The "Good Old Days"

They were certainly old, and it's hard these days to fathom that they could have been that good.

You and I get e-mail pleas all day, every day, trying to get us to donate to any of hundreds of causes and organizations.  Who sends these pleas depends on which petitions each of us signed in the past, or probably our listed party affiliation.  But the pleas certainly are non-stop.  Among the things I "always say," is that if I gave the minimum requested amount to every organization I myself consider very worthy, I'd go broke fast.  And I'm even omitting requested donations or support to candidates, because I don't believe in private money in politics, so the answer to those is always a categorical no.

For almost 24 years, I was what was called a contractor to the Social Security Administration.  This was always part time, there were several or many of us who did it, and we were called either Medical Experts or Vocational Experts, depending on whether we were medical doctors or vocational rehabilitation professionals.  We reviewed medical records, and we testified in appeals hearings involving people who argued that they were disabled, and thus entitled to Social Security Disability benefits, but Social Security disagreed with them, and the claimants wanted to appeal the denial to a Social Security judge.  Judges, and local offices, were different, and some wanted the help of Experts, and others didn't.  But in its heyday, there was plenty of work to do.  And it was interesting.  In theory, no part of this system, except for the claimant and the claimant's representative/attorney, cared which way these cases went, so it was generally refreshingly fair and unbiased.  We had some very good conversations, which sometimes devolved into arguments, sometimes nasty, but I liked it.  The pay was...shit...and the last time the compensation was increased was 1970.  Another of the things I "always say" is that if anyone makes a list of all the people who will work without a raise for 53 years, there won't be anyone on the list.  None of us did it for the money.  We did it as a public service, and some of the older doctors, who had retired from clinical practice, just wanted to have something "medical" to do, in honor of their careers, and to keep their minds sharp.

So, here's why I'm telling you this otherwise uninteresting and irrelevant-sounding story.  I rarely change my pattern of donating, but from time to time, I've had an opportunity to donate to an organization I wanted to support.  But some of them had a rule that in order to donate, the donor couldn't be a federal contractor (for who knows what reason).  And I was.  So I couldn't donate.  But I've quit doing Social Security, as the work has gotten more difficult to access, it's gotten harder to get even the small amount of pay, and the pay has become an increasing insult.  Social Security, and its use of Experts, is now in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category.  So now, I can donate.  Today's opportunity was to Common Cause.  (If you're wondering when on earth I'm going to get to the "good old days" part, I'm about there now.)

Common Cause is described as a "watchdog group" based in DC, and it has chapters in 35 states.  It was started in 1970 (yeah, that 1970..grr) by John Gardner.  If I summarized John Gardner, you wouldn't believe me, so I'll quote from the Wikipedia page: John W Gardner was a "Republican, who was the Secretary of HEW in the administration of LBJ as well as the Chair of the National Urban Coalition, an advocacy group for minorities and the working poor in urban areas.  In its early days, Common Cause focused its efforts on ending the Vietnam war and lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.  Sometimes identified as liberal-leaning, Common Cause has also been identified as nonpartisan and advocates government reform.  It is identified with the 'good government' movement...The organization's tagline is 'holding power accountable,' and its stated mission is 'upholding the core values of American democracy.  We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process."  The introductory part of the Wikipedia post goes on: "The organization's stated issue areas are 'money in politics,' 'voting and elections,' 'a fair economy,' and 'media and democracy.'"

I'm not sure if the last Republican who was interested in that kind of USA was John Gardner, but if he wasn't the last, there haven't been many more since.  Although it's certainly fair to say that Nixon resigned because enough Congressional Republicans cared more about laws and decency than they did about party and power.  But once we got to Reagan, it was pretty much all over.  When Republicans couldn't have Reagan any more, they settled for his VEEP, but they dumped GHWB, because he told them it would actually cost them money (taxes) to live here and support this country.  The more intense fiscal sabotage, and the lying, took root with W (Cheney, really), and skyrocketed with Trump (who is somehow, bizarrely, leading the pack of Republican hopefuls at this moment).  With the "Tea Party," and subsequently, the extraneous stuff (religion imposed on everyone, fierce gun advocacy, anti-abortion crusades, increased racism and police brutality, voter suppression, hyper-gerrymandering, general blind, deaf, and dumb lust for power) have been off the charts.

I've never really understood the Rep/con agenda.  At its base seems to be a wish not to pay taxes and not to have to follow rules (not to have government make rules).  This seems selfish, greedy, and childish, but I do realize some people feel that way.  And they have to have sufficient disregard for other people that they can expect it all to be about themselves.  But why do they want to live in a country they don't want to support?  Or why don't they want to support the country in which they want to live?  And how many rules don't they want to have to follow?  They claim to believe in the police, so they must accept some concept of rules.  We incarcerate a uniquely high proportion of our own citizens.  They think someone has to be accountable to follow rules.  Why doesn't this apply to them?  (There's been a lot of commotion lately about Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow.  If George Soros created a luxury lifestyle for Ruth Ginsburg and her husband, and in exchange, she took every position Soros wanted her to take, the problem would be more obvious to Reps/cons, right?)  And what's all this other extraneous stuff, that starts out being personal (religion, etc), and then is expected to control everyone else's life?  As is increasingly commonly said these days, Reps/cons seem devoted to removing, not expending, rights from other people.  I get the impression John Gardner wouldn't approve.  (I got another e-mail today about the 10 year old raped and impregnated girl who had to go to Indiana to get an abortion, and now, the doctor who performed the abortion is being challenged by Indiana.  Is this insane, or am I missing something?)

It's been a long time since John Gardner started Common Cause.  They're an excellent organization.  I became a monthly donor starting today.

Non-Sadistic Circuses

The sadistic circuses include non-human animals, which are trained to do various tricks, or not kill the trainers, and which live horribly unnatural lives.  There are some organizations that seek to take possession of these animals, and to allow them to live out their lives in animal sanctuaries in various places.  On a loosely related note, I donate to two organizations that try to get non-human animals that would otherwise be slaughtered, and allow them free range and pasture.  The organizations are Skylands, in NJ, and "The Gentle Barn," which is at least in California and Tennessee, and possibly somewhere else, and which allows contact between human animals and non-human ones.

Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey Circus went out of business in 2017, because it depended too much on non-human animals, and people didn't want to witness that kind of mistreatment any more.  But they resurrected themselves last year, no longer using non-human animals.  Other smaller circuses are also going out of business, or on the verge of it.

The circus industry has changed.  Or it's finishing changing.  It's now human performers, and it's mostly acrobatics.  I suppose it could include magic, but I haven't seen that.  The first human only circus I saw was Cirque Du Soleil back in the early to mid-1990s.  I've probably seen about 4-5 of their shows (I remember two in Boston, one in Miami, and one in Orlando), and they're terrific.  It's the acrobatics, the themes, the costumes, and the music, which is live and written for these shows.  I haven't seen any of the Las Vegas Cirque Du Soleil shows, of which I think there are three, and one is the Beatles.

Last year, in Massachusetts, I went to a show of an organization called Circus Smirkus.  This is typical circus-like acrobatics, although not at the level of Cirque Du Soleil, and the performers are kids.  The organization is in Vermont, it's residential, and the kids, up to age 18, get a normal academic experience plus training in circus arts.  It was a very well put together and well executed show.

There's a similar organization in Miami.  It's called Miami Circus Arts.  I discovered it on Give Miami Day, so I gave.  I'm not sure if Miami Circus Arts is residential, as Circus Smirkus is, but they have a summer camp for kids.  It starts on June 12, runs until August 18 or 22 (both end dates were listed), is a 9:00 AM-3:00 PM day program, doesn't specify age of intended participants, and costs $385 per week.  And it's close to here, at NW 14th Ave and 22nd St.  If you have athletic/acrobatic kids who might be interested, the website is laddmiami.org, or you can contact Cecile Melanie at cecile@laddmiami.org.

The e-mail about the summer program says "Enroll your child in a thrilling and immersive circus adventure at our 2023 Circus Summer Camp for kids, where they'll have the opportunity to explore a wide range of captivating circus disciplines.  Our highly skilled and experienced instructors, coupled with state-of-the-art facilities, create an unparalleled learning environment that fosters joy, self-confidence, and a genuine sense of accomplishment."  The website says "Children and adults, curious beginners and professionals, come foster your inner circus star with the help of the world's most talented Circus professionals."

If you do have potentially interested children, you probably already have plans for them for this summer.  But whether you do or you don't, it's something to think about.  I just heard on the radio yesterday about the problems teachers (!) have with students who can't get their faces out of social media on their smart phones.  During class!  Learning about circus arts sure beats that.

"Gun Rights?" There's No Such Thing. Not in This Country, Anyway.

If yesterday's anniversary made you happy, then happy anniversary.  It was a year since 19 young children and two teachers were murdered in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Let's cut to the chase: the "Second Amendment" reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."  Do you see the word "gun?"  No?  That's because it's not there.  You think it's there, like an optical illusion, because the word "Arms" is there, and you think "Arms" means "guns."  That's what you tell yourself, if you don't read the "Amendment," and if you don't know the history, and from where the concept of "militias" comes.

Please read the "Amendment" again, and recognize that this is about militias.  "Keep[ing] and bear[ing] Arms" is simply the mechanism of operationalizing militias.  You see that now, right?  So, once you understand that, what do you know about the late 18th C early American concept and intention of militias?  If you don't know much, then read Federalist Paper #29.  That will tell you everything you need to know.  The Paper is far longer than the one sentence "Amendment," so the "Amendment" should be taken as a concise way of communicating the Paper.

There are two stated and described purposes of militias, at least in 1789, when the "Amendment" was proposed, and 1791, when it was adopted by the early Congress.  The purposes are to provide protection for the states against possible over-reach and domination by the federal government, and to provide to the federal government extra paramilitary resources if the Union was invaded from outside.  Either purpose of a militia requires that the militia be armed as its enemies -- the federal government, or outside invaders -- are armed.  In the late 18th C, that mostly meant muskets.  (Federalist Paper #29 also specifies that "Arms" are to be provided by the federal government.)  Muskets won't cut it today.  Now, we need bazookas, flame-throwers, tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, submarines, surface-to-air missiles, and nuclear weapons.  And when I say "we," I mean you and I.  (Well, not I.  I'm too old.  According to Federalist Paper #29, no part of which was contradicted or disqualified by the "Second Amendment," people who can be included in militias have to be Caucasian, male, and 17-45.)  We are the available conscripts for militias.  We need to be properly armed, by the federal government, and trained, also by the federal government, with officers designated by the states.  It's the states, after all, that have to decide if the militia is going to join the federal government or go to war against it.

The obvious problem with the "Second Amendment" is that every weapon/"Arm" we would need is illegal for civilian possession.  The federal government won't give you one, or train you in its use, or allow you to have one if you could buy it yourself.  We haven't formally repealed the "Second Amendment," but it no longer has its intended operational meaning, and it no longer really exists.

What we have instead is cocky, adult-aged children running around with AR-15s, shooting up schools, banks, houses of worship, parties and other celebratory gatherings, peaceful protesters, or just masses of people they want to assassinate, because they're bored.  Yesterday was the first anniversary of just one of very many of those episodes.

By the way, another part of Federalist Paper #29, which was written by Alexander Hamilton, was a careful reassurance that militiamen were residents of the localities.  They were everyone else's family, neighbor, co-worker, and they were very well known to everyone else in the locality.  They were eminently trustworthy to everyone else in town.  Today, with all the movement among people, that's a lot less true.  Even if we had a "Second Amendment" today, and even if it was functional, we could no longer simply trust that anyone "Arm[ed]" was stable, honorable, and trustworthy.  We would have to investigate them carefully, and they would have to register their "Arms."

I've read mixed things about the early militias.  Some say they were decisive in helping the Colonies win the Revolutionary War, and others say they were unreliable, and often more trouble than help.  (George Washington said that.)  But we don't have militias like that any more.  Each of us will not be properly "Arm[ed]" by the federal government, as would be required by the "Second Amendment," and we won't be trained for combat, and included in militias.

If you believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, you can also believe in the "Second Amendment."

It's Not Politics!

About a week or so ago, a new patient came to my house for an evaluation.  I ask new patients if they're vaccinated, and if they are, I offer to see them in person, which I much prefer.  This patient showed up wearing a mask, which I thought should have been unnecessary.  I asked him if he thought he was protecting himself from me -- I reassured him I've been vaccinated twice and had two boosters -- or if he had just gotten accustomed to wearing masks.  He said he was wearing a mask because he was not vaccinated, and he claimed I never asked him if he was.  (I always ask new patients if they are, and I don't let them come here if they're not.)  So, I told him it was extremely unlike me not to have asked, and it was sort of unbelievable that I didn't.  And we started to talk about vaccination against the coronavirus.  Or I started talking about it.  He tried to cut off the conversation saying he didn't want to talk about politics.  I told him this was not about politics.  (As an aside, it was certainly about dishonesty and manipulativeness.)  But it was about infectious disease, an epidemic, and epidemiology.

I am a recipient of, and subscriber to, an online publication called The Lever.  The founder took the name from someone's old saying: "give me a long enough lever, and a fulcrum, and I can move the world."  The Lever has a strong progressive bent, but it does not shy away from criticizing Dems/libs when they're not acting honorably.  Today's column is about a collection of companies, including, for example, a California fast food place called "In 'N' Out Burger," which are not forthcoming about the extent of the environmental impact they have, or their "carbon footprint."  And more specifically, it was about the Biden administration's failure/refusal to enforce laws regarding reporting in these areas.  Meta Platforms and the perpetually law-breaking Wells Fargo were also mentioned.

Frankly, I have no trouble understanding why these companies don't want to comply: it interferes with their profits.  And I have no trouble understanding why the Biden administration doesn't want to force them to comply: the companies are no doubt donors.  I think if anyone asked these companies, or the Biden administration, why they (mis)behave as they do, they would say it was about money.  If they could force themselves to be, you know, honest for a moment.

But it's not about money, any more than vaccination against the coronavirus is about politics.  It's about the state of the planet, and all the things (including people) that live on it.

Presumably, these people and corporations, if they bother to spend a nanosecond thinking about it, think either that this won't really affect them, or that they'll have so much money that the money will shield them from it.  Clearly, they're not bothering to consider their children, if they have the poor judgment to have any, or generations after that.

We have big problems in this country.  We're totally focused on money, our "campaign seasons" last way too long, they depend on private money that controls the behavior of electeds, and electeds get separated far away from the public/voters/citizens.  Things that are not political get converted to political considerations.  And in a cyclical way, it's all about money.  And the people who are hungriest for money need it the least.

These things are about medicine, or what's happening to this planet.  They are not about politics or money, or power, or narcissism.  (Well, maybe they're about narcissism.)  It's really too bad we can't just come to agreement about the things that are most helpful and meaningful to the most people.  We find the dumbest things to fight about.

If you're interested, you can look up The Lever, to see what the columns are like.  Likewise, you can look up The Intercept, which is also very reliable online journalism.  If you just want someone to tell you you're right, you can follow CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or Newsmax.  But you shouldn't need someone just to tell you you're right.  You can manufacture that conclusion for yourselves.

"I'm Gonna Get You a Nice Jewish Doctor"

Maybe you're not into Guy Ritchie movies.  In particular, maybe you never saw "Snatch."  I love this movie, even though it has all of the criteria that would lead me not to like a movie.  In any event, Dennis Farina's character tells another character, who has gotten injured in London, that he's going to have him treated by a "nice Jewish doctor."  The caricature here, of course, is the trope about Jewish doctors' somehow being better than doctors who are not Jewish.  So the joke was that it mattered if the doctor was Jewish or not Jewish.  Judaism, and real or fake Orthodox Judaism, is one of the side whacky dynamics in this movie.

But here's my point.  And it has nothing to do with doctors or religion.  There are people who tell themselves that there's something somehow better about Jewish doctors, or Jewish lawyers.  And they seek them out, like in "Snatch," on the theory that they'll get a better result from these practitioners.  Politics, and specifically influence-peddling, is not like that at all.  People who want an outcome just want the outcome.  They don't care from whom they get it.  They pay, with campaign contributions, for the outcome they want.  It doesn't matter to them if the candidate or elected person is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Caucasian, African-American, Republican, Democrat, or anything.  And they'll contribute to more than one candidate running, against each other, for the same office.  They just want the winner, whoever it is, to remember the contribution, and give the donor what the donor wants.  It's very impersonal, and it's all about self-interest and money.

There's been a lot of complaint lately about Clarence Thomas.  Fair enough.  There's a lot to complain about.  But Thomas is not the only Supreme Court Justice who is for sale.  So is Roberts, so is Gorsuch, and there's been talk about trips taken by the late Ginsburg and by Sotomayor, and funded by someone or other else.

I'm listening to a podcast right now, and the person being interviewed was in the DoJ.  The podcast is about the venture capitalist industry, and part of the discussion is about how the tax code gets manipulated and corrupted to allow venture capitalists to buy industries, destroy them, sell the remains back to themselves in bankruptcy so the old owners, who are now the new buyers, become freed of the retirement obligations the previously intact companies had, and can declare the income from this wildly destructive, and lucrative, scheme at the lowest taxation level.  The person being interviewed mentioned, withholding the name, a Senator who a few years ago introduced legislation to interfere with this manipulation/corruption of the tax code, then quickly withdrew the introduced legislation, and was rewarded with a large campaign contribution.  The interviewee doesn't mention who the Senator was, or his or her party (or his or her religion).  It didn't matter.  The donors needed a corruptible tax code, and they paid whoever was in their way in order to get one.

The specific example at hand in this interview was nursing homes, but veterinary practices were also mentioned, as were some other industries.  These industries are acquired by venture capitalist organizations, trashed, flipped, or converted to low tax value, and you can take a guess who pays the price for this.

There's a bigger picture, or problem, here, and it is American politics.  Specifically, it is the connection between lengthy campaign seasons, and private money in politics.  We tried to get at least a bit of a handle on the latter, but Citizens United blew that out of the water.  Now, it's unlimited and "dark" money, and essentially unrestrained greed and self-interest.

I don't know much about the differences among states, but Florida is particularly bad.  The legislature is a "supermajority" (Rep, in this case), so it's not afraid of anything (DeSantis got much more unhinged after he trounced Crist last year), and it feels very untethered in taking whatever it can get, and treating with abandon the donors like the only constituents worth worrying about, and ignoring the voters and citizens.

We -- you and I -- pay for this.

Is That a Serious Question?

This column comes from an online publication called "19FortyFive."  Whether they call themselves that because it was the end of WWII or for some other reason is unknown to me.  I never bothered to explore it.  "19FortyFive" is described as right-leaning.  Here's the column: Could Donald Trump Really Be This Stupid? (msn.com)

When Donald Trump first ran for president in 2016, he gave every indication of being an idiot, an inveterate liar, and 100% self-focused.  Although he did not win the support of the majority of the voters, his support was distributed such that on the technicality known as the Electoral College, he won the election.  Frankly, Hillary Clinton was too self-confident, she took voters, and the outcome of the election, for granted, and she did not campaign where and as hard as she should have.

By 2020, when Trump converted most people's strong suspicion that he was an idiot, an inveterate liar, and 100% self-focused into a well-established and glaring fact, he bizarrely got even more support than he did in 2016.  Although this time, voters, having seen what can happen when you just assume that a patent idiot, inveterate liar, and 100% self-focused clown couldn't, you know, possibly win an election like that, turned out to nip tragic possible chapter 2 in the bud.

If it's possible to say that Donald Trump went crazy -- as in crazier than he already was -- that's what he did when he was told he lost.  The rats have been scurrying off the ship since.

And now, some writer from a right-leaning publication wonders if Trump could really be this stupid?  If you change the question a little bit, and ask how stupid Trump could be, you're looking a really black hole.

Frankly, most of this relatively short article involves Trump's assertions, and reassurances to himself, regarding classified material.  But the fact is that if anyone tried to make a list of the things Trump does that are not stupid, there wouldn't be anything on the list.  The boy simply cannot get out of his own way.  He's a deeply failed human being.

I almost always vote Democratic, if I know anything about the candidates, but it's not obligatory.  The Dem agenda and what I think is best just mostly coincide.  I gave McCain some hard thought.  But I thought W was a complete disaster, and McCain never articulated anything he said he would do, or would have done, different from W.  And besides, McCain had baggage.  Interestingly, I had dinner plans with some Republican friends the Friday night after the Tuesday election McCain lost.  I was sure my dinner companions were disappointed, and since I like them, I felt badly for them.  So I said the most diplomatic thing I could think to say: I thought McCain would have done better with a running mate other than Palin.  My friends said they liked Palin, so that was the end of that conversation.

I also gave thought to Romney, who was one of those Republicans, of which there is a list, who had previously been the governor of the very blue Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  But in the end, I just couldn't get there.  And it's not because I thought Obama did such a great job.  He did some good things, but he spent too much of his terms trying to ingratiate himself to people who were never going to approve of him no matter what he did.  There were triggers he didn't pull, and should have.  Biden is so-so, and so was Clinton.  Carter was too much of a gentleman, and that office doesn't make room for gentlemen.  Johnson did some great things for civil rights, and some disastrous things about Vietnam.  And he was too full of himself.  Kennedy was on some right tracks, but we didn't see enough of him.

Anyway, I don't know what the Reps are going to do next year.  Trump is both a total loser and reportedly way ahead of the pack.  For now.  DeSantis is either as bad as Trump, although in slightly different ways, or worse, because he's not an idiot (he just acts like one), and should be able to do better.

Well, we'll see.  I don't particularly want to vote for Biden, but neither the Reps nor the Dems are giving me a better alternative.  Bernie Sanders got himself into a little trouble a few years back by saying incumbents should be challenged even by their own party, during the primary season.  I think he was right.

Oh. The "G.O.A.T." That Tired Old Debate.

I have to start with one of those "full disclosures."  I have spent my life between the Miami area, where I was born and grew up (mostly on Miami Beach), and various parts of eastern Massachusetts (college in Medford, training after medical school in Malden and Boston, and later in Brookline).  I lived in Brookline from 1991 to 2003.  Larry Bird lived in a modest house two blocks from me.  He reportedly relied on his agent to find him a convenient place to live.  I never met Bird, and I never made an attempt to meet him.  My then young son did, though.  He walked around the corner and down to Bird's house to get his autograph.  I have a manilla-type envelope somewhere around my house now, and it contains Bird's autograph, and "Yellowman's," and a small collection of others that came my way.  I really don't know where that envelope is.

Anyway, there's an ongoing debate about basketball's "G.O.A.T."  The list isn't as short as you might think it is.  Robertson, Russell, Maravich, Bird, Johnson, Erving, Jordan, Bryant, and various others.  Cases can be made.  It seems a lot of people favor Jordan.  For "sentimental" reasons, and unquestionably for the level of play, and inspiration, and everyone's agreement about "basketball IQ," Bird is near or possibly at the top for me.

But Bird had a shortened career, due to injuries.  He was a very tough competitor, and he got himself hurt.  And for the championships, and the MVPs, and the three point shooting contests, the Celtics took very good care of Bird, and the team around him.  Basketball is a team sport, and a lot more goes into success than a great player.  Bird's "whole" career was spent in Boston.  And a team was built around him.  I take nothing away from Bird, but the '90s' Celtics' success wasn't just Bird.

A version of the same thing could be said about Jordan.  He spent almost his whole career (the successful part of it) in Chicago, and the whole organization supported him, and created a system that would showcase him.

Maybe today's biggest name, or at least one of them, is Steph Curry.  He's been with the Warriors his whole career, no one can fault his game, and again, the organization has worked to create the best team it can to support him.  They have without question had some great success.

But here's why I can't take Lebron James out of first place, or a tie for it.  James never went to college.  He didn't get that extra coaching and maturation.  He comes from the Akron, Ohio, area, and he started his career with Cleveland.  Cleveland didn't have its biggest successes in James' first years, and he was traded to Miami.  Where he won championships.  (With the rest of the team, of course.)  For whatever reasons, he was then traded back to Cleveland, which won a championship with him.  Again, for whatever reasons, he was then traded to Los Angeles, which had been stuck for a while until he got there, and they again won championships with him.  He's 38 now -- 20 years in the league -- and James' Lakers just yesterday ousted Steph Curry's Warriors from the playoffs.

Is it all just Lebron James?  No, of course not.  Team sports don't work that way.  But what player, in any team sport, goes from losing team to losing team, and every one of them wins championships when that player gets there?

Who's the basketball "G.O.A.T.?"  Not an answerable question, at least in team sports.  But if it isn't James, he's way up in contention.

What, Exactly, Is These People's Complaint?

It's been for at least a week now, maybe two, that I've gotten e-mailed petitions (lots of them) asking to "demand" that CNN not host Donald Trump for a "town hall" meeting.  I would never sign a petition like that.  First, Trump is as entitled to "freedom of speech" as is anyone else.  (Unless he's inciting people to riot and break into and damage the Capitol Building.  No, he wasn't entitled to freedom of speech then.)  Second, every time Trump opens his mouth, he makes a fool of himself.  He always has.  Since I don't favor Trump, why would I object to his making a fool of himself to a television audience?

So, Trump had his "town hall" meeting on CNN last night.  Did I watch?  Of course not.  But some people did.  And some of them are incensed that Donald Trump made a fool of himself, and told an overwhelming profusion of lies.  On TV.  Yeah, so, what else was he going to do?  That's what he does.  He makes a fool of himself, and he lies continually.

Frankly, I don't know why people, especially Dems/libs, are mad at CNN.  CNN is, as far as I know (I don't watch TV, and I don't follow any of those kinds of shows), a left-leaning station.  If that's true, their move was brilliant.  Why complain that Donald Trump makes a fool of himself and lies continually, when you can just put him on air, and let everyone see this for themselves?

And since this was a "town hall" meeting set-up, if I had been in that audience, I would have wanted to ask questions.  I would have wanted to know if Trump considers CNN an example of what he likes to call "fake news."  From everything he's uttered before, it sure sounds like he does.  And if CNN is "fake news," and he's on it, does that make him "fake?"  I mean setting aside any of the other evidence that he's fake, does he himself think and conclude that his appearance on a "fake news" station is evidence that he's fake?  And if he's not fake, and his agreement to be on CNN means CNN is not fake, was he always wrong?  Can he be clear and explicit about that?

I would understand why Reps/cons would be mad at Trump for making a very public fool of himself, and lying continually and overtly.  That's why his lawyers wouldn't let him testify in the Jean Carroll matter.  They know he's his own worst enemy.  But I don't know why Dems/libs are complaining.

Some people are going to vote for that "clown," as Joe Biden rightly called him, twice, in a candidates' debate in 2020.  But it's fewer and fewer every time he opens his mouth.  Go for it, Donnie.

CNN did the right thing.  It was fair, but perhaps more importantly, it was very clever.  And the left wing opinion-spouters and "pundits" who think CNN shouldn't have given him a platform are wrong.  They'll thank CNN for this next year in November.

By the way, some jury in NY returned a verdict in favor of Jean Carroll.  This was on the basis of nothing, no facts, and just a complaint which was incoherent.  One report I read had a video which ended with someone's conclusion that the jury concluded as it did essentially because Trump is a jerk.

Frustrating and Deflating, or Wise and Reassuring?

Today, I went to a lunch meeting and awards (literally $) ceremony of a group called Funding Arts Network (FAN).  FAN is 27 years old, started out being called "50 (Women) Over 50," has given itself the mission of evaluating and offering money grants to local arts organizations, and now has about 260 members.  I was there representing Orchestra Miami, of whose board I'm a member, and there were many other people there.  Many were FAN members, and many were award nominees.  (FYI, yes, Orchestra Miami was awarded a grant.)  FAN has a careful, focused, and somewhat extensive process for deciding which organizations/applicants get grant awards.  Overall, FAN has awarded over $5M in grants.  It was a delightful bunch of people, including several people I know and value from other organizations, and the food was terrific.  But that's not my main point.

FAN also had its yearly change of officers confirmed today.  Although there was a "slate," and no one opposed the slate, the confirmation of officers was unanimous, at least among members who raised their hands to vote.  So, we're talking about a 27 year old organization, that has done tremendous good in Dade County, that functions according to its own rules, and with which everyone is happy.  (As an aside, it is very uncommon to open any program at any Dade County cultural event, and not find FAN as a supporter.  And all the other supporters are advertising.  They're banks and other businesses, and they want recognition and the public's business.  FAN doesn't want anything.  It just provides.)

It's possible there's not a nice enough, gentle enough, or euphemistic enough way to put this, but considering FAN's inaugural name, we're talking about older middle aged, or older, women.  When FAN leadership asked today, at the lunch, for its members in attendance to stand, it was clear there were some younger women.  I'm guessing as young as 30s.  But the women sitting on either side of me, both of whom were founding members, or nearly so, were without question "OG."  One told me about her retired doctor husband, children, granchildren, and great grandchildren, and the one on the other side had been a very recent past president of FAN.  These are women who have been there, and done the work, and shown unwavering devotion, for a long time.

And the woman who is the president for the coming year, as of today's vote?  Yup.  Not, as it turns out, an original member, but most definitely "seasoned."  If the young'uns stay involved long enough, and really learn and adopt the culture and methods of FAN, they'll get there.  When they're older middle aged, or older.  In the meantime, they have some magnificent and treasured "mother figures" from whom to learn.  FAN and all of its members, and the arts organizations, all completely understand this, and they're/we're all deeply grateful for FAN's dedication, and the care they take.

Thinking about it in a reflex way, and looking around the room, there's a (mercifully) fleeting temptation to wonder why they don't elevate some of their younger members sooner.  If you don't think about it, you can easily lapse into musings about "new blood" or something.  But these people are consistently successful, they know what they're doing, they know how to do it, the woman who became president today was 27 years younger 27 years ago, and they take their mission, and themselves, seriously.  So does everyone else.

Or, To Put Epicurus Another Way...

"Is 'god' willing to prevent evil, but not able?  Then he is not omnipotent.  Is he able, but not willing?  Then he is malevolent.  Is he both able and willing?  Then whence comes evil?  Is he neither able nor willing?  Then why call him 'god?'"  Epicurus 341-271 BC (whatever C means to you)

Epicurus was talking about religion.  But we can focus elsewhere.  We don't have to concern ourselves with whether or not anyone believes there's such a thing as "god," or which one, or how many, or whether they're connected to each other.  That's each of our entirely personal devotion, or amusement.  But we have another problem.  We have Texas, and yesterday's mass shooting in a shopping mall.  (Seven or eight, including the mass murderer, dead, and seven or eight hospitalized, depending on which report you read.)

If anyone thinks there's such a thing as "god," they can deal with Epicurus' questions.  But we have something everyone agrees exists.  We live in a country supposedly of laws, and we have a Congress.  And that Congress, comprised of people everyone agrees exist, and empowered to make, eliminate, or change laws, can then take the place of "god" in at least three of Epicurus' questions.

Epicurus' first question is tricky, if we're thinking of Congress.  In theory, of course Congress is able to change the laws, so that every day doesn't bring us yet another mass shooting murder.  But Congresspeople, if they've been bought off by gun lobbies, may not consider themselves able to change horrible and wildly destructive laws.  Or to put it slightly differently, they may have decided they need campaign financing more than they need voters/"constituents", so they might feel that their otherwise "ability" to manage the laws of this country is compromised, or overpowered.  If someone offers a candidate $10K, or $100K, that's not easy to do without.  If 8-10, or 20, or 50, citizens get gunned down, you can still manage fine without them.  Of course, regardless of the mechanism and dynamics, that still leaves them "not omnipotent," or it leaves them impotent.

It's a different angle to consider if they are, as Epicurus proposes, "able," but not willing.  (Are they unwilling, because their ability has been compromised?  It's sort of an academic question.)  But if they're able, or potentially able, and they're not willing, then Epicurus is right to call them malevolent.

Epicurus' third question is straightforward, and it speaks for itself.  Except that we don't have to consider a Congress that is both able and willing, but won't act in the public interest, leaving us wondering "whence comes evil."  If Congress is both able and willing, and won't act, then it itself is evil.  That sort of leaves us with Epicurus' second question, or with the proposed answer to it.

The rhetorical and logical conundrum is Epicurus' fourth question.  This, of course, was Epicurus' point: why call anything "god," if there's evil that some imagined force is both unable and unwilling to stop?  And there have been proposed answers to that question along the long way: "'god' works in mysterious ways," "'god' never gives anyone more of a burden than they can handle," whatever that's supposed to mean.  Anyone who subscribes to a theory like that can go console the surviving family and friends in Texas.  And once they've consoled that group, there are loads and loads more mourners in this country.

But Keith Self, a Texas legislator, has a more direct and less timid answer: 'Now it’s God’s fault': Texas Republican slammed for claiming 'the almighty' controls shootings (msn.com).  There are things like mass murders, because "god" wants them.  (That's like the suggestion that HIV is "god's" way of punishing homosexuals.)  Clearly, that gets us back to Epicurus' second proposal, but Epicurus was debunking "god," and Keith Self isn't.  It's sort of too bad, in a way, that Self didn't have a better opportunity to demonstrate his personal religious devotion and commitment, by having his own family gunned down in a shopping mall.  Frankly, I'd be curious to know what that looks like, and how it sounds, to have "god" murder your family, or approve of the hitman, and you still maintain an unwavering devotion, because the "god" you like wants it that way.  A much gentler version of that happened a few years ago, when Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot in the leg while playing in a softball game with other Congresspeople, and he didn't take that as an indication that guns were out of control.  Of course, it was only his leg, and his wife and children weren't murdered, so it might not have been an entirely fair test of his dedication to the profusion of guns, very clearly in the wrong hands (if there are any right hands), in this country.  He and his mates could stop that, but he, and Keith Self, and very many others of them, don't seem to see what the problem is.

Well, if "charity begins at home," maybe tragedy should, too.  I don't wish ill on Keith Self's family, or Steve Scalise's, or Lauren Boebert's, or Marjorie Greene's, or the families of the rest of them, but I'd like to see them all give us a real lesson on unflinching devotion.

Rafa, Here's Another, and Unrelated, Example of What I Mean

Shocking Parole Board Vote Clears Way for Richard Glossip’s Execution in Oklahoma (theintercept.com)

Richard Glossip was arrested, tried, and convicted 25 years ago, for the beating death of someone.  He was identified by the person who everyone now thinks was the killer, who recanted his identification of Glossip as the killer, and even the prosecution admits to having mishandled the case, been dishonest, and made mistakes.  Everyone wants Glossip to have a new trial: everyone except the victim's family, who are just angry and bereft at their loss, and want someone to pay for it.  Glossip has had his "last meal" three times over the years, and somehow, Oklahoma repeatedly relented before it executed him.  A Parole and Pardon hearing was held this past week, a long line of people, including the prosecution, agreed Glossip should not be executed, or considered guilty, and it took the P&P Board a few minutes to decide to give the victim's family what they wanted instead.  (It turns out that Oklahoma is one of those many states that is bizarrely and incoherently very selective regarding which lives it's "pro.")  But Glossip was not executed, yet, by Oklahoma, because even the far right Supreme Court stepped in to block, or perhaps delay, this execution.

If you think this is an example -- one among very many -- that the American legal system is a horrible and unreliable mess, I certainly won't disagree with you.  I used to say that the difference between doctors and lawyers was that doctors have to get it right, and lawyers only have to win an argument.  But American medicine, or "health care," is so badly slipping that that difference isn't so clear, either.

But the point is that at best, the legal system is at least supposed to rely on proof, or even just evidence.  Sometimes, you don't even get that.  There never was any proof or evidence, or it happened so long ago that anyone who had proof or evidence has died or is unavailable, or it's just a matter of "he said, she said."

NY and GA, and the federal DOJ, have been careful to get documentation and recordings, basically to prove Trump did whatever they accuse him of having done.  And when anyone relies on testimony and depositions, they want a number of people, possibly not reliant on each other, who tell the same story.  And that story has to make sense.  I always say that everything anyone tells me is a story.  What's not a story is what I witness myself.  But most of what I hear I don't witness.  And I don't "act" on what I don't know, because I didn't witness it.

I'll give you two kinds of examples.  First, people report symptoms.  The symptoms, by definition, are subjective.  But there are objective indicators that go with problems that cause a report of subjective symptoms.  I'm very careful to look for the objective indicators.  And whenever possible, I won't act unless I have the objective indicators.  If I'm going to say something to a patient, or prescribe medication, I have to be right.  The likelihood of my being right is dramatically reduced if I just rely on the subjective report, especially if it's inconsistent with the presentation, or with other parts of the story.

The other example is someone I'm treating right now.  He's a very smart and hardworking guy, and he's in graduate school.  He's also rigid, a complainer, and he's very limited in the people with whom he gets along well, or with whom he even wants to get along well.  He told me YESTERDAY(!) that he doesn't like people, and he's hoping for an ultimate professional setting where he can mostly avoid them.  I know him well enough to know that he's much like his mother that way, I've actually met his mother, and even he admitted that his mother makes her professional life work "virtually," and that's his goal for himself, too.  But the reason I'm telling you this story is that this patient doesn't come in complaining about what an asocial misfit he is.  He complains about everyone else, and how unfair, unreasonable, and obnoxious they are.  If I just went with his story, I'd be in the wrong universe.

Likewise, Jean Carroll complains that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.  On the surface, considering the experiences some women have, and considering the experiences very many people have with Donald Trump, it's frankly tempting just to assume and believe that Carroll is on the list of women, and people, Trump has mistreated.  If you react reflexly, it's VERY tempting to assume and believe that.  My theory, by the way, of the legal system is that prosecutors take the trouble to describe, and even show (with photographs), how horribly someone was treated, or killed, because they want a jury that is so disgusted, and so enraged, that it will be champing at the bit to exact retribution for this horrible crime.  And they're then presented with one person who can be held accountable, and a surviving family who clearly state that what they want is some version of closure, or that someone should pay for this crime.  At that point, everyone stops thinking.  Is it just a coincidence that as more and more people, including, for example, the Fox crew, get disgusted with Trump, it's then, at that moment, that Carroll decides she should complain about something she says happened 25 years ago (and that the American people would be receptive to her complaint)?  Maybe you've read things I haven't (please present and specify them!), but Trump is, if anything, not subtle.  He's infamous for being the cad he is, for his succession of wives, for cheating on all of them.  And Carroll flirts with him (was he in one of his marriages then?), and invites him to come with her a few floors away to the more remote section of Bergdorf Goodman, while she models intimate apparel?  If she wasn't expecting what she says she got, she needs better friends, who won't just advise her to call the police, and who certainly won't advise her just to forget about it.  Unless what she reports didn't happen, at least not the way she reported it.  As I said, I wouldn't know.  I wasn't there.  Neither were you.

No, We Couldn't.

Benjamin Franklin famously said that the "Founding Fathers" were "giving [us] a democracy, if [we] can keep it."

In science, the rule is that "nature abhors a vacuum."  In sociology, and human and non-human animal behavior, the fact is that some people and other animals have an urge to lead, and others have an urge to follow.  And those who are programmed to lead want power.  They never bother to consider what they want with the power, or, when power is translated into money, what they want with vastly more money than they need, can use, or frankly even want.  One of my friends, who has a remote history of substance abuse, says the watchword of substance abusers is "more."  That's how primitive is the frenzy for power, or money.  It's "more" for more's sake.  It's not even about anything.  Just "more."  Or, as the substance abusers say, "chasing the dragon."  The subtext is that no one ever catches the dragon.

In the news right now is a ridiculous and pathetic court case in which Jean Carroll is accusing Donald Trump of raping her many years ago.  These are, in a sense, two different versions of the same person.  Carroll was reportedly shopping for intimate apparel, somehow in the company of Trump, and she now claims that he raped her in a fitting room.  I'm told that the intimate apparel department of that high end store was on the sixth floor (out of the way of general foot traffic).  Carroll and Trump were flirting with each other, and the only way Trump could have been in that fitting room was either if he offered to give his opinion on Carroll's appearance in intimate apparel, and his offer was accepted, or if Carroll asked him to come into the fitting room to give his opinion.  Were they in fact together in that fitting room?  I have no doubt they were.  Did they, like high school kids, use the opportunity for some nookie?  They were in a fitting room, far off the beaten path, with the door closed, consensually, while Carroll was modeling intimate apparel for some allegedly rich and self-described powerful then good-looking guy who never laid eyes on a good-looking woman he didn't try to score.  Of course they got down.  Donald wanted his score, Jean wanted hers, and they each got what they wanted.  What's interesting is that Carroll's "evidence" that she had been raped was that she told two friends that she had been.  One reportedly told her to report this to the police, and the other told her just to let it pass.  She took the latter advice.  If you've been raped, and allegedly emotionally traumatized, and possibly physically hurt, and maybe impregnated, are you really going to shrug your shoulders, and get back to your job?  As a journalist or advice columnist?  Who has a byline of which she was no doubt proud?  It raises the question of whether Carroll was complaining to her friends, or bragging to them.  Donald can tell his "friends" that he scored Jean, and Jean can tell her "friends" that she scored Donald.  They reportedly had no further contact with each other.  They just wanted that interaction, even though neither of them wanted anything more, or anything real, from the other.  All each of them got, and all each of them wanted, was a notch on a belt.

But back to the matter at hand, this country has devolved.  It is not the democracy Franklin and the others gave us.  It is a plutocracy, heavily loaded with campaign donations (that come with expectations), dark money, decreasing accountability, resistance to more (you don't need me to tell you about the disaster the Supreme Court now is), "revolving doors," and lust for more money and a blind campaign for power.  And the lust for power is incoherent, setting aside that it is antithetical to the US Constitution.  It's a play for power over things that should be of no interest to the people who want the power.  Why would anyone care if someone else is homosexual, or is pregnant and doesn't want to be?  It is ravenous and raging.  It is as authoritarian as anything to which this country ever used to object.  (At least current Republicans have the semi-decency no longer to pretend to object to Vladimir Putin, although this posture, too, appears only to represent whatever is the opposite direction of where Democrats seem to want to go.)  And really, that seems generally to be the normal and natural trajectory of rulers, and power.  Franklin and the other founders offered us a way to avoid that trajectory, and at this point, we have declined it.

The book I'm currently reading, The End of Europe, by James Kirchik, includes a chapter on Hungary, which is also increasingly authoritarian.  Viktor Orban, who has no use for or interest in reality and history, is consolidating his power just as is Vladimir Putin, or American Republicans, or any of many others.  Those in power don't want a "balance of power."  They just want all the power.  This certainly raises the question that is related to "you can't take it with you:" what happens when you get what you want, which is domination over everyone else, and then you die, which everyone does?  Or can't you think about that now, because the feeding frenzy has overtaken your mind?

And if it took the US about 250 years to get here, and Hungary about 80+ years, it's taken Israel about 75 years: On their nation's 75th anniversary, Israelis ask: Is this still a democracy? (msn.com)

Maybe Benjamin Franklin glibly asked the slightly wrong question.  He asked if we "could" keep the democracy.  The question more to the point is if "we" want to keep it.  It doesn't appear we do.