Letting Go

Time for another jaunt through pop psychology about which I know very little (translation: I know nothing). Mom, of course, is welcome to read this as well. (Actually I really don't care if no one reads this. I think I'm writing it for myself.)

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

I never got a gold watch. I retired from three different institutions (at four different times – but that's another story) and I'm relieved that I did, but I never got a gold watch. One of those places, the Radiology Department of a medical school hospital, gave me a university chair (a physical chair, not an appointment) with a logo and a plaque. Good enough – though a rocker would have been more fitting than the regular type. I didn't like the other places all that much anyway.

But I did like the positions in which I served. I felt useful and responsible. So when I left I felt useless and not responsible (not irresponsible, but not responsible). At least in terms of those two hospitals. And if I were to go back now I doubt that anyone would recognize me. (That's OK. I know who I am.) All my accomplishments – and they weren't insignificant – would have been forgotten. They would simply be the way things have always been. From their perspective I'd be nobody. And the departments I headed would have the imprints of their current directors.

Times change for individuals as they do for institutions and societies, and self-image changes as well. I'm retired now, and my time is my own (except for doing what my wife tells me to do). I have no responsibilities. But there is a downside as well, the negative part of what goes with the territory. I don't simply mean that I'm getting older. That's true, and it has its downside as well, however I'm referring to something else. I've become nobody. Sure I take out the garbage and bring in the newspapers – I still carry out the activities of daily living – but, lacking a schedule and responsibilities, I'm adrift. Others get the credit or blame for all the things I used to do. The people I see and know greet me, but think of me as an old man with nothing in particular to do. And I think of myself in the same way.

One of the hardest things for an individual to do is to give up his view of himself. And it's hard for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it requires self-examination. It requires one to reform his self-image into one more suitable for his new situation. He needs to (please forgive the cant – I don't like it either) reinvent himself. The recognition of the new image is integral to its acceptance. But it can't just be an image. It must be reality. It is reality.

That new reality itself, however, must also be understood and accepted. The classic example when I was young was the anxious mother bidding her “baby” farewell at the kindergarten door. (Now it's preschool and, with gender and family changes, it's one of the “partners” – assuming there's more than one – of one or more genders.) The farewell was accompanied by tears and reticence by both parties although the child usually recovered quickly.

The mother had to accept the idea that her child could survive without her; she had to let go and change her self-image and identity to that of service-provider for when the child came home, but she was no longer the center of her darling's universe. The same thing had happened when there was a baby-sitter. Tears from the child until the door closed, but Mom didn't think about it so much because when she came home she could still picture herself as the only one her child really cared about.

But as the years go by and our children grow up we become more of a commodity for them – provider of dinner or a car, perhaps the “Bank of Dad (or Mom)” – and often an embarrassment. There is college and the empty nest. That happens slowly, and we can usually accommodate as the years go by, but that doesn't prevent the sadness (along with happiness for them) as they eventually establish families of their own. Our lives have changed. We have to grow up as well, and accept the idea that our children are no longer ours. We're saddened both by their maturing and by our own aging. We have lost our youth. We're no longer relevant. It's time for a mid-life crisis, if we haven't already had one.

Life cycles do that. When we're young we're happy to let go of who we were in favor of what we want to become, but as we get older it's more giving than getting. That's even the case in our “outside” lives – lives beyond home and work. I used to set the tables for events at my synagogue. I'd get a telephone call or other message that an event was coming up and I had to prepare for a particular number of people on a specific day. It was a given that the job would get done. It wasn't a critical responsibility but it was mine. And everybody knew it. I don't get called anymore. Others see it as not wanting to burden me, but I see it as their perception that I'm too old (or infirm, or whatever) to have the responsibility. I'm grateful for their concern, however it seems to be a signal to me – they'll never ask again and I'd better get used to that fact. It's my new reality. “The old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be.” Ditto the stallion – the old geezer. Enough is enough. He's over the hill.

But, as Yogi Berra said, “It ain't over 'til it's over” (or as Dan Cook restated it, “The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings”) and the changes need not be liked, only accepted. New goals must be set so there will be new achievements that can be sought. For many the need for purpose may be attained through volunteerism; whether it takes place in a soup kitchen, a social service organization, or some other project it gives the participant something to hold on to. It's a new piece of his identity. He has self-worth – the feeling that he's helping others. He's somebody. He's important. He has a purpose in life. Or, as Monty Python put it, he's “not dead yet.” (That time will come, and then my children will have to let go.)

But now, for me, the goal is writing, providing me with a pulpit from which to bully. I have definite opinions. They're all correct and I want to preserve them for posterity. Nobody may ever read them, but I have the opportunity to speak the Truth, and that gives me some purpose. That and taking out the garbage.

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

From Anu Garg's "A Word A Day" -- THOUGHT FOR TODAY:

Here is the test to find whether your mission on earth is finished: If you're alive, it isn't. -Richard Bach, writer (b. 23 Jun 1936)

Only Two

The more I hear, the worse it gets. Neither of the major party candidates is fit to be president. That doesn't mean that one of them won't be elected, but, as I've said may times before, it's a choice of the lesser of evils – and it's a bad choice. Unfortunately, only two narratives are available – one by a candidate who can only demonstrate ignorance and specializes in negative campaigning, and one who hides past activities and spends time primarily explaining why what is documented and reported is of no consequence. And the media take them seriously.

Below is a letter, variants of which I sent to several papers. As far as I know it hasn't been published, but that's not a big surprise. It deals with one of the (many) problems with our political system, and with the inability of voters to get adequate information to decide for themselves.

Before you vote for the lesser of evils, look elsewhere. More Americans oppose Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton than trust them, but perhaps there are other possibilities. Because candidates lacking 15% support are excluded from the debates, however, they can't make their views known. (Like Governor Gary Johnson -- who piques my interest as a "none-of-the-above" candidate.) It's important, therefore, that those polled express a preference for third-party candidates and increase that "support," irrespective of how they are likely to vote on election day. The polls are not binding, but if we don't hear what other contenders have to say we're doomed to choose between the major party candidates. It is possible that the devil we don't know isn't a devil. But unless we take steps to give others a voice, we'll never find out.

Rather than using the vote for the purpose of choosing our leader, let the referendum be about the Congress that will work with a new president, who would be selected by our trust, and by the confidence that our future is secure in his or her hands. There are many issues at stake that might benefit from a divided government, forced to bargain, rather than single-party leadership and a president who lacks our credence. For example, who will choose next Supreme Court Justice? It's possible that a third-party president will make a less doctrinaire choice than a chief executive bound by a party's dogmas. And a new head of state who has less partisan baggage than those whom he or she opposes might be better able to lead us while dealing successfully with the rest of the world as well. But we'll never get a chance to make an educated decision if we let the networks decide whom we can hear.

The American people will make a bad choice in the election. That's a foregone conclusion, because the choices they have are bad ones, and the means of getting the information necessary to improve on it is limited by sources that have a vested interest in the decision.

Some nations have many more parties than we. It's messier, but they allow for the presentation of more points of view. It's hard to know if that kind of arrangement would work here or if it would change anything, but it would provide the opportunity for more opinions to be expressed.

He Said, She Said

And now for something completely different. It's a quiz. Take out your number two cursor. It will probably be longer than what I usually write, but you can blame that on all the people I quote – not on me. (If it makes you feel better you can blame me, but I discount all responsibility. It ain't my fault.)

Following are quotes on various subjects – some (perhaps most) of which (both the subjects and the views) you won't like. I'll omit the names of the speakers and writers until the end (in the form of end notes so you can evaluate the words themselves and decide if you agree with them or not. You can even try to guess their authors. Don't tell me how you did. I don't want to know.)

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

Ethnicity:

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association.ⁱ

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.ⁱⁱ

The Deity and Religion:

In God We Trustⁱⁱⁱ

The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.^iv

After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.^v

Politics:

[She] would not even be a viable person to even run for a city council position.^vi

Is this who you want to lead us in an emergency?^vii

Abortion:

I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.^viii

No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.^ix

Slavery:

The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offense.^x

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.^xi

Eugenics:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind … Three generations of imbeciles are enough.^xii

Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.^xiii

[The author advocated] a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.^xiv

The Jews:

[T]he Jews are so hardened that they listen to nothing; though overcome by testimonies they yield not an inch. It is a pernicious race.^xv

God cannot tolerate this mean people. The Jews have wandered from divine religion.^xvi

I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. The menace, gentlemen, is the Jews.^xvii

Jews have always controlled the business... The motion picture influence of the United States and Canada... is exclusively under the control, moral and financial, of the Jewish manipulators of the public mind.^xviii

Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures.^xix

Due Process:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.^xx

Law enforcement goes to a judge . . . it provides due process for the good people.^xxi

Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security.^xxii

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

This is just a sampling. There's a lot more I could have included, but you get the point. I didn't present this to advocate any particular view, but to give you the opportunity to evaluate both your own ideas and those of others with whose history you may be familiar. What I'm citing may not properly characterize each individual's final opinion, but at one time he or she believed it. Their views often evolved, though some of the ideas quoted were actually representative of their thoughts. Some of our icons are as flawed as the rest of us, with biases that are so much a part of our heritage and culture. Perhaps some of their words surprised or disappointed you. We tend to see our heroes and our villains as one-dimensional, not recognizing the reality that they hold a wide variety or views – often contradictory – just as we do. And as we evaluate them we have to look at more than the ones for which they're known to us.

That's especially true now.

iWall Street Journal quoting Donald Trump – June 3, 2016

iiJudge Sonia Sotomayor – 2001

iiiOfficial motto of the United States of America

ivDr. Sigmund Freud

vFriedrich Nietzsche

viDonald Trump of Secretary Clinton – April 28, 2016

viiSecretary Clinton of Donald Trump – June 21, 2016

viiiNorma McCovey – Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade

ix“American Baby Code” advocated by Margaret Sanger

xSaint Augustine

xiPresident Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

xiiJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Buck v. Bell, a 1927 Supreme court case upholding a Virginia law that authorized the state to surgically sterilize certain “mental defectives” without their consent.

xiiiAdolf Hitler

xivMargaret Sanger in Birth Control Review, April 1932

xvMartin Luther

xviMuhammad in the Koran

xviiBenjamin Franklin, 1787

xviiiHenry Ford in the Dearborn Independent, 1921

xixCharles Lindbergh, May 1, 1941

xxUnited States Constitution

xxiNRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre

xxiiAttorney General Eric Holder

Extra, Extra

News flash: Mrs. Oracle and I went to the theater yesterday! (Way back, newsboys used to hawk special editions – “extras” – of papers when there was exciting news.)

Now I know that it doesn't sound all that special to you nor, I guess, to me either. But for us this was a unique event. Not going to the theater per se, but going to a performance like the one we saw yesterday. So let me tell you about it. (If you've gotten this far you're probably used to reading my drivel, so here's some more.)

It started in Kerhonkson. Not a great beginning for an event. Or a piece of writing. But that's where it started. In New York's Catskills. A meeting – actually a choral festival – was going on, one devoted to Jewish choral music, and Zalmen Mlotek, Director of the National Yiddish Theater Folksbiene, was given an award for his contributions to Jewish music. We were especially interested because it was an award that we had received a few years earlier for the more literal contributions to the movement we had made based on our love of the art form and the ideals it promoted. We both love to sing (in choruses – not solo).

In any event, though I saw him at the Festival, I didn't meet him, and when I returned home I regretted that. As soon as I mentioned it to Mrs. O she informed me that my (younger) son had been a teacher of one of his son and he had a (somewhat distant) relationship to the family, who lived nearby. So I decided that a meeting would be rewarding and I sent him a message introducing myself. He very generously invited us to a performance of the theater's current production, an invitation which, I must admit, troubled me a little since the show was a century-old (not quite – 1923) musical product of the Yiddish theater. But we'd also have the opportunity to meet Mr. Mlotek, so I accepted. But it isn't the meeting that I want to address. It's the production itself, Di Goldene Kale (The Golden Bride).

We were both a little intimidated since neither of us speaks Yiddish, but knowing that you don't have to know Italian to love opera (in all honesty I don't love opera, but the principle still holds) we figured it was worth a try even though neither of us had ever been to the Yiddish theater. As it turned out there were projected supertitles in English (and Russian – there were many in attendance who speak Russian) so we had no difficulty in following the story and songs. Our chorus has sung Yiddish songs but they've always been a problem for me. Not a speaker of the language I have difficulty getting my tongue around the language, let alone understanding what the words mean. But that's enough of the anticipated, if unrealized, problems.

The play was a delight. It was dated and it was corny. But it was a delight!

It was an operetta of the type in fashion at the beginning of the last century – one in which love conquered all. There were no real villains, although some of the characters were “gooder” than others. The plot was “spare,” even silly with the usual range of deus ex machina, “surprises,” pathos, and the happy ending that you'd expect from a representative of the genre, but it was all very forgivable and very much in the character of operetta. The acting was broad and the singing glorious. There was even a Hitchcock-like cameo by Mr. Mlotek.

And I left the theater humming one of the songs from the show. That doesn't sound exciting, but it's not something that happens very much anymore. Modern musicals have long, complicated arias that all sound the same to me. (I'm sure that's my fault rather than that of the music, but I don't hear anyone else humming either when I leave a more current production.) And all the singers today seem to prefer melisma to a straight singing of the music, such as it is. Musical theater used to be fun – to be entertainment – but now it's a vehicle for thought and discussion. Even the so-called music. It's no longer the case, but shows used to supply much of what became the popular music of the time. The music of today, however, is the subject of another discussion. (And not one in which I'm likely to participate since I'm not convinced that any exists.) Despite the hype and the critical acclaim of the current musical theater productions, and despite the intellectual maunderings (obligatory and fashionable?) of attendees, the only really enjoyable musicals are the revivals of decades-old shows. (Do you remember the song “I'm Old Fashioned?” Works for me. “I love the old fashioned things.”) So this revival of an old operetta, a remnant of times past, was a tonic.

Traffic to and from the theater (in a museum which has a beautiful setting int Battery Park) was appalling and took forever, but who cares (Ira Gershwin – 1931 – George wrote the music). It was a delightful and an exciting experience, well worth the trouble.

Goldele, meyn Goldele ...

Five Ring Circus

It just began last week, but even before the official opening ceremonies they were already competing. And the first gold medal went to Ginny Thrasher in the Women's BB gun competition. I know they call it an “air rifle” now, but let's be frank: it's a BB gun. Euphemisms be damned.

Would the Greek gods have used BB guns to defend Mount Olympus? I'm not sure, but I really doubt it. In all likelihood they'd have had other things on their minds. They'd probably have been more interested in playing volleyball on some Aegean beach, or, perhaps, golfing in (what is now) Thessaloniki.

That isn't what you think of when you ponder the Olympics? It's not my idea either. Neither am I sure that the Greek gods would recognize the modern Olympic Games. But that's what there is nowadays. Beach volleyball, along with the track and field, swimming, tennis, soccer, water polo, and a host of other events that expand the schedule. And even if they're on the golf course, now between ads, human interest material (not that the immortal ones are especially interested in humans), and other fillers, the gods would be able to watch the games on their iPads – or whatever they're called in Greek.

Things have changed over the millennia. Back in the old days – three thousand years ago, give or take – the games were utilized in order to promote Hellenic unity – “pan-hellenism – since the numerous independent city-states in the area were always at war. They were held every four years and included track, equestrian events (including chariot races after a while), and self-defense competitions like boxing and wrestling. Because it was a goal to promote unity, wars were not fought at the time of the contests. Nor was there battle for a while before and after the events, so as to give participants and spectators a chance to travel to and from the site of the competition safely. There was a sacred truce. And the games' success, both as sport and as an instrument of peace, led to the establishment of similar contests elsewhere in the region: in Delphi, Corinth, and Nemea at various times during the Olympiad – the four year period between Olympic games. Musical programs took place at Delphi, and dance, poetry, and drama presentations also occurred, although they were not a feature of the games at Olympia. Leo Arnaud's music certainly wasn't a feature, nor the pomp of the opening ceremonies, or the art exhibitions featured in some of the modern games. That's entertainment.

I don't know how much corruption was involved then, but now the records for are truly impressive. Because of the anticipated revenues from tourism, there is bribery of Olympic officials by those desiring to hold the games in their cities (although they never seem to finish preparations on time, and the illusion of riches doesn't always reflect the reality). As a result, many officials have gotten rich in the modern world. They can swing a good deal of revenue to the place awarded the event. When the games were in fixed locations, that wasn't a problem.

As for steroids and other “performance-enhancing” drugs, I doubt that they were an issue. Even if some herbs were believed to make one a better athlete, that was considered desirable. And how would they have tested for illegal substances anyway?

All in all, it's hard not to conclude that the ancient games were far more in keeping with the idea of what they should be than the ones we hold now. Apart from the fact that they were men-only events. There was no debating over the issue of amateur versus professional when it came to determining eligibility – although we've stopped worrying about that. And the idea that a truce accompanied each set of games is very appealing, one that might benefit us. It's certainly something to think about. For the most part, I consider the games to be an overly long waste of time, but if wars did not take place during the competitions I'd be willing to accept wall-to-wall Olympics. Even with the bizarre events that they've interpolated into them. As a matter of fact, why not Olympic three-legged races?

I never thought I'd say that.

The Meaning Of Ends

The argument has always existed. Does the end justify the means? And the debate has been raging in our country for a long time. We've seen our own values sometimes used against us. When tyrants have battled us, we are loath to use their tactics against them; and when they use what we consider our “unalienable Rights,” like freedom of speech, to alienate our citizens, we refuse to deny them this instrument. It is, after all, a First Amendment right. Our Constitution guarantees it to us, and we guarantee it to everyone. We will not sink to their level. That's not who we are. Once we start making exceptions there is no end. And if the First Amendment also assures us that we have freedom of religion, and our religion opposes violence, then we have a right, as conscientious objectors, to refuse to serve a cause to which we object.

Those are some of the arguments that favor the idea that the end never justifies the means. But not everyone agrees. For example, when it comes to treasonous speech, there are many who are convinced that it must not be tolerated. In the history of our country there have been many incarcerated for seditious speech; but also those who believe that to preserve our country sedition can neither be compromised nor tolerated. “Right” is not halfway between good and evil, and occasionally we may be forced to use unpleasant means to arrive at a necessary goal. When we seek “right” we are obligated to consider all the tools at our disposal.

In addition, we are taught in the Bible, to Do unto others as they would do unto you. Even those who reject the source are usually accepting of a right of self defense. They usually don't favor the idea of turning the other cheek to an aggressor. That perspective, however, isn't universal. Many draft boards used to question applicants for conscientious objector status on points like this: what would they do if family members or their country were attacked? And do religious objectors accept Thomas Aquinas's view of a “just war?” The issues are complex. Means or ends?

It was a line from a movie. Gore Vidal's The Best Man, I think. And, presumably, from the play that preceded it. There are no ends – only means. Perhaps that's merely the view of an idealistic politician, but there are times when it is difficult to distinguish between them. The First Amendment, for example, guarantees that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. But is that a means to an end, or an end in itself. Supporters defend it strongly, suggesting that any breach in the protection of this right is a fundamental violation of what is due us. It's a principle. It sounds like a means; to others like an end, and that any infringement is a violation of the Constitution, and will challenge the entire idea of free speech.

Is the Constitution a slippery slope? Is it all or nothing? If we make an exception to a "right" do we lose the right? Why take the risk? Shouldn't someone be permitted to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Why shouldn't the “right” to incite to riot be protected? If we make exceptions don't we risk all free speech?

The First Amendment is an addendum to a document designed to be the “rule book” for the new nation created by the Declaration of Independence – a nation of “Free and Independent States.” And the rule book – the Constitution – states that the goal is to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. These are the ends, and the Bill of Rights containing the First Amendment, is the means – the means to those ends. To the degree that the amendments serve those ends, they are justified. But those who believe that the ends justify them under any circumstances are incorrect. Equally, though, those who follow Vidal's dictum are being led astray. The idea that there should be no ends is wrong. It sounds virtuous, but it's wrong. The ends may not necessarily justify the means, but there are some important ends, and there are times when the means must be changed to ensure those ends.

Preserving freedom of speech in its entirety would certainly be a victory for “right.” But it would be a Pyrrhic victory. We'd face the possibility that we won the battle but lost the war. However virtuous we might be, we'd have lost. When the battle is more important than the war, we're likely to do so. And with us, virtue would be lost. We cannot win if preserving a principle results in losing it.

And when it comes to violence, violence designed to provide for the common defence ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, those ends justify the use of violence, the means, notwithstanding the reservations some might have. When we “fight fire with fire” in order to protect our freedoms, we are not choosing “the lesser of evils.” We are not descending to the level of tyrants. We are simply demonstrating that our basic beliefs sometimes – and only after careful balancing of all the available options – require us to take steps which we may, under other circumstances, eschew; but there are times when the ends, principles, are sufficiently fundamental and important that we must do so.

There is an almost inviolable principle in Judaism: the sanctity of the Sabbath. But a threat to health takes precedence, and whatever action is necessary MUST be taken so that the individual at risk will be able to observe future Sabbaths. The end (preservation of the Sabbath) justifies the means (violation of the Sabbath).

So it is with all principles. The more important they are, the more important their preservation. And if they are ends rather than means, the more important the end, the more thought must be given to the justification, and perhaps overemphasis, of the primacy of the means – its inviolability.

The end may not ordinarily justify the means, but common sense cannot be ignored. The means cannot dictate the ends. We need to expand our thinking. As Emerson wrote

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines.

And to expand on Gore Vidal, There are no ends or means, only principles. And we are bound to uphold those principles.

Simplify, Simplify, Simplify

My wife is mad. Angry, if you're not sure what I mean. Infuriated. So are some of her friends. As is often the case, the government is at fault – in this case the Social Security Administration.

By way of background, she works in a program to provide information to recipients, and prospective recipients, of Medicare – primarily the elderly. The majority are beyond retirement age and are collecting Social Security – though it is often inadequate to meet modest needs. Many of them are uncertain about the benefits available to them through Medicare – what they are and how to get them. And, for the most part, they're unsophisticated when it comes not only to the ins and outs of government regulations, but the tools necessary to learn about them are only available from the government that has formulated them and administers them. Recipients have barely enough income to get by, let alone to purchase all the innovations of modern technology. So many of them don't have the computers necessary to learn about the existing programs, and they have to rely on whatever information is sent them by “snail mail” (they know it as “mail”). And it's often the case that they don't read the mail – which is just as well since most of its contents are impenetrable to all but those trained in the law.

That's the background. The case at issue is a new program described in an e-mail message which we received recently – as, we assume, did most of the recipients of Social Security and Medicare who have computers. And of them, only some of those would understand its significance. For example, when I accessed the FAQ section of the site dealing with the new program I learned

Disclaimer

The Social Security Administration (SSA) website contains links to websites not affiliated with the United States government. These may include State and Local governmental agencies, international agencies, and private entities.

SSA cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by such websites. If we provide a link to such a website, this does not constitute an endorsement by SSA or any of its employees of the information or products presented on the non-SSA website.

Also, such websites are not within our control and may not follow the same privacy, security or accessibility policies. Once you visit such a website, you are subject to the policies of that site.

I think that what it is saying is that the government has no responsibility for what it puts on line. Of course I could be wrong.

In any event, I should mention the program in question. Here's the crux

You can create a my Social Security account if you’re age 18 or older, have a Social Security number, a valid email, a U.S. mailing address, and a cell phone that can receive text messages. You’ll need to provide some personal information to confirm your identity; you’ll be asked to choose a username and password; and then provide your cell phone number. You’ll then receive a security code via text that you will be required to enter when you first create an account. We’ll send your cell phone a new security code each time you log in with your username and password. The security code is part of our enhanced security feature to protect your personal information. Keep in mind that your cell phone provider's text message and data rates may apply.

That's straightforward, isn't it? But perhaps you still use (forgive me) a land line (or you can't text – don't have the apparatus or lack the knowledge of how to do it, since I suspect that the majority of Social Security and Medicare recipients either don't text of have difficulty doing so)

If you do not have a cell phone, you will not be able to access your personal my Social Security account. To access your personal my Social Security account, you need a cell phone that can receive text messages. Each time you sign in, we send a text to your cell phone that contains a security code you will need to enter to access your account. Keep in mind that your cell phone provider's text message and data rates may apply. Please visit our website at socialsecurity.gov/agency/contact to learn other ways to contact us.

(This is only a small part of what's written, but I'd put you to sleep if I included all of it.) So there's no problem. You can always contact their web site and find out how to contact them. (That's what you learn when you click on their contact URL – not the answer to your question.) That's all clear, isn't it? And you can be sure you're getting the best service. After all, even if you can't understand it or use it, you're paying for it. And they're not shy about telling you so.

This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.

What it boils down to is that the new program is being thrust on the group least likely to be able to understand or take advantage of it by regulators whose employment depends on creating such programs. And we're paying for it. That's what makes America great.

But I'm not angry about it. Long ago I stopped expecting intelligent actions by the government.