The Big Bang

It was just announced that a century-old hypothesis of Einstein's – something about gravity waves – has been confirmed. (Yes, I know this will be old news by the time this essay is published.) The scientific evidence which has been touted as demonstrating its veracity results from the collision of two black holes, and it happened about a billion years ago – give or take. That's before I was born and I wasn't there anyhow, so I can't confirm it personally.

The physicist from whom I heard it on the radio was very excited. It seems that this knowledge brings us closer to understanding the beginnings of our universe (that's said to have happened with the “big bang” but I wasn't there either – though some of my favorite atoms may have been) and suggests a new approach to the research on the subject. He said something about directing new projects based on this knowledge – that it would open a new “window” to the exploration of that field.

I couldn't care less.

Well, maybe I could. But not much less.

I've written disapprovingly before about the amounts of money that our nation (and other nations as well) put into such research. In fact I dissed a lot of research in a variety of fields in The Golden Fleece which appeared nearly three months ago. My conclusions (they weren't stated explicitly, but I think they were obvious) were that I supported (the late) Senator Proxmire, and I questioned the wisdom of spending tax dollars – our generous if not voluntary donations to the government – on research into the answering of questions that we either don't have (especially those whose answers are so obvious – as well as questions that are so inane – that the research seems silly), or questions which will have no value for us, or any likelihood of being of of significance to our children or grandchildren – or even great-grandchildren.

I don't wish to suggest that the questions, and the benefits that research into them may provide, are totally without value. Indeed, the research provides jobs for those who participate in it, whether directly or in the manufacture of materials needed for it, and for the papers that it yields, and the benefit of it adding bulk and luster to the resumés of the researchers, contributing to their academic prestige. But even if it has neither of these consequences, for the true intellectual it satisfies his (or her) curiosity. That may have killed the cat but, as Einstein himself said,

Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.

It should be remembered, however, that Einstein's most famed work was done without the help of academia or government. He tried “to comprehend a little of this mystery” without having others pay for his doing so. His “annus mirabilis” occurred in 1905, when he was working as a patent clerk. (It was a government job, but the government contributed in no way to his research. The credit for his discoveries is entirely his.)

We spend large amounts of money on research. People are homeless, starving, and in need of medical care. (The role of taxpayers in what once were charitable endeavors is a separate subject, which I have addressed in the past and likely will again in the future.) Yet we spend money to determine what happened a billion years ago or will happen a billion years from now (if our universe lasts that long). And we send spacecraft and telescopes to explore inhospitable worlds we will never visit. Or we explore earthly matters which may be interesting to the researcher but are of no value to the rest of us, whose taxes support their interests, thoughts, and endeavors.

There is no minimizing of the value of curiosity. It is more difficult, however, to justify the use of limited resources – resources that could be applied to the solution of current problems – for the purpose of simply satisfying someone's curiosity. In academia it's called “pure” research, and revered for its purity. The curious are answering questions without regard to any practical use for the information they acquire. Perhaps someday someone will find a use for it, but that isn't really relevant to what they're doing. They'll do it anyway.

In the meantime, however, it is valid to question whether taxpayers should be supporting such curiosity of those who could use their intellects to solve existing, rather than theoretical problems. The greatest value of research is in the solution of problems that exist today – not in those we may, or may not, discover tomorrow. If our resources are limited, it makes the most sense to devote them to problems we face now, not to what our descendents may find in the future.

More importantly, in a world that has more problems than it can afford to solve, we have to get the biggest bang we can from the buck.

In My Expert Opinion

(I think) I've talked about experts and expertise in the past. (To paraphrase the Latin translation [from Greek] of Hippocrates – Ars longa, memoria brevis.) I'm fairly sure that I shall discuss this issue in the future as well. But for the moment I want to focus on a single aspect of the subject – only I'm not sure what it is, so I'll just see what develops.

It all started when I was reading about art. Actually art was just one of the subjects discussed in a book I'm reading: A War For The Soul Of America – A History Of The Culture Wars by Andrew Hartman. The book covers a lot of territory, most of which I'll address some other time, but the discussion of art pointed toward a somewhat more inclusive and, in the minds of many, oppressive practice.

The discussion of art as one of the battlegrounds of the culture war (which is basically a war between liberals and conservatives played out in many arenas) centered on the photographic works of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe (recipients of grants from the NEA – National Endowment for the Arts). Serrano's subject in “Piss Christ” was a bottle of his own urine into which a crucifix had been placed, while Mapplethorpe depicted, among other things, naked men performing acts of sadomasochistic homosexuality. Their exhibitions were viewed by liberals as manifestations of free speech, while conservatives saw them as sacrilegious and, in the minds of many, Anti-American. Liberals felt that any action taken against these exhibitions would amount to censorship. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it:

The American people strongly support public funding of the arts and reject the know-nothing censorship the right wing is trying to impose.

Conservatives thought differently. Most didn't consider their opposition to be censorship, but opposition to taxpayer support of an anti-religious agenda. In the words of Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican House Member:

Artists can do whatever they want on their own time and with their own dime.

But the comment that interested me most was that of the book's author. Hartman writes:

… liberals … maintained that the NEA, representing the national community of art experts, should be free to decide which art merited funding.

There are two important premises of this view: that the taxpayer is obligated to support artistic endeavors, and that the same taxpayer is not competent to decide what he is paying for. Neither are his representatives, Congress. It is the prerogative of “experts,” and the NEA should have unquestioned discretion when it comes to the distribution of funds.

The first assumption, that support of art is a proper government function, is straightforward, though worthy of discussion (I think it is, but there are opposing views), but the second is far more complex. To what degree should unelected “experts” have veto power over the will of the people?

As I said, it's a complex issue. And it really has nothing to do with art, which is simply a single manifestation of the problem. We have, in a little over a century, developed a “progressive” form of government in which experts have the responsibility for making decisions in a wide variety of areas. And those experts control many spheres of our lives and of national policy. We neither choose them nor know who they are. Some are political appointees, sympathetic to the ideas of those who select them and who will last as long as their sponsors. Many are bureaucrats – tenured civil servants who make the rules that are the points of reference by which we live. Congress lays out basic policies, and the experts fill in the blanks. In essence they make the laws, even though from a constitutional standpoint it is the responsibility of the legislators. They also prosecute and judge those they consider violators of their prescriptions.

They're the “experts.” Most of them are people just like us, but they make the rules we have to follow. That's so because either they're smart enough to pass the civil service exam (giving them all but lifetime tenure), or they have been chosen for their loyalty by the politicians in office (to the winner belong the spoils) and are subject to dismissal without notice, by whoever made the appointment, or by a subsequent administration. Political allegiance is more important than expertise. However there's a third group – the real experts. Even they, though, are sometimes chosen only in part because of their knowledge, but also because of their political philosophy. Their scientific judgments are sometimes swayed by dogma.

Perhaps the most prominent group of experts are the Justices of the Supreme Court. They've been acting as experts for nearly the entire duration of our existence as a country. They have arrogated to themselves the role of determiners of the law, and we have not objected. There may even be Constitutional support for that position. In any event it is what has developed and we've become accustomed to live by their decisions, whether or not we agree with them.

But there are numerous such areas, and education is just one. (Others include the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC, the FDA and many more.) People we don't know, and who don't know us, can decide that we need to abide by a common core curriculum, and they can devise its contents. A school board can determine what schools to fund, and who our children's teachers will be (and the teachers can inject their own political philosophies). Perhaps we can choose our own school board and perhaps we can decide whether or not we accept the common core, but those in authority can choose to withhold funds from our community if they don't like our decision, or, like the courts, they can simply declare that decision null. We, however, cannot withhold tax money if we disagree with theirs. Indeed, we're required to pay income and property taxes even if we don't agree with, or require all the services offered. And we have to pay school taxes even if we don't have children, or have removed ours from the public schools – often because we don't agree with the decisions of the experts. But we can't alter their decisions. Our best option is to try to defeat them in the next election. Or to defeat the politicians who appointed them. Meanwhile they're in charge.

Of course we all select experts to advise us of preferred actions. We choose our doctors, lawyers, tax advisors, clothing designers, and a host of others who are better equipped to make technical decisions than we. But we choose them, and we can fire them on the spot if we're not satisfied with their recommendations or outcomes – or even if we are. And their judgments take our wishes into consideration. In addition, whether they're personal trainers, “experts” in parenting, or marriage counselors, we're free to ignore their advice and find other opinions more to our liking. Sadly, the same option is not available when government experts direct us.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of our government to formulate a solution to the problem. We ceased to follow the Constitution a long time ago and have accepted a system that is often not responsive to our wishes. Perhaps there's no going back – perhaps the experts cannot be dislodged from their positions of power – but that's not for me to say. I'd prefer to believe there are those familiar with the system and how to change it who can return choice and input to the taxpayers. They, too, are experts, however, and somehow or other we'll have to keep a tight rein on them.

Yours, Mine, And Hours

This is an essay about the Mikveh, a subject that may be unfamiliar to you, and I'll get to that presently – but first some preliminaries.

American society (actually most others as well) has changed. There was a time when the vast majority of “Western” nations were ruled by a law that was based, primarily, on the Bible. There was “good” and there was “bad,” and the rules were reasonably straightforward. Perhaps they didn't always seem “fair,” but that question wasn't really ours to decide or judge.

Eventually lines were drawn between Church and State, and, ultimately, especially with the establishment of the secular state, the whole idea of “right” – such a judgmental construct especially for those who didn't accept theological definitions – was supplemented and, in many respects, superseded by “Rights” which were assigned by the State. These rights were often based on “right” and “wrong” as viewed through the lens of fairness, with “fairness” determined by those on the ground floor – those who wrote the governing documents – and subsequently by the societies in which the new rules were applied. Indeed, cultural “norms,” fads and vogues are often the determinants of “rights.”

Most of the recently discovered rights have centered around minorities, victimhood, and sensitivity. People saw threats in words and images that were intolerable in a fair and liberal modern society, and they sought to eliminate such evil. (Apart from censorship by rulers – religious and secular – there had mainly been restrictions in the past based on what were said to be matters of national security, but in the modern cases sensitivity and fairness were more at issue.) For example, pin-up calendars, long a staple of men's lockers, were decreed to be degrading to women (along with wolf whistles) and all but outlawed. And, similarly, looking at, or otherwise paying unwanted attention to women, or men for that matter, is now considered sexual abuse.

We have also created the category of “hate crime” to show our sensitivity to victims of violence caused by those who are biased against them – usually demonstrated by voiced statements of the perpetrator, and their interpretation by the victim. Of course that might raise problems. If a prejudiced mute assaults a deaf or intellectually challenged minority member, is it a hate crime? In fact the whole idea of a “hate” crime is bizarre. If a bigot insults, and then kills, a minority member over a woman – a “crime of passion” – is it a “love” crime? All crimes are “hate” crimes. If I'm mugged it's the action, not the thought, that angers me. Frequently attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. among others is the aphorism concerning the right to swing your arms ending at the other man's nose. The reason for swinging is irrelevant.

A more recent concern – and this will get me to my main point – is the ruling in many jurisdictions that transgender individuals may use whatever rest room they choose. Sexual restrictions based on birth are biased, and take away the self definition rights of the individual – the right to choose his/her/their/its own self-image. Rest rooms should be gender neutral and everyone should have the right to use whatever facility seems more comfortable (as long as there are no pin-up calendars). Actually, money could be saved by only having a single facility.

But what has all this to do with the Mikveh? In fact, what is a Mikveh?

According to Jewish law it is necessary, before engaging in certain ritual and family actions, to be “pure.” Impurity may arise from a variety of different situations such as (in addition to others) contact with the dead, menstruation, and particular kinds of oaths. The Mikveh is a ritual bath where such purification can take place. The process is also a basic part of conversion, and the new convert is made ritually pure during the ceremony.

The ritual of Mikveh, therefore, is one which may involve both men and women, but the reality is that purification following menstruation is the most frequent situation in which it is used. Thus the facility is reserved for women during most of the hours it is open, but there are times set aside for men who may wish to use it. Separation of the sexes – especially in a situation like this when the involved individual is completely disrobed – is a feature of Judaism. So there are strict schedules governing the Mikveh's use.

There was a recent scandal in the Jewish community when it was learned that a rabbi had been spying on women who were using the facility. Voyeurism has long been an affliction of mankind (literally – “man” is usually the sex of the culprit) however this particular disclosure was considered especially heinous because of who was involved and where it had taken place. But perhaps we overreacted.

While there are traditions in Judaism of modesty and privacy, there are no explicit prohibitions of voyeurism in the Torah, so however we may feel about it personally our revulsion lacks Biblical support. (Indeed, while we condemn certain sexual unions, and while we reject violence that is unassociated with the control of evil or the service of G-d's will, “sexual abuse” is not specifically forbidden. Maybe it's a good thing. Or maybe that's going too far.)  So perhaps the best solution to the problem is to open the Mikveh to all people at all hours.

One thing is certain. The fewer taboos there are on sex, and the more familiar we are with, and thus immune to, the bodies of our sisters and brothers, the less interesting the whole topic of sex will be to the evil-minded among us. Of course it will also be less attractive to the rest of us. Maybe the old days were better.

Hail Mary, Heil Hitler

Many – if not all – of those who see this title will find it offensive. And it is. It is the appositioning of opposites. The former is an appeal to an immaculate symbol – an appeal to one who would help the petitioner in a quest for virtue. The latter is a denial of virtue, a pledge of loyalty to evil – the promise to support a fatally flawed individual despite those flaws, and possibly because the “supplicant” shares them.

Numerous individuals follow now, or followed once, one or both of these philosophies, but I am not one of them. I am neither a Christian nor a Nazi. Nonetheless, the two phrases weigh heavily, as I consider the role of belief and concern in the formation of the ideas of an individual and the ideals of a society.

Yes, the title is offensive, but it serves to illustrate some points that interest me. They deal with the relationship between religion and the secular world. The roots of Christianity extend more than two millennia into the past – the length of those roots depending on whether you see Christianity as an Abrahamic religion, inextricably linked to Judaism, or if you date it from the events depicted in the Gospels. In either case, however, it's old. Nazism's roots are also long, a heritage of patriotism – which has long served as a rallying cry for populists – and anti-semitism which is almost as old as Christianity. 

However that link, age, is not the focus of today's essay. Different as their current philosophies and goals, however, there is a plausible connection between the two which illustrates a feature of religions in general, and it is this feature that interests me today.

The Gospel of Matthew records the following as Jesus replied to an inquiry from some of his followers about paying taxes to the emperor,

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 21:22]

Jesus drew a distinction between Rome and Judaism (which was his religion). They were two separate realms. It is a distinction which German citizens found perfectly acceptable – even desirable. Church and State were separate. They may have proselytized more forcefully at one time, but their religious decrees were no longer imposed on others. The era of theocracy had passed, and they could remain Christians while following the dictates of their Führer at the same time. There was no obvious conflict. Or at least, none on which most of the people acted.

The origin of the obligation to accept secular law is attributed in the Talmud (and later by Rashi) to Samuel, who lived in the eleventh century BCE, and it is still an accepted precept in Judaism. (In fact, a prayer for the secular government can be found in most prayer books.) While Jewish practice is to be followed if there is a conflict between religious and secular law, when there is no direct conflict we are obligated to follow the law of the State. I assume the same is true of Christianity, but the license to obey “Caesar” was well known, and it was appealing to the Germans.

Having noted the existing secular and religious legal systems, separate if not equal, in contrast to most western religions (and probably in the east as well, but I am not familiar with those creeds), the practices of Islam are striking.

Islam recognizes only a single legal system, Sharia, and adherents view it as applying to everyone – whether Muslim or not – and everywhere. Moreover, a major goal is the conversion of everyone to Islam and to its laws. There is no such thing as secular law. In any country where there are Muslims there is pressure to be ruled by Sharia, especially, but not exclusively, in lands where they are in the majority. As opposed to a separate secular legal system which is to be followed when there is no conflict with religious law, there is a desire to have clerical determination and administration of all regulations. There is also the desire that those regulations apply to all citizens including those who are not (yet) Muslim. And there is the determination as well to bring those non-Muslims into the fold – often by means that would not conform to secular law, or to the religious laws of most other groups.

Which brings us back to the issue of a balanced relationship between secular and religious constructs. There is certain to be oppression when there is unyielding religious law – law that demands blind obedience untempered by any system of secular justice. But, as the Holocaust showed us, an unyielding secular government, blindly followed by those who consider themselves religious but who don't apply their religious principles to unjust laws, and don't follow spiritual teachings and place them above those laws in order to obtain an honorable society, is also likely to place many at risk. Morality is more important than loyalty; tolerance than compulsion.

The answer then – at least in my view – is an acceptance of a dual system, but the placement of the religious, the humanist, practice in a position of dominance where they conflict. Virtue must always take precedence over evil.

Impolitic

Many years ago, at a Board meeting in my synagogue, one of our members proposed himself for the position of President when the nominating committee presented its report. Actually he wasn't a member of the Board, nor had he been active in synagogue affairs up until that time. But he recognized that some problems existed, and suggested that he was the man to fix them. Chutzpah. One of the Board members suggested that rather than start at the top he become more involved in the congregation's structure as it already was, and work his way up.

I never saw him again.

There's a kind of leadership style which has a boss instructing his employee “Don't tell me the problems – tell me the solutions.” The approach bespeaks the view that the leader is there simply to supervise the difficulties that others recognize, and to get credit for leading everyone out of the wilderness. But it's an even more troublesome situation when the leader believes that he can identify – indeed he has already identified – the problems that exist, and that he can solve them all. It's the approach of the “outsider” who can correct the errors caused by those who had theretofore been involved. It's his view that it takes someone not caught up in the organization's internal politics.

And that's where we are now. The current campaign for the Republican nomination pits an individual who has no experience in organized politics and government against those who have. Whatever the personal qualifications of the various candidates, the current leader in the race has no experience governing but claims that he can solve all of our country's problems. He's a populist whose main qualification, in the eyes of voters, is that he's a strong (loud) advocate of positions which provide simple solutions to complex problems – the ones created by those who have spent their careers dealing with them. His lack of tact and his inability to relate to those with whom he would have to deal are also strengths, and would bring others around to his positions. Chutzpah! Bluster and ego are no substitute for knowledge, experience and alliances. Tired of international problems, his supporters are not concerned about whether other nations would eventually sign on. They view his opportunity to speak out, to voice their biases, as the long-lost benefit of a bully pulpit. They don't care that the inexperienced and undisciplined man using it is a pulpit bully.

Although there are marked differences, there is a similar “insider-outsider” battle in the Democratic Party. While both of the major contenders for the nomination are long-time politicians – both having served in the Senate – their backgrounds, especially in terms of relating to the party's members, is entirely different. While one is among the party loyal, the other has spent most of his career as an “independent,” only recently joining with the party he now wishes to lead. And he espouses an economic form (socialism) that is very different from what the Founding Fathers proposed and what what we and those who preceded us have experienced. He, too, is a populist, offering appealing and simple solutions to complex problems. They're flawed solutions that would be difficult for many of the candidate's newly acquired colleagues to support, but they raise the hopes of countless voters – many of them new voters.

From my perspective, none of the candidates is an appropriate choice. But my perspective isn't relevant. I'll vote in my state's primary, but I'll be focused on choosing the lesser of evils. And one vote won't affect the overall trend. Yes I know that according to our philosophy every vote counts, but I don't see that as the reality – and in this particular race the early politicking an sniping will carry the day. Whatever happens, we'll lose.

Nothing Could Be Finer

Jennifer. Seventeen, and never been kissed. Sounds bizarre doesn't it, in this hypersexual post modern age (substitute whatever cant term you prefer).

Of course that's not precisely accurate. The busses of family members were unavoidable, but a strict set of values inherited from her parents, and an uncompromising religious background, made her avoid circumstances in which romantic involvement might arise. But her time would come.

There was an editorial in today's New York Times, and numerous protests all around the country. Charlotte, North Carolina, had passed a “non-discrimination” law which gave transgender individuals the right to use whatever public rest rooms they preferred. (Presumably others were given the same right since the law demanded no proof of gender identification or sex.) There was resistance which was attributed to a fear of rape, and some local governments imposed their own regulations limiting bathroom use to that corresponding to what was declared on their birth certificates, as did the state.

North Carolina has a history. It has lots of history, but my particular interest relates to 1960, when four young men sat at a lunch counter in Greensboro, seeking to be served in accord with the rights guaranteed them by the American Constitution. No creation of a new minority group was involved, nor was there a right proposed that wasn't obvious – even to those who opposed it. No new law was required, nor was it necessary to hypothesize a justification. Now North Carolina was again in the eye of the law, only this time the issues weren't quite so clear.

Of course the idea that bathroom choice would lead to rape was disingenuous, but it was a good and provocative argument for both opponents and supporters of the state legislation. We live in an age when public safety dominates all our thought, and sometimes it's preferable not to discriminate between real threats and imagined ones, between an actual situation and a straw man. It's much easier to stir up emotion then – easier than when addressing a reality that may not be as vulnerable to propaganda. And an appeal to Americans to support the “rights” of transgender individuals irrespective of the views of others seems to be a long overdue call to all “fair-minded” Americans. The issue, however, is safe space, not safety. It is privacy.

But back to Jennifer. (Full disclosure: she's my creation, a straw girl, but a straw girl probably closer to the reality faced by twenty-first century adolescents than the one proposed by the populists and politicians.) She was overjoyed to receive a letter of acceptance to a local university in Charlotte – one located just far enough away that living at home would not be practical. She loves her family, but the time had come to test out independence.

With two brothers and only one bathroom for the family, her trips had always been hurried. She understood the problem and took her situation in good nature. She was a good scout. But she dreamed of the time when she could shower, wash, toilet herself, and even brush her teeth in a comfortable, unrushed setting. It was a feature of “slow” southern culture that she had never enjoyed. There had been tastes of that liberation in high school, but the luxury and relaxation of a shower or other prolonged activity did not apply there.

Jennifer opened the letter from college with great anticipation. First came the acceptance itself. She had worked hard to make this aspect of independence a reality – partly because of pressure from her parents, but largely based on her own initiative – and she couldn't help but believe that she had earned it. There were a lot of forms and notifications and, at the bottom of the stack, an insertion notifying her that bathrooms were open to whoever felt comfortable in them. How could she feel so in a setting in which people of both sexes (in her view) were free to wander around? However sympathetic she may have felt for emotional needs of those confused about their sexual identities, it was hard for her to understand why the rights of the majority could be legislated away – sacrificed – in the interest of satisfying the ”needs” of a newly named minority that was in the limelight now. Perhaps it was politically advantageous to cater to this group, but absent any actual constitutional right or public demand for an amendment to our governing document it was hard to understand the justification.

However politics rules, and the public had to be convinced that opposition to this “right” constituted bigotry. New York's governor is seeking to prevent any New York officials from traveling to North Carolina in order to pressure the state to restore the rights of this oppressed minority. (And the same tactic is being used by others.) It should be remembered that New York State is the home of New York City, America's largest city – a city that has already decided that public urination is not nearly as offensive as we used to think. Although it used to be a cause for arrest, a summons is all that is warranted nowadays. Perhaps the modern approach is to eliminate bathrooms entirely, allowing anyone to rid him-/her-/it- self of internal evils wherever. Or, at the very least, to eliminate all but unisex public rest rooms.)

Perhaps individual rest rooms are the answer; rooms where anyone can go and stay for as long as he (don't infer any sexual bigotry by my use of the word) wants. It would require much more space than is used now and be much more expensive, but it would respect the rights of everyone – except those who demand that everyone else accept his choice of gender.

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

[This essay was begun on March 24^th. Today is April 4^th. Unfortunately this screed has taken far longer to write (type) out than is usually the case. Those who know me will understand why; those who don't will, in all likelihood, neither notice nor care. In any event, however, it's the thought that counts.]

10,000 Steps

Not so long ago I read that taking three thousand steps a day would improve my health. I didn't take it very seriously and I didn't change my behavior because of the reports, but I did spend a little effort counting my steps, and I found that I took somewhat more than that number. Now, though, I find that my efforts, slight as they were, were wasted. I wasn't pacing enough. Today everyone knows that we should all walk at least ten thousand steps every day. And if we do we'll lose weight, improve our heart health, cut down on diabetes, decrease our potential for strokes, and a enjoy host of other health improvements.

I don't dispute these assertions. I can't. The references I've been able to find on search engines are primarily blogs stating what is considered to be common knowledge, but there's relatively little hard data supporting the various claims. As I suggested, however, that doesn't make them untrue, but they are poorly based or undocumented. There is an occasional study cited but, for the most part, the claims are made by believers. (I also don't dispute belief. I have high regard for it, as long as its scientific limitations are understood.) What this all means is another story.

A very unscientific study using only one subject – me – demonstrated a walking pace of about ninety-five steps per minute. That works out to fifty-seven hundred steps per hour, and I could do ten thousand steps in about an hour and three-quarters. (I'm assuming, of course, that I shouldn't need to rest along the way.) That would probably make me hungry, so I'm not sure that I'd get all the promised benefits for my actions.

And such a pedestrian action wouldn't come completely without cost. Fitness isn't free. For example, if I don't consider buying any books or other printed recommendations on the subject and if I choose not to put out money for a trainer, there would still be expenses. Moreover, even if I elected not to get a pedometer, shoes and outfits for my daily jaunts; even if I did not include the aspirin or other pain killers (and the subsequent need for joint replacements); and even if I didn't factor in the cost of additional food (health bars, of course), I'd still have to make a significant investment of time in the effort. As I calculated above, it would amount to about an hour and three-quarters daily. 

A number like that needs to be put in perspective if it's to make any sense. When I was younger, there was a popular song entitled “Lucky Me.” What made me lucky? “I work eight hours, I sleep eight hours, that leaves eight hours for fun.” Walking time will come, primarily, from the time assigned for fun. Knowing that I don't work on Saturday or Sunday (or any other time – I'm retired), and therefore adding in eight hours each weekend day, that comes to sixty-three hours a week for fun, so I'll use that for further calculations.

“Fun,” however, includes eating, dressing (and putting on makeup if you're so inclined), housecleaning, entertainment, interacting with friends and family, travel, and, to be indelicate, using the facilities. Twelve and a quarter hours (seven times one and three-quarter hours) is almost twenty percent of those sixty-three hours. It's likely to take a large bite of your “fun” time. You'd better cut out eating and going to the bathroom. Or (Heaven forbid) limit your time on Facebook.

Another way of looking at it is that it translates into over three point sixty-four years if practiced over a period of fifty years – an entire adult life – from about twenty to seventy. If you do it longer it will take more time. Perhaps the health benefits ascribed to this regimen will add more than that to your life, but the various blogs – and even the scientific studies – I've seen, make no specific claims about life extension. And even if some time is added, a valid question would be whether it is all worth it. When Sir John Mortimer, English barrister and author, was urged to eat a more nourishing, if less appetizing diet, he responded

“I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward.”

He lived over eighty-five years.

I suspect there are many who would respond similarly to the effort, and to the loss of time and the other activities that could be pursued, for a little more time in a geriatric ward of a nursing home.

This is a concept we need to walk back.