropping out. More and more of those who may personally despise and fear him are endorsing Trump, along with the masses who foolishly follow him. Politics? Angling for an appointment? Jumping on the bandwagon? Whatever their motives, they do their country and themselves a disservice.

Donald Trump may be the only thing that would make me vote for Hilary Clinton.

Fiddler On The Fence

It's not only about G-d. Everyone believes in G-d – even atheists. They deny it and use other terminology, but they have the same questions about the origin of everything that we all do. If they choose to ascribe it all to gravity, as Stephen Hawking does, or the laws of science in general, it is hard to disavow the idea that even the laws of science had to come from somewhere. Unless you believe that they always existed – that they are eternal.

“Believe.” “eternal.” “the laws of science had to come from somewhere.” Those are religious ideas and bespeak a deity of some sort – even if it's science itself. And unless one accepts ancient mythologies, or is an adherent of of a polytheistic religion, it is likely that you accept the concept that there is only one G-d.

Larycia Hawkins, a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, decided to wear a headscarf during the Advent season as a gesture of solidarity with Muslims. In doing so, Hawkins quoted Pope Francis, saying that Christians and Muslims "worship the same God."

Professor Hawkins (Political Science) was suspended from her position at a Christian college because her statement was in conflict with the principles that the college was teaching. I'm neither Christian nor Muslim, but I accept the formulation of Pope Francis that she cited. My only modification, and it's certainly not a minor one, is that the beliefs about that G-d, and the ways that we worship, vary greatly. While the non-Abrahamic religions may have other teachings, Islam and Judaism among others rely on post-biblical interpretations for authority (and Catholicism credits the Pope with infallibility in understanding faith and morals), Protestant doctrine is different and, according to Wikipedia,

“The belief in the Bible [i]s the highest source of authority for the church.”

moreover

“The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between G-d and the people.”

Their view is that every believer must read the Bible, and all would practice according to their own understanding without the need for ordained priests as “mediators” between G-d and themselves. It's very democratic, which makes it very attractive.

But it's certainly not the path of Islam or Judaism. Both rely heavily on authority, and assume a greater understanding of the holy doctrines, by an educated, if not necessarily ordained, minority. Both teach and follow ancient traditions. Unfortunately, for many Muslims that extends beyond the peaceful adherence to religious principles and mandates the spreading of their rules to everyone, by whatever means are necessary. And that includes force. Too many believe that until Islam and its laws are universally accepted, they must continue war on those who reject their precepts. And we see evidence of that war every day.

Judaism has a different approach however. It's not a proselytizing religion and doesn't force its precepts on anyone. Which is not to say that its practices are accepted by all Jews. In fact, Jewish history is filled with disputes about the meaning of the laws and precisely how they should be observed. But the arguments and different opinions – even if rejected – are preserved for the edification of future generations and even minority views may have some standing. Minority opinions may become the “traditions” of various Jewish communities, and there is wide variation in practice, even among the orthodox, without the need to conceal any of the ancient traditions. Disagreements may exist but violence is not the way they are usually settled. Just more disputes and debates. And there are plenty of them. As they say, “Two Jews, three opinions.” So there are many occasions when an individual may be uncertain about the “correct” practice – when two different traditions seem equally reasonable. Or unreasonable.

But there are rules for the interpretation of the laws. The main source, of course, is the Bible. That's the case with all of these religions. After all, it's the word of G-d. Fine. But it's not always clear what is meant, so there's a need for interpretation and for guidelines. Is everyone who reads the Bible equally capable of interpretation? Judaism has accepted the principle that the most important criterion is antiquity. The longer ago an authority lived, the more reliable is his opinion. After all, he's closer to the time of the giving of the Law, to the time when all of Israel heard the words of G-d.

That's the problem though. The words of ancient sages are, too often, viewed as dispositive. They're final. But while we treat them as divine they're nothing more than the words of men. However much inspiration and wisdom they contain, however well they have stood up through the years, however they may have been accepted by others, they are the words of men. And there is ample room for interpretation of these words as well. Not every interpretation, especially some of the more recent ones, is consistent with the underlying philosophy of the religion, but the encouragement of discussion by those conversant with the views of our sages, gives Judaism much of its strength. As does honest disagreement whose aim is to understand and fulfill G-d's wishes. "These and These Are The Words of the Living God."

Humans can never know G-d's wishes. We may adopt traditions with the intent to fulfill them, but we can never be sure. Different religions worship in different ways, as do different branches of a single religion. Our practices are ours, and we mustn't force them on others. Intent is what counts. Important as it is to follow the words of our sages, to respect the authority of their erudition and the wisdom of their rulings, unless the underlying purpose of your actions and traditions is to do what you believe G-d wants of you, you are following the words of men.

Get off the fence.

*

What is the truth? Is it sometimes just the latest opinion? Is it changeable? (By the way, that's an asterisk. Not an asterik or an asterix, which are common mispronunciations. But more on the symbol can be found in the dictionary. You probably have one somewhere around.)

What is history? Is it simply the testimony of the victor or the view of the best writer? Where does mythology end and a true representation of the past begin? Can we change the past if we don't find it agreeable? How can we indicate any differences we may have, or any changes that may have occurred?

One of the biggest arguments in baseball, though it's obviously of no consequence when considering all of the world's real problems, regards the record for home runs in a single season. For a long time the record was held by Babe Ruth who, in 1927, hit sixty. The record held for quite a while and was revered by those who saw the Babe as the greatest hitter baseball had ever known. Then came Roger Maris, who hit sixty-one in 1961. (This all happened in the “old days,” before Mark McGwire hit seventy in 1998 and Barry Bonds hit seventy-three in 2001 – but we'll hold that discussion for now.) Ruth, however, hit his homers in a 154 game season, while the season, by 1961, had been extended to 162 games and it wasn't until after game number 154 that Maris hit his sixtieth and sixty-first.

Although the achievement was great (albeit fleeting – Maris soon disappeared from the scene), some sources chose to put an asterisk in their records to indicate that Maris didn't ”really” break the Babe's record. He just had more time. (Actually he hit sixty in fewer at-bats than Ruth.) The asterisk and explanation added some context to the information however, though it didn't affect the accomplishment. And that is the value of the footnote – however it is indicated. It offers the opportunity to comment on what is written without directly interrupting the flow of the text – and that can clarify what is written. For not everything written as history can be accepted at face value.

It's said that “History is written by the victors.” The concept is old, and the origin of the words uncertain. Some attribute it to Machiavelli, some to Nehru, some to Churchill, and others to a variety of authors. What it indicates, however, is that history is made by the one whose book you read. It's certain that Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” It would reflect his views and not those of someone with whom he disagreed. And that presents another reason for the inclusion of footnotes. In addition to context, such notes can offer some perspective on the reliability of the source and, perhaps, alternative understandings of the events portrayed, and why they are described as they are.

The stories about George Washington that Parson Mason Weems wrote in his Life of Washington weren't meant to be taken as the truth. They were “intended to provide a morally instructive tale for the youth of the young nation.” They still do. They are the fables we teach our children even today. But any reference on the subject will ensure that they are understood as “instructive tales” rather than fact. They're wonderful for “the youth of [our not so] young nation” as morality tales that would prove inspiring. But, though created from whole cloth (Parson Weems was a man of the whole cloth), fortunately their allegorical nature is well known.

Not so the work of Alex Haley. Only when his work on the origin of his family as slaves in the American south – a “history” that became a television mini-series – was shown to be a fabrication did he fess up. As Edward Kosner reported in the Wall Street Journal (December 27, 2015), when confronted about his work “Haley staged a dignified retreat. 'I was just trying to give my people a myth to live by,' he took to saying.” The “truth” may be more than a set of facts, but the reader is entitled to know what's “true,” and what's true.

How much of the history we “know” to be true should be foot-noted? How much is reported by someone with an ax to grind? The problem is less that particular views may be favored and considered as truth, but that other views are not always preserved. The Talmud, the compendium of Jewish law, was careful to preserve the arguments and minority opinions on the subjects it discusses, giving future generations an understanding of the various views and possibilities. Some of what were considered minority views have survived as traditions of particular groups and others, after further discussion by more recent sages, have been accepted as normative. The views of the “losers” were not suppressed by the “victors,” but preserved as intercalated “footnotes.”

Though short lived, the asterisk provided such additional information. Who remembers that what was once a “dead” baseball was livened when, in 1911, there was a shift to cork centers for the balls, and that Home Run Baker, who played primarily before the “jackrabbit” ball was introduced, never hit more than twelve homers in a season? (Or, for that matter, that tennis rackets used to be made of wood.) Who considers the fact that Josh Gibson hit over eighty home runs while playing in the Negro Leagues because he was excluded from the white man's domain? Who entertains the notion that home run numbers have been affected by changes in stadium sizes and shapes to increase their likelihood and the profits of the owners? None of this information changes the past, but it gives us the opportunity to view it with added perspective.

Whatever the subject, context and perspective are valuable. You can ignore them if you choose, but their absence cheats you. It robs you of the opportunity to understand what you are considering. It's a shame they're not used more often, and that they're often ignored when present.ⁱ

I        Aye, there's the rub. I used to footnote liberally but, fearing that the notes were never read, I switched to inserting some of the information into the text by the use of parentheses, quotation marks, and other devices.

A Few Political Thoughts

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. He was a Justice of the Supreme Court and had served since 1986. He prided himself as being an “originalist,” one who considered the original intent and meaning of the Constitution as the principles by which cases should be understood and decided. It's a conservative view – one that frowns on the use of modern social concepts in the interpretation of the law. He was one of the conservative voices on a Court that alternated between liberal and conservative opinions with alarming irregularity. Its positions were not completely satisfactory to either constituency. Which was the cause of much anxiety among citizens whenever a case was to be decided about which they had strong opinions.

Antonin Scalia died yesterday. The President will now have the opportunity to nominate another candidate for the Court. He has already appointed two members – both staunch liberals reflecting his own political philosophy. Because they replaced one moderate liberal and one moderate conservative (though both had been appointed by Republicans) his appointments changed the nature of the Court. In all likelihood he will nominate another liberal to replace the conservative Scalia in an attempt to establish a firm liberal majority before his term in office ends. Because the Justices serve for life, such an appointment appointment would affect our society for many years.

President Obama will assert his right and responsibility to do so. It is his Constitutional duty. And he will contend that he is the only official elected by all the people and, thus, representative of their wishes. And he will remind us that it the duty of the Senate to pass judgment on his appointee. “Advice and consent” of the Senate are Constitutional requirements, and the Senators must not shirk their responsibilities. And if they do pass on his candidate, refusing to accept him or her, he will make a political year issue of their “obstructionism.”

President Obama will not mention that while he received 51.2% of the popular vote in 2012, he only had the approval of 43% of the population in 2014 (Pew). Any claim to his popularity and representativeness should be taken with those numbers in mind. And it is hard to ignore the fact that voters have since chosen Republican (conservative) majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The latter is more of a problem for the President who will challenge them to perform their mandated responsibilities as he performs his. He will not mention his end run around the Senate when he declared the treaty with Iran to be an “agreement” which does not require the Senate's consent. Indeed, he cajoled the Democratic minority in the Senate to prevent a vote there so he wouldn't have to veto Congress's will (and the will of the American people) which would lower his popularity still further. Put differently, he prevented the Senate from performing its Constitutional responsibility when it helped him to do so, but he will insist they perform it when he believes that this will be to his advantage.

It is my hope that they will remain firm and wait to see the will of the people in 2016 before making any decision on candidates put forth by the President.

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

For better or worse, the United States, which was, at one time, the leader of the “free” world, has abandoned that designation. We once thought of ourselves as the world's “policemen” with the responsibility for protecting the weak from the tyranny of their leaders (primarily, of course, ones who disagreed with our policies). Our stance now is to defer to the United Nations and the European Union, and to the leaders of countries we once viewed as enemies. We talk and discuss problems. Perhaps that is better than taking a stand or taking action. As Churchill said, “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war.” But the recognition by other nations that we will only “jaw-jaw” gives them reason not to take our threats, red-lines, and deadlines seriously. In many senses we have returned to the isolationism of our past. Perhaps that is wise, but it implies the acceptance of injustices which we will permit to exist irrespective of our proclamation of American ideals.

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

At the moment, the leaders in the race for the Presidential nominations are Donald Trump and Senator Bernard Sanders. Because they are both disliked by so many voters, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may enter the race. It would be an interesting lineup. In a country that spawned the “Occupy Wall Street” movement and numerous other similar crusades against the oppression by the rich of all of the rest of us, in addition to an avowed socialist our choice would be between two billionaires. And in a country with (according to the ADL) more than 10% antisemites among the adult population – a country that has always had a Christian President (we can debate about President Obama at another time) – two of the three candidates would be Jewish.

What a country.

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

It's “silly season.” It's campaign time. That really started a long time ago and it's clear that some candidates for high office start planning their strategies many cycles in advance of their actual goals. Some countries limit the hullabaloo to a few weeks, but politics is an American obsession. We may not agree on anything else, but we love the time when we can argue. We all agree on that.

I'll probably discuss these issues again at another time, but I couldn't help commenting on them now. Silly season is contagious.

Ending LGBTQ? Bending Gender

According to (Dr. Ann) Moir and (David) Jessel, (“Brain Sex”), there are different phases in the formation of sex and gender identification. DNA controls underlying gonadal anatomy but (primarily male initially) hormone flows govern “brain sex” (the unchanging male or female “wiring” of the brain), attitudes, puberty, and gender identification, though these flows occur at different times and the hormones come from different sources (fetal gonads, adrenals, mother, exogenous).

Some of the mechanisms are known and are controllable or reversible. Some – especially exogenous hormones during pregnancy – have already been identified and addressed. It's also clear that the involved factors and changes begin at conception but many take place later, through pregnancy, childhood, and into the adult years. Some occur before pregnancy is even confirmed. Under ideal circumstances (at least “ideal” according to the view of most people) the various mechanisms and stages would be identified when they are occurring, offering the possibility of correction, but that's not always the case yet.

Exogenous hormones can be used to affect attitudes and gender identification, and can be used to lessen the frequency of homosexuality, trans-sexualism, and similar conditions. One thing seems clear: that nurture – whether societal values, parental pressures, the acts and temptations of others – play little if any part in the process apart from legitimizing it.  (Consequently behavioral modification is unlikely to be successful.)  Members of the LGBTQ community don't get there because they have been forced to by others, but because factors in their development made them what they are.

From the medical standpoint we can sometimes regulate what will happen. But ability is not license. Ability raises a different question: should such regulation be undertaken or does it suggest a sexist view that deviation from “normal” identification (and practice) is abnormal? And that question raises many others. For example, what are “disease” and “deviation?” And where does “normal” end and “abnormal” begin? When does a desire to prevent the “abnormal” imply a devaluing of those who are already (and unchangeably) “abnormal?” Does such a policy – to correct Nature's “errors” – further stigmatize those who may already feel marginalized?

We might also wonder about whether “perversion” – which now results in an individual being placed on a public list and being labeled for life as a sexual offender – is part of the spectrum. If it is, should we try to deal with it. Castration is practiced in some countries. It is a kind of hormonal therapy, though it is rightly viewed by many as too extreme. Exogenous hormones, which are sometimes used on these individuals, are a reversible alternative.

But the implications are never-ending, both in terms of philosophy and practice. We live in a world where determination of fetal sex is possible and abortion legal. In some countries, especially China, the practice of abortion so as to have a child of the desired sex is common. Is this moral? Is it sexism? If someday, by manipulating fetal genes, we become able to change race and the parents seek to have it done, would it be racism to do so? Is society's emphasis on youth a manifestation of sexism? And by treating and rehabilitating the disabled (or differently abled as is the current politically correct jargon) are we expressing a disdain for those who are afflicted?

Perhaps we should first consider the health professions in general. Are we permitted to treat the sick. By doing so we are not only opposing the “natural” – the actions Nature has taken – but also labeling members of our population as “deviants” from health. We are separating them from the rest of us.

And the issue is even more troublesome. Every procedure has risks. What chances are we willing to take? That is especially relevant when we consider fetal procedures. To what degree may we put our children at risk? (Actually the legalization of abortion has answered this question.)

The original issue can be viewed as a model to consider when confronting all of these questions. At least I view it as such. From my perspective our obligation is to future generations, not to our own. If there are some who feel threatened by therapies that suggest that they are other than we would wish them to be, so be it. They certainly recognize the prejudice that exists in society and, presumably, wouldn't want to impose it on others if it is preventible. Criteria will have to be found, however, to identify what represents “disease” justifying therapy. I recognize two.

The first criterion – and it is the one that has governed medicine for millennia – is “sickness,” which I understand to be any condition that shortens life or makes it difficult, for the individual suffering from it, to enjoy life. To a great degree it is internal. While there may be determinable criteria that can be recognized by others, that is not always he case. Pain and psychological suffering are only obvious to the victim.

The second criterion is external. For better or worse we all have opinions about right and wrong, about normal and abnormal, about desirable and undesirable. And we have to live with others whose opinions differ from our own. We live in a prejudiced world and that is not likely to change soon. We have to accept it. And for that reason I think that therapy to minimize the number of people who differ sexually from the average is warranted. The time will come when it is possible to identify and treat those otherwise destined to be members of the LGBTQ group, and I suspect they'll be more comfortable in “normative” roles than they would be otherwise. That view is not meant as a denigration of anyone who differs from the societal model, but as a recognition of reality.

Of course such therapy (and that to deal with other “isms”) should only be available as an option. Different societies have different “normative” patterns. That is certainly true of race. Even if someday it is possible to alter race genetically, such “normative” patterns in Norway, Nepal, and Nigeria will be different. And variety will remain an important feature. Many of those who differ from the majority will wish to remain as they are. Many will desire to retain their identities and their heritages, even recognizing the biases they'll face.

But that should be a choice, not a sentence. At least in terms of differing from the “norm” or suffering from a disease, that should be an available option. For them or for those bearing them. And we should give the matter thought now. Science has gotten ahead of philosophy and law and presented us with faits accomplis. It would be better to decide what we're willing to accept before we have no choice.

Happy Valentine's Day.

The Golden Fleece

Thirty or forty years ago – I can't remember precisely because memory and other things go as we age – Senator Proxmire initiated his Golden Fleece Awards. Perhaps it was primarily a publicity gimmick – it certainly attracted a lot of media attention – but he maintained that it was designed to showcase governmental wasting of taxpayer money. And it did that, too. Although there were others (eg the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army, the Department of Commerce, and many more) an important source or waste, he felt, was in the area of scientific research. So he “honored” the authors of papers on many important subjects who had received grants from, among other agencies, the National Institute for Mental Health and the Department of Education, for their groundbreaking work. As the Senator put it when discussing one of the studies,

I object to this not only because no one—not even the National Science Foundation—can argue that falling in love is a science; not only because I'm sure that even if they spend $84 million or $84 billion they wouldn't get an answer that anyone would believe. I'm also against it because I don't want the answer.

I believe that 200 million other Americans want to leave some things in life a mystery, and right on top of the things we don't want to know is why a man falls in love with a woman and vice versa.

The media also took note of the awards. A story published by the Sarasota Herald Tribune on August 22, 1975, supplied by the N.Y. Times News Service, and printed under the headline “Stewardesses' Shape Survey Just One Big Bust To Proxmire,” states

WASHINGTON – Uncle Sam has been measuring airline trainees' bosoms, buttocks – and who knows what all else at a cost of $57,800.

It's all supposed to be in the interest of safety, of course. But it caused Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis. – the man who in March discovered a $465,000 federal study on why folks fall in love and called it an “erotic curiosity” – to fly off the handle again. ...

It's important to know that the value of money has gone up nearly four and a half times since 1975, so the latter grant, if made in in 2015, would be $2,118,500. Ya' gotta' love it.

Lest you question the significance of the projects he cited, here are a few listed by Wikipedia. (Don't forget that the amounts listed would be greater in 2015 dollars.)

• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded project for $121,000, on developing "some objective evidence concerning marijuana's effect on sexual arousal by exposing groups of male pot-smokers to pornographic films and measuring their responses by means of sensors attached to their penises.
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) for spending $103,000 to compare aggressiveness in sun fish that drink tequila to those that drink gin.
• National Institute For Mental Health (NIMH) for spending $97,000 to study, among other things, what went on in a Peruvian brothel; the researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy.
• Office of Education for spending $219,592 in a “curriculum package” to teach college students how to watch television.
• United States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire Sauce.
• United States Department of Commerce (Economic Development Administration) for spending $500,000 to build a 10-story replica of the Great Pyramid in Bedford, Indiana. Begun in 1979, the money proved insufficient and the site is currently abandoned.
• United States Department of Defense for a $3,000 study to determine if people in the military should carry umbrellas in the rain.
• United States Department of Justice for conducting a study on why prisoners want to escape.

Why do I bring this all up? It's because I'm one of the subjects in a study of mobility in aging funded (with our tax money) by the National Institute of Health. I just received a holiday newsletter from the program informing me that “... the study is currently in its 5^th year. We measure brain activity and walking at the same time. Our results demonstrate that both brain structure and function have an impact on mobility.” (It only took five years to figure that out.)

Who woulda' thought that the brain controls mobility. I always figured it was Orion. If I only had a brain. In medical school they taught us that we were controlled by the stars, so a study like this is certainly surprising and welcome. Indeed, the research is taking place in the same medical school, so I hope they'll update their curriculum.

Notwithstanding medical school, however, I always though that the brain had something to do with walking. I learned about it from the French Revolution. From what I understand, relatively few people who had been separated from their heads by the guillotine were able to walk after that. There are stories of chickens doing so after their heads were chopped off but that is apparently because the decapitation is too high and some of the brain remains (see http://theweek.com/speedreads/448290/why-chickens-live-heads-cut). The seminal work of ISIS, also suggests a relationship.

However even if the question is only about the effects of aging, I'm not convinced a study is needed. I, and many others, can assure the investigators that you get tired and achy and sometimes forget things. Perhaps I'm selling basic science short, but, at least in their own bragging, they don't always make a very good argument for the use of tax money. If a latter-day Proxmire were to suggest that this project was a boondoggle, I'd be hard put to defend it based on the information I have.

So why do I participate? I think I have a reason but I can't remember it. But I do know that it gives me something to do every now and then.