Various Thoughts X

Thoughts and ideas are swirling around. I know you have yours, but I want to continue to set mine down for your consideration (or disdain). Your views, however they may disagree with what I'm saying, are always welcome. Please include your e-mail address with your comments so I can answer at length if your arguments intrigue me.

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

Men were made to compete. So were women (and those who are uncertain about their sex/gender/whatever), although in some instances the “battlefield” is different and involves different subjects. We all want to be the best at whatever is under consideration. Perhaps it's sports, perhaps love, perhaps getting the lowest price for something most in fashion. Some people even argue about who has the worst disease, or who had the most frightful surgery. We even use reflected glory when we argue about our children and grandchildren.

We'll never stop the competition. We all want to be best no matter how sincerely we demand equality for all. Our goal is not to keep up with the Joneses, but to show them up.

How can the competitive fervor of all our citizens be converted into something more productive for society? Can we promote jousts for contributions of time or money? Of course we'd have to establish categories since there isn't equality. Prizes, if only certificates or plaques of honor, might be awarded. It's likely that they, themselves, would be the source of competition, but in the meanwhile society would benefit.

Are there other ways to make the urge to compete productive?

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

Some maintain that the universe was created according to the laws of physics (and their origin was … ?). It was, apparently, a random event – fully explainable by natural laws and not requiring any supernatural intervention.

OK. But as unlikely as was such an event, according to this explication of events it could theoretically happen again. What could we expect if there were a new Big Bang in Boise? Would the current universe be eliminated or would there be a new universe centered in Idaho? Or is some other scenario worth consideration?

Give it some thought. It could happen at any time. You never know.

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

I want to live forever. Or do I? Most of us see everything as revolving around us. We want to know everything and be part of everything. And if the devil offered us immortality in exchange for souls we've never seen, many would accept. The devil, of course, would keep his word as he always does in this type of deal. Once agreed there would be no turning back. Forever is forever.

The up side is that whoever chose that route would get answers to some of the questions he had. And he'd get a chance to find out what happened to those he loved. We don't get a chance to see the future, but he would.

Suppose, however, that soon after the contract was made there came the onset of severe pain or dementia. In that circumstance, Alzheimer's would be forever, or intractable pain would be eternal. Who would want that? Who would want to outlive the descendants he knew and be a burden on those he didn't know and who didn't know him? Sooner or later – after Medicare ceased to exist – he'd wind up in some charity hospital where those who cared for him didn't care. Forever.

Some might consider eternal pain better than eternal nothingness – if that is their belief about the future. Most, probably, would not. But in either case there would be no turning back. I think I'd opt for death, with a prayer that there is a world to come. Whatever the temptations, I don't think I want to live forever.

And you?

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

That's all for now.

June 18, 2017

History

“History is bunk.” (Henry Ford)

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)

And they're both right.

History is an indispensable part of our education but it's sometimes difficult to know what is true.

Let me add another perspective. “History is written by the victors.” Winston Churchill is credited with that thought, although we all know it to be true. We see it every day in the media. The term we use currently is “spin,” and it reflects the way that some want others to “understand” and remember the facts. That's what the victors in battle did. And later generations passed on their views to us as an accurate reflection of what had happened. Sometimes it was true, but not always.

In his “Life of George Washington,” Pastor Mason Weems taught us many myths about our first president – myths that have come to be accepted as reflecting the character of George Washington, even if the “facts” may have been manufactured. Like the work of Thomas Bowdler, Weems goal was to teach morality, but it's been passed down as history.

The Russians made an art of spin. They rewrote history. But they had the power to do so. They could change the text of textbooks and present it to several generations as facts which were eventually accepted. George Orwell, in 1984, fictionalized that act, but his meaning was clear. If we don't know what tyrannies can do, and prevent them, they will deceive us again and again.

And despots, given the opportunity (and if not they'll take it anyway), will use twisted history to justify their own acts. Hitler blamed the Jews for undermining German war efforts and he set out to destroy them both before, and during, the war that he precipitated. History can be used as an excuse for evil.

But it can also be used positively, if that is the aim of those who cite it – even if the “facts” it uses are wrong. The Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av – a single date – commemorates disastrous events that occurred on different dates so as to obviate the need for additional fast days. No attempt is made to alter the other details of the events – only the days. The source of information is the Bible, admittedly written before factuality became an important part of history, although many accept its words at face value as the words of G-d.

Also problematic as history are the Gospels, written after Jesus's death by people who never met him. They were based on stories circulating at the time and have been accepted as accurate, notwithstanding the disputed historicity.

My words should not be understood as a denial of history. The vast majority of what we learn is probably true. It is based on artifacts which provide the facts on which history texts are based. But the historical record also relies on the accounts of those who lived at the time of those events, and their views may be based on ideology rather than truth. We see that with “spin.”

Quoting a Russian proverb, President Reagan said “ Trust but verify.” He was speaking of nuclear inspections, but he was using the words of a nation that had often covered up or altered history to further its position. They're good words, however, for understanding history. The record we have is a valuable guide for us, but it is strengthened, and more worthy of our reliance and observance when supported by reliable evidence.

Properly documented history is not bunk. But sometimes people knowingly make it so in order to aid their own agendas.

June 15. 2017

What's To Be Done?

Mankind has a genius for solving problems. Of course there are some conditions that have to be met if a problem is to be solved – two more than any others. The first is that the problem must be recognized as one for which it is reasonable to seek a solution. The problem itself must be formulated and understood. Second is the existence of tools that can be used to so. Without them it is not reasonable to seek a problem's solution.

The tools must be of two kinds. One kind – the obvious one – relates to the physical tools that allow us to construct the solution: you can't build a better automobile unless certain instruments are available to do so. More important, however, is knowledge of a more theoretical nature – one that makes a solution imaginable and designable. Unless we believe that a solution is feasible, we'll never solve the problem. And that's probably the most important element in problem-solving – the one that most limits us. Once we accept the idea that a problem should, and can be solved, we'll find a way to solve it. And if particular tools – tools not yet available – are needed, we'll fabricate them.

I don't mean to suggest that animals can't recognize and solve problems, or even use tools (as Aesop wrote, crows, for example, will drop pebbles into a class of water until its level is high enough for them to reach and drink), but the problems are few and the solutions are limited. The human, however, is better equipped to analyze and solve more complex problems; given the challenge, and the belief that it can be done, he will build a better mousetrap. And the idea Chester Gould had (in 1946) for Dick Tracy, a wrist radio, has reached fulfillment with today's “smart phones” and “smart watches.” How did our ancestors ever live without it? And how did we, in our childhood, survive without some of the products available now?

Sometimes, however, the problems aren't real. Sometimes an ambitious entrepreneur will create a problem that never existed because he can provide a “solution” for it. And with the help of avaricious advertisers he can convince consumers that his product is worth their money. He has created a “need” which doesn't exist, but for which he can offer a solution. Existing products are inadequate to the seriousness of the situation. We're fortunate that his secret ingredient was perfectly designed to solve the problem we didn't even recognize until he told us about it.

There are many good examples of this phenomenon, but none is as good as the cosmetics industry that parades an endless line of products which, they claim, are perfect solutions to one imagined malady or another. Usually the improvement over previous panaceas is the substitution of one vegetable for another in the magic cream they market. (Veganism wins again.)

And the pharmaceutical industry and its advertisers demonstrate another variant on the theme of a superior product. That's what advertisers do: they convince us that their variation on the theme is far better than anything existing. (Advertisers make a good living by persuading us that there actually would be an advantage to purchasing what their employer is selling. Truth is irrelevant.) In the case of drugs, however, it may be necessary for you to demand that your physician prescribe their product irrespective of the price and the existence of other alternatives.

Another risk of “advancement” is that too often the “cure” is worse than the “disease.” A medication with disabling side-effects may make a fortune for the manufacturer while harming the consumer. Or, if a recall is necessary, it may harm both of them. Similarly the subjects of (often unjustified) lawsuits that bankrupt manufacturers believed by consumers and their lawyers, to have “deep pockets.”

Nonetheless, “progress is our most important product.” And there are many ideas and products that actually improve our lives. Successful entrepreneurs develop them, and help both us and themselves in the process. “American ingenuity” has been credited with contributing to our success as a world leader in many fields. Israel has gotten a reputation as a “start-up nation” for all the new ideas and industries it has originated. (It is sometimes difficult, however, to see it as a nation other than one with which others want to start up.) That's how humanity moves forward.

It takes ideas, money, and nerve to advance us in the commercial (and political) world. Fortunately, Mankind has members who possess these qualities or can determine methods of gaining them. We have a genius for solving problems – far more than simply dropping pebbles in a glass to raise the water level.




October 13, 2016

Death, Ethics, And Education

Triaging has been a feature of medical care for a long time. It's a method for sorting patients so as to make the best use of limited resources. According to the usual pattern, patients are sorted according to the following plan:

           Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those who are unlikely to live, regardless of what care they receive;

           Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in outcome.

Medical attention is initially addressed to those in the third group. They're likely to be the most “productive” recipients of the limited resources.

Ethicists have discussed the proper husbanding of medical resources in view of the costs that have a significant effect on society. Sarah Palin, on her Facebook page, raised a sensitive issue, fearing that the Affordable Care Act would lead to “death panels” which would decide where limited funds would be used, and deny care to some elderly patients. Denials followed immediately, but the issue, once raised, concerned a lot of people. The patients, especially the grandmas, for whom most of the fear existed, were often those who would best fit into the third category: immediate care might make a positive difference. Whether true or not, it raises serious questions about our use of funds.

I'm 78. I have no school-aged children. But I pay school tax. Long ago I had such children and paid the Day School where they were educated. And I paid the school tax in addition to the tuition. And I've paid ever since although I've never had children in public schools. That allows schools to collect money from all of us for students it doesn't educate. (Actually, international statistics suggests that it doesn't do a very good job for those it does try to educate.) Attempts to get “vouchers” authorized, so those who wished to send their children to private schools would not have to pay twice to improve the quality of the learning in general, and in particular areas, were always opposed by teachers' unions, and always failed to get approval. It was maintained that they'd take funds away from public education. (As does the Department of Education – bureaucrats who supervise the states.) That's true, but vouchers would probably allow children to get a better education – rich and poor alike – if they could choose the school they attended. But besides acting as a prod for professional improvement, such a system would also cost the jobs of some union members, and this would be intolerable, despite the fact that some teachers were not up to the job.

The complaint was also made that vouchers would aid parochial schools and thus constituted a violation of the first amendment by destroying the separation of church. The Constitution, of course, has no such mandate – only against the establishment of a state religion. That, however, doesn't stop opponents of vouchers from protesting. And it doesn't stop them from bowing before the god of public education.

(The ante has been raised. Because those with college degrees earn more, and there is a history of free municipal colleges, there is a movement to once again offer free education for almost everyone. Who pays for that? And do we need more cabbies with college degrees? )

Suppose the ethics panel considered the use of public money for an educational system that was functioning poorly. Would they approve the use of limited resources for a failing system when other options existed? Would they pay for the education of all comers, irrespective of qualifications or interest?

Another question that comes to mind is based on the reality that there seems to be no limit on the resources used to save a preemie or an otherwise damaged newborn. No expense is spared and publicity is extensively lavished upon successes. Thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars may be expended. An additional result may be the markedly increased expenses required to educate these children, which come from the costs of educating others – including the disabled. Do panels of ethicists ever ponder the morality and the wisdom of using limited medical and educational resources this way? I don't mean to suggest that we should withhold care from those who need it – preemies, the disabled, or grandmothers – only to raise the question of how we choose to use our limited resources.

It's basically a political issue. There are repeated and angry demands from all interest groups for the funding of their needs. Where do the funds come from? The treasury that contains our tax money. And the two opposing views of what funding should take place are those of ideologues.

Liberals: We are obliged as a society to care for our most vulnerable citizens, if that is possible. If it's not possible our ethicists will tell us what to do.

The costs should be born by the rich.

Conservatives: You get what you pay for.

They get what we pay for.

Perhaps we should reconsider, or even triage, taxpayer expenses with the aid of ethicists who consider all our problems, and all aspects of each of them.

Hoffer 5

What follows are excerpts from a diary written nearly a half century ago. Nothing has changed and Hoffer remains as a prophet from the past. You may think him a conservative, but what he said deserves your consideration.

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

Nowadays, anyone who dwells on the difficult problems which confront a society is considered reactionary. Many liberals are hostile toward any evidence that there are problems that cannot be solved or that the results of reforms are often the opposite of what the reformers intended.

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

The present inability of parents to pass on their values to their children may be partially due to the fact that most teachers, particularly in the big cities, do not share the values of run-of-the-mill parents. Indeed, many teachers see it as their duty to imbue students with values diametrically opposed to those of their parents – to prepare students for the “new reality.”

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

What will the flood of money do to the Arabs? A flood of gold hastened the decline of Spain and Portugal while the inflow of riches during the first half of the nineteenth century propelled Britain to economic and political supremacy. Money works wonders where there is an enterprising middle class continually replenished by new recruits. [Meanwhile princes and tyrants benefit.]

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

The blindness of the German Jews strikes me as a mark of decadence. It will fare ill with Jews everywhere if they allow the memory of Hitler's holocaust to be blurred during the remainder of this terrible century. [Or beyond.]

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

Why should ordinary people be better organizers than people who feel theselves above the average? Ordinary people have more trust in their fellow men, and trust is a precondition for effective organizing. It is also true that ordinary people are never certain they know best, hence their willingness to listen and compromise. Finally, ordinary people are not likely to demand perfection and will settle for the possible. [Some people still think they know what's best for everyone, and those who disagree are evil.]

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

Civilized countries fell over each other to court Hitler even as he turned Germany's Jews into pariahs. The same countries are falling over each other to court the Arabs, who are determined to destroy Israel. The world feels no shame when it betrays Jews. It is as if fate has placed Jews outside the comity of mankind. [1975]

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

After all we have seen with our own eyes [Hoffer refers to the “cold war” with communism] there ought not to be a grownup person who is not contemptuous of the gibberish about an ideal society and does not look for lineaments of a commissar in the features of an idealist loudmouth.

The trouble is that the young who nowadays want to make history are not interested in history. They are unbelievably ignorant of so much that has happened in this [the twentieth] terrible century. They will follow anyone who wants to clear the ground for a new world by sweeping away all that exists.

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

The danger in reform is that the cure may be worse than the disease. Reform is an operation of the social body; but unlike medical surgeons reformers are not on guard against unpredictable side effects which may divert the course of reform toward unwanted results. Moreover, quite often the social doctors become part of the disease. [Or they become politicians.]

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

It is a tragic fact that the wound inflicted on Arab manhood by the emergence of a defiant Israel cannot be cured by reasonable solutions. There is the widespread conviction that the Arabs will become whole again only by wiping Israel off the face of the earth. [And the “liberals” of the world are trying to help them.]

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

The silent majority has no hopes. It has fears: fear of inflation, fear of violence in the streets, fear of having houses and cars ransacked, fear of losing its children to the drug and drift culture. A party that aspires to become a party of the majority must address itself to those fears.

The Democratic party is increasingly becoming a party of the minorities. The question is whether the Republicans can develop the sweep and drive necessary to stir the majority and convince it that there are practical ways to cure its fears. [Protest of everything you dislike is not one of them, but that's today's tool.]

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

As I said, nothing changes. There's lots more, but I'll get around to it later.

The Law Is An Ass

Don't look at me. Those aren't my words. Mr. Bumble said it (in Charles Dickens's Oliver Twist) and, for better or worse, that's what many people think. It doesn't matter if a law is just. It's just the law. And it will be followed whatever the implications.

One of the other main complaints is that, from the public's perspective, there are too many lawyers, and that they stimulate litigation and are more interested in winning cases and making money than they are in obtaining justice. It's a question of win or lose rather than right or wrong. One of the most popular “lawyer jokes” (yes, that's a genre) describes one dead lawyer as “a good start.”

Apart from the legal documents which we can't understand, there are two primary stages for the law from the point of view of the average citizen – as it applies to him [or her]

1. directly – as a juror or, for better (he sues someone or benefits from a law) or worse (he is sued by someone or is affected detrimentally by a law) or
2. indirectly – vicarious interest in the affairs of others, fact or fiction brought to him by the media.

Direct involvement is generally a hassle. The further one stays from the legal system the better. Win or lose one winds up with a major expense and an ulcer. But indirect involvement is fun. Most enjoyable are those instances when there is a trial and the individual matches his knowledge of the evidence and his “expertise” against the real or fictional jury. We know some things that jury members aren't allowed to know and, obviously, we are not party to much of the testimony they hear. And we often learn more than they about the application and the implications of the law at issue. The description of that law, and its application, are usually limited by the magistrate in jury instructions to the way they pertain to the particular case.

But that's often not good enough. Even after all the evidence is presented and the judge has described the law and the options of the jury, there are many instances when one or more jurors is uncertain about how to vote. There are “hung” juries (situations when a jury cannot reach a verdict) and mistrials based on that uncertainty. And there is occasionally an instance of “jury nullification”

when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding. (Doug Linder – University of Missouri – Kansas City)

That's an uncommon result however – usually because the jury doesn't think of it. More common are the cases in which one or more jurors has questions about the case whose answers would make deciding easier. But the rules are the rules and it's often difficult to get answers that are needed. Questions must be addressed to the judge and answered by him in terms of the testimony already given or based on the specific law. Sadly that may not solve the problem. Perhaps the rules themselves are in need of modernizing with the goal of achieving a fair decision rather than a judgment of who is the winner in a legal competition; between grandiloquence and a quest for truth. There is a difference between law and justice. There are times when attorneys avoid subjects they fear would be harmful to their cases, and they are not obligated to present them.

One way to deal with what is at least a part of the problem is to let jurors question witnesses and judges. They're the ones who must make the decisions. (Depositions are available to lawyers giving them the opportunity to gather facts and decide what will and will not be presented to the jury. As a result those affected indirectly often have questions and opinions beyond what is presented or permitted in court.) Perhaps jurors' questions should be screened and reworded by judges or others, but if jurors have questions, answering them is the best way to get an informed decision. Would there be more or fewer appeals? How would it affect costs? Would it affect the number of appeals? How would it affect the interest and attention of jurors? With additional information – specifically clarification of points of fact and law – jurors might reach more, and more-informed, decisions. They might reach them more quickly than is currently the case. And by questioning the judge, jurors may learn that their concerns are covered by existing statutes, and nullification is unwise and unnecessary.

It's not the way things are done but that doesn't make it wrong. The system as it now exists allows attorneys to conceal what they don't want to say, and to use their rhetorical skills to try to convince jurors to accept their arguments – even if they are concealing pertinent information which their opponent doesn't consider, though a juror might. And the current system limits a judge to a strict set of rules, precedents, and interpretations rather than a full a full menu. He is limited to judgments of the past, and the jury generally (but not always) doesn't learn what the judge meant. And if the judge (or the lawyers or witnesses) is biased, there is no way now for jurors to determine this.

Perhaps this is going too far. As things stand, however, testimony is limited and may not reflect reality. Changing the entire legal system is not only impractical but will never be done. Perhaps smaller changes should be considered. Kibbitzers might be better jurors than those limited by table rules. A wise owl is more to be desired than an ass.

September 28, 2016

Various Ideas VII

I've given this series additional consideration, and I suspect that “Various Thoughts” would be a better title for it. I'll call it that in the future. There's not all that much difference between the words “ideas” and thoughts,” at least in the denotations, but there is one (of many) dissimilarity that suggests that “thoughts” may better characterize my goals as I “write” this.

“Idea” is an active word. It presents a situation which may benefit from action. “Thought,” on the other hand, is far more passive. It, too, refer to something crossing the mind, but ”feeling” is all that is is necessary. There's no need to act on some of these views – though you can if that's your wish.

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

My cancer antigen level is decreasing. It's been doing so for the last three months. It gives me hope. Perhaps this represents real improvement which will result in “cure,” or perhaps not, but in the meanwhile it is encouraging. In addition, my appetite is getting better, as is my capacity – not necessarily for a particular meal, but in toto. Those are additional causes for hope.

It's common for people to look for hope wherever they can find it – to find clues, auguries, or other signs that their optimism is well supported. They are likely to see these signs whether or not they are there. And to pick and choose the signs they find, selecting those most favorable to them.

The oracles of ancient Greece understood this and they pronounced their prophesies in terms that could be, in fact would be, interpreted to suit the wishes of the listener. The opposite of what was anticipated was at least as likely, but the listener wasn't interested in any possibility that was contrary to his interests. Seekers of hope chose to understand and believe what they wanted to.

Hope doesn't come with a guarantee. It's only an offshoot of denial, a well-established defense mechanism and it keeps us “up” when we might otherwise be “down.” When we have hope, negative possibilities seem less likely.

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

DNA perplexes me. Not so much the concept of transmission of data as the idea that somehow the particular genes manage to form organism for which they were designed. Take the human being for example (I'm more familiar with that than with Euglena for example). Eye color is clearly a feature that is determined by one or more genes, but each, as far as I know, controls the production of a certain chemical. How does that dictate the color of the eyes? And how does one (or more) chemicals determine the angle of the femoral neck? Or the shape of the stapes?

I can do my calculations about gene frequency, or the likelihood of a particular feature. It's simply and extension of what Mendel taught. But I'm completely unable to understand how the code is translated into structures. And I'll never know.

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

Why do people give charity? There are certainly those who see a need or an injustice and consider it their obligation to try to help, I suspect, however, that they're in the minority. I'd guess that more give out of a sense of guilt. And even more because of pressure, from their friends or from others.

There are also some who give in the expectation of honor they'll receive. I remember, from college days, plaques on buildings, classrooms, and even smaller items, like microscopes. It was important that we see the name of the person who had made the donation. And there may have been a tax advantage for them as well.

Some give willingly – even without being asked. Others not so. And many not at all. There is clearly a religious component to it. The religious give more often and in larger percentages of their earnings than the others. (It's a general rule and is not always correct. Maimonides listed the charitable in the order of their merit. The highest level often involved helping someone find employment so he could support himself and his family.)

And, surprisingly, the “lower classes” often give greater percentages of their income than the rich. That, of course, doesn't describe all of the rich. Many of them have joined together to attack the problems of poverty, disease, and the environment. And there are the wealthy of the past who have established foundations that are still helping those in need. But relative to income, they're in the minority.

Whatever the reasons, society would suffer if no charity were given. There will always be poor – in your community and around the world. And, to the degree possible, we should all help those in physical, educational, and spiritual need, wherever they are..

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

More to follow.  And Happy Flag Day!

May 15, 2017

Mixed Grill XXXIII

If you don't agree with me you're wrong, but don't worry.

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

I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself (Oscar Wilde)

A far cry – It must be 4 AM.

If you build it they will come – Lego

European Union – Oxymoron

Dog daze – A spaniel in the works

Bourne again – It gets repetitive after a while

Gone with the wind – There ain't no good sandlots any more

Joseph Haydn – The multicolor coat may be in much demand, but no one will find it

Make love, not war – I wonder. Love may get us out of a depression, but war got us out of the Depression

True grits – A taste of hominy

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after – (Mark Twain and others)

Oh what a beautiful mourning – Doesn't she look natural?

Money burns a hole in my pocket – Especially if it's hot

Computer generation – The generation that generates computers

The great American novel – President Trump

Chapstick – British gentleman's cane

State lottery – Taxing the poor

American exceptualism – The belief that laws you don't like don't apply to you

At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religous or political ideas (Aldous Huxley)

ACLU – Defender of whatever the Board feels like cloaking in virtue

Fair & Balanced – After all, what can a thumb weigh? (There's an article about that in the Times. It's based on their experience)

French lesson – Don't bother. No matter what you do they'll scoff

Melting pot – Idea as outdated as E Pluribus Unum

Pass the ammunition – Atheist version of WWII song title

Don't sit under the apple tree with anyone else but Newton – Certainly not near William Tell's son

Gregg – You expected more?

This little piggy went to market – And he lost a fortune believing that his stocks would go up and make him rich

Herbert von Karajan – Had to put his baton with his stored baggage after 9/11

Fauré's Requiem – He had to kill some Frenchmen when he raided their work places but he was duly penitent

Julius Caesar – And hold her. You certainly won't need a cohort

Top soil – Ring around the collar

Jolly Green Giant – I prefer Friendly and Rusty

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

Even if you agree with me you're wrong.

Various Thoughts IX

No time for essays, but thoughts that have crossed my mind.

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

Segregation is back. Voluntary. Proud. There was a commencement ceremony “for black graduate students at Harvard.” That was the declaration of an article yesterday in the New York Times. (I don't generally accept at face value what I read in the Times, but this had a picture to demonstrate the point. I don't think it was “photoshopped.”) Were caucasians excluded? And were “straight” students barred from the “lavender” ceremonies at the University of Delaware? And what about other similar events across the country? We're turning away from a common purpose and a common destiny.

There was a time when Americans were proud of their country and its people. They viewed their nation as a “melting pot.” Now the only ones proud to be Americans are those who have just gained citizenship. E Pluribus Unum no longer applies. Our protests, disdain for each other, and rejection of our government have turned us into a conglomeration of communities that identify with their members, but not with each other and not with our country. It's not what our founders had in mind.

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

I saw some robins a few mornings ago and it got me wondering about their purpose? If you're a Darwinist you see them simply as a step in the evolutionary chain and they have no particular purpose otherwise, except as the ancestors of future species. But perhaps you accept the existence of a deity and the purposeful creation of all forms of life, each with a reason. While that presupposes a use for all of them,

Rabbi Judah said in Rab's name: ... He did not create a single thing without a purpose ... " (Talmud – Shabbat 77b)

and the Bible tells us that they're for our food and our enjoyment, I know that within my religion – Judaism – there is no tradition of eating robins, which pretty much excludes it.

I suppose, then, that enjoyment is the key. I must admit that my spirits were raised when I saw them. In addition to the joy I felt as I watched, their presence told me that Spring was here. And that's good enough for me. I may not understand the secrets of the universe, but I'll enjoy what I can.

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

N. B. My mind is going. And my memory of what I wrote and when is failing as well. I tried to code my essays as I went along, but I didn't do that very well. And my time schedule lacks precision as well. I know that I have essays written and scheduled for publication as far ahead as August 2018. Of course I'm not going to read them so I'll continue in my ignorance of what I said.

Because I'm so far ahead, and some of what I've written will not age well, I've just stuck some things in with the dates they were produced. If you want, you can search for news items at about the same time, and they'll provide context for what I say, though I may have said it before.

It's all good though. I know that I'm repeating myself, and I'll likely continue to do so. Since I try not to reread what I've written I don't get the reinforcement that that might provide. But it's not my problem. It's yours. (I've probably said that already too. So be it.) Deal with my warning as you see fit. (I'll probably repeat it as well when I've forgotten this note.)

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

I can't write about all my thoughts, but some of them my be worth your consideration, even if they don't warrant fuller exposition.

June 4, 2017

Sez Who? 2

In an earlier essay (May 29, 2011) I wrote about free speech and its defense, concluding that all speech should be permitted and that, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis,

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I noted Justice Robert Jackson's words as well

The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

While I still agree with those sentiments, I am aware that I didn't spend any time on an important underlying problem – the plethora of “speakers.” What I mean is not that everyone is talking at once, although that's certainly true – and, sadly, there is “a good deal of rubbish” around – but that there are so many who are “experts” and we are getting our instructions and our marching orders from more and more of them. And obeying those in charge is even more complex. So determining what is valid and what isn't often presents difficulties. I have my own views in this regard, but I realize that others may disagree. Nonetheless, I shall present my appraisal of the various sources of “the rules of the road” – those telling us what to do, or pretending to be more virtuous than we, and to know more than we do. To one degree or another they direct our thinking and our actions, though they often contradict each other.

Among the oldest standards, and the ones considered by so many to be the least rational, are those that are spiritual in origin. The Bible and other religious codes contain the absolutes that we are to accept, because they are “right,” and whatever contradicts them is wrong. By and large they don't accept the idea of cultural diversity and contrary opinions, and the responses of believers to disagreements are a blind eye and ear in the face of perverse notions, tolerance, argumentation, and war. Luckily my religion boasts the correct rules and I am thus the bearer of ageless wisdom. But, I suppose, you feel the same way, even if our traditions don't overlap. (I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it. PS – I'm not interested in war.)

According to the religious approach, the absolutes were announced by G-d, and are universal. There's no such thing as “moral diversity.” Right's right and wrong's wrong. But not everyone holds this view. (They're wrong of course.) So we've wound up in a situation of national anarchy. Every country makes its own rules, and they usually differ from each other and from the religious absolutes. That's what I mean by “national anarchy.” Secular laws are whatever the legislators want them to be – what they or their contributors find the most appealing – without any necessary linkage to propriety and justice. No. that's a misstatement. Since they make the rules, they define “propriety” and “justice.” It's whatever they say it is, and you'd better do what they say.

But even that's not correct, at least not in our country. And I presume elsewhere as well. Our legislators set goals and leave it to others – unelected bureaucrats – to make the regulations that we have to follow. Penalties result if we don't do so, despite the fact that the rules were never approved by those our Constitution decreed responsible for doing so.

Secular law, however, is superimposed on a large number of other sources of instruction that abound in our lives. Among them are “common knowledge,” customs and traditions (“We've always done it that way”), fashions, rumors, societal “norms,” the expectations of others, and numerous other guides. Our bookstores are filled with handbooks for us “dummies” so that we'll do things in the right way.

And besides the sources of instruction are the authorities that tell us what we should do are those who tell us what we must do. At home it's our parents. Elsewhere it may be teachers, bosses, doctors, accountants, union stewards, and similar experts. And, of course, judges. Their opinions and biases, after all, supersede the written laws which, in any case, they interpret. In actuality, they have the last word. Ignorance of their views is no excuse for violating them. (You certainly don't want to contradict a dictator. At least not if you value your life.)

That's the minimum. There are other authorities of all types and they both set standards for us and manage our lives. Hebrew National answers to a “Higher Authority.” And federal and state authorities make sure that we're following the rules. And the MTA and similar agencies govern our ability to go from place to place. There are others, of course, which only deal with us in particular areas of life. In my case, for example, the JCAH (Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals) decided what constituted proper medical practice, setting the rules as to how to follow their wishes but, every few years, when we were finally beginning to understand their rules, they changed them.

What's the answer? What should we do – especially when standards and rules disagree? There are different approaches, mainly based on your philosophy. But rather than outline the approaches themselves, it will be more productive to review the criteria you'll use to choose.

Your level of belief may lead you to choose religious edicts rather than others while attachment to life may take you in another direction; abiding respect for your nation's history and customs may govern your actions but the suggestions of your lawyer or accountant may direct the way you abide by the law; the guidebook for dummies may point you in one direction and your personal trainer may go the opposite way. It doesn't matter what you choose. You're wrong.

So the best answer is to do whatever you think is right; to take the approach that you think is most consistent with your personal philosophy and your ultimate goals. But be prepared to take the consequences if things don't work out. Those who practice civil disobedience with the knowledge that they may be arrested are doing that, but it's what they've chosen to do; it's what they believe to be right.

So speak your mind, and either make a decision based on what is important to you or flip a coin.

Just remember. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

September 21, 2016

Cures?

My creatinine (a marker of kidney function and hydration) is slightly elevated. So I was advised to drink more.

Fine. Reasonable.

I told my oncologist's nurse – the one who told me to drink more – that I'd have more tea during the day. “No” she said. Tea has caffeine and would cause a diuresis. I'd lose more water than I'd take in. I didn't say much. That's not what I learned in medical school, but that was more than a half-century ago and medical opinion might have changed.

But it hasn't.

According to Bruce Richardson, a columnist for Tea Time magazine,

Tea consumption does not produce a negative diuretic effect unless the amount of tea consumed at one sitting contains more than 300mg of caffeine.

At an average 50mg of caffeine per cup, this is equivalent to six cups of tea at one sitting.

And

Dr. Jeffrey Blumenthal, Director of Antioxidant Research at Tufts University in Boston. Speaking at the 2012 International Tea & Health Symposium at the Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC, Dr. Blumenthal had this to say about the subject:

"We now have more than sufficient data to get over the myth that somehow tea is a diuretic and dehydrating. It is not."

Too much of what we accept is myth and old wives' tales.

Perhaps, as “everyone knows,” chicken soup is the universal panacea. Indeed, I saw in an eighteenth century medical book I once owned, that chicken soup, used as an enema, was a useful therapy for something. I can't remember what it was intended for, but I can't imagine it had any particular value. Sounds like a waste of good chicken soup. (Even bad chicken soup would probably be of no value as an enema, though I can think of no better use for it.) I'm reasonably certain that many of the things we do today will, in future years, be viewed as myths and superstitions, yet today we put all our trust in them.

The same nurse advised me to wear shoes when I walk because a neuropathy of the feet was one of the side effects of a drug I was taking and I had started to become unsteady. I'm reasonably certain that this is a standard teaching of nurses (and mothers) but I choose to ignore it. Shoes make my feet hurt and make me more unsteady, and I walk (indoors at least) better in soft slippers. She never asked me anything about other foot problems; she only advised that I wear shoes all the time. One size (of therapy) fits all.

You've heard such advice before. It may have come from the media (usually regarding food, cancer, heart disease, and diabetes) which are quick to publicize first (and unverified) studies; it may have come from others who pass on “wellness” advice and what they've heard or what everyone knows – even the doctors who, everyone knows, are hiding it from you; its origin may be your grandmother – the font of all the wisdom of the ages. And there are the views of those who would help us cure disease by using “alternative medicine” – a fashion that has provided additional options, often of no value – to those easily swayed by both the latest and by the time-honored explanations of measures likely to provide good health.

Some of the therapies, irrespective of the source, are associated with success, but the same can be achieved by a variety of placebos. Others simply occupy the patient until “nature takes its course” and he recovers – time heals some wounds. We should not ignore the fact that some have a suggestion of scientific validity and should be investigated further. However we should await the results of those investigations before proclaiming their value.

But most of these therapies are based on belief, and won't yield to logic and any information contrary to what their proponents “know.” Thus the nurse (believes and) advises that tea will cause dehydration, even though there is ample evidence that this is not true. Too many people are swayed by outdated ideas which they won't surrender no matter what the contrary evidence. All the claims of those who practice allopathic medicine are viewed skeptically if they disagree with common knowledge or the views of “experts” promoting “feel good,” or “feel superior” methods for dealing with our ills – or what we think to be our ills.

There's no cure for this disease. I won't try to defend the medical profession because I'll be accused of being part of the conspiracy to malign therapies other those of the “club.” Even when ancient and alternative methods and medicines delay proper treatment, they're seen as valid alternatives to standard ways.

Sometimes, as the saying goes, the cure is worse than the disease.