Abortion and Life
There is really no way of getting around the scientific fact that abortion ends a life. Each individual human life obviously begins at conception. Abortion is a one-sided solution to a two-sided problem. Yet it is not far from being a two-sided solution. All that is really needed initially is an intention to save the fetus.
Abortion procedures, as currently constituted, violate the command of the Hippocratic Oath to "Do no harm!" I am surprised that there are any physicians willing to perform abortions, although it is true that Hippocrates is dead and the U.S. Supreme Court is alive. But modern science and technology is capable of creating a procedure that would satisfy both Hippocrates and the Supreme Court.
Abortion is motivated by a pregnant woman's (and sometimes a man's) desire not to carry a fetus to term. The motivation may be completely selfish or it may relate to a belief, perhaps substantiated by evidence, that the infant will suffer. Yet suffering is an integral part of life, a part that sometimes leads to transcendence. And I am not talking about religion. I am a believer only in scientific and social processes. If you want to put a name to it I am a living systems theorist.
Science routinely solves problems that have plagued humans since they first climbed down from the trees. If a fetus seems to have a problem that will make life difficult there is a good chance that the problem will be solved or at least ameliorated after, or even before, the infant emerges from the womb. And if the problem is social, such as having no loving parents, our social systems have ways to cope with such defects. Such social palliatives are not perfect but they are better than death by abortion.
The gap that needs to be closed is how to get the fetus to the infant stage if its mother is unwilling or unable to provide the necessary functions of a uterus. We already have some partial solutions to this problem. We can transplant a living fetus from one womb to another or, if the fetus is old enough, to an incubator. And we surely have the technology to extend the capabilities of incubators so that they can successfully sustain life at an earlier stage. If we can accomplish conception in a test tube and then implant the fetus in a womb, surely we can go one step further and eliminate the womb part. Once we accomplish that feat there will no longer be even a legal excuse for abortion.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Shaping Up
The U.S. House of Representatives, if it is supposed to represent the voters of this great nation, is bent out of shape. The majority of voters in the recent elections voted for Democrat candidates for the House but somehow the majority of the new House are Republicans. The "somehow" is called gerrymandering.
The U.S. House of Representatives, if it is supposed to represent the voters of this great nation, is bent out of shape. The majority of voters in the recent elections voted for Democrat candidates for the House but somehow the majority of the new House are Republicans. The "somehow" is called gerrymandering.
If you look at a map of the House districts in many of our states you will see some really strange and wondrous shapes. I would hate to be a Representative of one of these districts. I would probably get lost trying to get from one end to the other. In fact, in the district drawn for my current Representative it would be impossible without going outside the district. The roads don't run that way. I hope my Rep doesn't go broke buying gas for the trips to visit his constituents. Or that we constituents don't go broke trying to get to him. It might be simpler to catch him in Washington.
As a move toward saving gasoline, not to mention fairer representation, I recommend that we use a little geometry in drawing the district maps. In geometry the most compact two-dimensional space is a circle. The least compact space would look something like the drawing of a snake or, in other words, something like the congressional districts you see on some state maps. Certainly our districts can't all be circles but any competent mathematician could tell you how to regulate the compactness of the districts on a map. Better yet, you could easily program a computer to draw a certain number of optimally compact districts on a map. I know that such a procedure is not specified in the Constitution, state or federal, but we were a little short of computer knowledge back then.
What I am suggesting is that in the interests of better and more democratic representation we pass a law requiring that congressional districts, both federal and state, be drawn with at least a mathematically-specified minimum degree of compactness. Congress can appoint a committee of mathematicians and computer geeks to write the bill. Or such a group can write a model bill, a la the Simpson-Bowles Plan. It would be utterly simple to administer the law. Any decent computer could do it. In fact, I expect to see an app for it any day now.
Sales Tax = Less Sales
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and in several of our recently elected state governments seem to be favoring an increase in sales taxes to finance their activities. This is insane if they truly wish to serve their supporters in the business community. Sales taxes take the wind out of the sails of the economy more directly than any other form of taxation. Sales taxes siphon money out of the transactions that create a healthy economy, namely the making and movement of stuff. If the money in people's pockets buys less stuff then stores sell less stuff, salespeople and transporters and manufacturers lose the business of making and moving stuff and more people are laid off and our economy begins to resemble the U.S. in the 1930s.
Do the Republicans hate Obama so much that they are willing to tank the economy and damage their base just to keep him from succeeding? Is the business community willing to let them do that?
Perhaps the problem is simply that income taxes are politically unpopular. Republicans have pledged not to increase income taxes, but the budget cannot be balanced responsibly without increased revenues. Where else can they go but to sales taxes? Well, other nations have gone to Value Added Taxes. That is one possibility but the problem is that those other nations are European Socialists. Certainly we don't want to copy them.
We could tax imports more heavily but import taxes are really another form of sales tax levied at a higher level. Wal-Mart would scream bloody murder.
So how about taxing land use more heavily. No one really owns the land. Kings used to think they owned land and could grant it to their favorites, but the American Revolution disposed of that notion. Our governments at various levels reserve some land to themselves but individuals and corporations pay for their land, either in purchase price or rent. One of the gaps in our economic laws is that land purchases exist in perpetuity and can be passed on to inheritors. This often leads to poor economic use of our national land treasure.
A better and fairer system would assign all land to a unit of the people's government and limit land usage entitlement to a fixed period, such as 50 years, after which control reverts to the government. A person or corporation wishing to continue to use the land would negotiate a price for a fixed period. That price could be a lump sum or a rent but the proceeds would go to the government and would be used to pay for necessary government services.
For Republicans the wondrous part of this solution is that it takes us back to our roots. Hallelujah!
Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and in several of our recently elected state governments seem to be favoring an increase in sales taxes to finance their activities. This is insane if they truly wish to serve their supporters in the business community. Sales taxes take the wind out of the sails of the economy more directly than any other form of taxation. Sales taxes siphon money out of the transactions that create a healthy economy, namely the making and movement of stuff. If the money in people's pockets buys less stuff then stores sell less stuff, salespeople and transporters and manufacturers lose the business of making and moving stuff and more people are laid off and our economy begins to resemble the U.S. in the 1930s.
Do the Republicans hate Obama so much that they are willing to tank the economy and damage their base just to keep him from succeeding? Is the business community willing to let them do that?
Perhaps the problem is simply that income taxes are politically unpopular. Republicans have pledged not to increase income taxes, but the budget cannot be balanced responsibly without increased revenues. Where else can they go but to sales taxes? Well, other nations have gone to Value Added Taxes. That is one possibility but the problem is that those other nations are European Socialists. Certainly we don't want to copy them.
We could tax imports more heavily but import taxes are really another form of sales tax levied at a higher level. Wal-Mart would scream bloody murder.
So how about taxing land use more heavily. No one really owns the land. Kings used to think they owned land and could grant it to their favorites, but the American Revolution disposed of that notion. Our governments at various levels reserve some land to themselves but individuals and corporations pay for their land, either in purchase price or rent. One of the gaps in our economic laws is that land purchases exist in perpetuity and can be passed on to inheritors. This often leads to poor economic use of our national land treasure.
A better and fairer system would assign all land to a unit of the people's government and limit land usage entitlement to a fixed period, such as 50 years, after which control reverts to the government. A person or corporation wishing to continue to use the land would negotiate a price for a fixed period. That price could be a lump sum or a rent but the proceeds would go to the government and would be used to pay for necessary government services.
For Republicans the wondrous part of this solution is that it takes us back to our roots. Hallelujah!
The Logic of Guns
We are safest if every responsible person owns a gun or nobody owns one. We are most at risk when half the population has a gun and the other half doesn't. Thus all attempts at gun control face an uphill battle.
When every responsible person owns a gun (and we must assume it is loaded) a reasonable assailant must assume he/she is outgunned and vulnerable to immediate retaliation. Therefore only unreasonable assailants will start an attack. When no one owns a gun an assailant may start something but the attack is much less likely to be lethal either to the victim or to the assailant.
If the National Rifle Association is serious about Article 2 and the need for an armed militia, and is not just a shill for the gun manufacturers, then it should propose that a gun should be provided to every responsible person who wants one. There are enough guns in America to arm every adult, no matter how poor they may be. The NRA could ask its members to donate excess weaponry for distribution to the poor and otherwise unarmed so that we will all be safer.
Another good move for the NRA would be to form actual militias that provide, in fact require, arms and training for all competent citizens. Of course the NRA could avoid this responsibility by calling for mandatory military service, but I doubt that fits their agenda.
Universal training and militia service would leave mental state as the only issue that really needs to be tackled in order for all of us to be safer. And mental state would be easier to assess on a national scale if everyone had to undergo something like the Basic Training provided by our armed services. On this issue I speak as one who went through that training and then became an intake interviewer at a base Mental Hygiene Clinic. Basic military training has a way of bringing the kook out in all of us, if the kook is there.
We are safest if every responsible person owns a gun or nobody owns one. We are most at risk when half the population has a gun and the other half doesn't. Thus all attempts at gun control face an uphill battle.
When every responsible person owns a gun (and we must assume it is loaded) a reasonable assailant must assume he/she is outgunned and vulnerable to immediate retaliation. Therefore only unreasonable assailants will start an attack. When no one owns a gun an assailant may start something but the attack is much less likely to be lethal either to the victim or to the assailant.
If the National Rifle Association is serious about Article 2 and the need for an armed militia, and is not just a shill for the gun manufacturers, then it should propose that a gun should be provided to every responsible person who wants one. There are enough guns in America to arm every adult, no matter how poor they may be. The NRA could ask its members to donate excess weaponry for distribution to the poor and otherwise unarmed so that we will all be safer.
Another good move for the NRA would be to form actual militias that provide, in fact require, arms and training for all competent citizens. Of course the NRA could avoid this responsibility by calling for mandatory military service, but I doubt that fits their agenda.
Universal training and militia service would leave mental state as the only issue that really needs to be tackled in order for all of us to be safer. And mental state would be easier to assess on a national scale if everyone had to undergo something like the Basic Training provided by our armed services. On this issue I speak as one who went through that training and then became an intake interviewer at a base Mental Hygiene Clinic. Basic military training has a way of bringing the kook out in all of us, if the kook is there.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Too Big Not To Fail
Being too big to fail did not work for the dinosaurs. And it is not working too well for our modern dinosaurs of business either.
Our local hospital, WakeMed, thought it was too big to fail. It billed Medicare millions of dollars for overnight stays in its heart center by patients who were released and did not stay overnight. Such false billing is fraud but the U.S. Attorney's office chose to overlook the criminal behavior and instead negotiated a fine of $8 million and WakeMed agreed to pay this pocket change. U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle threw out the agreement and ordered the prosecuting attorneys to pursue indictments for those who were responsible for the fraud. If the case is proven it could disqualify WakeMed from receiving Medicare payments and, essentially, put the hospital out of business. I don't want to put my local hospital out of business but there have to be real consequences of fraud, not just a slap on the hand.
I discovered another sign that WakeMed is too big when I went to my cardiologist's office for a checkup. Emblazoned on the door was a new sign proclaiming that my doctor and his colleagues are now "Associates" of WakeMed hospital. The waiting room was much busier than usual, indicating perhaps that the association has brought them new patients. The receptionist required new information from me because, she said, they were now tied into the hospital's computer system. The only change I noticed in my care was that the doctor spent less time with me. But the new link with WakeMed also means that they can bill Medicare and Medicaid at substantially higher rates without any real change in the cost of providing the care. And this little caper is legal. I favor national health care but not if it is just going to support an epidemic of fraud and price gouging by the medical community. Now I have to look for a new cardiologist.
We also saw "too big to fail" at work in our recent elections. The U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision enabled corporations and rich individuals to create Super Pacs. These new ogres collected and spent enormous amounts of money on TV ads supporting candidates who would be more susceptible to the bribery of lobbyists. Yet a statistical analysis of the results showed that the Super Pacs had almost no effect on the election results. My guess is that the American public has become adept at ignoring TV ads, especially ads that they see over and over again. The size of the Super Pacs may actually have gotten in the way of their message.
Being too big to fail did not work for the dinosaurs. And it is not working too well for our modern dinosaurs of business either.
Our local hospital, WakeMed, thought it was too big to fail. It billed Medicare millions of dollars for overnight stays in its heart center by patients who were released and did not stay overnight. Such false billing is fraud but the U.S. Attorney's office chose to overlook the criminal behavior and instead negotiated a fine of $8 million and WakeMed agreed to pay this pocket change. U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle threw out the agreement and ordered the prosecuting attorneys to pursue indictments for those who were responsible for the fraud. If the case is proven it could disqualify WakeMed from receiving Medicare payments and, essentially, put the hospital out of business. I don't want to put my local hospital out of business but there have to be real consequences of fraud, not just a slap on the hand.
I discovered another sign that WakeMed is too big when I went to my cardiologist's office for a checkup. Emblazoned on the door was a new sign proclaiming that my doctor and his colleagues are now "Associates" of WakeMed hospital. The waiting room was much busier than usual, indicating perhaps that the association has brought them new patients. The receptionist required new information from me because, she said, they were now tied into the hospital's computer system. The only change I noticed in my care was that the doctor spent less time with me. But the new link with WakeMed also means that they can bill Medicare and Medicaid at substantially higher rates without any real change in the cost of providing the care. And this little caper is legal. I favor national health care but not if it is just going to support an epidemic of fraud and price gouging by the medical community. Now I have to look for a new cardiologist.
We also saw "too big to fail" at work in our recent elections. The U.S. Supreme Court's "Citizens United" decision enabled corporations and rich individuals to create Super Pacs. These new ogres collected and spent enormous amounts of money on TV ads supporting candidates who would be more susceptible to the bribery of lobbyists. Yet a statistical analysis of the results showed that the Super Pacs had almost no effect on the election results. My guess is that the American public has become adept at ignoring TV ads, especially ads that they see over and over again. The size of the Super Pacs may actually have gotten in the way of their message.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
What God intends.
I believe that a human life begins at conception. That is a staple of the Pro-Life position. It is also a scientific truth. But it is not the end of the story. Nearly half of all fertilized eggs die before reaching the birth stage. Either they fail to implant or spontaneous abortion occurs. If you believe that God intended every conception to lead to birth then your God has a lot to answer for.
Life can certainly be unfair, but it is a human trait to try to overcome an ill fate if possible. So why have we wasted so much time speculating about what God intends? If you believe that God intended rape to produce a child then logically you also believe that in some cases God intended that a pregnancy be aborted. We don't know what God intended until it happens.
Did God not intend that humans develop the ability to build complex machinery? We now possess the capability to remove and freeze human ova and spermatozoa that can later be unfrozen and combined to generate a fetus that can then be implanted in a uterus. Did God not intend all of that? At least I don't hear any complaint that we should stop artificial insemination.
All we need is an artificial uterus to complete the job. A bit of upgrading of the incubator ought to do it. Then women can finally cry "Free at last, free at last, thank God we are free at last!"
Friday, January 11, 2013
Jobs?
During the election campaign everyone was saying we must concentrate on creating jobs and stimulating
the economy. In today's newspaper and the morning news on TV I couldn't find a single story about jobs and the economy. I guess that problem must have been solved.
The lead story in my newspaper is about the state Division of Motor Vehicles deciding not to issue driving permits to illegal immigrants who have received deferrals from deportation. That means about 18,000 immigrants may not be able to get to their jobs. I suppose that may free up some jobs for other people but the story didn't mention that as part of the plan.
Our new Governor chose as one of his first acts to give a 5 percent pay raise to the members of his new Cabinet. Because they have done such a good job, I guess. Of course the state doesn't have the money for these raises, so I imagine they are going to have to lay off some more government workers.
The Pentagon is freezing civilian hiring and postponing maintenance work in preparation for expected budget cuts. The are also delaying contract awards, so I expect the contractors will also be laying off workers.
Perhaps we should treat the NRA proposal to put an armed police officer in every school as a job creator. But it might be just a reassignment of existing personnel. Meanwhile our existing teachers are facing a threat of being required to teach remedial reading in the summer without pay if their students don't score better on their end-of-grade tests. Does creating jobs without pay count?
The National Hockey League is finally getting back to work. That doesn't create any jobs, since the positions were already filled. But it does constitute renewed economic activity. I'll put that in the plus column, but that is about all the good news I could find.
During the election campaign everyone was saying we must concentrate on creating jobs and stimulating
the economy. In today's newspaper and the morning news on TV I couldn't find a single story about jobs and the economy. I guess that problem must have been solved.
The lead story in my newspaper is about the state Division of Motor Vehicles deciding not to issue driving permits to illegal immigrants who have received deferrals from deportation. That means about 18,000 immigrants may not be able to get to their jobs. I suppose that may free up some jobs for other people but the story didn't mention that as part of the plan.
Our new Governor chose as one of his first acts to give a 5 percent pay raise to the members of his new Cabinet. Because they have done such a good job, I guess. Of course the state doesn't have the money for these raises, so I imagine they are going to have to lay off some more government workers.
The Pentagon is freezing civilian hiring and postponing maintenance work in preparation for expected budget cuts. The are also delaying contract awards, so I expect the contractors will also be laying off workers.
Perhaps we should treat the NRA proposal to put an armed police officer in every school as a job creator. But it might be just a reassignment of existing personnel. Meanwhile our existing teachers are facing a threat of being required to teach remedial reading in the summer without pay if their students don't score better on their end-of-grade tests. Does creating jobs without pay count?
The National Hockey League is finally getting back to work. That doesn't create any jobs, since the positions were already filled. But it does constitute renewed economic activity. I'll put that in the plus column, but that is about all the good news I could find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)