We Did It, But Why?

I heard on the radio this morning that Juno was in orbit around Jupiter. That's quite an accomplishment. Like finding a needle's eye in a haystack. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory sent a space vehicle nearly two billion miles, and its course eventually intersected with the largest planet in our solar system – and all at a cost of only one billion, one hundred million dollars (so far). That's really a bargain. At a cost of under a dollar a mile it's less than what we have to pay for some domestic flights. Economy class. And Juno is expected to provide scientific information for the rest of its life, which is estimated at twenty months. Moreover it achieved orbit on the Fourth of July. How proud we all are.

Or, at least, how proud they all are. I'm not proud. After all, I paid for this boondoggle. All American taxpayers did. And we're not done paying. Continued monitoring of the ship during its Jupiter orbiting, by the large governmental staff, will cost a lot of money. As will the analysis of the scientific data they collect. And that analysis will go on long after Juno crashes on the planet, as, ultimately, it will do.

Why are we doing it? Why, at a time when so many fear for the survival of the human race which they see threatened by nuclear power, global warming, war, disease, and a host of other scourges, do we devote resources to this kind of program rather than using the money to deal with some of the menaces we face? It must be remembered that the Juno expedition is only a small part of a much more ambitious effort, and the expenditures are far greater than the cost of this particular project. Consequently there would be a significantly larger pool of currency available for addressing more immediate problems if the program were to be tailored back. It's certainly not enough to solve all the world's ills, but it's a start.

Why are we doing it? Our scientists and our government will tell us that the advancement of science and knowledge more than justify the expense. Perhaps it will take centuries, perhaps millennia, but the scientific knowledge that humanity gains from this mission will certainly help future generations. Perhaps. But perhaps future generations should pay for it rather than we and our children. If there are future generations.

Even the results thus far leave me wondering. According to the report I heard today it won't be until the 2030's that we send people to Mars, and, in all likelihood, we'll never send them to Venus for reasons of time, distance, radiation, and many other factors. If it's for the scientific knowledge that our descendants a millennium from now have, give some thought to our own view of the science of the year 1016; those ideas that we don't consider to be old wives' tales we pass off as bad science, or we laugh. In all likelihood our efforts today will suffer the same fate no matter how much we invest in them.

So what is our motive? There are several motives, but the main ones are, firstly, that we can do it. In addition, it adds to our prestige as a nation and our profile as a force to be feared just to show that we can. But an important causative factor is curiosity – not the curiosity of most citizens who rarely if ever think about Jupiter, but that of the scientists who ponder the unanswerable questions of the universe. They may not benefit from the answers, but they want to know, and our government is willing to pay for answers. With our money.

This wondrous event, the shining moment of a project that will doom our children to increased debt and decreased security, marked the anniversary of another event in which one generation spoke for those that followed – the issuance of the Declaration of Independence by the “Founding Fathers” who soon thereafter wrote a constitution for their new country. Although most of us don't agree with the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson believed that one generation should not speak for the next. It was has view that each of us should decide his own fate. There should be a new revolution every generation. Strangely enough, that was his understanding of the mathematics and science of the time. Many philosophers based their ideas on imaginary equations which lacked any validity. And, as a result, Jefferson's approach was a faulty one which would have limited the entire concept of a heritage.

In the past couple of centuries we've become more selective about what is important and what is not – what we accept and what we don't – what we can live with and what can wait. And we're a little more cognizant of what we're passing on as obligations and goals to our children. Some of what we leave as a heritage is reasonable and, indeed, necessary. But not everything. Tikun Olam, the repair of the world as it is now, is high on the list of valuable aims. We do those children no favor by ordaining that they pay for projects that may help their distant descendants while having to limit their investment in their own world.

Before we worry about the thirty-first century we should deal with the twenty-first.

Love And Marriage

It shouldn't be taken as cause and effect. It's just coincidence. My last essay dealt with the death sentence and this one with marriage. But there's no relationship between the two. At least not in this case. (The Gentleman doth protest too much, methinks? Nah. The essay is all true. And I consider being called a “Gentleman” an insult.)

Sex, love, and marriage. They're three very different states and acts, but there are also times when they're connected. The order of the three, however, – if, in fact, all apply in a particular instance – is quite variable. What used to be conventional, and is still often the case, is love, marriage, and sex (l/m/s).

The original pattern, which pre-existed any emotional or legal attachments, was sex. Period. It was practiced throughout the animal kingdom – usually, but not invariably – without any hint of monogamy. It was instinctual and enjoyable, and contributed to the survival of the species. And, prior to the institution of religion and secular law, unaccompanied sex was also the pattern among members of our species. (Unaccompanied by love or marriage. Wash your mind out with soap if you put another construction than that on my words.)

But homo sapiens became “civilized,” and adopted the trappings of a civilized society. And that society demanded formalization of the pattern and the creation of the family. (The pattern was formalized at least on paper – or pottery or parchment – however less “civilized” practices persisted off the books.) But that pattern (l/m/s) has withered as the polite rules of society have broken down. (It may have worked in my time – and it's still practiced by many – however it no longer seems to be the standard.) People are less “hung up” on the strictures that previous generations mouthed. The taboos of the past are gone. What used to be called “free love” – now simply termed “benefits” – is considered the norm. The incidence of “out-of-wedlock” babies and single parent families has risen rapidly in recent decades, and the rate of abortions has also grown in order to clean up the mess that our new morality encourages. Sexual mores (read: “more sex”) have changed, times have changed, and so have societal expectations.

A rabbi I heard (I can't remember who it was) pointed out the current pattern in American society (and, presumably, others as well), was l/s or s/l, and sometimes m. Pleasure and emotions take precedence over order and the future. In Orthodox Judaism, however, the pattern is the opposite – m/s/l – with marital stability most important and the raising of children a priority over the physical aspects of sex (at least in theory). It results from the disposition to arrange marriages – the province of the parents rather than the participants. Interestingly, divorce rates are lower than the norm and, by definition, so are single parent households. (The same, of course, is true in other cultures that favor arranged marriages.) Not all of the unions are happy or survive, but most do because the expectations of the participants are different from those of other wedded couples. Their commitment is to the marriage and the family, not as much to themselves. Of course the same can be said of many marriages based on love.

The idea of an arranged marriage, however, is anathema to the romantic notions which our society promotes. There's a lot to be said for love, but outside of movies, magazines, and fairy tales, it is, itself, a novelty. Actually movies, magazines, and romantic novels today are more reflective of the new concept of morality than the old. And television seems to be leading the way. Sex seems to be the focus of relationships, with love and marriage only secondary features. Freud would approve. The pleasure principle has triumphed over commitment.

I found the following on the web site of the American Psychological Association. It's adapted from the “Encyclopedia of Psychology.”

Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.

(The point is often made that in a home where there is discord, it is better if the parents divorce rather than try to make a go of it for the sake of the children, who will be scarred by the environment in which they are raised. While there's much that can be said for that perspective, a union based on passion rather than pragmatism is more likely to fail and necessitate divorce.)

Robert Epstein, a Senior Research Psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology reports:

“... feelings of love in arranged marriages tend to gradually increase as time goes on in the relationship, whereas in so called “love marriages,” where attraction is based on passionate emotions, a couple’s feelings for each other typically diminish by as much as fifty percent after only eighteen to twenty-four months of marriage.”

That's not so unexpected since in arranged marriages love was not a consideration prior to the union, whereas in marriages based on love – love often misrepresented in the media and in romanticized mythology and fairy tales – there's a lot of room for unmet expectations and dashed hopes. So if a marriage is based on unrealistic dreams rather than a commitment of a family, it's less likely to survive.

The primary component of a successful marriage is commitment. (My wife and I have been married over 55 years.) Love changes over time and, under the right circumstances, deepens. Finding the right mate based on passion and “love at first sight” is all too often a myth. Mr. Right is in her mind, and Ms. Right in his. Their commitment and cooperation are necessary, along with a reasonable of shared likes and dislikes.

Sex can be a nice bonus, but when it comes to marrying, sex is no substitute for real love – or for the wisdom of one's parents.

Next episode: “The Earth Moved” – At least the sidewalk.

For The Sake Of Our Children

As you sow, so shall you reap.ⁱ

I'm a proud sow and so. I almost called myself a defiant sow and so, but I thought better of it. “Defiant” is a very bellicose word. It suggests a militaristic approach: an angry, arrogant, and aggressive one that is the antithesis of every value I hold. I envision a world in which peace and freedom are the primary characteristics of all humanity.

I believe – as I'm sure you do – that our children should grow up in such a world. It would be a world in which love and fellowship would guide our every move; it would be a world in which Mankindⁱⁱ would be “at one” with all the plants and animals that share our world and, in fact, with the Universe itself. That was the world sought by some friends of mine – a couple – who, in the Woodstock Era, played a major role in the founding of a commune based on these values. The commune was known as Eutopiaⁱⁱⁱ and the founders envisioned a community in which all members were equal and participated in all aspects of the society's life. Not only would the adults be able to promote and experience a moral and ethical life, but their children – and they would come eventually – would mature with only those views which their parents knew to be true, and to be the proper foundation for lives of virtue. Nothing was too good for their children. Nothing was more important.

And the early members of Eutopia were dedicated to the idea that they were all residents of the same sphere, and all shared responsibility for protecting it as well as themselves. Their motto was “Save our world and save ourselves.” And soon enough they became known as SOW And SOs.^iv And so it was that they – and now I – have come to change the world.

First a little about the Eutopia they built: The residential units, which are little more than dormitories, are single storied constructions^v situated on a prairie in South Dakota, not too far from Rapid City. The community is adjacent to the Black Hills and the South Dakota Badlands, and its main structure – which serves as a meeting hall, the seat of “government,” and the site of any “large” congregation – especially a noisy one – is underground, built into one of the foothills. The intent was to place such a site in a location from which loud noises would not emanate. This would be a protection against sound pollution. Since they were living among the wildlife native to the area, it would have been unfair to disturb the true owners of the land in their homes. Similarly, no light escaped from the meeting hall, so as not to be intrusive in this regard. There were skylights, however, so that there would be light during the day with no use of electricity. But they were covered at night.

The dormitories, too, were shuttered at night so no light would escape. Since no radios or television sets were permitted, noise was not a major consideration.^vi And the light was provided by candles, which the residents made themselves. There was electric light – low power consumers such as fluorescent and LED – in the meeting hall, with solar and wind energy for generation of the electricity, as well as with the power provided by a backup generator. It was run using vegetable oils, so as not to require fossil fuels. No official use of animal products was permitted nor was any exploitation of non-human species.^vii Thus they were all vegans and the foods they ate were all home-grown without any animals used for plowing.^viii And they eschewed the use of any fertilizers – the chemical ones were not natural, and the natural ones originated from animals. Plumbing needs for the dorms and the hall were solved with wells^ix for the inflow, and a septic field for the outflow – widely separated, of course.

Food was a major concern. They were all vegan converts but, for the most part, largely unaware of what that meant, and how it was different from vegetarian. So when they learned that honey was forbidden, as well as mayonnaise and many commercial breads and cakes, they had to make some adjustments. There were other strict rules: everything had to be natural and organic; no gluten was permitted nor were there high-fructose corn syrup, fats (especially trans-fats), artificial colors or favors, or anything considered an allergen – especially nuts. And nothing that had been radiated or contained GMO ingredients. Specifically that related to genetically modified plants, since no animal products were permitted.^x They were “green,” and let permitted breads sit until covered with green mold before they ate them. They knew that penicillin came from bread mold, so this was a way of treating some infections. They also used vegetables and fruits rich in anti-oxidants, recognizing that there was oxygen in the air all around and in the air they breathed. It's a problem for which they (now “we”) have not yet found a solution.

I'm one of them now, but things haven't changed much over the years. We keep contagion to a minimum with rubber gloves to protect our hands and cotton elbow-covers which are always worn in case we should cough or sneeze. These, like the rest of our clothing, are laundered using washboard and stones. No artificial soaps or detergents are ever utilized. For our personal needs we use sanitizing liquids, towelettes, and natural soaps with anti-bacterial capabilities. It's a hard life, but our children are worth the sacrifice.

Finally, we teach – no, we emphasize – love and tolerance. We never attack each other,^xi but if we did we would turn the other cheek. We're very much at peace. And we're self-governing. That means that each of us makes his own rules which we value as long as they don't impinge on others. Some may view this as anarchy but we see it as complete freedom. Peace and freedom are what our lives are all about.

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

Those words were written several months ago but I learned something which I conveyed to the elders and, after lengthy discussion and, ultimately, action by the group, everything has changed. What I learned was what I overheard. It came from our children, who had a council of their own^xii – a council that we established and supported. One of them, one with an iPad^®, informed the rest that virtually everything we taught was nonsense with no scientific basis. The general response was that they all knew that already but didn't want to confront their parents. As soon as they were old enough they planned on moving out and joining the “real world.” They had tolerated this silliness to achieve peace. Soon they would have freedom.

They understood the value of peace, but otherwise they had learned almost nothing from our wisdom. Although many members were ill or had died young, our sacrifices were for naught.

And now, as there is no Utopia, there is no Eutopia.

Next episode: "Nota Bene – Not" –  There is an end to all good (bad and mediocre) things.

I        While that expression derives from Galatians 6.7, it is actually a rephrasing of an older idea originally found in Ecclesiastes 11.1, “Send your bread upon the waters, for after many days you will find it.” Some translations prefer the word “Cast” rather than “Send,” but the one I used, Tanach, the Stone Edition by Artscroll, chose “Send.” A footnote in this volume reads ”Charity should be given even to strangers; generosity will not go unrewarded.” Later in chapter 11, in verse 4, Kohelet, identified earlier as David's son, King Solomon, speaks both of the man who will never sow and the one who will never reap. A modern of the expression, one somewhat different in implications, is “What goes around comes around.”

ii       And that certainly includes women and children as well, but the masculine form is used because that has been the tradition in the English language, as it is in many other tongues. For this reason it is important to state that wherever a masculine noun or pronoun is used it refers to both sexes and to all ages, unless it is otherwise stated.

iii      This commune was to be ideal, and all of its principles were to be followed. Only those who agreed to them would be allowed to join. The clear delineation of those principles was an important factor in convincing others to commit themselves and to join. Even more so, however, was the dedication of the founders to a goal that appeared to be as close to perfection as possible (while still being achievable). They were charismatic personalities, and their beliefs were so powerful and attractive that those who heard the message were mesmerized by it and yearned-for permission to be a part of the movement. The marijuana also helped.

iv       I myself joined the movement only after a couple of decades. I had not known of its existence originally even though it was organized by some friends, but, ultimately, when I learned about Eutopia, I was completely taken by everything it represented (even though marijuana was no longer a staple there), and I petitioned for membership.

v        Wheelchair accessible.

vi       Some of the younger residents had iPads^® or other electronic devices that were battery-run. They were intellectually harmful and were discouraged, but no one made a fuss as long as they were used quietly.

vii      Any product that had been tested on animals was forbidden. The included most cosmetics and virtually all medicines. We did use traditional formulations and those generally considered safe even though never tested. Also used were vitamins and those preparations that strengthened our immune systems so we wouldn't need FDA approved medicines. Vaccination of the children was rejected both because the vaccines contained animal products and because everyone knew they were unsafe.

viii     They did use corn-oil powered tractors, however initially there was much debate on their use because of the measurement of their engines by horse power. Of course they recognized that they weren't using actual horses, but they also knew that the concept had developed from such use, and they were hesitant to benefit from the original exploitation. Eventually, however, they were accepted, though it was viewed as a compromise of their original principles.

ix       Bottled water was proscribed because of the wasteful and toxic plastic bottles and the fact that some of the waters contain added ingredients like fluorine and chlorine. Natural water was more healthful and less expensive. (Apropos the plastic bottles, on the rare occasions when we purchase commercial products we make sure the packaging is minimal and recyclable. No plastic packaging is permitted.)

x        Free-range and hormones are obviously not issues. Nor is the use of antibiotics in animals.

xi       And we avoid contact with the outside world. Even so, we have great love and respect for those we never see.

xii      Even at a young age we taught them self-government was the backbone of the community.

Because I Said So

(Another in an ongoing – irregular – series on proposed Constitutional changes.

This particular schema will be continued – and I hope concluded – next week.)

There are times when the children just won't do what you want. The gurus currently in vogue tell us that the proper way to deal with them is to explain what you want, and why that is the best method for dealing with the situation at hand. Speak to them rather than taking any physical action. Treat them like adults.

But they're children.

Expecting them to respond to (adult) logic is unrealistic. However carefully you may have considered whatever you're asking of the child, he has a mind of his own. He knows what he wants and an explanation of why the choice is the wrong one may be very nice in a psychological essay, but it often doesn't work where “the rubber hits the road.” And where the child hits his sibling. “This hurts me more than it does you,” is one of the popular phrases heard at this time, accompanying what may be an appropriate corporal responseⁱ but it would be better to avoid the need for it.

So the answer to the invariable “Why?” when the logic proves fruitless is “Because I said so.” After all, you know better than the whining child. At least I assume you know better. But I'm not sure that's always the case. There are times when we all use that line because we lack a logical reason for what we want, but are sure we know best. Whoever argues with us simply isn't as smart as we are.

Which brings me to “judicial activism.”

There are times when it seems that the courts – especially the Supreme Court – take the same approach to what they view as a problem; when Justices expound on their own views and call them law. Judicial review dates back at least to the seventeenth centuryⁱⁱ and was known in the colonies and the United States to be a valid concept before it became a formal part of law in Marbury v Madison in 1803. That case established the authority of the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. As Chief Justice Marshall said, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” It was a statement free of irony. Marshall viewed it as a matter of fact. It was what the Founding Fathers had decreed.

And there was, and is, no appeal. Indeed, unchallenged, lower courts can also make a determination of what is permissible under United States law or, it sometimes is claimed, in line with their own value systems. “Aye, there's the rub.” There are times it seems that the law is the law “because I said so.” And once established, the new concept – whether based on law or the confident extralegal views of the courts' decisions – is precedent and, though challenge may be made, it becomes more difficultⁱⁱⁱ to change.^iv

How does this come about? While the vast majority of legal decisions in no way deal with society's value systems, a few do. Who makes the decisions, and is there any way to change them? Is it justified for any group to have “the final say” over what others meant, or may have meant when framing legislation?

I'll try to deal with alternatives to the current system next week, but for now a statement of that system is in order. While there are variations in the choice of local and state judges, in the Federal system judges, including Supreme Court Justices, are appointed rather than elected. One of the major considerations in a presidential election – and politicians forcefully promote this consideration – is that the complexion of the Court will be governed by executive appointments: interpretation of the law will be in the hands of those who hold views comparable to those of the President. The “separation of powers,” and the system of “checks and balances” notwithstanding, the interpretation of law will be in the hands of those whose views are acceptable to the Chief Executive – for it is he who will appoint the justices.

The Constitution does provide for the Senate to “advise” the President and to “consent” to his appointments, and this power cannot be minimized. Congress, moreover, does have the power to impeach Federal judges.^v But, in respect to the outlook of the Court, there would not be so great an emphasis on the importance of presidential appointments if, in the end, the President did not have a major impact on that outlook. The appointment of an individual, with a lifetime position, allows the promulgation of particular views long after the individual who made that appointment has left office. And, with our Electoral College system,^vi that Chief Executive may not even have the support of the majority, as has happened on several occasions in the past.^vii

Is there any hope? Is change necessary? Is it appropriate? I think the answer is “yes” and I'll make some suggestions next week. And with those changes, our laws will have the meaning we consider right because we say so.

Next episode: “Judge For Yourself” – Conclusion of recommendations for improvement of the Judiciary.

i     I'm sure that I'll be faulted for my belief that there are times when physical punishment should not only be tolerated, but is the best response to a problem.

ii    Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians, 8 Co. Rep. 114, 1610. Citation in Wikipedia.

iii    Though certainly not impossible.

iv    The eleventh amendment to the Constitution, in 1795, was specifically enacted to overturn a Supreme Court decision (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S [2 Dall.] 419, 1 L.Ed. 440) which had been rendered in 1793. Although this took place before Marbury v Madison, it demonstrated both the acknowledgment of the Court's power to overrule a State court and an approved method for change: for remedying the perceived problem.

v     But Congress can only react to those nominated by the Executive branch. They cannot initiate the process. So however many times they reject a presidential appointment, they will only have another such nomination before them, and they can only impeach based on violations of the law, not on the basis of different interpretations of the law's meaning.

vi    A system that should probably be rethought.

vii    If there are more than two candidates for President, a minority choice is possible even if we follow the popular vote. Although a very significant portion of our citizens don't vote – and this, too, means that whoever is elected will only represent a minority – I have no sympathy for those who opt out of the system.