The Elephant in the Capitol

 The January 6, 2021 insurrection by Trump supporters has had a surprisingly short tenure in the national news.  Occasional reports surface as law enforcement agencies file charges.  One recent report on NPR stated that more than 250 have been arrested.  The report included a graphic of categories for the people and the indictments.  

Thus far, the Republican Party has reacted in a disturbing way.  Republican members who condemned the violence and Trump's role in inciting the violence have been rebuked by the Party.  Member who have supported Trump and who echo his claim that the election was 'stolen' have been lauded by the Party.  Some of the latter group will claim that they also condemn the violence (others are at least honest and do not address the issue), but their rhetoric includes efforts to ascribe the violence to 'a few rowdies' or even to left-wing factions that are against Trump.   A majority of polled Republicans believe the election was invalid.  

The general absence of Republican leadership condemnation of the January 6 insurrection and Trump's role in it represents an acknowledgment by Republicans that they represent a group who fundamentally rejects the democratic process bedrock of our government.  They are unpersuaded by judges, state officials, and the obvious fact that more people wanted Joe Biden to be elected rather than Trump.  The alternative reality for this cohort is that they believe their ownership of the country has been taken from them, and that any and all action necessary to reverse the status is justified.

It is largely a coalition of white supremacists, white nationalists, and Christian activists who feel aggrieved about their minority status.  It is frustrating to hear their irrational rhetoric, but I believe I could get most of them to admit that they know they are in the minority.  Surely most Christians understand that the world at large is not majority Christian.  In my former status as a member of a church, it was my firm understanding that most of the world did not know Jesus as savior.  Perhaps even most Christians did not understand the need to confess their sinfulness and be 'born again'.  Surely this means that the majority, perhaps the vast majority, of their fellow Americans do not share their conviction.

If this analysis is correct, there is an inescapable conclusion about the current Republican Party and its attitude towards the insurrectionists.  This elephant-in-the-Capitol is a sizable minority that would establish authority over the nation by any means necessary.  They have abandoned trust in democracy and in the Constitution.  The group is militarized by members who have been preparing for this occasion over the past few decades.  They are heavily armed and imagine themselves as revolutionaries.  They do not have much in the way of ideals.  Rather, they have an unshakable certainty that those not with them are against them, and that task #1 is to establish authority over these 'others'.  

The January 6 insurrection was no aberration.  The flags other than the Stars and Stripes suggest to me that most of the rioters believe the U.S.A. flag no longer belongs to them (it was stolen by the majority).  Their identity is with each other, and their righteous cause is to take back their country through any means necessary.  They are not listening or negotiating.  They are dictating.

Know thyself and other adages

I have written many times about the practical and moral basis for telling the truth.  The basis is full of, well, practical features of being truthful compared to lying.  But there is an element of lying that seems important to survival, and this element concerns one of the most basic reasons for truthfulness, namely self knowledge.  From Hamlet comes the quote

“This above all: to thine own self be true
And it must follow, as the night the day
Thou canst not then be false to any man/Farewell, my blessing season this in thee!”

The reasoning provides a virtuous pattern, provided one accepts that lying and deceit are morally abhorrent behavior.  Being false could come purposefully to ones benefit, but it could also lead to misguided actions such that ultimately, undesired outcomes are produced simply because of self deceit.

The problem with all of this is that change often requires, well, a change of heart.  What is true today about oneself may not be true tomorrow.  With the change of heart, is there admission of being false in the past?  Or perhaps the better sentiment to the Hamlet quote is

This above all: to strive to be true to thine own self.

Here we acknowledge the challenge of knowing oneself.  Socrates preceded Shakespeare with 'Know thyself.'  But there is more.

“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
"To find yourself, think for yourself."
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."

Midterm Election 2018

I feel like Charlie Brown in his quest to kick the football teed by Lucy.  Forever she will snatch the ball away as I run to kick it.

The elections that I felt should be an emphatic repudiation of Trump instead are a mild rebuke.  It should have been no surprise.  Our nation's heinous and racist past is a better predictor of the future than is our idealistically worded Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Behavior always dominates words, so it should have been a foregone conclusion that country's path would continue to disappoint.

Being as I am in the privileged 1%, I personally 'benefit' from the result.  Why complain, then?  It is because I believe in the myth of the country about liberty and justice for all.  I need to detach and allow that just as I vote against my self interest, so do the majority of the population.  Insofar as this trend will not affect me personally, why should I care?

Science for Improving Society

Science is a term connoting the study of the physical and natural world.  Scientists use experiment and observation to test hypotheses and to advance understanding.  Engineering and technology use science to build and invent.

I have long believed that the present ills of the world are not based in a deficiency in the application of science.  To be sure, many ills are being addressed by science.  Insofar as one of our current global crises, climate change, has been accelerated by man-made innovation (harvesting and burning fossil fuel), it is argued that science causes many ills.  The list may include all of the innovations of war that kill more efficiently or even have potential to wipe out civilization (think nuclear war).

Other than unintended consequences of science and technology, we think of ethics, religion, and other realms not associated with science as domains for governing interpersonal relationships.  These arenas seem important in determining all domains of human activity, including the choices for applying science and technology.  It is in this sense that I have agreed with others on the need for attention to domains outside of science.

But now I want to advocate for the importance of science in these areas as well.  This is not about applying scientific methods to social ills, as in the fields of psychology, political science, and sociology.  This is about the importance of science as a way of thinking.

When we separate science and confine it to the study of the physical and natural world, we demean the fundamental thought that precedes the science.  That is, science demands a disinterested and unfailingly logical approach to observation.  If more of our activities were more rooted in this disciplined approach, we would become accustomed to questioning causes of ills.  We could become more inventive in our politics and become more aware of beneficial and harmful policies.

Perhaps this idea harkens to one of my favorite quotes from Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 15.

Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.

The implication is that government is the dispassionate opposition to unreasonable and unjust passion.  When collective action is needed, policy agreed on all sides is a mandate.  When action is in dispute, a compromise can result.  Or else, no action is taken.  This is the logic of limited government.

Returning to this idea about science and government, our collective state can be seen as a living organism, in a continual state of adaptation.  Insofar as dynamics entail social interactions among its members, including unpredictable human passions, scientific method will not produce the kind of truths or knowledge that are obtained in the physical world.  Still, the method is useful in keeping collective action attentive to reason and justice.

In a related essay, I will posit that the primary political consideration before all debates in government is defining the sphere of government.  We collectively perceive injustices, disparities, and inefficiencies, and the fundamental everlasting debate must always be, which of these are the domain of collective (government) action?  When all agree there is a problem, there is a bias in our society that the most efficient path to an answer is private enterprise.  That is, a recognized problem can be assigned a certain value, and that value can be addressed with a commercial answer without the need of government, or in some cases, with a modest government subsidy.  If the problem is not thus solved, it qualifies as one in need of a government solution.  These are to be minimized for many reasons.  First, it is a slow mechanism, and the problem will fester and grow while awaiting the government response.  Second, it is expensive to establish a government agency to address problems. Third, government agencies are susceptible to perpetuation.  Once the problem is addressed, the purpose of the agency should disappear.  If we are attentive to the primary political consideration, government agencies could be dismantled as well as created.

 

Giving Up on Trump Supporters

Having endured the 500+ days of the Trump administration, I am part of a large proportion of voters who wish to see the Midterm elections repudiate him and his agenda.  I would be less invested in this wish if the majority party in Congress was less passive.  But the Republican leadership has shown nothing but deference to Trump.  I assume there are some among them who value the rule of law and who are alarmed at Trump's abuse of power.  But as a group, they have enabled him with their silence.  They are quite in league with him on some fundamental issues that I believe are detrimental to the nation's welfare, but my largest concern is with the way Republicans seem to have abandoned their duty to check the power of the Executive branch and a duty to govern in consultation with the minority party.

I want elected officials to address Trump's use of our government to enrich himself.  I want elected officials to reverse a slate of regressive actions resulting from Trump's election, including reversals of healthcare reform, exits from the Iran-nuclear weapons agreement and the Paris climate accord, and welfare for corporations in the tax reform.  I want elected officials to grant a path to citizenship for the "Dreamers" who are US citizens already in all ways except name and had no role in their status in the U.S. in the first place.  I want a government that values and respects all of its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or political affiliation, and a Congress that will vocally oppose opposition to this ideal, especially when coming from the Executive branch.  I must wait until 2020 to vote on leadership in the Executive branch, but the Congress needs to assert its function as a check on the excesses and deficiencies of Donald Trump.

Adults in the Room and Trump

A recent anonymously written Op-ed piece Anonymous’ vs. Trump: Resistance From Within presents a Whitehouse staff trying to save the country from Donald Trump's worst behavior.  I have an experience from my life I offer here as an analogy.

My father was in his early eighties when he had some traffic accidents in a short period of time.  The first occurred in a hospital parking lot when he inexplicably drove his car on to the sidewalk, taking out a bench and damaging is front fender in the process.  His explanation of the incident was that the rubber pad of the brake came off somehow, and his foot slipped to the accelerator.  I inspected the brake pedal and could not believe this story at all.  Soon after, the same type of incident occurred, this time at a facility housing my invalid sister.  In both cases, no one was hurt.  Prior to these 'accidents', my father called to tell me he was lost en route to our house.  It was a route he had taken dozens of times, involving two turns.  Another time when he was a passenger, he insisted we were on the wrong road to Fullerton.  When we persisted and arrived at our destination, he joked, 'They must have moved Fullerton.'  We coached him to consider stopping his driving, but he insisted that he has always been a fine driver.

The time came for his driver's license to be renewed, and thankfully, the occasion required a driver's test.  The DMV tester failed him on multiple tasks.  We were relieved because we were clearly fearful that the next 'accident' could seriously injure or kill someone.  In retrospect, we should have made sure that he could not drive by taking away the keys to the car.

I am confident there are people across the country who have faced a nearly identical situation with respect to someone who needs to have the keys to the car taken from them.  Insofar as the office of the President affects the lives of millions of people every day and the President's has repeatedly demonstrated that his 'driving' is 'off the rails', it is the responsibility of those closest to him to take away his keys.

Working out Medicare

I have my Medicare card and become covered as of November 1.  People who I have told have asked what other insurance I have, and their basic question is, what medical expenses need coverage by other insurance.  Today I try to unpack the answers provided by Medicare on the government's website.

Part A covers hospital expenses with certain limits.

Your costs in Original Medicare

• $1,340 ($1,364 for 2019) 
  deductible
   for each 
  benefit period
   .
• Days 1–60: $0 
  coinsurance
   for each benefit period.
• Days 61–90: $335 ($341 for 2019) coinsurance per day of each benefit period.
• Days 91 and beyond: $670 ($682 for 2019) coinsurance per each "lifetime reserve day" after day 90 for each benefit period (up to 60 days over your lifetime).
• Beyond 
  lifetime reserve days
   : all costs.

Clearly, in any given year, my costs could range from zero to:

$1,364 + ($341 x 30) + ($670 x 60) = $(1364+10230+40200)= $51,794.

However, the above extreme would exhaust my lifetime benefits (I think).  Given that most years will not feature hospital visits, and given that we have savings and home equity that could cover a catastrophic illness, supplemental insurance is not required.  However, it is worth investigating what additional coverage we could get at what cost.  For example, if a $1,200/year premium would cover most of the potential $50k out-of-pocket costs for an extreme year plus the 'beyond lifetime reserve days,' the cost could be rationalized.  Taking this further, in the extreme case over the next 30 years, we would have paid ($1,200 x 30 =) $36,000 to get no benefits if we go into the hospital for less than 60 days.  On the other extreme, we experience two trips (one for each of us) that goes 90 days, for a total of over $100k.

In all of my experience, including people I have known, 90 days in the hospital is extremely rare.  It is almost unknown I would say.  My conclusion it is unwise to insure for costs that exceed 90 days in the hospital simply because the risk of the occurrence is small, and out capacity to cover the most likely of the least likely is still very good.  

Coverage for a more likely (but still, low risk) situation is a stay in a Skilled nursing facility.  Again, one must assess the instances that would exceed 100 days, because up to 20 days is no cost, and for the next 80 days, the cost is $10k.  Again, in my experience, such an occurrence is extremely rare and unlikely to justify the cost of monthly premiums.

Your costs in Original Medicare

You pay: 

• Days 1–20: $0 for each 
  benefit period
   .  
• Days 21–100: $167.50 ($170.50 for 2019) 
  coinsurance
   per day of each benefit period.
• Days 101 and beyond: all costs.

Last but not least is the kind of care my mother had in the last 20 months of her life.  This is a nursing home, and it cost on the order of $4k per month.  It is unclear to me how this was paid.  Was it the private health insurance, Social Security, or a combination?  How it is that I do not know this is an amazing lack of attention.  However, if we can assume no health insurance coverage for the cost, we can use our estimated Social Security payment of around $3,600 as a base for such care.  This leaves a small amount to cover the remaining part, and this would surely come from our home equity plus savings.  

Getting back to the topic, I am becoming comfortable with the idea that getting extra coverage outside of Medicare is unnecessary and unlikely to be of value.  In addition, the major emphasis of advertising for supplemental insurance is for prescription drug coverage, a topic of zero interest to me.  Pursuing insurance to cover incidents outside of what is covered by Medicare is akin to worrying about other exceedingly rare occurrences.