Various Thoughts XIV

More thought for food. If you hunger for ideas to chew on.

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

There is a drug crisis in our country. (Full disclosure – I don't use them though I favor drug legalization, but I've explored that issue before, and I probably will again.) Many of our youth are dying from overdoses, and it has become a standard practice to administer Narcan whenever there is concern about such a possibility.

In most states, drug sales and use are illegal. Yet we offer free treatment by the government, insurance plans, and entrepreneurs without penalty. We pay for the treatment of those who have engaged in illegal behavior. There are other forms of illegal behavior. Should we pay those who engage in them too?

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

We're always competing. We always want to keep up with the Joneses. In fact we want to be better than they. Men compete and women compete, though the “playing fields” may differ. We're determined to be one up on everyone else. We want to be best. Even when we give charity we want to be recognized for it, whether by a plaque attesting to our generosity, public acknowledgment of our gift, a ceremony, or some other way to prove that we did better than the others. And there are many who seek to be known and admired for he help they give to the needy. For them, “it's all about me.” Those they help are just the subjects they use to glorify themselves and show their superiority to those who aren't “good” like them.

But there are a few who choose to be the best while not competing for honor. They are the anonymous givers and those who do good deeds because that's the right thing to do. Often they do such things because they feel good from doing them, and it does not matter what others do or what others know about what they've done. There is “right” and “wrong” and they get satisfaction out of doing right. Not like those who do right for honor among their friends, but simply because it is right. Some people, of course, compete to do right more conspicuously or grandly than everybody else, but they do it for its own sake. Doing true good should be, and is, instinctual, and most of the principles are the same in all societies – perhaps it's in the DNA of all people. It functions irrespective of other beliefs.

For some, however, the desire to do “good” is actually a desire to follow religious teachings. Their goal is to follow the the commandments of their Creator. Doing so is superior to simply doing good because it feels good. When they follow the commandments they are competing with no one else. They are showing G-d that obedience is more important than feeling good. And, since G-d's commandments are good, and are not done in reaction to the acts of others or competition with them, the acts of these “saints” demonstrates both obedience and goodness. They're not better than everyone else. They're not competing with everyone else – they're competing with impulses within themselves. Impulses not to do what is good. In Judaism it is called yetzer hara, “the evil impulse.” And they have won.

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

Let's face it. Bill Gates and his ilk have too much money. Worse, there are many rich corporations that pay their executives obscene amounts for directing their antics while they accumulate power over their workers and over our laws and those of other countries. And because those organizations make money for their hosts, everyone is willing to overlook their faults. Yet these companies may affect foreign policy and tax law, bending it to their wishes or locating wherever it is in their economic interests to do so.

In some industries the profits are very high, and we pay for them. But what else can we do? What else should we do? While we curse their manufacturers, we pay exorbitant prices for sneakers, electronics, and other non-necessities. Life-style, not need, governs our behavior, yet we vilify those who provide for the life-style we seek.

It's not fair, but we've found a way to live with it while we complain. What's the answer? Many localities have laws against usury. They limit the profit on loans. And programs like Medicare cap the payments for various procedures. Of course there are cheaters who game the system, but for those observing the law there are income limits.

Can the same be done with corporations? Can their actions and their profits be limited by law? Would the lack of a reserve from profitable products have a negative impact on the development of new products which are not yet profitable? Would there be a diminished incentive for everyone and a decrease in the speed of progress? Would that be a good thing? Is the weakening of organizations that are more powerful than many nations worth the benefits that would accrue from their weakening?

Wouldn't it be great if we could limit the power of those companies without limiting their incentive?

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

Chew away.

August 13, 2017

Enhancing Performance

[June 16, 2016 – This essay was originally written in 2007, during the Barry Bonds controversy. The Olympic “doping” situation brought it to mind (though by the time this is published that will have been resolved one way or the other) and I am reprinting it. (It was originally published in a local newspaper.) Other sports are involved as well and by the time this appears the issue will probably no longer be of interest, but that's your problem, not mine.]

Mark Rothko committed suicide. So did Diane Arbus, Gorky, van Gogh, and Virginia Woolf. And George Sands was insane, along with Nietzsche, Nijinsky and, perhaps, Tolstoi. Yet all were great artists. According to Plato, in Phaedrus, a "divine madness" is responsible for the productions of great artists.

Allen Ginsberg took hallucinogens. His "divine madness” was augmented by LSD. And other great artists have also taken drugs. Keith Haring, for example, and Cary Grant, Ronnie Gilbert and Aldous Huxley. If their art was thus improved, were they guilty of taking "performance-enhancement” medications? And if they took those medications, is their art in any way less valuable and enduring?

"Performance-enhancement” is perceived as the great evil of our times. It is exemplified by Barry Bonds who, it is alleged, took steroids to build up his body and, with it, his home run production. He "cheated." For this he is condemned by Congress, team owners and other baseball officials. But, using an expression from another sport, perhaps we've jumped the gun. Perhaps our society is of two minds about such drugs and "cheating."

When preparing for the SAT's, numerous students take courses to improve their scores. Isn't that the academic equivalent of taking performance-enhancement drugs? Countless Hollywood stars undergo cosmetic surgery to help their careers. They, too, are enhancing their performance artificially. They, too, are "cheating."

If a team prays together before a game, or a public figure smokes a cigarette to calm himself before an appearance, is that unjustified performance-enhancement? If, before a battle, an officer "psyches up" his forces, is he doing something wrong?

And when candidates prepare for a debate "when they practice their "spontaneous” responses to questions they expect, or to comments by their opponents "is that any different? But there I go again.

As a society, we're not sure. Milli Vanilli was drummed out of the entertainment industry for lip-syncing its own songs while Deborah Kerr, Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood and Marilyn Monroe, among others, were praised for wonderful performances even though Marni Nixon dubbed in "their" musical numbers. And with no question about Sid Caesar's comedic genius, we don't fault him for mouthing jokes by Mel Blanc, Woody Allen and others.

We live at a time when team owners offer huge salaries for stars who bring fans to the stadium. Records help to bring out the fans and that's what's really important, so whatever accomplishes that goal is justified. If steroids achieve it, owners will look the other way irrespective of long-term deleterious effects of the drugs. As long as it doesn't become public.

In the history of baseball for example, the ball itself was made more "bouncy" to go farther, designated hitters have been used to increase run production, and baseball stadiums have been designed to match the strengths of hitters, while players are chosen who will do well in a particular setting. That's the sport's way of improving performance and attendance. Everybody does it.

Of course, "everybody does it" is not justification for doing wrong. But if, in fact, everybody does it perhaps we should look again and reevaluate whether "it" really is wrong. Cosmetic surgery will not make a bad actress a good one, nor will steroids turn an average baseball player into a superstar.

Certainly those who perform exceptionally are exceptional, though artificial aids may enhance their glitter. When a superstar tries to improve his image to get more of the money that owners are throwing around it is understandable. But we don't want our children to see our hypocrisy, so we castigate what we simultaneously, if quietly, encourage. Perjury is never permissible. We expect honesty of our superheroes, and justifiably so. If one is faced with the possibility of losing his market value though, because society is looking for a scapegoat, falsification is understandable even if inexcusable.

But is "performance-enhancement” acceptable? Maybe yes, maybe no.