On happiness

           I threatened recently to write a post on happiness and mean to carry it out today. Happiness is, of course, a pretty broad theme, and maybe I could just write that though we all know when we feel happy, everyone seems to flounder and fail when they try and define it. It might be that my favorite modern day philosopher, Alexander Doruphoros, got it right in his Happy Meal solution to the question.

            But, before I get to Doruphoros, here is a brief recounting of the opinions of some philosophers I’ve looked into. By looked into, I mean not only my own attempts to wade through their usual obtuse nonsense – an occupation which for me ranges on the happiness scale from utter delight to utter frustration and boredom - but also trying to condense the views of others who have concentrated on the topic much more than I ever will. Some philosophers wrote about happiness a lot – in some cases a whole a book on it – and, of course, not always perfectly consistently or clearly, so it is impossible to be comprehensive about even one of them in the short space I will take for each. So, my aim will be cursory and general. That’s probably a good idea, because the more I read about one of them, the more vague and ambiguous it gets anyway. Nevertheless –

            In the Old Babylonian version of The Epic of Gilgamesh, a goddess tells the hero: "As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man."

            That found its way into the Bible at Ecclesiastes 9:7-10: "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."

            The early Greek wise man, Solon, felt that you could not tell if a man was happy until he died, and his death was good one. Nonsense, of course, even if based on some true visit by him to King Croesus.

            The Buddha suggested following the eightfold path, too complicated to go into here (although it takes about eight seconds to read), but involves "right" thinking and behavior and attitude.   

            Plato seems to think there is some inner component to happiness, and that it is a means to an end (but that would be, counter-intuitively, the success of the state or justice).

            To the contrary, Aristotle believed it was an end in itself and that it has to do with utilizing reason so as to activate the “soul” to act in virtue. Pleasure, politics and study are all components of it. Aristotle gets complicated and tt would be tedious to go further.

            Epicurus, later that century founded Epicureanism, which was actually quite popular for centuries. Maximizing individual pleasure was his key, but less well known, he recommended moderation.

            Even Jesus might be said to have a contribution to the understanding of happiness if you take the first word of the beatitudes to be happy, instead of blessed. You know, “Happy are the meek . . . .” but that was very much tied to the coming of the Kingdom of God.

            Spinoza ties happiness to understanding of God/nature and by satisfying some internal guide as opposed to external forces. I would add that there is an element of what would commonly be called stoicism or equanimity in face of adversity. Some might call it a zen-like attitude. It is widely considered by scholars that his view was influenced by Maimonides, who was in turn influenced by the Islamic philosopher, Avicenna, who was influenced by the Greeks, particularly, Aristotle. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote rhythmically in Slaughterhouse-Five, “So it goes.”

            Immanuel Kant, to the best I can ascertain, thought it was pretty hopeless to try and figure out what will make you happy, as it is too ambiguous a term to be useful, a product of experience, and different for everyone. It is better to try to be moral according to the use of reason.

            Hume wrote many things on happiness, but I’ll go with a quote from his essay, The Platonist:

            “The most perfect happiness, surely, must arise from the contemplation of the most perfect object. But what is more perfect than beauty and virtue? And where is beauty to be found equal to that of the universe? Or virtue, which can be compared to the benevolence and justice of the Deity?”

            So, perfect happiness comes from contemplation of beauty, virtue and the justice of the Deity? I do love Hume, but sometimes . . . .

            Schopenhauer, channeling the pundits of the East, wrote “. . . all happiness and satisfaction, is negative, that is, the mere elimination of a desire and ending of a pain.”

            Thoreau, who wrote almost in aphorisms, said “[t]hat man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.”

            Sartre ends one of my favorite plays, No Exit, with the line – “Hell is other people.” I don’t know who would disagree with that, but they can be heaven too (at least, in small doses).

            For Camus, Sartre’s friend and later enemy, and who I was very interested in when a young man, I’ll give a passage from his Myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus is a character from Greek myth who is condemned for eternity to roll a stone up a hill only to have it roll down again (and for Camus, is a symbol of absurdity):

            “One does not discover the absurd without being tempted to write a manual of happiness. "What!---by such narrow ways--?" There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd. Discovery. It happens as well that the felling of the absurd springs from happiness. "I conclude that all is well," says Edipus, and that remark is sacred. It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile suffering. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.”

            Honestly, I’m not completely sure what that means, but it's sure not describing a real giddy, good feeling kind of happiness. But, then he writes,

            “All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. . . . He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

            I’m going to say it has something to do with accepting the absurdity in life and leave it there. 

            Last of the philosopher survey is Bertrand Russell, who wrote in his The Conquest of Happiness: “The secret of happiness is this: let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.” That might work for me, as far as it goes, but after a whole book on the topic, it falls horrendously short to be generally applied to everyone.

            Alexander Doruphoros, a pseudonym for a cantakerous old coot, is probably my favorite “philosopher,” writes about modern day ethical, cultural, legal, metaphysical and epistemological issues from social media to benevolent alienation syndrome. I reprint his essay, Happiness is a toad in a miniskirt, in full:

“A seeker of knowledge approached Siddhartha just as he was about to attain enlightenment under the bodhi tree. 'What, wise one, is the secret of happiness?' he asked. To this, Siddhartha answered, 'Happiness is a toad in a miniskirt?' At that moment enlightenment occurred. The seeker asked, puzzled, 'But what is a miniskirt?' to which the Buddha replied, 'Who said anything about a miniskirt?'

            No doubt, knowing well what a miniskirt is, you have instead asked yourself what is the point of that story? I have to tell you, I still don’t know, but I have come a long way from the point in time when I was sure I must have figured it out and that seems to be the key to most stories arising east of Instanbul. Don't try so hard. On the other hand, the moral might also be, don’t inquire about the meaning of anything if you aren’t prepared to be disappointed and you aren't already enlightened.

            I am not, however, a Buddhist, nor a follower of the Tao or Zen, as interesting as those ways can be. Nor, for that matter, can I follow any other religion or ideology. For the minute you commit to one of these programs, you must give up an element of freedom of thought. Of course, giving it up might actually be a good idea, if we were lucky enough to be pointed in the right direction, but we can never know that for certain. Perhaps one of the wisest things ever written about philosophers belongs to Hume in The Sceptic – 'When a philosopher has once laid hold of a favourite principle, which perhaps accounts for many natural effects, he extends the same principle over the whole creation, and reduces to it every phenomenon, though by the most violent and absured reasoning.'

            There is no doubt a greater problem in reading even the most insightful philosophers on happiness. Most of them seem either stuck upon what makes them happy, or worse, what they imagine they’d like to make them happy. Frankly, whenever some catalog cuddling library dweller insists that happiness comes from virtue or understanding or some other high faluting attribute, I’d like to hit them over the head with the nearest lectern. Undoubtedly, the lowliest thug making good his escape after a successful mugging; the dumbest eleventh grader making high score on his iphone; or the luckiest loser who ever put a quarter into a slot who hits for a million, is a lot happier than the sex starved stack monkey sitting in the library reading Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise in Latin, waiting for an epiphany about substance and nature and how to tell the difference.

            Besides, what in the name of Socrates makes philosophers think they can define happiness any more than they can anger, disappointment or puzzlement? After all, one man's Happy Meal is another man's bowl of gruel. But, they try and try and fail and fail.  The variety of circumstances that will make any one person experience any feelings at any given time and place is so varied, inconsistent and hidden in the minds of the feeler, that it is as impossible of precise definition as determining both the speed and momentum of a quantum particle at the same time. Sure, you think if we only had the technology, we could measure both those things – but Heisenberg said you can’t and no one has disproved him. The same is true of emotions which are as much defined by a person’s own experiences, definitions and expectations as they are sparking synapses. I have little doubt that the unhappiness experienced when I am endlessly waiting for a webpage to load or when I nick my finger for the umpteenth time with an improbably sharp piece of paper is as great as Kant’s when he thought maybe he should have gone back and returned the quill pen to the person he borrowed it from before he kicked off.

            We could, of course, go through the great philosophers and pick them apart. It’s never hard. Each one of them might be a little bit right, but were always a lot wrong. Any of the philosophers, and there were many, who thought that virtue figured in to any large degree, was not as wise as the film maker, Samuel Goldwyn, or the person who attributed the following words to him – 'Sincerity is everything. Once you’ve learned to fake that, you’ve got it made.'

            It might for a moment seem as if Nietzsche hit upon some deep insight in understanding that getting your way (he’d say fulfilling your will, of course) brings happiness. But, there are so many other aspects, that it can only be said, it is one thing that can bring happiness – sometimes. Just for two out of billions of examples, you can get your own way as much as you desire, but if you suffer from depression or chronic pain, it’s not going to amount to a hill of beans. Not to mention, at some point in our lives, someone is going to whisper to us the anonymous proverb that we instinctively know to be true - be careful what you wish for because you might get it.

            Schopenhauer did no better. The absence of pain can bring us pleasure or happiness (and I leave to muddleheaded metaphysicians or linguists proving to us that there is a significant difference). But, it is quite likely that intelligent but pathetic man never experienced the pleasure of being the sudden recipient of a smile from that special person or woke up at 17 feeling the world was his oyster and all else in it sand for making pearls. Possibly also, no one ever told him that you can look at a glass as half full or half empty. I would counter him with the words the author, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. attributed to his uncle - 'I urge you to please notice when you are happy, and exclaim or murmur or think at some point, "If this isn't nice, I don't know what is."'

           We'll have to settle for this. We might not be able to conquer happiness as Bertrand Russell would like us to (and I have no way to know whether his alleged affair with T.S. Eliot’s wife added or detracted to his own) but we can probably make a checklist of things that at least figure in to our happiness. I have to put these in some order, but the one I chose is meaningless. They are all generalizations and they are all feelings. They can all be phrased in a positive or negative way. None of them is absolutely required, but the more any one of them is lacking, the more likely the person will be unhappy.

            So, a general feeling of . . .

. . . physical health.

. . . physical security.

. . . a connection to other people you like.

. . . a special personal relationship, usually with the opposite sex and including a sexual relationship, at least for a significant part of the persons life.

. . . contributing to others, whether a family or friends or co-workers or society in general.

. . . being able to express the truth about oneself.

. . . the attainability of happiness.

. . . of being thought well of by some others.

. . . of having gotten one’s way.

            This is a pretty good list, vague as it is. It is not supposed to be comprehensive. You can say any one of a billion things makes you happy. But, these are categorical. I feel reasonably comfortable that most other things that philosophers or people in general come up with can fall into one of them. It could easily be reframed into a negative list so that the absence of general bad feelings would make one happy. In other words, you could say the absence of pain makes one happy rather than a positive feeling of good health.

A comment is needed on one of them – being able to express the truth about oneself. That comes across as a little pretentious. But, it has a specific meaning. It has always appeared to me that people suffer from having feelings of shame which they keep secret. This can be a secret they keep from their family or their husband or wife or even everyone. So often when someone comes to me for advice, the answer seems to me to be – just tell him/her/them and you will probably feel better. Of course, we colloquially call that getting something off your chest. But, many people just can’t. The feeling that the revelation will be worse than keeping the secret keeps them in suspended misery. Many of these feelings of shame are, not surprisingly, sexual in nature (an affair, being gay, etc.), but they don’t have to be at all.

            Another thought that doesn’t fit easily into one of these categories is a general impression I have always had that some people seem generally happy absent a reason to be unhappy and others (more, unfortunately) seem unhappy. It is a chicken and egg thing. We cannot know without some hard to conceive experiment that violates every current code of ethics for psychologists whether those who seem generally happy because they feel the things I’ve listed above, or whether they feel those things because they are just congenitally happy. It must be taken as possible until proved otherwise, that happiness is as inheritable as schizophrenia appears to be (the greatest predictor of schizophrenia is having a schizophrenic identical twin; but even having a schizophrenic parent increases your odds ten times).

            Those who tend to be happy absent a reason to be unhappy also tend to have three helpful strategies.

            First, they are problem solvers. When they have something that makes them unhappy, they try and figure out a solution to it. It doesn’t mean they are successful, of course. Besides, that would require a definition of success.

            But, fortunately, second, they understand that a happy life is not about the absence of problems, but about how you handle the one's you have.

            Third, they can be resigned to defeat – Failure is always an option - is not a bad motto. And perhaps a key to happiness."    

            Thank you, Mr. Doruphoros.

Political Update for March, 2012

It was a good night this past Tuesday for those who want Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination. I'm still torn. I find the Ron Paul message on liberty so much more appealing, and I think he is the only one of the four who would actually try to do something about the deficit on the spending end, but I don't think he can win because the general public will like the message, but too many will be too scared to try that approach. The problem is that freedom equals risk and we are now conditioned to avoid risk as much as possible.  I do think Romney can win and he is better than the other two. Just okay is all I can hope for in a president.

The four candidates are all getting better with practice.  I listened to all of them after the primary returns this week. These are basically stump speeches, well rehearsed by now, and they are trying to make them sound very natural, though Paul and Gingrich are better at it than Santorum and, especially, Romney.

From Paul, who was possibly most awkward of them when this campaign started, even though he has done this twice before and run for congress many times, we get the most genuine, plain spoken, humble speech of the bunch. In fact, he has become positively jolly during them. Unlike the others, the speeches are not about him, but about his "message of liberty." It is so easy to make that sound pollyannish and trivial, but no one else talks about it at all, save for religious references (okay, Gary Johnson does too, but no one who anyone is listening to is talking about it). Call me gullible, but I believe he means it and would live it when he says that he doesn't want to increase the power of the president. That would be refreshing.

And it is easier said than done, of course, but it is also refreshing to hear a candidate say - I didn't think up the stuff I'm talking about myself  - instead of someone like Gingrich talking about how he defeated the Soviets and was the reason for the boom times in the 80s and 90s, or Romney going on about his "severely conservative" governship in Massachusetts or Santorum talking about how he changed welfare and wrote No Child Left Behind (or as I call it, Every Child Left Behind). Paul doesn't claim credit for the economy during good years while he was a congressman. He says, there are business cycles and we have to learn to understand them better.  He says he will not declare wars on his own, because it is not constitutional for a president to do so. Of course, it is more complicated than that, as most people agree the president has a right and a duty to "defend" us, and what that quite means in a world where someone can fly from Cairo to D.C. in a matter of hours, or a virus can infect computers around the world in seconds, is hard to say. But, we know he means we won't be trying to teach Afghanis not to riot and murder when someone accidentally burns a Koran. We won't be there.

Foreign policy is, of course, the weakest link in his candidacy and what is least understood about him. He is not against defense; he is against militarism, policing the world and going in search of monsters. But the media doesn't really cover that part of it, nor even other conservatives. They are more concrete - he's not for Israel (they say). He doesn't want to stand up to Iran (they say). Neither of these are fair criticisms, in my opinion, but that is typical of what will be reported. Here are some of his other "ideas" from his standard speech:

- The entitlement system really helps the wealthy, not the poor.

- Wealth is fine if people make money honestly and don't get other people's from the government. It is not fair to dump the problems of those who make wasteful products on the American people by giving companies subsidies or bailing them out.

- We should defend the country but get out of business of policing the world and nation building. We can't tell people overseas how to live their lives. It doesn't work. We should have had no wars since WWII because they've all been undeclared.

- If the Patriot Act was called the Repeal the 4th Amendment Act it never would have been passed. They don't even need search warrants anymore.

- Obama thinks he can do anything that isn't prohibited by the Constitution. Not true. He can only do what is authorized by the Constitution.

- Liberty should bring us all together. It's not that liberty will be used the same way by everyone. But, if we all the government to decide what we can buy, what religion to practice, what to read, and so on, it is a disaster. Governments can't protect us from ourselves. We have to be responsible for ourselves. That includes taking the risks are behavior results in.

Do most people really disagree with these ideas? Most people do, but only in the abstract. The nanny state is actually quite popular.

Romney has a very polished speech now despite the fact that he will always remind people a little of a smiley-faced Gordon Gekko. I still feel like I did in 2008 when listening to him that he is trying to sell me a used car. But, I also believe he understands the main ideas about capitalism, and more, actually wants to apply them, but also that he has an understanding that people want some regulations so that there isn't lead paint on their walls. In other words, that used car he sells me may be the best we can do right now. He very gingerly curtseys to the right, knowing where his bread is buttered, but has not kowtowed to the religious right the way Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Bachmann and Santorum have. I have picked him to win for a long time now and stuck with that prediction despite strong runs from virtually every other campaigner except Paul and despite the media's insistence each time that it is over for him. Slow and steady has worked for him and it is impressive. People make a big deal that he sometimes says something which, if taken out of context, sounds like he is - rich. Well, he is rich. He has it right when he says - if you don't want someone successful, vote for someone else, and has it wrong when he is embarrassed by it.

I feel really petty about the next remark. I am not saying don't vote for Rick Santorum because he mixes metaphors or misuses words. I have my own problems with the language (in my case, I almost always pick the wrong homophone when writing quickly and fail to proofread and I go often go blank on simple words when speaking). And one thing I noticed of this year's crop. They don't make the really absurd factual slips that the '08 crew was making all over the place (e.g., Obama visited all 57 states). But, last night Santorum said that shale "leaches oil," in the same way you would say a bucket leaks water, when he should have said it is the oil that is leached from the shale. Sure, anyone could make the mistake, but if you are going to make a big point of the issue and are actually holding shale in your hands in a speech when you are running for president, try and get it right. Speaking of rocks, he also said that his wife was the rock that was beside him. Somehow that makes her sound like an obstacle, though that was the opposite of what he intended. We stand on supportive rocks or build on top of them. They don't stand beside us. Of course, we would say our spouse stands beside us and I think that's where he got confused.

I told you it was petty. I like Rick Santorum personally. I think a lot of people do. But, his religious emphasis has made many people "want to vomit," to use his own phrase concerning President Kennedy's speech on religion. Though he later said he wished he could take the line back, he hasn't really changed his approach. Of course, how someone running for president uses a phrase like "want to vomit" is a little surprising. But, he has said before, he tells it like it is. In 2008, he told it like it is thus, when asked about names he has found attached to religion and politics: "It comes down to sex. That’s what it’s all about. It comes down to freedom, and it comes down to sex. If you have anything to with any of the sexual issues, and if you are on the wrong side of being able to do all of the sexual freedoms you want, you are a bad guy. And you’re dangerous because you are going to limit my freedom in an area that’s the most central to me. And that’s the way it’s looked at." 

Well, yes, Senator, that is precisely how most people, and I'm including many conservatives, see it. Freedom means - stay out of people's bedrooms.

Gingrich's speech is also very polished and he can sound bright and fun when speaking. Don't let him fool you. I've gone off on him enough here that I can sum it up very briefly now - too arrogant, too narcissistic and too partisan - and that's for a politician. He's also full of it. His $2 to $2.50 a gallon gas is a perfect example. Who wouldn't like that? Okay, maybe many folks in the Obama administration, including the Energy Secretary, Tom Friedman, Al Gore, and, well, a lot of people, but I mean among those who actually realize that it would benefit the poor and middle class immensely to lower gas prices and harm them to raise them. But, whatever measures he wants to take to lower the cost of gasoline, I'm all for it, so long as it makes sense. But, how likely are the prices he is suggesting? Try
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html - showing the price of oil yearly since 1979. It went down like Gingrich describes only once, in 2008. Remember what happened in 2008. The economy collapsed. There was a temporary deflation which the fed countered by printing huge supplies of money and the price quickly went back up. We do not want the bottom to fall out of everything in order to get temporarily low gas prices. Deflation causes its own problems. But, as you can see from the chart, that's the only time it happened since Jimmy Carter, and most people are too young to remember him at all.

So, whose winning the nomination process? There's three ways to look at it and realclearpolitics is the best way to get a snapshot of it:

Republican popular vote tallies:

Romney    Gingrich   Santorum   Paul
1,749,677  978,229    932,508     463,176

Romney +771,448

Republican delegate count:

Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul
153        69             33           26

Romney +84

Republican national polls:
RCP Average 2/16 - 2/29

Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul
35.3      29.3         14.8          11.3

Romney +6.0

Looks to me like Romney is still winning and right now he also has a little momentum coming out of Michigan and Arizona. But, it is still very early in the race and we know these things change in an instant. If Newt Gingrich fails badly on Super Tuesday this week and does - against his own ambition and ego - the right thing, and steps down, Rick Santorum will reap the rewards big time and the social conservative v. fiscal conservative issue will flower again. That will be Romney's biggest challenge. And, in a nutshell, it is the challenge for all future candidates for the Republican leadership in the near future. Finding a way to balance the two warring strands of their party without completely alienating the third - the libertarians - to the degree that someone like Paul goes off and runs third party. It is not easy to do. Bush managed, but McCain failed. Reagan managed, but Dole failed.

My debate

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell I will ever get to write the questions for debates, but I have my own for ideas for them. For one thing, the media which monitors these events are always asking questions the debaters are prepared for so that they can give pat answers or avoid answering them. My rules are a little more draconic. The length of answers to questions depends on the question, which I will give them at the beginning, plus ten seconds to actually think. There is a big clock so they can see how much time is left, but I have a button which cuts off their mike when their time is up. Too bad. Learn to organize your thoughts. They are not permitted to refer to any of their competitors in their answers at risk of losing the chance to answer the next question (or, if it is the last question - loss of a $250,000 stake their campaing puts up). They will all declare victory, of course, but I will have as non-partisan a panel as I can find rate them on three categories:

1) how many times they avoided answering a question; 2) how quickly they got to the point and avoided blather; and, 3) how often they said things that were simply factually untrue. Points are lost for trying to criticize me or the media or for trying to make jokes (I can't stand it when politicians try to be funny - even most of the most famous moments just aren't that funny and always leads to the others trying to be funny too). They don't get their rating until the next day, so the judges actually have time to think about it and fact check. This isn't American Idol.

Here are my questions, many of which concern the Constitution and are meant to be hard for conservatives, which is really what their contest has come to be about. Nos. 7-10 are each aimed at a particular candidate:

1) Conservatives and even some liberals have been very critical of President Obama over the U.S. involvement in Libya; many claiming it was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by him. Explain whether you feel it was unconstitutional, and, if you do, whether it was impeachable, and where you stand on the War Powers Act in as much detail as possible. Five minutes.

2) Consider the following possibility. The citizens of a state overwhelmingly determines to secede from the union in a referendum. Leaving aside the possibly unsolvable technical problems with accomplishing in the present day (do they keep the telephone system; who pays medical bills for seniors for the next year, etc.?), do you believe that a state has the right to do this? Explain your answer, with particular attention to the U.S. Constitution. If you believe that a state does not have the right to do this, please explain whether your position differs from the Declaration of Independence and where you think Thomas Jefferson would stand on the question. Eight minutes.

3) Almost all conservatives have criticized President Obama for trying to put into effect a Health and Human Services regulation which would require religious groups to offer insurance policies for employees which includes provisions anathema to church's positions, particularly on birth control, on the grounds it infringes upon religious liberty. With that in mind, please explain your position with respect to the law against polygamy for those whose religion find it acceptable. If you believe anti-polygamy laws are acceptable, explain how it legally or constitutionally differs from the recent HHS regulation. Three minutes.

4) Ronald Reagan had his U.N. ambassador vote to condemn Israel after it attacked Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981, the only president ever to do such a thing. He gave amnesty for illegal immigrants; he raised taxes a number of times, and greatly increased spending and the debt. He "saved" social security and protected welfare as it was. He increased corporate taxes. If he were alive and a politician today with those positions, would he not be considered a RINO? If not, why not? Three minutes.

5) Many commonly held conservative positions have changed over the years. Some things once completely unacceptable are now not only acceptable to many conservatives, not open for discussion. This includes voting for a presidential candidate who has been divorced; using contraceptives; pre-marital sex; belief that some rights in the constitution are fundamental and apply against the states (like the 2nd amendment); and others. With that in mind, can you explain why conservatives should adhere so forcefully to postions they are so adamant about now but might change their minds about in the future? Five minutes.

6)  Conservatives have been very critical of President Obama making executive orders which they claim usurp congressional power. However, when President Bush was in office, conservatives approved of signing statements which would declare what parts of legislation signed into law by the president were constitutional or not and we heard much about "the unitary executive," something we hear nothing about from them now. Will you be issuing signing statements that declare parts of legislation unconstitutional and what do you make of the idea of the unitary executive - how far does it go? Three minutes.

7) Congressman Paul: Many other conservatives consider your foreign affairs positions frightening. If you are the next president and learn that within one month of your inauguration Iran will have a fully functional nuclear weapon capable of delivering an attack on Israel, will you authorize an attack on that country to destroy their nuclear facilities. First answer yes or no, and why? Three minutes.

8) Governor Romney: You have differed the Massachusetts health care reforms from what is known among critics as Obamacare, being one was state law and the other federal. But, the central issue in both cases is whether people can be forced to pay for insurance policies they don't want. Is it constitutional for a state to require it's citizens to buy a service they do not want? Is there a limit to the state's power to tell people what they must do? Three minutes.

9) Senator Santorum: There is no doubt that at this time in history a large majority of Americans favor birth control and that a majority are for the legality of some abortion, although it is harder to define what exactly that would mean. There is no doubt that if you are nominated that this, and your positions on gays and even the devil will immediately come to the forefront. Even if you believe that principle trumps winning, should you be the nominee for your party? Three minutes.

10) Speaker Gingrich: According to realclearpolitics.com's average for head to head contest with the president and the four Republican candidates, Mitt Romney comes in first, with the president winning by 4.4 points and Ron Paul comes in third, with the president winning by 6.6 points. You are last by almost double Congressman Paul's tally, 12.4 points behind the president. Simply put, why should your personal ambition or even deep belief you are the best one for the job, mean your party should go down in defeat? Isn't electability important and how do you claim you are more electable when you consistently do so bad in polls? Three minutes.

The truth is, I expect that not only will I prefer Ron Paul's answers to most or all of these questions, but so likely will the studio audience. But, that doesn't mean they aren't important questions, because they show what each candidate believes far more than the topical or supposedly newsworthy questions the media regularly asks them.

The Gift

What is the gift, you ask? I'll tell you. It's refighting the social battle of the sixties - which the liberals won so fully, some issues are virtually off the table - like the freedom to use contraceptives. In my last political update I wrote about the mistake some conservatives are making with respect to religious fulminating against those who don't have the money or fame to get young trophy wives (like Gingrich and Limbaugh, for example), but still want to participate in the sexual revolution. It hasn't stopped. In fact, some people seem to want to double down on it. One of them might be Rush Limbaugh. He's made more than one mistake in this campaign so far.

First, he immediately dismissed Romney as the nominee, which, obviously, has problems I don't need to explain.

Second, he continuously insists that independents don't matter, and they just do, probably more than any other ideological group.

Third, he engaged this week with a student over the issue of contraception, and, it doesn't matter what side you take in the argument (I would agree with Limbaugh - it is insane that anyone's tax dollars goes to pay for people's contraceptives). Limbaugh, who usually is the politest of the radio talk show personalities, in my opinion, called her a slut and a prostitute and said that we should all get to see the movies of her having sex. Slut? Prostitute? That's just not smart. And supposedly being smart is what he is proudest of. He should have said this is the typical socialist mentality that is going to drive us over the cliff financially.

Possibly stung by criticism over what even he now realizes was dumb, at first made it worse for himself by whining that there go the liberals again, attacking their critics. Really? This is, of course, the problem with Limbaugh, who I find very creative, and often fun to listen to for a little while, but as ridiculously partisan as they come. Perhaps my favorite Limbaugh moment was a couple of years ago when he said that conservatives criticize liberals out of love, and liberals criticize conservatives out of hate. It all comes down to the same tired partisan rhetoric from both sides - we can attack them with gusto and they must take it and like it. But when they attack us -- that's offensive.

Of course, today I read that he himself has come to his senses, even if the fact that some of his biggest advertisers have decided to dump him have helped him come to them, and apologized.

Even Santorum said Limbaugh's comments were absurd, but then he chickened out, probably afraid to criticize Limbaugh, and said that entertainers can be absurd. Of course, that wasn't his opinion about five months ago when he was the subject of a Saturday Night Live skit - http://thehill.com/video/campaign/187951-santorum-criticizes-snl-sketch-as-bullying.

It's a free country and Limbaugh can say what he likes. I would support his right to say far worse. But, the question here is how will he affect the election, if at all. Maybe in itself, not much, but I'd say he is helping give the president a gift. This religious strategy is backfiring in all the polls and with people in general (although, I doubt where I live). If they want to lose the election, conservatives should vote for Santorum on Super Tuesday.

I like to keep things balanced, so next month I think I will turn my attention to the president and the liberals. Stay tuned. Same bat channel. Same bat time.

Who Said it IX?

Time for another round of America’s least favorite quiz game – Who said it? This is the ninth edition. The usual rules apply. I pick a quote from my library, with which I have the closest relationship since Joanie Loves Chachi (which by the way, I have never seen – if you have, more’s the pity) and you try and guess who wrote/said it. Answers are below, which is a pain in the arse, but makes it harder to cheat (a little, anyway).

1.         Washington understood this art very well, and we say of him, if he was not the greatest President, he was the best actor of presidency we ever had. His address to the states when he left the army, his solemn leave taken of Congress when he reigned his commission, his Farewell Address to the people when he resigned the presidency: these were all in a strain of Shakespearian and Garrickal excellence in dramatical exhibitions.

a. John Adams  b. Thomas Jefferson  c. John Wilkes Booth  d. Abraham Lincoln

2.         Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

a. John Adams b. Thomas Jefferson c. Andrew Jackson  d. Abraham Lincoln

3.         Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connection with that part of the world, would react upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would, too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquility as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger tomorrow, he would not sleep to-night; but provided he never saw them, he would snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred million of his brethren.

a. Winston Churchill b. Thomas Jefferson c. John Locke  d. Adam Smith

4.         It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in prodigies than the art of being free; but there is nothing more arduous than the apprenticeship of liberty. Such is not the case with despotic institutions: despotism often promises to make amends for a thousand previous ills; it supports the right, it protects the oppressed, and it maintains public order. The nation is lulled by the temporary prosperity which accrues to it, until it is roused to a sense of its own misery. Liberty, on the contrary, is generally established in the midst of agitation, it is perfected by civil discord, and its benefits cannot be appreciated until it is already old.

a. Thomas Jefferson b. Alexis de Tocqueville c. Adam Smith d. Friedrich Hayek

5.         And do not suppose that this is the end.
                        This is only the beginning of the reckoning.
            This is only the first sip –
                        the first foretaste of a bitter cup
                                    which will be proffered to us year by year –
            Unless –
                        By a supreme recovery of our moral heath and martial vigour,
                                    we arise again and take our stand for freedom,
                                                as in the olden time.

a. Jeremiah (the prophet, not the bullfrog) b. Winston Churchill c. Teddy Roosevelt d. Gandalf (J. R. R. Tolkien)

6.         Oh, God, my grandfather, my grandmother, god of the hills, god of the valleys, holy God. I make to you my offering with all my soul. Be patient with me in what I am doing, my true God and [blessed] virgin. It is needful that you give me fine, beautiful, all I am going to sow here where I have my work, my cornfield. Watch it for me, guard it for me, let nothing happen to it from the time I sow until I harvest it.

a. Isaiah   b. Revelations  c. Prayer bin Laden was writing when shot by Navy Seals d.  Mayan Indian corn ritual

7.         The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.

a. Words of Tecumseh after victory in what is called The battle of the Thames over the trial of American prisoners including future Vice President, Richard Johnson.
b. Words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson as prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial of Nazi war criminals.
c. Words of Ayatollah Khomenei at international show trial of American hostages before they were summarily released upon Reagan’s inauguration.
d. Words of Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Talks at end of WWI.

8.         Whatever the meaning assigned to the term complete, the following requirement for a complete theory seems to be a necessary one: every element of the physical reality must have a counterpart in the physical theory.

a. Aristotle b. Francis Bacon c. Isaac Newton d. Einstein

9.         The secret of happiness is this: let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile.

a. Confucius   b. Plato quoting Socrates  c. Bertrand Russell  d. Jack Benny

10.       What is certain is that both of us have given our common enemies-who are legion-a good laugh. Unfortunately, you have so deliberately put me on trial, and in such an ugly tone of voice, that I can no longer remain silent without losing face. Thus, I shall answer you, without anger, but unsparingly (for the first time since I have known you). Your combination of dreary conceit and vulnerability always discouraged people from telling you unvarnished truths. The result is that you have become the victim of a dismal self-importance, which hides your inner problems, and which you, I think, would call Mediterranean moderation. Sooner or later, someone would have told you this. It might just as well be me. But have no fear. . . .

a. Jean-Paul Sartre essay addressing Albert Camus.
b. Winston Churchill letter to Charles DeGaulle.
c. Jennifer Aniston letter to Brad Pitt.
d. Barbara Bush to Hillary Clinton.
************************************************************************
ANSWERS

1.         “Washington understood this art very well. . . .”

a. Of course that is John Adams, who rarely had a good thing to say about Washington or anyone else he felt might compete with him for honors. Of course, most Americans do think that Washington was either the best or second best president. My favorite Adams quote about Washington is: "The history of our Revolution will be one continued lie from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin's electrical rod smote the earth and out sprang General Washington. That Franklin electrified him with his rod - and thenceforward these two conducted all the policies, negotiations, legislatures, and war." What a baby he could be.

2.         “Society may give us exclusive rights. . . .”

So, this guy was against the whole idea of patents and copyrights, which leads, as he himself admits up front, to people inventing useful things. Lots of things about he believed would surprise you. He is always one of my favorite subjects in these posts – b. Thomas Jefferson. He was against having a navy for a while. He was very much against an independent judiciary and tried to destroy it. He was against people deciding for themselves what products they should get to produce or sell. He was against Haiti being a free country like the United States. But, I will spare you my usual TJ rant here. I actually can't find where I got this quote from in my library, but it is one of the legion of Jefferson books I have.

3.         “Let us suppose that the great empire of China. . . .”

It was definitely some stuffy sounding Englishman. In this case, it was - d. Adam Smith, who I learned later in life was a lot more interesting than when presented simplistically and boringly in high school. Of course, he was just one more of the great scientists and philosophers (like, e.g., Einstein and Darwin) who was an intellectual descendent of David Hume. In Smith’s case, it was more direct, as Hume was a mentor to him. Quote taken from The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

4.         “It cannot be repeated too often that nothing is more fertile in prodigies than the art of being free. . . .”

In other words, despotism is easy but ultimately not a lot of fun; liberty is hard and worth the effort. I’ll buy that. That was written by – b. the Frenchman de Tocqueville, in his classic Democracy in America, of which I own at least three copies (I can only find two today, but that is situation normal around here), which is so filled with pithy & profound pearls of wisdom that it is impossible to remember even a fraction of them. But, if you want a great quote on liberty, it’s a first rate place to look. Just try not to get overwhelmed by them.

5.         “And do not suppose that this is the end."

It does sounds like something Gandalf might say or, really any of the choices, but it was – b. Churchill, who made this statement in a debate in Parliament in 1938 between the disaster of Munich and the worse disaster of Poland, quite a while before being put back in power when he was just a prophet crying in the desert. Reading Winnie is endlessly fulfilling. This quote was found in William Manchester's The Last Lion.

6.         “Oh, God, my grandfather, my grandmother, god of the hills, god of the valleys. . . .”

Sounds like some biblical thing going on here, but bin Laden was actually . . . no, just kidding. It is, in fact – d. a Mayan Indian ritual I found in my old copy of Maya, The Riddle and Rediscovery of a Lost Civilization, by Charles Gallencamp, a classic in anthropology/archaeology first published the year of my birth, 1959. Mine is the third revised edition from 1985, but that is the latest one and still being published. You can get a used one for a penny on Amazon.

7.         “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated. . . .”

That would be - b. Jackson at the Nuremburg trial. The others do sound pretty good, but Tecumseh was killed at the battle of Thames, probably by Johnson, who did become VP later on. There was no show trial of the American hostages in Iran, who were released when Reagan took office. Wilson was at the Paris Peace Talks, where he and the other victors basically screwed the pooch, but made no such remarks, of course. Quote found in Justice at Nuremburg.

8.           "Whatever the meaning assigned to the term complete. . . ."

That would be – d. Einstein, in a paper he wrote with others on whether quantum mechanics could be considered complete (the answer is – no, by the way). But, the other three would seem like possibilities to me if I didn’t know the answer. Einstein always struggled with other physicists who were comfortable believing that – god played dice with the universe, as he famously put it, but he could never win his philosophical battle. Quote found in a great little book on physics - The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav.

9.         "The secret of happiness is this. . . ."

No, not Jack Benny, although I bet some guessed that. It was – c. Bertrand Russell, from his 1930 The Conquest of Happiness. I enjoy reading Russell, but he got no closer to the secret than any other philosopher. There is a secret though, and you will never guess it. I will reveal it in a future post.

10.       "What is certain is that both of us have given our common enemies-who are legion-a good laugh. . . ."

It would be more fun if it was Barbara Bush or Jennifer Aniston, but the answer is – a. Sartre to Camus, which essay is found in a wonderful collection of Sartre Essays entitled Situations. It was combative and made for a good quote, but my favorite essay, and the reason I bought and read the book, was the first one in it – The Prisoner of Venice, about the great Venician artist, Tintoretto (not my favorite artist though, but certainly considered great by art critics and historians). Sartre really knew his art and this book might have been the one that first excited me about Rennaisance and similar art, about which, at least for a little while, I surprised myself by getting to know well enough to name an artist simply by looking at paintings in a museum. Too some degree, anyway. Not so much these days, I'd wager. How long does knowledge about things like art last if you don’t use it for something? I don’t know, but I doubt I could tell a Ribera from a Caravaggio anymore.

Th-th-th-th-at’s all, folks.

Political update for February, 2012

Ah, religion. It is back. Back as a divisive force in our presidential election. It’s not all Newt Gingrich’s fault or Barack Obama’s or even Rick Perry’s, but they all tried and contributed. It’s just one of those things that is going to happen in predominantly free countries from time to time. But, there is one reason we handle this better than any other country. We have a first amendment which has possibly more than anything else allowed us to get along with each other despite religious differences which have in so many other countries raged out of hand.

First, my overall perspective on religion presented blessedly briefly. Faith in a deity or afterlife is not for me. Never has been. The most that can be said is that I make no pretense of understanding First Cause (as if anyone can), and that is a puzzler, but one never made simpler for me by the concept of God. I have been surrounded by religious people my whole life, mostly Christians and Jews, but I’ve known a handful of Hindus, Muslims, Christian scientists, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, etc.. What I find (and, some religious leaders too) is that religion does not seem to make someone a better person in terms of what we commonly think of as morality (in terms of lying, cheating, violence, taking advantage, blah, blah, blah), but I have come to learn that as well as being a divisive and even destructive force (both individually and societally), religion can also be a beneficial and unifying force, if come to voluntarily, and not under duress, and is filled with the spirit of toleration.

For the most part, this spirit of toleration imbues our society, whatever some people will tell you. Even very religious people are often extremely open to other views. Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life has found (with a huge 35,000 person sample) that those who claim association with most religious groups, actually have a wide range of religious beliefs, some which are far from the orthodoxy of their own chosen faith.

For example, a large majority of Americans affiliated with some faith or another belong believe that other religions can lead to eternal life. That includes over 80% of Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, but over 66% of Protestants (including 57% of evangelicals), 72% of Greek and Russian Orthodox and 79% of Catholics. Only the relatively small majority of Mormons do not so believe and a large majority of Jehovah’s witnesses. To the contrary, even a majority of American Muslims believe other religions may lead to eternal life. Christians are, of course, by far the largest group, just shy of 80% of the population. Over 1 out of 5 Christians believe in reincarnation and/or astrology, neither of which is acceptable to most of their religious doctrines.

Very similar numbers are reached when asked if there was more than one way to interpret their religion.

Despite the cries of a few, and the muted cries of many more who listen to them, there is no war on religion in America. Here are the real statistics, from Pew. 92% of the population believes in God. Even a higher number (94%) of unaffiliated religious people do. An astonishing 21% of atheists are actually not atheists at all – BECAUSE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE BELIEVING IN GOD. An even higher number (55%) of agnostics say they believe in God. More, 10% of atheists pray WEEKLY and 18% of agnostics do to. Sorry if that seems to make no sense. Since those two groups make up only a tiny percentage of Americans (3-4% total), and so many of them actually believe in God and are in the wrong category – where is this alleged war on religion supposed to be coming from?

And, despite the best efforts of Messrs. Gingrich and Perry (and others), only 14% of Americans believe that religion is the main influence on their politics compared to 13% for education, 19% by what the see/read in the media and 34% by their personal experience.  Of course, many of them may be wrong because other questions show that religion seems to have quite a strong effect on beliefs. For example, 64% of evangelicals, 68% of Mormons and 61% of Mormons believe that homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged while only 15% of Jews, 12% of Buddhists and 14% of atheists believe it. Those numbers are not likely random results.

Religious toleration of other people’s beliefs has existed throughout history. But, so has intolerance and butchering or enslaving them. The first amendment of our constitution, derived from enlightenment principles of individual freedom of conscience and propelled by the American idea that government should keep out of religion, is one of the main reasons we have avoided religious wars. I’ve been hearing too much from conservative candidates how they will shred the first amendment (though, of course, they don’t put it that way at all). Herman Cain, for instance, argued that any American-Muslim cabinet member he appointed would be required to take an oath of allegiance. Apparently, he is thinking that instead of picking some well vetted, experienced person for the job, he might choose someone dressed a bit like the late Osama bin Laden and wearing a bomb belt. He also is forgetting that all cabinet members take an oath of office. He’s also forgetting, and this is the biggee, that to single out Muslims to take an oath (presuming others didn’t), would obviously violate the first amendment.

Both Cain and Gingrich argued for a moratorium on mosque building. Do I even need to show why this violates the first amendment? Yet, no doubt it helped both in their campaigns. It would not have helped had either reached a general election. In fact, I believe it would have hurt immensely with the most important group right now – the group without a group – independents.

Most recently, a new issue has reached public awareness. The administration has issued regulations which would require religious organizations doing business (say, as a hospital) which provide insurance coverage for employees, to make certain they provide things like free pre-natal testing and contraceptives. The Catholic Church has protested mightily, as this is against their religious teachings.

Apparently, only two pundits (I’ve appointed myself a pundit – what are the requirements anyway? Dick Morris is a pundit, for crying out loud, and he is wrong about almost everything) have correctly assessed this issue - me and Ann Coulter. There are differences between the two of us, though. She helped fuel this religious dispute nonsense by writing that ideologies she does not agree with are religious in nature. But, here is the insurance problem in a nutshell, and we do agree on that. This insurance issue should not be a religious freedom issue at all. It is just a freedom issue, period - amen.

Let me expand a bit. The Catholic Church, and any religious group, for that matter, is entitled to believe whatever it is that they choose to believe. No one doubts that. Despite the first amendment, there are a smattering of ways that our courts have determined it is okay for government to give religion an advantage. For example, Sunday blue laws, that is, forcing businesses to close on that day, have been upheld (McGowan v. Maryland [1961]). Tax breaks for religious groups has been allowed as well (Walz v. Comm’n of the City of New York). I oppose those decisions, but that is the law.

The government is not allowed to establish religion – the other strand of the first amendment – either. Sometimes the two clauses don’t work smoothly together and there must be some play around the joints, as Justice Kennedy described the interpretation of conflicting clauses in his Senate confirmation hearing. One such problem arises when an otherwise neutral law is passed (that is, it applies not just to a religious group) that conflicts with a religion’s beliefs. The general rule is that – too bad on the religion. It must obey the same rules as everyone else.  But, there have been exceptions, and it is difficult to tell if this will fit in with it. In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Justice Scalia wrote for the majority that religious belief cannot allow every person to become a law unto themselves and cited laws against polygamy, child labor, Sunday blue laws, registering for selective services or paying social security taxes. I think that should be the decision here, but it is too dense a thicket to chop through at this early date without a lot of research I am not prepared to make right now. But, I can have an opinion, and that is that the Catholic Church’s theology is not a defense. If it is a defense to the law, then the general public and perhaps especially conservatives, will have to take a step back in its criticism of a certain New Jersey judge a few years back, who excused a husband’s violence against his wife, because he had done it in accord with his Islamic beliefs. Now who would want to accept that as a sensible decision? No one, and it was reversed on appeal. Yet, isn't that analogous to what the church is saying in this situation?

Despite all of that, I do believe the Catholic Church should be freed of this requirement (not yet in effect), but I think everyone should. On the most basic level, the federal government (I think not even the state government – but others would reasonably disagree), should not be telling a business what insurance they need to provide for their employees. On a constitutional level, the power that the federal government has afforded to itself on the basis of a now longstanding interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, allows it to intervene in virtually anything that they can assert is commerce and interstate in nature – and that is not hard to do.

The Supreme Court has intervened to say - too far, a few times in recent memory, but it has to be a really long stretch for it to do it. Obviously, under this interpretation of the constitution, it is easy to reach insurance issues. The Supreme Court will determine later this year whether the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare by its detractors, can mandate the purchase of insurance policies, which may provide a clue as to where it might go in a case brought by the Catholic Church. 

Without any hope on my part that the broad interpretation of the Interstate commerce clause be greatly scaled down, I can suggest an alternative – that it be limited to laws in which it can be shown that federal regulation or intervention is needed to prevent a state from impinging on interstate commerce or discriminating on out of state commerce (and there are many cases like that). Just because an industry is found in more than one state or does business in more than one state should not be a reason either. That does not mean every federal law we have would go away as there are other avenues for the federal government to regulate – e.g., national defense, navigation, monetary issues, due process or equal protection, those liberties now know as fundamental rights, and so on. But, there is no need for federal laws about insurance (as long as it is non-discriminatory) and we should be free to make our own decisions about what insurance coverage we want for employees.

As I write this, Rick Santorum has surged in the polls, and there are those who believe that he will beat Mitt Romney for the nomination. I am not overly confident about Romney's chances, but still believe that he will survive and prevail as he has done against Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich challenges. However, even if he bests Santorum, he will still likely face one greater challenge. At some point either Gingrich or Santorum might drop out, and the supporters of either of those candidates will gravitate overwhelming to the other - not Romney. No one can be sure if Romney can survive that, but he must to win the nomination.

How has Santorum managed to suddenly corral all this new support? Mostly, it is just by still being around when many Republicans realized that Newt Gingrich would be more divisive than he would be unifying among them. But, he was well suited for the lead at this point, even if temporarily, because of his religious bent, with which he started and is ending his campaign (for a time he claimed his message was mostly economic, but I have trouble seeing that - he is a big government guy - and is aimed at getting the vote of the cultural or religious right. One way he has done it is by jumping on the insurance regulation issue, which he has repeatedly mentioned.

But, yesterday, he seemed to cross another threshold, signaling to an audience about religion in a way that turned me off big time. I think it will have the same effect on other independents too and maybe even some fiscal conservatives. Speaking on the administration’s environmental policies, he said: “It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs. It's about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible -- a different theology.”

This is where Ann Coulter comes in again as she popularized the idea, at least in recent times, that liberal ideology is actually a religion. It is a very popular notion on the right. My own appreciation of it, as I’ve written before, is that both the left and right enjoy certain canards which are not based on fact, but they believe it nevertheless without the necessity of argument. You can compare them to religion, but I cannot go the full analogy, because unlike with the central idea of most religion – the existence of a deity and creation as his/her/its product based on faith – you can combat many if not most of the ideological myths with facts and reason.

Santorum had to spend sometime backpedaling from this – claiming he was speaking about environmental policy and not the president’s faith. He might have been. I am not quick to read code words, but I think that's what it is here, especially after he received cheers for what he said.

If Santorum is successful in winning the nomination, I cannot see him being equally successful in the general election. His beliefs as to contraceptives and gays, for example, are too far outside of the mainstream as to be successful anywhere outside of evangelical or other very religious politics, where it is popular. Our country does not look for or vote for politicians who put religion in the forefront of their campaign. Even the issue of contraceptives has changed in my lifetime. Back in the 60s and 70s, conservatives might have been dead set against contraceptives, and some still are. But, many of them use them themselves and have used them. Many conservatives now say it is no issue at all. Even one of Santorum’s spokesmen the other day was surprised to learn on a television show that Santorum was anti-contraceptive.

I say, not for the first or last time, I would like Obama defeated. But, that does not mean I want just anyone to replace him. I know I don’t want Gingrich, who is up there in John Kerry territory concerning politicians I do not want to see be president. If he was the Republican candidate I would go third-party. Ron Paul is, of course, okay with me as is Romney, the only one I think could win a general election (I’d like to imagine Paul could win if given the chance, but I really doubt it). I do not think Santorum could win and I’m not sure I would want him to either. I actually like the guy personally. There are many people in this world I like who I disagree with politically. Doesn’t mean they are not good people or I will hold it against them. If you listen to his story, it is actually very appealing. But, that doesn’t mean he should be president. And anyone who engages in this war on religion or Christianity or anything of like kind, is not going to be getting my vote either.

And, that also means Mr. Romney, you have to be careful too, as far as I'm concerned. But, whoever is the Republican nominee, they should remember that while candidates must evince a belief in God, no president in the United States has ever won running on a primarily religious platform.

More embarrassing moments

An ironic thing about this blog - written for fun, definitely for free and without any pressure that is not self created - is that I somehow feel guilty about missing the last two weeks when I was busy traveling, helping out my insignificant other who had surgery and doing other things. I was pleased to hear from a couple of friends that they actually noticed. According to Google, there were 57 page views here last week of which I am not sure how much are spam, but probably up to 40%. But many of the other 60% are people who entered something in a Google or other search engine and I popped up. I've tried it myself after I've written a post and it actually works.

I'm going to start easy on myself by writing something autobiographical, which is what I usually do when busy, as I don't have to look anything up or do any research. Some readers prefer the autobiographical posts, maybe because they are usually so humiliating to me, but they are not my favorites.

Nevertheless, here's a slew of yet more embarrassing moments (previously, I’ve written on my past dating life [12/17/11], some of the dumber things I've done - in fact, life threatening things  [6/10/11] and embarrassing childhood moments [10/24/08]). These are all from my adult life:

Me, thief

I've made it a point in my life to try and not to take things that don't belong to me. But, I do own up to stealing some little rubbery animal figures when I was 4 (I turned myself in to my mother), too many pens to count (albeit accidentally) and I still don't understand the internet well enough to know whether, like probably everyone, I goof all the time - arguably that is not theft.

But, one day about 3 of 4 years ago I went to the State law library in a court in Suffolk County New York. I did a bit of research and spent a few minutes getting helped by the reference librarian, who I knew as a very nice and helpful man. At one point, I was using a very well known reference book, of which almost all of the material in it could be found in the internet. I was walking around the library, looking at other books and carrying that one book in my hand together with a notepad. Eventually, I finished up, made my copies, put the books away and left.

As I exited the library, I passed a few people sitting on a bench right outside of it. I made a right turn and headed down a hallway. Now, I had not been to that library in a long time or I would have remembered that this is not the way to get off the floor. You had to walk a little further down the hallway and go down the stairs or use the elevator. But, I headed down this other corridor until I got to the door at the end. When I opened it, the alarm went off. I immediately recognized my mistake and turned around, shutting the door. I walked back down the corridor to the main hallway and made a right, passing the 3 people on the bench, made another right into the stairwell and proceeded down.

When I was almost out the door I heard a voice above me - "Excuse me."  Turning around, I see the reference librarian standing at the top of the stairs. "That's my book." What? I look down and see my legal pad in my left hand. "What book?" "That one," he says, and points to my left hand. I look at the other side of the legal pad, and there is the popular reference book I was using.

I don't know what I said. I stammered. I said it was a mistake. Something like that. He completely dismissed my apology and just demanded the book, then stormed away. I was humiliated. I would never, never steal a book deliberately. I was a book lover. I was a library lover. I was . . . so embarrassed.

Clouseau strikes again

The late Peter Seller's bumbling, accident prone character, Inspector Jacques Clouseau, in Blake Edwards' hysterical Pink Panther movies, was one of the great performances in movie history. I spent much of my childhood with friends mimicking his faux French accent and moronic actions. Later, as an adult, I was able to more than once act it out myself - unintentionally.

In 1994 I was working at a company with a really cute and very young secretary on whom I had a big crush. One day she asked me to come over to her house and give her parents some legal advice, which I was glad to do for them. After we were done, she, dressed in sweats, walked me to the door. We stood there talking. At the time I was on a "break" from my relationship and it occurred to me to try and, you know, kiss her. Over my shoulders appeared the proverbial angel and devil. The devil was saying "Go ahead, kiss her." The angel was saying "Are you crazy? Her parents are here and she works with you." At one point her mother walked by and said, "David, don't forget that our driveway is all broken up at the bottom." "Okay," I said.

The angel won, and I walked out the door. But, I wasn't unhappy. I was deliriously joyful from spending a few minutes with her alone outside of the office as I walked down the walk and towards the end of the driveway. So happy, in fact, that I did my habitual throwing of my keys into the air with an extra bit of verve and watched them drop back down to me. Unfortunately, with my eyes to the sky, I tripped over the broken concrete that I had actually been warned about just minutes before, and face-planted. I rolled over, but lay there, hands covering my eyes, saying to my self. . . Please don't be watching. Please don't be watching.

I peeked. Of course, she was watching. In fact, she couldn't stop laughing.

Not another key story

Long time ago I am walking down the street in a commercial area. I always had this weird habit of throwing my keys up in the air and catching them for no apparent reason, just like in the prior adventure. That day, I threw my keys up in the air and caught them. Threw them up and caught them. Through them . . . .

I was passing a restaurant and suddenly, with what would have seemed a random decision to anyone watching, walked into the door.

"May I speak to the manager?"
"I'm the manager. What can I do for you?"
"I have to go on your roof."
"Why in the world?"
"I threw my keys up there."
"Oh, sure."

He was really very nice about it. Nice view from up there too.

The treadmill incident

While I still lived in New York I worked out at a small gym. I was usually the only man in my Pilates classes, one of which was taught by a 22-year old former professional ballerina, who was not only smoking, but had one of those sweet Doris Day type-faces and personalities. I had a lot fun in those classes (always good to be the only man) and we were friendly with each other, though she was literally half my age. One day she was sitting next to me talking while we waited for the classroom to empty. She mentioned that she was tired of dating jerky guys her age and wanted to date older men. Not unhappy to hear that, I hopefully, half-kiddingly, said "You mean like someone say 44 years old?"

To which she replied "Ewoooooh. I mean like 26."
To which I replied "You could have left out the Ewoooooh part."
"Sorry," she said. "It just slipped out."

But that's not the story here, just the intro. One day I was at the gym on the treadmill doing what passes as running for me when she finished up a class and came out of the exercise room. Seeing me on the higher level she walked over, climbed up onto the treadmill next to me and turned perpendicular to me on the non-moving treadmill to talk. I have to add here that I have a little nerve problem in my left leg and when I try to run on a treadmill (rare enough) I really had to pay attention and make sure I planted my leg each step or . . . . A few minutes went by and I may have been a wee bit distracted by her attention.  So, put the two together, and . . . whoops. I went flying off the treadmill backwards.

Fortunately, she was a trained athlete and as I traveled backwards past her with my arms flying out to grab anything, she reached out with her own right arm and grabbed my left. I actually did not fall down. I stumbled backwards off the treadmill with her following along supporting me. I came to a rest on my feet on the floor next to her.

You know in a movie where the camera slowly pans out and you are thinking - well, obviously the person would see more than that in real life. Well, that's the way it actually happened here - slowly. I looked at my left arm, which she was still holding it, and proceeded to look all the way down to my hand, which, unfortunately, had come to rest . . .

. . . right on her right breast, actually cupping it. I couldn't have done that on purpose if I had practiced. I looked at my hand, still in slow motion. I looked up at her eyes slowly looking down to my hand too, also in slow motion. Then I did what any self-respecting adult male would do in that situation. I screamed like a little girl and ripped my hand off of her, covering my mouth.

And then she laughed. Me too. Riotously. Good thing she had a sense of humor. You know how when you were young you might laugh with a friend so hard and long you could barely breathe. Possibly 10 minutes went by before we stopped, with everyone in the gym staring at us. Hopefully, the guys were a little jealous.

The Rose

Long time ago I was dating a certain woman, maybe a month had gone by and it was her birthday. I went to see her in the city and after I parked I saw a Moonie on the street selling roses. So, I bought her a single rose, thinking it would be romantic.

She lived in the penthouse over a six-story walk-up. When I got to the bottom floor there was a delivery man there with a bouquet of roses. You see where this is going, right?

She buzzed me in and he came in too. I walked up a flight of stairs. So did he. I did another. So did he. And, eventually, we got to the penthouse. I was standing in front of the door with my pathetic little one stem flower. She opened the door and exclaimed "Oh!" And then she looked slightly to my left at the smiling delivery guy with the dozen in his hand and said "Oyyyy." Something like that.

She was very nice about it and left the dozen roses outside her door and put my single flower in a vase. I didn't put this in my bad date post a few weeks ago (Cherchez la femme) because it actually was a very nice date.

No socks is supposed to be a cool look

I didn't realize how many of these would be about women, but this one isn't.

I was a young lawyer. A friend of mine happened to live in apartments right next to the office building I worked in.  One night, I forget why, I slept over there and walked to work in my suit, tie and Oxford shoes.

There I was working in my office when one of my bosses walked in. We were talking for a while when he happened to look down at the floor. He looked at me puzzled and then actually took my hand. He walked me out of my office and into the lobby area where the secretaries sat.

He stood me in front of them and grabbed both of my pants' legs. Then he raised them.

I had forgotten to put my socks on. And I was wearing Oxfords???? Can't explain it; don't know how it happened. Just did.

Reasons to leave work early

I was working at a law firm which had a meeting every night. I was pretty overweight at the time. Before the meeting one night I went to pick up something up from the floor and I heard a long ripping sound. My pants. There I was in an office of maybe 40 people and I was going to have walk past a lot of them. So, I called the boss in and literally showed him my riiiiip.

Then I tied my jacket around my waist and went home.

At the time, I worked with Don, who comments here sometimes. He went to the evening meeting, which I, of course, missed. Someone said - "Did David go home sick?"

To which my buddy replied - "No, he went home fat."

Nice guy. Embarrassing for me though.

Me, flasher

Last one. I was a law student and had an internship at a local firm. One day they asked me to go to the County Clerk's office and get some papers. So, I dressed nicer than usual that morning with a pair of slacks and a button-down shirt.

I walked into the clerk's office and pushed open some double doors. A young woman was passing by and gave me a really nice smile. I felt good about that. I guessed I looked nice for a change.

Then, I walked into another room and another woman gave me a nice smile. Wow. I must have really looked good that day.

And then I passed a third woman who did not smile. She gasped and looked straight at my crotch. I looked down. Not only was my zipper open, but the flaps on my pants were also spread wide open under my belt.

I ran all the way back to my office, my usual embarrassment defense reaction in full gear, laughing like a madman. I entered my office and in front of the 60 something-year old secretary, collapsed onto the floor and couldn't speak for minutes while I convulsively laughed.

Ahhh, those were the days.