I Love To Write

Kids hate to write. A writing assignment in school is torture. A two-page paper will take forever, if and when it is started. “What will I write about?” “What will I say?” They lack ideas, and their reluctance to set anything down, compounds the problem. If they don't write they don't learn to write. So their thoughts remain unrefined, even if they have some sensible ideas. Lack of confidence in themselves makes silence or superficiality preferable to the risk the criticism by others who might disagree with them. A blank piece of paper, like silence, is golden.

And, should they choose to write, or when they must, nowadays they have an accomplice. With computers there is a strong temptation to enlarge the font or increase the space between lines. That and plagiarism make it easier to complete the assignment when they get up the will to do so. Or if they have an idea that they want to communicate, they do it over social media with a series of unconnected abbreviations, initials, and sentence fragments. Or perhaps an inane video.

I suspect that when I was young I had the same mindset, though I lacked the electronic devices now available to protect me from thinking. In fact I had teachers who wouldn't accept their students' anxiety and hesitancy. They demanded content. Clearly expressed. And with their support their students learned to write full – and grammatically correct – sentences. They learned to express their ideas in a way that others would understand, even if they disagreed. (I don't always see that now, even in the media. Perhaps clarity, conciseness, and correct grammar are no longer in vogue.)

Our teachers had high expectations of us. They wouldn't accept something from us if the felt we could do better. And by a combination of compliments and criticism they convinced us that we could do better. I recall a teacher who praised something I wrote while telling me how it might be improved. His advice has remained with me since. Teachers like that still exist, but with tenure and parental and administrative pressure, more and more are “going with the flow.” Sad.

I didn't go into writing as a profession, but the lessons I learned stayed with me. Words were my passion, and I didn't need to express them to others. They were mine. I'd write what came to mind, and what I didn't throw out wound up in a drawer for development at some undefined future time when I had the opportunity – or not at all. And the drawers filled. No one saw it but I didn't care.

As the years passed things changed. I did some writing – medical papers (not all lucid but most were), letters to the editor (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, and many others), bad poetry for the New England Journal of Medicine, and a variety of other written works – in my spare time. I even edited a community newspaper and had an editing position in a state medical journal. But all of these efforts were those of a dilettante who could fit fun into his schedule. Or when the efforts would advance his standing.

It's different now. I'm retired. Now I can write what I want, and I have the time to do so. And writing, through the years, has helped me to develop the ability to say what I mean, whether succinctly or by the use of prolixity. There's a place for both. I don't think it's the absence of humility that tells me that I write fairly well. I'll never be a great novelist or writer of non-fiction, but I've started emptying the drawers and developing some of the ideas I had in my past life. Some of them I've incorporated into this blog – in fact one of the reasons I write it is to expand on some of the ideas I had before, as well as some of the features of modern life that I consider worthy of comment. Choosing to write about them makes me work out those ideas more thoroughly than I would otherwise. As matter of fact, there are times when I decide to write about something simply because I want to work it out in my mind, and writing about it will force me to clarify it for myself. And if no one reads it, or if readers don't take my views seriously that's all right. I'll understand the issue better. This is one case when it is all about me.

I write, then, for a variety of reasons including the ideas (if not the facts) that I'm reasonably good at it and it makes me think. Writing and thought go together in my view.

And I write because it's fun. I can delineate my views without interruption and without having to hear the responses of others who might think differently from me. If I encounter their opinions I can consider them and, perhaps revise my own perspective. But if I do so it will be without pressure and without contention. I'm just as happy if I don't have to confront those with whom I disagree. My teachers have helped me learn how to express my thoughts and I'm grateful to them. I have so much that I want to say, even if others disagree or are not interested.

I love to think and I love to write. They go together.

Labor Day And The One Percent

No. No. You misunderstand. But I'll get to that.

First of all, happy Labor Day. Unofficially it's the end of summer, but we know better. Lots of hot days left. And Election Day's coming, so it's “Silly Season.” (But it's always Silly Season.) It was especially so during the run-up to the Democratic Convention when Senator Sanders's supporters outnumbered those of Colonel Sanders, and his ideas were “finger lickin' good.”

But I'll get to that too.

First let me comment on the “one percent.” It's a what, not a who. According to Thomas Edison, Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. It's not the idea that counts, it's the effort that goes into turning it into a usable “product,” whether that's a concept or a physical construction, whether it's commercial or simply for personal use.

The perspiration is certainly something any worker experiences, though not all workers share equally in that experience. There are many who “play the system,” making enough to get by while working just hard enough to keep their jobs. Or at least being seen to do so. Better still, with enough effort spent in doing so, work can be avoided entirely, with support provided by various unemployment and welfare programs. It certainly isn't the life of Riley, but it's far better than the life endured by so many around the world.

And the United States isn't the only generous country. There are many that provide for the needy. Unfortunately, however, everything comes at a cost, and someone has to pay. Can you guess who? You. And me. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Louis Blanc, 1851. Later Karl Marx.) Socialism. That's the perspective of many, as exemplified in the “Occupy ...” movements a few years ago. And even if the movements no longer exist, the idea remains.

The “one percent” of whom they speak are the rich. But they are not the lazy. In addition to the perspiration, they have the inspiration. And much of their perspiration, their ninety-nine percent, is the effort to turn their ideas into usable products. (That's not to say that all the wealthy are good people with good ideas, but at some point in the history of each fortune is the effort, imagination, and hard work that created it.)

Inspiration is not present equally in everybody. Nor are capital, knowledge, and opportunity. But, if society is to advance it should be encouraged, not punished. By and large it benefits society, not only with both its products and employment for those who participate in its manufacture, but because the inspired one percent are the source of so much of society's philanthropy (see “Who Really Cares” by Arthur C. Brooks, “Why Philanthropy Matters” by Zoltan Acs, and other similar works) – and we all profit from that.

And, for better or worse, we're all selfish. We all want a peice of the pie. Of course we'd prefer not to work for it, but the greater rewards come to those who put greater effort into problem solving. If a man has good corn or wood, or boards, or pigs, to sell, or can make better chairs or knives, crucibles or church organs, than anybody else, you will find a broad hard-beaten road to his house, though it be in the woods. (Ralph Waldo Emerson. Now usually quoted as Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.) Society rewards imagination and innovation. As it should. If we are to advance we have to encourage our citizens to come up with and develop new ideas. And the best encouragement is fiscal. That's fair.

There are many, however, who adocate sharing. Usually they want what someone else has. They would have the rich provide for the poor. No one should benefit at another's expense. From their perspective that is what's fair. The Robin Hood approach. Irrespective of its effects on motivation and progress. Among those who take this position are politicians, like Senator Sanders who was recently a candidate for President. And his voice has had its effects on the Democratic platform. But popular as such a concept may be among the majority, it may not be for the good.

The following letter appeard recently in The Wall Street Journal:

Regarding Bret Stephens’s “What's Socialism Dad?” (Global View, May 17): I had a similar discussion with my grandchildren as did Bret Stephens with his son regarding the meaning of socialism. I pointed out to them that they all work very hard to achieve the grade of “A” on their tests. However, the student next to them may not have worked as hard, or may have goofed off, or just didn’t care, and as a result received a failing grade. But under socialism, the school administration (i.e., the “government”) could reduce your hard-earned “A” to a “C” to lift the failing student’s “F” to a “C.” They all immediately responded as I hoped they would, saying: “Not fair,” and “Why would I work so hard again?” They understood immediately the disincentives and the mediocrity of socialism

Steven Shanok

Northbrook, Ill.

I hope even the politicians – especially Senator Sanders – can understand its message. But I doubt that they want to.

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

There, I Said It Again

I said it before and I said it again. Or at least that was the report I got back.ⁱ My wife read some of my old blogsⁱⁱ and informed me that I was repeating myself. And she was right.

If at all possible, as a rule, you'd be better off not doing so. “Don't repeat yourself. It's not only repetitive, it's redundant, and people have heard it before.”ⁱⁱⁱ Yes, that's what I said: “Don't repeat yourself. It's not only repetitive, it's redundant, and people have heard it before.”ⁱⁱⁱ

But I'll say it again anyway. It's all I can offer to answer the questions, “Why do I write a blog?” and “Why do they seem repetitious?”

The answer to the first question is difficult,^iv but the answer to the second question is easy: “Because they are.”

A little flip, perhaps, but let me explain. I write about the things that interest me, and they don't cease to interest me just because I've written about them. They don't magically disappear as issues, but there may be new facts or situations that bear on them and I may have new ideas about them, whether or not, as new information emerges.

But that's only part of the story. Another important aspect of the repetition is that I don't look back on what I've written before. I make notes and gather information on the subject, formulating an essay based on that material, but usually not including all of it. And I don't always erase the material I've used. I simply transfer it to an ever-enlarging file of ideas that may be usable in the future. So when the future comes I look for whatever I have on the subject and, regrettably, some of it has already been used. I don't remember what I included before, and I don't recall the name of the previous piece in which it appeared. Since I'm too lazy to read through all the old blogs, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist. And, since I have doubts about how many people, if any, actually read what I write, I don't worry much about it.

Another reason why I'm prone to draw a blank when it comes to old works, is that they're really future works. I write these long in advance – this one, for example, will go on line in about a month. And that makes it even more difficult to remember when and where the ideas previously appeared. By the time they actually appear it's longer since the previous discussion of the subject than it might seem. But anyone trying to read through them in an expeditious manner may read several months worth in a single sitting^v so that material I pondered over a long period gets microscoped back into what is viewed as a single piece, and thoughts that may have been developed long before get merged and compared as if they were part of the same essay. That's the bad news. The good news, however, is that someone actually looked at them.

The real question, though, is why I do it in the first place, and that's a little harder to explain. I know that I mentioned in the past that I use this activity as a method for clarifying my thoughts to myself.^vi It's often the case that I'm uncertain about the answer to a particular and question – not a fact question but one more subjective – and I use the computer keypad to outline the considerations on all sides. I don't always wind up with the revealed truth, but when I'm done I usually have a better understanding of the question. I've had the opportunity to question and poke holes in my own arguments without revealing their weaknesses to others. (I'm my own Devil's Advocate.^vii)

It's the others, by the way, who often raise the issues that trouble me. I recognize quickly that either they're wrong or I am, or maybe we both are (you're wrong too). Working through the intricacies, however, is a slow process for me. I wouldn't be very good in a debate. I'm slow in responding in speech, and debates are, too often, focused on winning, not clarifying an issue.^viii So I do better at writing than speaking. Writing provides me with the opportunity to consider my words carefully and be sure that the response, or the statement, is exactly what I want to say. I may need second or subsequent drafts to get things exactly the way I want them, because I find it better to choose and refine my words carefully^ix to say precisely what I want to say.

And I want to say things. Even if no one reads them.^x After all, I know everything. I may have to spend time working it out, but the result is true. I know everything (I said that, didn't I?).

Speaking of working things out, however, brings me back to the initial issue: repetition. I've been too defensive. Everyone repeats himself: politicians, clergymen, mothers,^xi newspaper editors^xii and columnists,^xiii musicians,^xiv and everyone else. Especially educators. Repetition is one of the best tools they have for getting people to remember the lesson you're teaching.^xv

Finally let me repeat what it says in Ecclesiastes: “There's nothing new under the sun.” There are only a limited number of topics worth discussing, and it's likely that previously discussed material will be reevaluated. So even if my views have to be iterated,^xvi they merit your acceptance. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times …

Next episode: “The Trouble With Ernie” – And you thought no one was listening.

I         For that matter, I'm not sure I'm not repeating a previous blog. I'd have to read through all those published already and I don't have the patience for that. If you find this repetitious, skip it. If you know of an earlier blog in which I used this material, please let me know.

ii         She's one of the few people who's ever read them.

iii        Lemony Snicket

iv       I have some ideas which I'll get into below, but I'm not a psychiatrist.

v        That's what my wife did.

vi        I wrote that somewhere.

vii       Some consider me the Devil incarnate, but I'm not.

viii     Debates (and arguments) too often lead to “gotchas” rather than more meaningful responses.

ix       Although some oppose it, I favor use of a thesaurus. I'm not proud.

x         Although I'd prefer it if they do.

xi        How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?

xii       Frequently their subject involves the heinous position of the party that opposes the one they favor. The issue is less important than the message that their opponents are evil. And they repeat that same message day after day.

xiii     For the most part their message reflects the editor's view. That's why they were hired and have kept their jobs. As with the editors, the denigration of their targets is more important than the substance of the putative subject of the piece. Actually, it is the subject.

xiv      People like Mozart, Haydn, and Bach (and those are only examples of a much larger group) recycled (repeated) some of their own musical themes, and many have not hesitated to write variations on the works of others, or music based on songs or other sounds that they heard elsewhere. But I won't explore the question of plagiarism any further.

xv       As Goebbels said (in German), “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Of course teachers tell the truth, but its repetition also is important for putting it on the “hard drives” of their students.

xvi   Look it up. It probably doesn't mean what you think. Try http://www.thefreedictionary.com/iterated.

Cogito Ergo Sum

 

                                                                                                          

That's what I thought; That's what I thought; That's what I thought; That's what I thought.

But I was wrong on all counts. And everyone makes the same mistake.

“I thought services started at 9 o'clock.”ⁱ That's what my friend said. “Thought.” One of mankind's greatest sources of error.ⁱⁱ Thought is too often a substitute for actual knowledge, and too often thought is confused with knowledge. For what you “know” may not be true. Certainly, as you get older your memories and your “knowledge” have a way of losing their clarity. The transmission of information from one neuron to the next isn't a sure thing. Sooner or later the memory – which is presumably some kind of chemical formulation which is passed along the neurons or resides in one of them – become corrupted, and words, ideas, and memories drop out. So grants will be sought and written to determine how to solve this problem. What, specifically, is the nature of an idea and where, specifically, is it located?

And this is where science fictionⁱⁱⁱ enters the picture. Once scientists discover how specific thoughts are encoded and recovered, and the location at which they are located, it won't be long before they figure out how to implant false ideas at those locations. Efforts to restore information will be superseded by those to implant it. Déjà vu will become reality.

The first step is anatomical. Where are thoughts located? That's not the only challenge, but it's an important one. It will probably be a while before we get the kind of answer we need, but the work has been going on for a while and we now know a little about thoughts and memories and their locations in various places in the cerebral cortex, in the frontal lobes and the basal ganglia, and in some other spots, but it will take more research before we can refine that knowledge to what we need. If the whole thing is going to work – if we're going to be able to implant thoughts the way we are learning to do with genes^iv – we'll need to know about which neurons to choose and how to get the new “fact” to stick. And of course we'll have to know what to insert to achieve the desired result.

So, needing a subject for experimentation, we recall that animals can be taught, if they have the physical apparatus both for the placement of the ideas and the performance of the acts that the encoded idea contains. They'll be the test subjects.^v After the chemical components, or the nucleic acid sequences of specific ideas are determined, and once the particular sites in the brain are identified, someone will come up with a way to insert the idea where it needs to be.

And then we'll start doing it on people. There will be numerous legal and ethical questions but they always lag behind the scientific accomplishments so it's unlikely that they will slow down the “critical” research.^vi First there will be the prisoners. Many of those destined for death will certainly be willing to offer their brains for experimentation in exchange for their lives, or for some “consideration” for family members. And once the techniques are perfected, there are likely to be some, among the elderly, who may find hope in the idea of restoration of memories. And the idea of a treatment for dementia will be extraordinarily appealing. Think of the savings for any health care program.

It will soon be noted that learning is nothing more than the acquisition of facts, so why not speed up education on the operating table? (Or “re-education,” as brainwashing is often labeled.) It is not hard to imagine a time when some amoral accountant will point out that it's cheaper to inject education – perhaps in newborns – than to pay for years of education. Of course the universities and other paid educational institutions will object, but what's wrong in having a child of Pre-K age who has the knowledge of a Ph.D? And, since the original advances in this field are likely to come from our country, perhaps we'll be able to catch up in all those surveys of education that show us behind so many countries in the free world.

Next episode: “Cogito Ergo Sum, Part Two” – The more I think about it,^vii the more I realize there's a lot more to be said.

i       It had been announced a week earlier that it would be 8:45.

ii      “Think” and “assume” are two ideas that can only get us into trouble. Both should be used with great caution and the knowledge of the risks inherent in their use – both in terms of the words themselves, and the process they reflect. If it ain't “know,” it ain't reliable. But sometimes that's not true either. Please continue with the text.

iii       Fiction at least for now. But science usually has a way of catching up with both the imaginable and the unimaginable.

iv      We're experimenting now with the transfer of genetic material to prevent, treat, and possibly cure diseases so, it will be argued, why not use the injection of facts as a cure for ignorance. It will be especially useful in those likely to have low IQs.

v      The guinea pigs, whatever their species.

vi      In fact, those doing the research will be happy if the lag is long, or even unending, so that they have the time to get whatever information, fame, or patents they seek.

vii     Yes, “think.” No one has injected me with anything yet. The fantasies are all mine.