When Is Time Up?

It seems as though life is filled with time limits. They are the expression of entropy in a finite world. Everything that begins must end. But how do we know when that is?

This question is coming up with greater frequency of late.

In Oakland, a 13 year-old child died unexpectedly from complications during a tonsillectomy.  She was pronounced absolutely brain dead by three top neurologists. Her body was kept alive mechanically. The family felt that since she was still warm, she was still alive and should be kept that way by hospital staff until the child regains consciousness. There was no way that would ever happen. They went to court to force the hospital to keep the dead child alive at hospital or taxpayer expense. After several court-ordered delays, the court finally allowed the hospital to do the obvious and take the dead teen off life support.

In Florida, a misguided hospital staff insisted a brain dead pregnant woman whose fetus was 14 weeks old, must be kept alive until the baby can be born, against the wishes of the family. A court finally ruled that the hospital staff had no idea what they were doing and ordered the woman taken off life support. The hospital then asked the family to pay the costs of keeping the woman alive against their wishes.

Years ago Congress got involved in a case of a brain dead woman kept alive for 15 years because her parents wanted her to recover. When she was finally taken of life support, an autopsy was conducted. It found there was nothing left of her brain. The deceased was completely empty headed.

We have hundreds of thousands of people in hospitals and nursing homes with no chance of ever improving and unable to take care of themselves. We have tens of thousands of people on end life dialysis, being kept alive daily with painful treatments which when ended result in almost immediate death. All dialysis costs are paid by taxpayers. 

Thanks to the marvels of modern medicine, we are able to live much longer. Heart blockages leading to heart attacks can be opened while totally blocked arteries can be replaced. People with heart conditions can get bypasses, pacemaker/defibrillator implants, mechanical hearts and even new hearts through transplant. Most of our organs can now be replaced. Cancer fighting drugs have been developed that can target cancer cells and destroy them. Work is being done to replace external parts like ears, noses, arms and legs.

The majority of national healthcare costs are for people in the very end of their lives in order for them to cheat death just a little bit longer.

It is now the same with our favorite pets. While dogs used to last only a few years 50 years ago, with many killed prematurely in traffic accidents or by natural causes like cancer and heart disease, many now live well into their teens. Pet owners now spend thousands to fight their pet’s cancer or heart disease or to provide devices to enable their loyal furry friend to walk or at least roll. Dog owners are now finding themselves having to decide when their beloved canine must die. It is very painful decision and one that is put off as long as possible.

And end dates don’t only apply to living creatures. When should a T.V. series end? When should a public policy end as we saw with affirmative action, school busing, segregated schools, discrimination against gays in the military and the military draft? These are difficult but necessary planning decisions known as management. 

Now we face new decisions about end dates.

When should we get out of Afghanistan? The vast majority of Americans say “immediately.” But those who fought and sacrificed there want to see our troops remain for as long as ten more years to make sure that all they accomplished with 17 years of war would not be lost.

When should we end the extension of unemployment benefits to those who have been receiving benefits for more than six months already? The extension expired in December and has not been renewed. Should the extended benefits be allowed to end now that the unemployment has fallen to almost 4% from a high of almost 10%? We sometimes forget and are never reminded, that under the best of economic circumstances, the unemployment will be between 4 and 5%, meaning millions of Americans will always be unemployed.

When should a relationship end? How do we know that it is really irreconcilable? Should couples stay together for the sake of the children or would everyone be better off if the two parted?

In today’s journalism the question has been when should coverage of a story end. Clearly some stories go on much longer than they should because they help raise advertising revenues. We see this with natural disasters and perverse political stories as well as juicy crime sagas.

Some reporters seem so taken with their own verbiage, that they extend their columns well past the needed length not wanting to end the experience. Not so with this column.

It ends here.

Evolution and Free Will

Most people who read this column would admit to believing in the theory of evolution and in Man’s free will. The theory of evolution posits that evolution occurs through natural selection with the survival of the fittest. Every religion, especially Western ones, insist that even though there is an all knowing, all powerful G-d in control of the universe, every person has free will. Free will is described as the ability of individuals to freely choose their path in decision they make. Some consider free will Man’s greatest vanity.

We all believe these ideas until they involve real people or the things we love.

Yes, there is the survival of the fittest, but every human and most animal species should survive, regardless. We believe that any human death before age 100 is a tragedy. The unborn child who has major health complications should not be allowed to pass away and should even get surgery while still in the mother to prevent a still birth. No cost should be spared. A human life is at stake.

If a person sustains a totally debilitating injury or is so advanced in age that s/he will never function independently and can never contribute to society, we must spend whatever necessary to make the person as comfortable as possible for as long as possible. Every human life is precious.

If a teenager gets killed after trying to kill someone else, it is a tragedy and the killer is at fault even though it was self defense. His parents are due damages from someone with deep pockets. No young person should die, no matter what.

If an animal species is facing extinction because it cannot adapt to changes in its environment, the environment should be changed to allow the species to survive. Every species is essential to the planet’s survival.

If a business can no longer sustain itself with costs exceeding revenues and faces bankruptcy, we morn their loss after all efforts to save it fail.

If some people lose their job for any reason, they should be entitled to every possible safety net to keep them going. Everyone must survive economically.

If people’s lives are threatened because of the loss of functioning in an essential organ or a painful joint or a missing a limb, every effort must be exerted to fix or replace the damaged part. Soon we will be able to replace deadened heart tissue with our own stem cells. We will be able to give hearing to those who have lost it, sight to those who cannot see as well as replace any body part. We want everyone to survive regardless of their fitness.

And then there is free will. Free will means that we are each responsible for our actions because we choose them freely. But there are many allowed exceptions.

If a person is homeless because of mental illness and/or substance abuse, we realize that it is not that person’s fault. We feel that we should do whatever we can to help the homeless and we tolerate whatever they do, no matter how unpleasant, because they can’t help themselves, they have no free will. (Yet, we invite them to stay in shelters but only if they freely choose to do so.)

If people come to our land without documentation, invitation or permission because they are poor and see no future in their native country, we say that they are not to blame. They had no choice. We understand that they might drive without license or insurance, that they might purchase fake I.D. or use someone else’s Social Security number to get work. What choice do they have? All they want is to work and earn a living. If they commit crimes or have vehicular accidents, we realize that their situation forced them to do what they did, they had no free will.

If people live a certain lifestyle, it is said that they had no choice, they were born that way. Some are said to have known since an early age that they were different.  Some realize much later in life that they actually were born to be different. In any case, the argument is that since they have no free will as to what lifestyle to choose, all choices should be considered equal, since we are all created equal, at least according to our Founding Fathers’ Declaration.

In a sense, all these rationales have some basis.

Humans are perhaps members of the only species that knows that their finite existence will surely end in death. We know, if only instinctively, that life's entropy, the force we battle our whole lives, will finally defeat us. We want to fight this force until the death.

And on one level, everything is predetermined. If there is an all knowing and powerful G-d, then there can be no free will, He already knows what we will do. If we are each infinite or part of the infinite, there is no free choice, everything just is a part of a much larger interdependent pattern. If we are mainly products of our genetic makeup and our early childhood experiences over which which we had no control, then how can we be said to act freely? If we are bound by the structure of our brains which predispose us to different thoughts, feelings and resultant actions, can we be held responsible for our actions?

So should we believe in evolution and free will?

 What choice do we have?

 Our survival is at stake.

A Journalist's Insight

Frank Read (not his real name) is 51 years old, approximately, and has spent much of his adult life as a journalist reporting for the mainstream media. His professors taught him lessons that most journalists still follow. The main one being always make the story personal by involving an affected person. The feeling widely-accepted in the profession was that reporting should be kept simple so that people with very little education could relate to it and continue to buy the publication or watch the news program. Simple people need short sentences and human drama that is sensational enough to grab their attention and they might get confused by statistics, data, comparisons or in depth investigation. One editor put it more clearly: “keep it simple, stupid.”

But Frank has had a change of heart. He no longer believes what he was taught and what his fellow journalists still practice on a daily, routine and thoughtless basis.

He recently watched a news segment on his favorite news hour about the effects of the low minimum wage that is currently just over $7 an hour. Instead of showing us what that means to an average full time worker and how it compares to the rest of the work force in dollars and cents, it showed us a woman who was a supervisor at a fast food chain in New York City. She made more than the minimum, but still only about $9 an hour. We learned that after taxes are taken out, she must use the little she has left to buy food and pay rent for her recently laid off husband, two aged parents and two children as well as herself. We see that it takes only a few days to use up her earnings. Frank notices that there is no mention of food stamps and wonders why this woman would not be eligible. The reporter caught that too and asked the woman about. She explained it lapsed for some reason. The reporter had her go and reapply, and she got food stamps for her family of six.

Frank noticed that no mention was made of the husband’s unemployment insurance checks which could be as high as $600 a week. The report forgot to mention that the two elders were eligible to either Social Security retirement, if they ever worked, or SSI if they never did. This would add $1500 to $3000 a month. The report also did not mention the rent subsidy that reduces the rental cost of her apartment. It did not mention that she would owe and pay no federal or state income taxes and would receive earned income credit that could be as high as $4000 from the government.

Frank realized how much more accurate and effective it might have been had they not used this person’s example, flawed as it was and as it usually is for a variety of reasons including confidentiality, not wanting to embarrass, not knowing enough to ask and wanting to make it sensational. They could have told us that a full time worker is paid for about 2000 hours a year. At $7.50 an hour, that comes to $15,000 a year. The report could have shown this to be below the poverty level for a family of four. It could have tracked how much a minimum wage worker earns for his employer. It could have compared the worker’s wages with that of the CEO and show the latter to be thousands percent more - $15,000 versus $300,000 or more. The report could have shown how much the government spends to subsidize these low wage earners and how the government is actually also subsidizing the employer by making up for what he doesn’t pay. But Frank saw that none of this was done. The report could have shown how much food stamp and other transfer payment costs would decline if the wage rate were raised significantly.

Frank started noticing this everywhere. Fellow reporters were trying to personalize every disaster by interviewing as many victims as possible for as long as possible. The victims could never tell the whole story but the part they did say was always similar: “We have been here for a long time and have lost everything. We are grateful that none of us died and we will rebuild knowing this will happen again. There is nowhere we would rather live.”

Frank noticed his colleagues doing the same with news stories by asking people on the street what they think. The answers range from admission of total ignorance as in “I didn’t know it happened” to “I think it is a good idea as long as it works,” to some limited comment reflecting a minimum of thought.

It has dawned on Frank that his professors and colleagues have been wrong. The public needs to know as much as possible that is relevant to each story. He realizes that he is not a stenographer just quoting what people said and he is not a salesman trying to make the story interesting enough, while not necessarily accurate.

He has reformed and promises to no longer condescend to his reading public with heart wrenching stories of personal tragedies. He won’t use an individual to generalize a situation.

He even objects to my using him as an example of this overused and lazy form of journalism. I apologize. I don’t know what I was thinking. 

Listening and Hearing

I love music. I love listening to it and I love singing it. I consider my IPod one of the great inventions and use it every day. But surely, there’s a time and a place for it. I think that listening to music while driving is wonderful, enhancing both experiences at the same time. I think that listening while walking is also quite nice depending on where you’re walking and what you are listening to. Live concerts can be great place to hear your favorite singers. But must we endure it while on hold or much worse while listening to someone speaking on T.V.?

I must disclose that I am a bit hard of hearing. I’m usually fine on the phone or when talking with someone who is articulate and whose mouth I can see making the sounds. My hearing, like that of many of my contemporaries, starts failing when there is a bit of background noise. I can’t hear in a noisy restaurant or at a semi-wild party. Sometimes, this cannot be avoided. But then there’s television.

I resent background music on T.V. while someone is talking. I makes it almost impossible to make out the words in the midst of this unnecessary musical noise. I find it very frustrating. I don’t need music to have a reaction to the words the character is speaking, the ones I can’t hear. The words and the speaker’s presentation of them in context should suffice. I am hard of hearing, but I am not stupid or without the ability to react to verbal and non-verbal stimuli.

At this point some might be thinking, “why not use closed captioning to see the words you can’t hear?” Have you seen it lately? Sometimes it is so delayed that you have forgotten what the scene was. Sometimes when there are just one or two words you can’t quite hear, it turns out that whoever is typing the closed captions didn’t hear it either. Sometimes it seems like the transcriber just gave up. Being so much behind, the caption writer just says “the hell with it” and stops writing and we stop knowing what was being said. Why can’t whatever is not scripted be taped and then transcribed so when it airs we can see the words as they are spoken and not several minutes later? Those already scripted should have simultaneous subtitles. And it would be great if the words could be spelled closer to the actual.

And while we’re on the subject of gratuitous background noise, there are the laugh tracks. They do not interfere with my hearing. They interfere with my enjoying. Again, I understand the language well enough and get jokes well enough, as most of us do, to know what is funny and react accordingly. I find it superfluous and insulting to have a laugh track tell me what’s funny and when to laugh along with the make-believe crowd.

While I have a problem of listening but not hearing, there is also the issue of hearing without listening.

What is that noise at eight A.M.? Is it construction? No. Is it tree trimming? No. What is it and when will it stop? It is someone with ears covered using a leaf blower. Next question - why? Why is this person using a gas guzzling, noisy machine to do what a rake and/or broom could do more efficiently, more effectively and much more quietly? Why is the person who hired him letting him, or has the homeowner left for work already or gone deaf? Why is the worker chasing a single leaf out to the street? Why do we even allow noisy leaf blowers?

And what about people talking on the cell phones while in public? Must we hear their innermost thoughts even though we are not listening? What about privacy? Isn’t that the rage nowadays that we are all concerned that the government might have access to our communications? We have otherwise intelligent people acting outraged at the invasion of their privacy because the government has access to all hundreds of billions phone records that do not include the name of the person or what was said - just what number called what number for how long at what time.   Then why are we forced to eavesdrop on our neighbors and fellow customers? And it wouldn’t be so bad if the conversations we were subjected to were interesting. It might not be so bad if there was any humor or gossip or metaphysical speculation. But it is usually so boring you almost want to interject something to raise the level of discourse. I sometimes start singing real loud or I shout at my dog even if she isn’t with me at the time. If I have to listen to them, let them have to listen to me.

Then there are those who want to share their rap music with us. They drive worthless cars with state-of-the-art sound systems and they want the world to know.  The base is usually overwhelming making it impossible to hear the moronic lyrics. It’s like going to a restaurant where the service is so bad you forget about the terrible food.

It is now late at night and the only sound I hear is that of my steam heat radiator sizzling. It is one of my favorite sounds - the sound of warmth. This sound is being interrupted by the sound of my fingers touching the various keys to form the words I am writing. I’m going to stop now so to better hear the sound of soothing warmth.

A Question of Privacy

We have heard too many public discussions about the issue of privacy. We have heard seemingly intelligent people expressing outrage over recent revelations that our country’s spy agency is spying. They are spying, in part, by obtaining telephone and email data on American citizens right here on American soil. The billions of bits of data involve phone numbers, dates of calls and their duration as well as email connections made at certain times and dates. No one has suggested that the phone calls or emails’ contents were ever involved.  A recent in depth study found there to have been no known abuses. And yet some still cite the Fourth Amendment which forbids unlawful search and seizure.

I find it very hard to consider what they are doing at NSA a violation of the Fourth just as I don’t see how requiring guns buyers at gun shows to pass background checks or limiting the kind of weapons citizens can buy to defend themselves, prohibiting weapons like tanks, guided missile systems. atomic bombs and assault weapons, would be a violation the the Second Amendment.

I think both are fine examples of demagoguery.

So what constitutes an invasion of privacy?

I think having our medical or financial records made public would be a serious invasion. And stealing our identity for fun and profit is perhaps the most egregious trespass.

I think having naked or otherwise embarrassing pictures of ourselves distributed without our approval another.

I would consider having my private conversations made public or having my personal emails read aloud to a group people not considered admirers to be in this category.

Most of us would rather have privacy while having sex, some wanting complete privacy, with some couples insisting on separate bedrooms. The same with our time spent eliminating our waste products.

Also private thoughts and feelings are usually intended to remain so.

But what about our picture, should that be private? Should people not see you? Corporations and government agencies are working to produce a facial recognition system. The system would recognize each of us and produce advertising that would be best suit us individually. The system could track us as we shop at the mall and put up ads just for us. Will this be an invasion of privacy? Shouldn't this system be used only on people accused of shopping too little thus depriving our struggling economy?

It is now easy to find people we have been looking for, to find out where they live, how long they have been there, how much they paid for their home and how much it is currently worth. If you are willing to pay a few dollars, you can also find out how much the person owes on the mortgage, how much he claimed to earn, whether he has been arrested or married or divorced.We can also find out if and when a person entered the country by plane or board and even all the people who were on the same journey.

Should all that information be private?

A person in law enforcement could see your license plate and run it to find your name, address, birth date, aliases, height and weight as well as your picture. The person can then check to see if you own a gun, have ever been arrested and so on. Is that an invasion of privacy even if it is well supervised?

When we donate to a charity we start getting requests from every similar fund. If we give to an environmental group, we will hear from every other one. How does that happen? Is our privacy being violated?

When we go online, we see ads to the side of most entries. They are targeted at us specifically. How does that happen? Is our privacy being invaded?

What about when people listen in on our cell phone calls because we speak loudly in their close proximity and sometimes even have them on speaker phone so both sides of the conversation can be overheard? Is that yet another violation of our privacy? If so, why do we make it so easy for them?

Are our names, addresses and phone numbers private? If yes, then why do we have to pay extra to have them not made public by the phone company?

Can we keep this specific blog just between you and me? Surely, I am entitled to some privacy. That's why I write a blog.
  

Our Man in Moscow. What If?

For the past few months, we have been subjected to daily news accounts of secret government spying as revealed by a 29 year-old, high school dropout who was given the highest security clearance to view America’s computer spy network. This so-called “leaker” has been considered by many to be a bitter and angry traitor to his country. The leaks provided us with insight into the breath and depth of America’s spy capability, including our gaining access to all phone and internet transmissions at home and abroad. The NSA, our master spy agency, was even able to access the phones of several heads of state.

Some of us, especially those who feel that our nation should be cut down to size and not continue to tower in influence over the entire world, feel the revelations indicate outrageous violation of the fourth amendment because someone told us so. How dare the NSA have access to information that could prevent another terrorist attack. Whatever happened to the notion of a level playing field? Aren’t we at too great an advantage over terrorists?

The young “spy” announced to the world that it was he who leaked this embarrassing information and immediately left for China, probably not because it is so nearby. He then, after not being welcome there, left for another not nearby country, Russia. He has been there for a few months treated very well by what many consider America’s arch enemy. He has even been offered a job there. But winter is coming and Russia gets terribly cold. It now appears that the young leaker wants to come home and requests forgiveness without maximum prison time - life with no chance of parole.

But what if none of this were true?

What if, in the tradition of all great spy fiction, this is all a brilliant scheme?

What if America, and NSA in particular, wanted to neutralize China’s massive computer spy system? It is believed to have tapped into our largest corporations and stolen industrial secrets that would allow them to make products almost as good as ours. Could that be why the young leaker went there first? Was China wise to the plan? Is that why they deported him so quickly?

Russia also has a massive computer spy system. NSA wants to disrupt it. Could it be that our alleged spy is actually our man in Moscow? Could this be a brilliant plot to win Russia’s confidence by disclosing embarrassing but trivial spy information about NSA and making our young computer geek look like America’s public enemy number one? Could Russia be fooled into thinking that the enemy of their enemy is their friend?

But there’s more.

What if the administration had even loftier goals?

As most of us are painfully aware, we have been without a budget for four years now. The Republican-led House has put forth moronic, partisan schemes that they called budgets. These budgets would have enlarged our military beyond its current bloat; lowered taxes to the rich, so they can be even richer; and cut programs to help the poor, so that the poor can be even poorer. And they wanted to end the Affordable Care Act to help the uninsured end their lives of suffering sooner. What’s not to like?

The Democrats want the rich to pay higher taxes and would love to dramatically cut our spending for defense, which amounts to about one trillion dollars a year or half of the actual General Fund of $2 trillion. Theses costs include staffing our more than 700 foreign military bases in friendly countries throughout the world and our spy network which was dramatically enlarged after 9/11.

But how could they do it?

The Republican-led House would never allow us to spend less on defense. They want it increased. They believe we must have enough troops to fight two wars at the same time.

Our allies might be willing and ready to let us withdraw of troops from their sovereign land, but can’t ask - their people might object to losing free security. 

What if the White House, desperate to cut our defense costs, used this noble spy to inform our allies that we have been spying on them? The leaders probably knew and didn’t care. But they could act outraged in public and demand that we reduce our surveillance and insist that we quit our bases in their country.

The administration would then be “forced” to close at least 700 bases saving $100 billion a year, and to reduce our expenditures for spying much of which is a waste of time and money much more than being a privacy issue.

Could our young ex-pat, actually be our bravest and most inventive master spy? Could he really be an MIT-trained genius who can quickly destroy Russia’s computer spy capability while also enjoying free room and board in one of Russia’s many luxurious residences (think YMCA or Motel Six)?

And will he ever be able to come in out of the cold, like a John Le Carre character? With Russia and perhaps China on its knees, spy wise, will we credit this so maligned young hero his just desserts, or will he trapped in not-so-sunny Russia for the rest of his days?

How will this story end? What if it never does?

Those Who Know Should Say and Those Who Say Should Know!

This column has at times challenged well-respected phrases and sentiments. It turns out that we are not all created equal and that the Founding Fathers knew it all along. We can not be told to love everyone as we love ourselves and be expected to comply, but we can treat each person and event as an end in themselves as well as a means to an end. In one column I examined the great line from the mystics: “Those who know do not say and those who speak do not know.”

It was supposed to mean that if someone tells you they know how the universe works, it means that they do not know because it is unknowable. And if someone is enlightened and really knows, he would not say because it can not be put into words. Many students of Eastern wisdom would nod wisely in agreement with what seems to be clear. But is it?

I asked who said that those who know don’t say. Why did they say if they knew that you couldn’t know and say? It was like saying “I am a liar.” If you are a liar, I shouldn’t believe what you say. You say you are a liar so I don’t believe you. But that means that I think that you are not a liar in which case what you are saying is true which is that you are a liar.

If this saying of knowing but not saying were acted upon, we would have no columns like this one. People would not do research or write non-fiction books and mystics would all be silenced. This idea of having those who know not say, is what has happened to the Republican party. There are very few among them who know and they don’t speak for fear of not getting re-elected.

But as usual, my take is just the opposite of this bit of mystical “wisdom.” I feel strongly that those who know must say and those who say should be sure they know. I also don’t believe that the mysteries of the universe cannot be known or expressed. I have worked on these issues for more than half a century and am gratified to have finally found the answers. They are fairly simple, straightforward and expressible. Readers of this column have probably come across my metaphysical theory in columns like “Something for Nothing,” “Punctuation in the Grammar of Life” and “Why Do Bad Things Happen.” If you haven’t read them or can’t remember what they said, you are welcome to find them in the online edition or on my blog.

So who knows and what should they say.

The new Pope, Francis, is now saying what Catholic clergy should have been saying and realizing for years. The religion is not about birth control, abortion and gay unions. He could go further and admit to the faithful that the faith is also not about a virgin birth on Christmas morn.  It is not about turning water into wine and giving rise to such widespread alcoholism among the flock for two millennia. It is not about the Jews killing the Savior as is re-enacted every Easter at churches all over the world. As the new il Papa has said, Catholicism, Christianity as a whole, is about treating each other with kindness and compassion and realizing that whatever good fortune we have is by the grace of the Creator. Even our faith itself is by His grace. It is to cooperate rather than compete and to help the less fortunate rather than looking down on them.

And I think that it is even more than that.

I think that Christ, who was both a man and G-d, symbolized the fact that we are also both finite and infinite, both mortal and divine. This idea was also in Greek mythology as well as Hindu beliefs. We have now seen it in modern science. We now know of fractals as being infinite iterations of form within every finite object. So every finite object is infinite and the infinite is within the finite - the kingdom of heaven is within. And each of us is both finite and infinite - body and soul.

I think that the holy trinity, which started as the holy duality, is also very meaningful. The holy duality was G-d, the father and Christ, the son. This, I think, means the infinite and the finite or the subject and the object or consciousness and the object of consciousness. When it became the holy trinity, hundreds of years later, I think it symbolized the basic grammar of life - the subject, object and verb. G-d is the subject (the infinite consciousness), the Son or the finite world is the object and all that happens between the two, is the verb - the holy Spirit.
Surely, most Catholic theologians know all this but they don’t say. They focus instead on senseless beliefs and empty traditions and then wonder why their followers have so little understanding of the spiritual message and act so contrary to it.

Why don’t they say what they know? Do they think that we won’t understand?

Where are the Muslim religious leaders? Surely they know that Islam, like any major religion, believes in peace and human kindness. They must understand that if there is a paradise awaiting us after we die, it is not accessed by committing suicide while killing innocent people. They must know that there are no 72 virgins awaiting each man who destroys his life in order to hurt others. They must know that we probably won’t have human forms and won’t be into sex and that the whole idea is idiotic. Don’t Mullahs know that killing, hating, screaming, abusing women, lying and stealing are activities that go against all human decency and are beneath any religion? Then why don’t they speak? They know that women need not be subjugated and forced to cover themselves head to toe if Muslim men could learn to restrain their animal instincts, the very reason for religion to begin with. They know that their G-d never said, “Abuse your women and cover them so that you are the only one who does.”

Why don’t they say that their male worshippers must stop abusing women and stop killing themselves and others? Are they afraid their worshippers will not understand and grow even more violent?

And where are our politicians, our elected representatives?

Just recently Republicans closed government and threatened our debt limit in order to try to stop the Affordable Care Act from going into effect. It was their 42nd attempt. The cost of the first 41 was more than $50 million. The cost of the most recent failed attempt has cost the nation billions. The Speaker of the House, who knew that the blackmail would never succeed and made no sense, did not say so. After saying that he would never let the government shutdown but just wanted the President to talk with him, he would not allow a clean continuing resolution bill to be voted on in the House even though he knew it would succeed. Why did he say what he knew was not true? Why does he do this time and again when stating his position? If he knows, he should say.

Why didn’t he say what he knew? Was he afraid of losing his Speakership more than he was of hurting his own country and people needlessly?

House Republicans have decried the ongoing annual budget deficits. Surely, some know that they started in 2001 when the Republicans took the White House. They know that much of the cause of the deficits was tax cuts for the rich coupled with the cost of two unnecessary wars. Instead of saying what they must know, that the remedy then would be to get out of both wars, as our President is trying to do, and fix the tax code so that the most fortunate among us pay their fair share while we expand the tax base to include more than just half of all households. Instead, the Republicans say they want to solve the deficit problem by increasing military spending, further reducing taxes for the rich and cutting spending for Medicare and Social Security, neither of which has caused the deficits.

If they know all this, why don’t they say? Could it be fear of not getting re-elected or of not being liked by colleagues who either do not know or will not speak?

Where are our economists? How many predicted the crash of 2008? How many warned about the real estate bubble and easy financing? How many have joined together to say that the big banks should be broken up to be structured as they were until the mid 1990s, when banking restrictions were repealed? How many have formed a massive majority of knowers to tell Conservatives that they are wrong to want to dramatically cut the budget while our country is trying to recover from a massive recession? Why don’t they say that we would be a lot better off today were it not for conservative intercession? Why don’t the knowledgeable economists tell us the easy ways we can prolong Social Security and Medicare? Why don’t they get together and develop a simple and fair tax code? If I did it, surely they can.

Why don’t economists who know say? Could it be that they work for organizations that might have a bias against full disclosure?

And, of course, why does the mass media not say what it knows? Why do their journalists always report the worst case scenario rather than the most likely? Why do they use headlines and previews that exaggerate the true story? Why do a few news organizations actually create stories to further their political agenda, casting all appearances of integrity to the wind?

We saw it recently in our manufactured fiscal crises when the mainstream media piled us with draconian predictions knowing full well they would never come to pass: Social Security payments might cease and our military won’t get paid, no one will invest in our country, we will fall back into recession which could destroy the world economy and Santa might forget about Christmas.

Recently in the well-publicized death of a teenager, the media provided the wrong pictures of the victim and the shooter making the victim look like an innocent 14 year-old and the shooter like a big, fat, Mexican drug dealer, when in actuality, the victim was several years older than he appeared in the picture and was much larger than the rather small shooter. The media neglected for months to show the pictures of the shooter taken immediately after the event by police. The pictures showed the shooter had a bloody, broken nose and the back of his head was covered in blood. The media knew from the start that this vicious murder was actually a case of self defense.  A jury ruled it self-defense after the media seemed to be trying its best for months to convict the shooter.

Why do professionals in the media who know the truth, say it? Could it be that negative and sensational sells and the public is used to superficial coverage? Is it because they know how much we all enjoy gossip, especially when it is negative?

If you know, please say.