Anti-Social And Anti-Socialism

I'm anti-social. I've said it before. But I recognize that most people aren't like me. They enjoy interacting with others and want to instill the same values in those whom they rear. And, to a degree, I accept that judgment. Society requires socialization.

Share. And care. They're among the first lessons we teach our children in jargon and political correctness. We see them as necessary steps in that socialization. And they are. In order to get along you have to go along. That's the theory, but the theory is stifling us as members of a democratic commonwealth. We've turned into a nation of sheep that would not be recognized by our Founding Fathers. For example – although it's not the focus of this discussion – the concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion have been converted into the freedom to say only what is acceptable to the loudest and most dogmatic among us (lest your right to speak be withdrawn), and freedom from religion. But I won't dwell on those perversions of America's philosophy today. I have another concern on my mind. Taxes.

Yes, taxes. I don't question their legitimacy. They have an important place in managing our government and our lives, and they're prescribed in the Constitution – primarily to pay debts and to provide for the defense of our country and the protection of our citizens.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States

Who can argue with that? But, of course, the devil is in the details. Who gets taxed, and how much? And what is the meaning of “Welfare,” which seems to be related to “the common Defence [sic] ... of the United States?”

For most Americans the answers to these questions are uncomplicated: tax those who have more money than I do, and provide for me whatever I believe I need for my welfare. Perhaps that's too much of a simplification, but I suspect that it doesn't miss the mark by much. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement (and its clones) made the will of “the People” clear: tax the rich (“the 1%”) and provide everyone else with whatever he or she wants. That, however, would seem to be a direct contradiction of the philosophy of most of those who wrote and adopted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Their view was that people were

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [sic] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

and that, in accordance with John Locke, “pursuit of happiness” meant “estate.” Locke also wrote

Reason, which is that Law [“Natural Law”] teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.

And

Government has no other end, but the preservation of property.

It's unlikely that Locke, or the Founding Fathers, would have understood or accepted Marx's view (actually it was stated [in French of course] by Louis Blanc nearly a quarter of a century earlier)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It represents a socialist philosophy which favors the redistribution, by government edict, of one's possessions. It's forced sharing. It's a system that denies the individual the “unalienable [sic] Right” to dispose of his or her property as (s)he sees fit (including the right to pass it on to children). It reflects the envy of the possessions of others, and the readiness to give away or take what isn't yours. And by demanding that kind of action from the government they rationalize it as a societal need. But whatever the claimed justification for such redistribution, it (including a punitive tax system designed to accomplish its ends) is no more than theft. But calling it “redistribution” makes it sound so much better. It makes it sound like sharing and caring. And we all know how idealistic and “right” that is.

When we teach our children to share, however, we are teaching them to voluntarily provide others with the things that are important to them. We are less sympathetic when others noisily make demands of them. And we're unlikely to tolerate an outside party taking from our children and giving to the squeaky wheels. There's a difference between charity and extortion.

When we think about the principle of respect for private property it is worth remembering that it is an old precept. And perhaps the ancient proclamation of that principle played a part in our founders' thinking as it should in ours.

You shall not covet ... anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Impossible Choice

I recently joked about the possibility of writing in the name of Vermin Supreme or Harry Truman for President. It may have been amusing then, but I'm not laughing now.

I heard on the radio yesterday that Donald Trump had the number of delegates he needed to secure the Republican nomination, and that he had accepted a challenge to debate from Senator Sanders. Secretary Clinton (or perhaps her staff) had miscalculated the significance of a similar challenge from the Senator and had dismissed it, viewing her dominant position in the quest for the Democratic nomination as more important, and not wishing to be placed in a situation where an error might threaten her lead. And by ignoring his bid she also indicated a view that she didn't see him as a serious contender for the nomination, one on whom she wished to waste her time.

Her decision was a mistake. She'll still win the nomination, but in the interim he will have had a national pulpit on which to air his views to the American people. Both of the debaters will be populists with large, loyal, and fanatical followings, with throngs ready to cheer at anything they say. I consider the Senator's views as both irresponsible and unworkable, but in contrast to Mr. Trump, whose ideas (at least the very few he's seen to have) are even more reprehensible, he's likely to earn increased support from the mob he's already attracted, as well as some who have not yet settled on a candidate.

That means that the ideological gap among our voters is likely to increase. Secretary Clinton will be forced to move her positions – at least those she's willing to express, whether truthfully or not – to the left, as a sop to those who have rallied behind the Senator. Similarly, the Democratic platform will be pushed in that direction. That's not necessarily the choice of all Democrats, but it's the reality of a polarized election.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, who is not viewed as conservative enough by many in the constituency he hopes to attract, will probably move rightward. And it's likely that he'll become more stentorian as he does so, but he'll also try to sound more presidential, if his handlers can convince him to do so. It's also likely that backing off a little will ease the concerns of the leaders of our allies and adversaries, many of whom are baffled by someone who seems to utter decisions without thought (perhaps that's the way he got into a debate with Senator Sanders).

It's a little late for a third party, and they never do well anyway, so we're stuck with a choice of extremes – a (n ex-) Secretary of who has been accused of exposing state secrets to those who might hack her secret computer, and a reality-show host who probably couldn't keep a secret if tried – he'd rather shout it out; two egotists whose goal is to win, irrespective of the effects on the country and Constitution to which they swear loyalty. It's a lose-lose situation. And we're the big losers.

It's time to look ahead with our 2020 vision. Let's hope America survives. At least with Vermin Supreme I'd get a pony to ride off into the sunset.

Uncivil War

Today's New York Times, on the Op-Ed page, features an essay by Charles Blow entitled “Election From Hell.” Tangentially he was discussing the likely match up in November, but he did so in the context of a battle for the Governorship of Louisiana in nineteen-ninety one. As he depicted the election, it was very much like the one we face – two dysfunctional candidates, Edwin Edwards and David Duke, were struggling to convince the people that they were more qualified to lead than their opponent. 

In the end there was one winner and many losers. The losers were not only the second-place candidate, but the people of Louisiana. They survived, although ultimately Edwards, the “winner,” was indicted for corruption and served time in prison for his crimes. (He was also a television personality on A & E network. It was a “reality” show.)

It's interesting that, through all his trials, Governor [Edwin – the current Governor is John Bel Edwards who is no relation] Edwards has retained his popularity among the good citizens of Louisiana.

Mr. Blow used his experience as a voter in that Gubernatorial election as a springboard to the writing of his essay, suggesting that there were multiple similarities between the two elections. Indeed, noting the unpopularity of the two current probable Presidential candidates, Mr. Blow's commentary struck a frightening chord. It will be a terrifying battle won by the lesser of the evils – the candidate less disliked – irrespective of qualifications. More frightening, however, is the possibility that Senator Sanders will find a way to gain the Democratic Party nomination. Pitting his violent mob against Mr. Trump's could well initiate a Civil War. Been there, done that. And it was ugly.

Of interest, according to Wikipedia Edwards legally changed his name to “None of the Above.” He wasn't the first to do so, but it's enough to make you think.

Sanitizers And Sanity

For those who don't know (almost everyone), I recently had abdominal surgery and I'm now on chemotherapy. But that's not the point. What I want to talk about today is the fact that I'm immunosuppressed, but even more specifically, to discuss one of the few fortunate results of that state.

Important background information is that I'm basically an anti-social individual, and I tend to sit in the corner during social events. I don't especially care for people. Why should I? They're a lot like me and are really only interested in themselves. So my preference is to stay away from them as much as possible. When I can avoid a social event, I'm quick to do so. The real problem arises when I can't. People are suspicious of crotchety folk like me who have no interest in all the wonderful things they have to say about themselves. I'm even reluctant to get into a good political fight, since they're not interested in my opinion anyway if it diverges from theirs. I make a rule to never get into an argument with anyone who disagrees with me. (Except, sometimes, my wife.) It makes me boring, but improves the chances that they'll let me alone.

Meeting people is even worse. It begins with a handshake. In ancient times this represented a transfer of power from the gods to man, or possibly the proof that neither hand held a weapon. Whatever. It's subsequently come to symbolize a bunch of other disagreeable ideas – meeting someone, agreeing on something (usually with the other hand behind the back and its fingers crossed), and a general display of friendship as the most common of these. It's little more than a physical cliché.

But that's not the worst of it. Kissing on the cheeks, often both of them, has become the method of choice for greeting someone (often someone believed to be a friend) and, horror of horrors, hugging has taken hold. Somehow, in recent years, it's become fashionable to hug everyone you meet – even those who are all but strangers. Women used to do this, and that led to women hugging men. Now it isn't uncommon for men to hug men. It's bizarre, but it's commonplace. I never bought it, but there have been times when I haven't been able to avoid an unsolicited squeeze. And that brings me back to the original subject.

One of the things I noted when I was hospitalized was the plethora of machines dispensing hand sanitizer. And the staff used them regularly – ritually. And in the discharge package that they gave me there was a bottle of hand sanitizer as well. I'm a setup for infection, and it makes sense to take precautions. So I bought some additional sanitizer for the house as well as smaller bottles to carry around with me. And I don't hesitate to tell others of my condition, showing off the bottle when necessary.

Consequently people are learning not to come too close to me, and that's a big help in eliminating any social contact. Not everyone knows yet, but soon they will, and that will allow me to slink off into my corner every time there is any sort of social event. It will even provide me with an excuse to miss many of them. I wish there were a less hazardous way of achieving anti-socialism than this (I'll discuss my anti-Socialist philosophy at another time) but lemons and lemonade and all that sort of thing. At least this silver lining allows me to conduct my life in a sane manner.

The Decline Of Congress And Our Citizens

I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:

Date: May 13, 2016 8:33:07 AM
Subject: U.S. ISSUES NOTICE ON STUDENTS WHO ARE TRANSGENDER
To: letters@nytimes.com

May 13, 2016

Dear Editor:

The President is showing his resolve. At home if not abroad.

The Supreme Court, having discovered the right of privacy (not mentioned in the Constitution) to guarantee the right of contraception (not mentioned in the Constitution), it seems perverse that the President would arbitrarily deny privacy to the majority of students in order to satisfy the demands of the transgender (not mentioned in the Constitution) minority and their supporters. Is the next step unisex toilets or the imposition of the policy on the military?

When do the people get a say? Will our next chance be when we evaluate Secretary Clinton's agreement with the President's views?

Not surprisingly the letter was not published.

The Supreme Court has, for many years, arrogated the rights of Congress by deciding what they meant, what they should have meant, and the general acceptability of the laws they have passed. Congress has abrogated the obligation to legislate by authorizing Executive branch committees to interpret what they mean and to make regulations which have the force of law.

And the President has all but assumed the power to legislate by directing the implementation of such rules with little effective oversight. Political decision have taken precedence over any other considerations.

The only unrepresented group has been the American People – in whose name these actions are being taken.

In the case mentioned above the new rule (transgender “rights” – minority “rights” – which I've discussed in other essays) was imposed unilaterally by the President without consultation with Congress, and certainly without any determination of its acceptability by the American People. And the President's assumption of “Executive Power” has resulted in the imposition of numerous rules and policies, though Congress should have been the decision maker. When necessary, the President has bullied Congress into passing legislation that he can use to justify his positions, and which he believes will provide cover for him when he is challenged in court. At the moment, the Supreme Court is weakened by the absence of one member and is unlikely to make any momentous decisions. Since so many of them have been political in origin that's not entirely a bad thing, but it is contrary to checks and balances system set up in our Constitution. In this instance it's likely that a decision won't be reached for many years and then only when it's a moot point. That's often the case with the court system, but it's probable that the delays will be even greater now (and, since the President will nominate a new Justice, the composition of the Court must be an important consideration for voters).

On paper Congress is a powerful body. The Constitution says so. We the People have made it so. But in reality it has surrendered much of its power, and much has been taken from it, so that it has diminished from the dominant body to the most dependent. Perhaps that's not what we wanted, but we were never asked. Has the time come for us to make our voices heard?

STEM And Roots

STEM is an acronym. “Roots” isn't. You'll find STEM primarily in an educational context, and it refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

It became a concern of many American educators and of the government when they saw that our students weren't scoring as high as those of some others – students in other countries – in the scientific and mathematical fields and feared that eventually, possibly imminently, those other countries would pass us in these areas, and take the lead in development of technology. And perhaps that is true already in some areas.

On July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC, the United States landed men on the moon. No one else has done that in the almost 47 years since. So what? Apart from bragging rights and a proof that we were worlds[!] ahead of everyone else I can't think of anything this achievement (and the expense of realizing it) have gained us. I'm sure there are some benefits but I, and I suspect others, cannot identify them.

In the 1940s we split the atom and demonstrated what that can do. It was a great achievement and the techniques we have learned about atomic manipulation have since provided us with nuclear power, but the costs, both fiscally and in terms of human life, have been enormous. There are many who are wary of the risks of nuclear energy, and who feel that the price of progress was far too high.

And there are other scientific efforts both underway and planned, with a great deal of interest in learning about the universe in which we live. They're expensive, but they answer questions (actually much of what is studied is only of interest to scientists, and taxpayers are funding their curiosity) about the origin of everything (some would call that Creation) and maintain our reputation as leader in science and technology. We are acknowledged leader in the area of space technology, although we are afraid that we are not preparing the next generation to maintain that lead.

I have no intent to belittle all scientific advancement – new medicines and technology have certainly increased our life spans and aided many of the poor around the world – but only to raise the question of whether all of what we are doing is necessary or appropriate; and whether it is necessary to solidify our position as leader simply for its own sake. I may be an advocate of free enterprise and believe that the development of new, and marketable, devices reflects the kind of economic system that has made us great, but I also wonder if it's not time that we slowed down. I wonder if, in a society where neither law nor ethics can keep up with science, we're not moving too fast. And I'm not sure we have to be the leader.

What is above the ground is growing far faster than what is below. And, unfortunately, our society seeks to widen the gap between what our scientists can learn and what the rest of us can understand and integrate into our lives. We want future generations of Americans to continue to show our superiority to the rest of the world. The specifics are not important. Improving education in STEM subjects will allow our descendents to glow, irrespective of their areas of interest and irrespective of the value and applicability of the knowledge they gain. They'll be able to move society forward at an ever more dizzying pace than before.

But perhaps the emphasis is misplaced. Perhaps we should better understand our own values before we consider the value of undreamed of scientific advancements. Perhaps future generations will be able to evolve their own scientific advancements – ones they value rather than those we dream up for them. Are we making a mistake when we seek to educate our children to be able to reach and establish new civilizations, while not taking the time and providing the education that will help them to better understand the history and nature of the civilization in which they now live? What is the value of transferring a valueless society elsewhere?

I cannot help but think that we have to slow down. A stem without strong roots is doomed no matter how well developed that stem is. Whatever the importance of scientific education, we should also be teaching our children about literature and the arts; about their own history, government, and society – its values and its laws. And we should be teaching them that many of those values are religiously based. Admittedly there are many among us who believe (they, too, have beliefs) that science is all there is and all that is important to know, but they are a minority and a society that stops for a moment to better understand itself as it is, is preferable to one capable of moving rapidly, but not knowing where it is going.

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

He didn't have a speech writer.

You could say that about Yogi Berra. In fact my wife did. (It also applies to Casey Stengel [and Samuel Goldwyn for that matter]. “You can look it up.”) And it's a good thing, too.

He's often viewed as a clown, but Yogi was one of the smartest men in the game. Those immersed in baseball will remember him as a Hall of Fame catcher for the New York Yankees, and later as a coach or manager, primarily for the New York Mets and the Yankees. He was very, very good at his craft, making the All-Star team fifteen years in a row, and being voted the award for Most Valuable Player three times.

But it was his malapropisms – his “Yogi-isms” – that made him a folk hero to most people, and some of the things he said will be remembered long after most of his athletic records are superseded. We'd all be the poorer if his comments had been filtered through the typewriter of a well-schooled author (many of those remarks were made before computers had been popularized, so columnists had to use typewriters) and offered as erudite aphorisms in sophisticated language. Erudite they were – and very insightful – but it was his often unintended turn of phrase that made them memorable.

He wasn't very articulate, having dropped out of school in the eighth grade. And his early life was spent in an Italian neighborhood in St. Louis. But he knew baseball – both the physical side of it and the mental. The words may have seemed befuddled, but the ideas behind them weren't. One of his most famous remarks, “It ain't over 'til it's over,” was made in 1973 (Dan Cook, a columnist for the San Antonio News-Express wrote “The opera ain't over till [sic] the fat lady sings,” but that wasn't until 1976) as he guided the Mets from last place in the Eastern Division to National League champions and to the World Series. He wasn't a quitter.

Among numerous other wise, if clumsily constructed statements, he is remembered for “It's déjà vu all over again,” “Ninety percent of this game is half mental,” “Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded,” “When you come to a fork in the road, take it,” “You can observe a lot by watching,” and “Always go to other people's funerals; otherwise they won't go to yours.” There are those who will maintain that they weren't all original, or that what is remembered is not accurate, but he was the first to admit that. Or, as he put it, “I really didn't say everything I said.”

He was a baseball player, philosopher, and educator and a lot more. He demanded the best of his players, and he got it.

And he also expected stellar performance from others – including members of his family. “I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did.”

Yogi Berra died last year. Today is his birthday.  He would have been 91.

None Of The Above

When the presidential election of 2016 takes place in November, my older son has informed me that he intends to write in the name of (extraordinarily) dark horse candidate Vermin (Love) Supreme. This isn't Supreme's first rodeo, having run for president on several occasions in the past. Admittedly he hasn't done well, but he is persistent. His platform includes

1. Mandatory tooth-brushing laws ("Gingivitis has been eroding the gum line of this great nation of ours for long enough and must be stopped.");

2. Time travel research ("I'm the only candidate who is willing to fully fund time travel, go back in time and kill baby Hitler with my bare hands before he's even born.");

3. Zombie preparedness ("I am the only candidate who has a plan to protect America from the imminent zombie invasion and I will be harnessing the awesome power of zombies to create electric energy utilizing the latest in giant hamster wheel technology."); and

4. Free ponies for all Americans ("A federal pony identification system and you must have your pony with you at all times.").

I recently saw a comment by a college classmate of my wife's (his name is Steve Berger, Brandeis 1959) – an opinion piece that commented on the upcoming suffrage (and sufferage). It reads

Several of you have commented on the (November presidential) election. My advice is get an absentee ballot and do a write-in for Harry Truman on the grounds that Harry dead is better than any of the bunch of them alive.

It was written a while back, when there were more candidates in the main parties, but, while on the surface they are ludicrous, both of the opinions expressed reflect the general anxiety of voters. There is no lesser of evils. Both of those likely to be candidates represent a threat to our country: one is acting like a populist – a “loose cannon” – whose primary goal is to stir up the fury of the masses, and the other is seen as someone with overweening ambition– a “liar” – whose only goal is to be elected, irrespective of what it takes. But how will that affect the rest of us?

We'll be faced with a choice between two politicians with vastly different styles: one, an inexperienced billionaire who speaks (and, I fear, will act) without thinking. In frontier tradition, he shoots first and asks questions afterward. He lacks a filter, which is very appealing to the frustrated who share his views but, until now, haven't had the nerve to utter them. He presents no practical plan for implementing his policies. Indeed, he presents relatively little in terms of what his policies are. His campaign is primarily aimed at acting macho. He is adored by some members of his own party who have all but made him the nominee. But the majority of that party, and most of the independents and members of the other party fear what he might do. And with no political experience, there is great concern that he will also act without thinking when dealing with leaders of other nations, as well as with our own.

The likely nominee of the other party, only a millionaire, tends to lead from behind – finding the issues that will sell best, and building a campaign around catering to the voters. She's an experienced politician, and has no compunctions about raising funds from those she will publicly attack, although it is not clear that her verbal assaults aren't simply window-dressing and that she might not serve their needs if elected. Past performance suggests a propensity for position changes and “spinning” that are the cause of great apprehension by voters. She, too, is seen negatively by the majority of voters. And her primary fight with a socialist (also a populist but at the other end of the spectrum from the one already described – and also a man without practical and implementable policies) has pushed her away from the center she hoped to conquer.

Our current President vowed to bring us together, yet we're probably as polarized as we've been in a long time, and he has some responsibility for that. Dangerous masses support both candidates, and any rescue by a third-party candidate with reasonable policies and with integrity seems unlikely. It appears that it will be necessary to tolerate a President we fear for one or two terms, and to hope that our nation will survive and return to its senses after that. Let's hope it does.

In the meantime, we can hope for execution of the Supreme dental health mandate and bite the bullet. But, in view of the current rhetoric, we can only hope it's not really a bullet.

Bloodsport

If only the stakes weren't so high. But they are. Politics isn't for the faint of heart. Perhaps it doesn't involve the actual shedding of blood – though popular literature, films, and television sometimes posit otherwise – but American politics suggests boxing or cock fighting to the observer. There is certainly a battle going on. And no quarter is given, No handicap is awarded, though many handicaps exist. Indulging in some mixed athletic metaphors, there is a toe-to-toe fight between the players who are racing to the finish line. No holds are barred. In addition, unfortunately, all teams are often off-side.

A chess match may be a more fitting analogy, yielding less actual blood, but a battle nonetheless. It surely includes the jockeying for position, and no moves seem to be barred – no matter how unseemly they appear. The rules are sometimes ignored by all participants in the quest to outflank the opposition. Consequently wiliness, response to attacks, and unexpected moves characterize the competition. Winning is the only thing.

Our Constitution is now over two-and-a-quarter centuries old. It originated as a document designed to unify a number of states with conflicting interests, but with a need for common defense. Having separated from the British Empire there was a need to establish a stable government for a new nation, and our founding fathers, under the influence of European political philosophers, and by the hand of James Madison, produced a system of government that, with the approval of the citizens of the new nation, has become a model for many subsequent democracies.

Creating our country required a document that would balance many competing philosophies, wishes, and economic realities, and be acceptable to voters. And it needed to provide a framework for governing long into the future. The debates were illuminating, but they were heated. Ultimately, however, they generated a system acceptable to a majority of delegates and to the voters in the new states.

An important element was a system of checks and balances designed to ensure the control of each of the branches by the others, with none preeminent. And there was a careful delineation of the responsibilities of each, and allowance made for the states to have responsibility for whatever was not covered by the text as written. The document wasn't complete, requiring amendment immediately, but provision for doing so was built into it. The founders realized that change would be necessary, and they provided for that need. They were building “a more perfect Union,” and there had to be a way to correct imperfections when they were discovered.

As opposed to chess, though, American politics scorns the “check” as all of the participants seek the checkmate. And there are frequent instances when our government is out of balance. It's often difficult for the amateur to follow, and participants have staffs and playbooks to guide them – outlines of previous matches, devices that they will either cite or ignore depending on the utility of doing so. They're more knowledgeable and better prepared than we. They're aware of the Constitution and the way to change the rules. But that's too hard, and there's no guaranty that things will go their way. Perhaps, amendment is possible, but change more often happens ad hoc. It's whatever some party can get away with. In the struggle for dominance in the present and future, they pay no mind to the past. And they demand dominance of the Federal government, not the states.

Moves, also, bring chess to mind. The Judiciary, as exemplified by the Supreme Court, seems to favor the approach of bishops, notwithstanding the First Amendment. As the Church may interpret the Bible, the Court “interprets” the Constitution, finding meanings that no one else can see. That means moving obliquely, and, by doing so, overpowering both the Legislative and Executive branches. They have conquered Congress, by deciding what its words mean (and their understanding is final, not Congress's intent) and, the President, by deciding which of his actions (according to their view) falls within the guidelines set by the Constitution.

Not to be outdone, Congress moves more in the manner of rooks – “in a straight line … in a rank [and] file” (I took slight liberties with the definition in The American Heritage Dictionary) and with force based on party loyalty. They march together. Although devotees of the board game usually refer to the pieces as “castles,” the meaning of “rook” as a swindler should not be overlooked, nor should their resemblance to confused birds in a rookery. Their advantage in the infighting is that they may choose not to fund Presidential initiatives, and the Senate may defeat the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

The greatest threat to all the other players, however, is the Executive branch, led by the President, who commands all the moves of the queen. He moves in an unpredictable manner in any direction and can go as far as he wants to in order to avoid the domination of the others, or in order to destroy them. The queen wants to be king. (Transgender issues, and the President's sympathy, will be addressed at another time. This is intended as a discussion of power.) The President takes an end-run around the Senate when necessary (as it was when he wanted approval of a treaty – which he decided to call an “agreement – with Iran), pressures Congress in general using his “bully pulpit” (and the control of the media enjoyed by the office) to convince them of our country's needs – as he sees them, and as they and the voters should see them. And he employs “Executive orders” to enact whatever legislation he desires, even though the power to do so is not in the Constitution. Like the Court and Congress, he wants to win. He he wants to be in charge. And he wants to leave office as world champion.

And, of course, there are the pawns. Us. We, the People of the United States. We sponsor the match and pay for the tickets. In theory we control everything through our franchise. But, as in chess, we can be sacrificed. The bishops, rooks, and queen have their way with us. We can be manipulated for their ends. We may have the vote, but the branches of government have control. In theory they are our servants, but in reality we are there to serve them.

Every now and then there arises among us a knight. He is prepared to go over and around the system, but he is too often defeated or directed by the others. That's the way it is with knights. They owe their loyalty, and their future positions, not to the people from whom they arise, but to their superiors. So we are left to do and die as good soldiers. Though we're the majority, we have little power.

In a way, it's all entertainment. It's bread and circus. It's an elaborate bullfight. It keeps us busy as they compete with each other for mastery. Sadly we ignore the warning of the red cape but are fascinated by the battle taking place. We don't recognize that it is our Constitution that is dying before our eyes. All the rest is bull.

Isolation, Contagion, And Darwin

I'm for me first. With only a few exceptions, that's the basic strategy of natural selection. Defend yourself and your species. (Usually, but not always, the former is the first consideration. Still there are those who consider fighting, whatever the provocation, all they consider to be immoral.) Whether by fighting off attackers or marking one's territory, the individual defends his rights and his domain. And by bringing home nectar, by warring, or by warning others of danger, he acts on behalf of his species and his community. He and his like come first. No matter what.

People are no different. We fight staunchly to survive and to ensure the survival of our community. (That's a problem, as I'll note below.) Defining our community, however, is complex, since we're all part of many different groupings. For example, notwithstanding other views, we are men or women, and obligatory members of other groups. In some respects our needs and wishes are different from those of others because of those realities. We differ by religion, place of birth, and political affiliation, as well as many other features. And we differ by nationality.

Nationality. That's a fighting issue – perhaps the only one (at least the only one most of us consider acceptable – undesirable as it may be.). Religion used to be worth battling over but that is not so much the case any more. Religious combat is viewed as wrong nowadays, although that doesn't stop many groups from participating. But that is simply an example of the individual fighting on behalf of his (or her) community. In regard to defending one's own country, that is usually a duty imposed by a nation's government. The criteria for such involvement vary from time to time – becoming looser or more restrictive depending on a wide variety of circumstances. The United States, for instance, has been through periods when we were eager to do battle, and periods when isolationism was our national policy – even if not so expressed. We tried to isolate ourselves from the world's problems. Most important for us, however is consideration of our own “interests,” as Lord Palmerston put it. The needs of friends and allies are only significant to the extent that they affect us. If we're not involved, let people kill each other. It's none of our business or concern. But when our country demands, we march into battle. Better, when our community demands, we do so.

A million men marched on Washington in 1995. (The National Park Service estimated that only 400,000 showed up, but that's still a lot.) In this case the community was that of African-Americans and their supporters, and there have been subsequent similar marches, as well as marches in Ferguson, Missouri, and other places where black men have been killed by the police. The battle cry is that “Black Lives Matter,” and the Black community is protesting the killing of blacks by the police.

It's certainly an appealing motto, one that stirs up sympathy, and there is no denying that there have been instances of unwarranted violence by the police, but the protest is really about a wider range of injustices, and the shootings only serve as a rallying point that will attract public attention. And accuracy is irrelevant. As noted in a column by Heather Mac Donald in the Wall Street Journal on Lincoln's birthday,

“ … According to the [Washington] Post database, in 2015 [police] officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. … ”

Those are absolute numbers. In terms of overall numbers of homicide deaths and police shootings,

“ … white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings.”

moreover, most protesters, implying a conspiracy by police against them, fail to note that

“Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.”

There is, of course, no excuse for any killing – especially an avoidable killing by a police officer. But the rage and the protests by the black community over shootings of their members is striking compared to actions by their members and to their silence when others –more than they – are killed. It illustrates the idea that community members are most interested in defending themselves as a part of “groupthink” and the survival strategy which is built into all of us.

Let me give some additional examples:

Much is made, especially during political campaigns, of the fact that a woman's salary is, on average, only 79 cents for each dollar a man earns. That's an important piece of information as far as it goes, but the reasons for the disparity get less attention: number of years of experience, number of hours worked, and accomplishments in the position could account for differences, even for the same job. That men and women often choose different types of jobs requiring different amounts of skill and different physical attributes (like strength) – jobs that pay different salaries – may also play a part. But in the meantime, women's groups lobby hard for what they view as pay equity because, whether there is actually a difference when all factors are considered, more money will benefit the entire group.

And when, in the early 1980, AIDS (at that time it was a previously unknown “immunodeficiency disease”) and its variants were identified, there was a loud call by homosexuals (who were disproportionally affected) and by those sympathetic to them, for a “war” on the affliction. Political action, protests, and public relations were among the tools used to pressure the “establishment” to eliminate the disease rapidly. (No similar efforts were made to find a quick solution to the ebola crisis, and there is little concern about malaria, and measles, and dengue fever because they involve others, not “us.” Even Zika was of little concern here until cases and spread started being reported in the United States. Now, hearing about it more frequently, there are greater interest and concern, and a call to find a vaccine.) Although drug addicts were also greatly affected, and heterosexual and intrauterine spread are now known to be responsible for more cases than among homosexuals, the existing, and increasingly powerful politically, homosexual community forced action, some of which turned out to be misguided (AZT, for example, only slows the virus and, as it turns out, may be a carcinogen), but was in response to the fears of that specific community. The development of strategies for the treatment of AIDS is of benefit to all, but we shall never know what would have happened if the homosexual community, to protect their own, had not risen in protest – how quickly therapies would have been developed. Nor shall we know what the benefits to our people and to our species might have been if funds had not been not diverted to this war.

It's not surprising that individuals and groups are most sensitive to what affects them negatively, and are most supportive of whatever helps them. Truth and accuracy are not particularly significant issues. More important is the question of what will be most likely to help “me,” and those like me, to have an advantage in the fight for survival. But now we come back to the problem. People perceive themselves as members of a group – a community – not a species. That's an inevitable result of a complex thought process humans have, but which, we believe, is lacking in other species. People see any threat to their group as a threat to themselves, and that's what counts, irrespective of the reality of that position. All threats are perceived as personal. So remedies are sought to ensure the elimination of threats to individual group members and to the group as a whole. But we do care about the group. We want the weak to benefit along with us.

That's different from natural selection. An animal fighting for his life is fighting only for his life, but the species benefits if the strongest win and the weakest lose, and are eliminated from the gene pool. From a Darwinian perspective, curing the sick – which, in effect, is aiding the weak – is counterproductive. From a moral perspective, however, the oppressed, the sick, the poor, and those disadvantaged in any other way, are deserving of our help, and they should not require political pressure to get it.

Looking simply at survival of the fittest, only war, (as opposed to curing disease and helping the powerless) in which the strong – physically, intellectually, and economically – will usually defeat and eliminate the weak, seems to make evolutionary sense. But even wars contradict Darwinism. They are denials of the importance of species, placing nationalism above concern for human life. Though patriotism and diversity are on the march, our concern should be on the protection not only of our own community, but of all of our species.

In the meantime, I'm for me first.