tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83139717395098689832024-03-07T22:21:46.029-08:00W. Bond's "Reflections of an Amateur"Humbly attempting to avoid "identifying the goal of our thinking with the point at which we have become tired of thinking."W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-59997650283474086712022-10-29T15:56:00.005-07:002022-10-30T11:40:57.330-07:00Cancer Screening As "Insurance?"<p><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2d42e72ba3ae9abf417076c991cc41b0-pjlq" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="347" data-original-width="602" height="347" src="https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2d42e72ba3ae9abf417076c991cc41b0-pjlq" width="602" /></a></div><br /><span><br /></span><p></p><p><span>This is a bit long for a Twitter thread, and I'd like to be able to reference it. </span></p><p><span>I intend it to be tentative, hypothetical, a bit of a question. However, it is written as an argument, a statement, since that is easier, I think, than having every sentence an awkward query or with too much of the necessary language of uncertainty. Please read it in that light. </span></p><p><span>I don't bristle at being corrected, but welcome it. Further, I take the time to write this out since I haven't seen it elsewhere. If the central point made exists in another form elsewhere I would appreciate being directed to it. </span></p><p><span>An additional caveat. This is through the eyes of the risk-cost/benefit to an individual patient — the fully informed rational patient, if you will. I realize there will always be charlatans selling promises and the "worried well" willing to buy those promises. </span></p><p><span>This all said, there was a recent New England Journal of Medicine randomized control trial of colon cancer screening in three European countries that caused a stir (1). This is not directly an analysis of that study, nor of colon cancer screening per se (which is a broader topic), but it prompted a few thoughts. </span></p><p><span>First, as to the state of the art, using colon cancer screening as the example. Below I link to this paper on colon cancer screening by Zauber(2) from 2010. It is a rich analysis, and she is evidently quite prominent in this field (3). One of the obvious limitations — see below, as well — to the cost effectiveness
analysis she uses here is that the prices in dollars, while real, are somewhat arbitrarily set by
CMS, etc. There is no "price mechanism." Further, these analyses run the risk of becoming a population utilitarian calculus only. One also runs the risk of attempting to quantify things difficult if not impossible to quantify. </span></p><p><span>Nonetheless, here you'll find talk of
"discount rates," years of life saved (i.e. taking into account the
age of finding the cancer), the "efficient frontier," etc. She attempts to account for the costs of complications, as well. It's not perfect, but much more sophisticated than simple talk of absolute risk reduction or effect on overall mortality. Obviously, it does not take into account last week's study. However, this type of analysis is the backdrop. (4)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Still — and this is my primary point here —there is no taking into account the costs/benefits from strictly the
individual viewpoint, or that one cannot simply buy
the average. An individual either dies from colon cancer prematurely or
does not. The average benefit obscures
this. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span> So, a few risk management type thoughts on this:</span></o:p></p><p><span>I). The age at time of death is not normally distributed. See the above graphical image. I think the intuition is that most of us would like to improve the chances of having good quality of life up to the modern mode – i.e. the most common age of death, which approaches something like a full potential life — rather than simply add on months/years at the end of life. So, part of that goal is to reduce the risk of being in the long left side of the curve.</span></p><p><span>II). Population based studies are obviously necessary to determine efficacy, but, on the other hand, one cannot buy the index. In which case, a screening tool (and we're only talking about a few common tumors here: breast, colon, lung, prostate, cervix) that can decrease the chances significantly of pre-mature death at reasonable total cost for that one relatively common cancer acts a bit like the risk management tool of "insurance" from the individual standpoint — since one has only one life.</span></p><p><span>III) There is still a cost/benefit, but it's more nuanced than a population average applied to the individual.</span></p><p><span>Here I’ll attempt to flesh out the argument a bit more, if not obvious, re "insurance." </span></p><p><span>Term life & homeowner’s are good products despite having a negative expected value. If one owned 10,000 residential homes across the country, however, as some sort of rental empire, homeowner's insurance is a bad deal. I own one, so it's wise. The owner of 10,000 homes saves on the insurer's profits and overhead minus claims paid. The individual homeowner pays the premia to share risk, hoping to never need the big payout. </span></p><p><span>Now, the average patient won’t get or die from, in this case, colon cancer, so why bother? However, no one gets the average benefit, the little benefit, one gets a big benefit or zero. Each individual is a bit like the individual homeowner who cannot diversity his risk.</span></p><p><span>In an effort to think through heterogeneous phenomena clearly, and put yet another way, one realizes the aim in the case of these relatively common cancers is not to bend the risk curve of something ultimately near universal if one lives long enough (atherosclerosis) but to significantly decrease the chances of that one particular cancer from ending one's life prematurely. </span></p><p><span>If one's goal is to reduce the odds of avoidable premature death, then as long as the disease is relatively common and occurs at young enough ages, the screening tool significantly effective at detection/disease-specific risk reduction, and not terribly onerous, then the overall mortality rate reduction (nice if you have it, certainly!) may very well be the wrong measure, if viewed through the above lens.</span></p><p><span>In this sense, it is a bit like insurance — not with a financial payout for a rare idiosyncratic catastrophic outcome (e.g. house fire), but in preventing premature death from that one thing. Again, like with insurance of individual homes, we’re all individuals unable to diversify our risk. No one gets the average outcome, and some leave decades of good life on the table.</span></p><p><span>(To be clear, unlike insurance, it is not a pooling of risk for a price, so the analogy is not precise. Perhaps one can also think of an analogy to maintenance/inspection of equipment to avoid rare, but critical, as opposed to just expected mechanical failures? However, this too has its limitations). </span></p><p><span>Further, and to reiterate, we can only effectively screen for a handful of relatively common tumors, this is not an argument to do frivolous, worthless things out of a fear of premature death, just an attempt to describe the goals in a way that captures the intuition a bit better.</span></p><p><span>There are, of course, significant quantification challenges. Ultimately, I suspect quantification is in a full sense impossible, or should be seen as an approximation, a shorthand at best. </span></p><p><span>In the Zauber paper referenced above, and which I highly recommend reading, in addition to the issues raised above, dollar costs are used for costs, whereas costs also include time, appointments, inconvenience, discomfort, false positives, distress, etc. </span></p><p><span>And, certainly, the rare costs of complications are not adequately denoted in dollar signs! </span></p><p>The advantage of using costs in dollars, however, is it allows for quantification, for calculating the discounted costs and benefits, for calculating the "efficient frontier," for calculating the cost per quality of life year saved. The disadvantage is it tends to simplify both those costs and benefits. </p><p><span>It also misses, I think, and as I note above, the "insurance" point. Yet, even for insurance type instruments and products the costs/benefits are not always clear. </span>Term life, particularly for the household’s breadwinner, and homeowner's insurance are fairly straightforward. Others less so (5).</p><p><span>The challenges to quantification should not discourage us, however, from thinking as clearly as possible about the phenomenon in question, our goals, the potential costs and risks, about risk management, and about the potential benefits. Further, we should not settle for a flattened, overly simplistic analysis out of a desire for ease in calculation. </span></p><p><span>And, of course, one should not neglect the obvious point that costs and benefits in an innovative, dynamic system are themselves dynamic. </span></p><p><span>The ever important, if thorny, issue of who calculates the risk/benefit and who pays is another topic altogether.</span></p><p><span><span>Lastly, one brief statement regarding populations as collections of individual patients vs. populations per se. </span><span>We are physicians with individual patients who come to us seeking guidance and care, not gardeners cultivating our fields and maximizing the yield. The former is Medicine, the latter something else entirely: the wrong path. </span></span></p><p><span><span><br /></span></span></p><p><span><span><br /></span></span></p><p><span><span><br /></span></span></p><p><br /></p><div><span>1<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2208375">Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span><span>2</span> <span><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4145837/">Cost-Effectiveness of Colonoscopy</a></span></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>3 <a href="https://www.mskcc.org/profile/ann-zauber">Ann Zauber, PhD</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span>4 For those unfamiliar with these financial economic terms, consider Wikipedia links to</span></div><div><span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier">Efficient Frontier</a> & <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory">Modern Portfolio Theory</a> & John Cochrane's influential address on <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e6033a4ea02d801f37e15bb/t/5ee7f26abec47e0fd4e14039/1592259192386/discount_rates_jf.pdf">Discount Rates</a><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span>5</span> <span>Consider the debate between Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Antti Ilmanen on whether or not the returns from writing options on indices during normal times are worth the cost during market downturns — i.e. whether it is better to sell or buy such "insurance." That University of Chicago PhD’s and Taleb — with skin in the game — have no small disagreement on this issue regarding a long-traded financial instrument points to the challenge. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Taleb here: <a href="https://fooledbyrandomness.com/Ilmanen.pdf">No, Small Probabilities Are Not "Attractive to Sell": A Comment</a> </span></div><div><span>Ilmanen book: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Expected-Returns-Investors-Harvesting-Rewards/dp/1119990726">Expected Returns</a> </span></div><div><span>Bloomberg coverage of a Twitter spat <a href="https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/taleb-spars-with-asness-on-twitter-over-tail-risk-hedges-1.1439148">"Taleb Spars with Asness"</a><br /></span></div><div><br /></div>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-33945365984405309632022-06-19T11:14:00.001-07:002022-06-19T11:24:25.139-07:00Specialist/Generalist Psychology in Life<p>Sunday thought re the psychology of “generalism”/specialism,
breadth/depth, not just in e.g. Medicine, but life. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are most of us specialists in life, given modern
economics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Division of labor is a great
source of wealth, but also of “knowledge production.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet, we all see specialists who are expert in their niche,
and know little outside of that particular world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>i.e. Specializing can be distorting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This might be heightened today, but is likely
as old as the beginning of civilization (as opposed to hunter/gatherer
societies?).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If memory serves this is Allan
Bloom’s interpretation of Eryximachus’ speech in the Symposium. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One necessarily sees the world through the methods,
concerns, and magnified concentration of one’s specialty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To use a trivial example, I know few
cardiologists over 40 who do not themselves take a statin, regardless of lipids
or family history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other examples are likely easy to think of.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, as in Eryxcimachus’ speech, there is also a tendency to
see one’s niche everywhere, apply one’s knowledge inappropriately to the wider
world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, to assume if one is
bright here, one’s opinion simply translates to there, with very little work. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since we are most of specialists, one remedy may be to try
to develop the habits of a lifelong general education; to work to understand
other fields more deeply, on their own terms. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the other hand, but relatedly, the danger of “a little
knowledge” is the tendency to think this is adequate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The generalist might mistakenly think reading
one book/article, etc. leads to an understanding of the area.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trial lawyers who try complex cases –
specialists in the courtroom, generalists in knowing about various part of
life, industries, etc. – sometimes fall prey to this. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They need to be bright enough to understand
the issues at hand, which can lead to an overconfidence in one’s real
understanding of the field.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, while
specializing can distort how one sees the world, “generalizing” tends to
simplify, flatten, misunderstand without self-awareness.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Every specialist knows this when they hear an outsider
discuss their own area of specialization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is at best 85% accurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even
the best non-M.D.s discussing clinical Medicine to the ear of a physician?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At best an approximation, and typically
worse. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In which case, if one recalls
this as a specialist, the specializing itself can be a guard against hubris
regarding other areas of specialization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, while specializing can distort and “generalizing”
can be overconfident in its understanding, can they also tend to correct each
other, if one guards against the pitfalls, if one addresses this
specialist/generalist psychology with care and humility?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Might the best thing for the specialist be more general
knowledge -- but also vice versa?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-24558746268637227782021-11-27T14:06:00.001-08:002021-11-27T14:10:11.894-08:0010 Best Christmas Movies<p>11. Die Hard</p><p>10. 3 Godfathers (1948)</p><p>9. Elf <br /></p><p>8. A Christmas Carol (1951)</p><p>7. Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town</p><p>6. Home Alone</p><p>5. A Christmas Story <br /></p><p>4. Miracle on 34th Street</p><p>3. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation</p><p>2. A Charlie Brown Christmas</p><p>1. It's A Wonderful Life<br /></p>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-58337082782416889982020-08-12T14:01:00.001-07:002022-10-02T11:39:02.640-07:0025 Greatest Films of All TimeHey, make your own list. <div><br /></div><div>Heavy in some genres, light in others. To be amended freely in the future.</div><div><br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">1 The Searchers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2 Vertigo<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3 Casablanca<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">5 Double Indemnity<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6 The Godfather<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">7 Citizen Kane<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">8 Groundhog Day<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">9 It Happened One Night<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">10 The Wizard of Oz<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">11 La Strada<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">12 The Third Man<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">13 The Godfather II<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">14 The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">15 North by Northwest<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">16 Fort Apache<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">17 Rear Window<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">18 It’s A Wonderful Life<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">19 From Russia With Love<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">20 Raiders of the Lost Ark<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">21 Caddyshack<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">22 The French Connection<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">23 Apocalypse Now<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">24 A Serious Man<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">25 Being There<o:p></o:p></p><br /></div>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-31191824887768921822017-08-21T16:42:00.001-07:002023-02-02T02:46:44.025-08:00Groundhog Day LinksAfter writing about <i>Groundhog Day,</i> I did hunt around to read a bit about the film. <br />
<br />
Interestingly, it seems that the final product was really a collaborative effort between the screenwriter, Danny Rubin (who had written a very different script), Ramis, and Murray. Ramis, of course, directed its development from the original script, but Murray was difficult and insistent about the character, and the result was the film as it is. Murray was so difficult, that he and Ramis - despite their long relationship prior - did not speak again until the end of Ramis' life. <br />
<br />
I am posting a few links.<br />
<br />
First, as expected, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundhog_Day_(film)" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a> has a long entry which is helpful, and has 76 references.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://indie-outlook.com/2014/01/30/danny-rubin-on-groundhog-day/" target="_blank">Here's an interview</a> with the screenwriter, Danny Rubin. <br />
<br />
Of course, <a href="https://www.steynonline.com/6066/almost-like-being-in-love" target="_blank">Mark Steyn knows and enjoys the Brigadoon reference</a>.<br />
<br />
A 2<a href="http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Misc/GroundhogDay.htm" target="_blank">003 NYT article</a> about a MOMA conference on God and Film opening with <i>Groundhog Day.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/228088/print" target="_blank">Jonah Goldberg at the National Review</a> on the film.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=17-03-012-v" target="_blank">An oft-cited piece which is really quite good and worth reading</a> on the themes, but takes a few missteps - the local man named "Gus" is clearly short for Augustine? Unlikely. The analogy regarding the "shadow" cast by the two Phils is excellent, however, and obvious in retrospect.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mbird.com/2012/02/its-gonna-last-you-for-the-rest-of-your-life-sanctification-according-to-groundhog-day/" target="_blank">Another Christian piece</a> that reflects on the nature of and possibility of human virtue in a fallen world.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkEUpymTanA" target="_blank">A four minute video </a>of Ramis about the film. <br />
<br />
Last, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8V-bvaIpuY" target="_blank">a long 80 minute video </a>where Ramis is presenting at a conference on cinema. At 1:09:30 he speaks about his personal quest for meaning - and for laughs. It's worth watching if you think that <i>Groundhog Day</i> is explicitly certain about a cosmic teleology — as opposed to nature being consistent with the possibility of one. W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-55655779853769670472017-07-01T13:59:00.001-07:002021-03-06T17:37:50.093-08:00Groundhog Day and the Pursuit of Happiness<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">"If I am not for myself, who is
for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?" (Hillel)<o:p></o:p></span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">“There is no truth more thoroughly
established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an
indissoluble union between virtue and happiness” (George Washington, First Inaugural,
1789)<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
I first saw <i>Groundhog Day</i> – directed by the late Harold Ramis, and starring
Bill Murray - during its initial theatrical release in 1993 and have seen it
multiple times since but until last week had probably not watched it in fifteen
years. This is despite my, only somewhat
jocular, frequent reference to it as the greatest film of my lifetime. I am spurred to write this by that viewing –
and given my pace with such endeavors – in anticipation of 2018 marking its
silver anniversary. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Now, much ink must have been
spilled already regarding this film. As
far as I can remember, I have not read any of it and have at this writing
purposefully avoided searching the internet for reviews, interviews, essays,
analyses, etc. I will perhaps post an
addendum after initially posting this if I do search out the views of
others. My point is only that I intend this as my
stab at interpretation, relatively uninfluenced. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Lastly, by means of introduction,
this is an analysis, not a review. One of
the great achievements of <i>Groundhog Day</i>
resides in its restraint, in not telling us what it is doing, but in showing
us. In doing so, it can be enjoyed on
several levels, like the best works of fictional literature, be they epic
poetry, novels, plays, films, etc.
Herein, I exercise no such restraint, so spoiler alert for an old
movie: please watch it first if you
haven’t already! <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
How to describe <i>Groundhog Day</i>? It <i>is </i>a
comedy, albeit a contemplative one, with a romance. Is it a version, then, of that cinematic
staple, the Romantic Comedy? In a
limited way, some aspects of both the contrasts and developing rapport between Phil
and Rita are reminiscent of the interplay we see with classic couples in movie
history such as Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert’s characters in <i>It Happened One Night</i>. However well Murray pulls off this element of
comedy, we shouldn’t stretch the comparisons.
<i>Groundhog Day</i> is certainly not
a conventional romantic comedy, or at least it is much more than that. It, however, is undoubtedly a comedy - and my
serious tone shouldn’t allow one to lose sight of the fact that it is quite
simply side-splittingly funny. Since,
historically, dramatic comedy can tackle also serious themes, we might think of
<i>Groundhog Day</i> as being
temperamentally somewhere between Aristophanes and Shakespearean comedy; and,
of course, we may also rightly conclude that fitting into a genre is unimportant. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
The film begins in the studio of a
local television newsroom in Pittsburgh.
There we are introduced to the central characters. Other than this initial scene, and the brief
scene that follows of our characters driving to Punxsutawney to cover Groundhog
Day, the remainder of the film is set in this small town, home to the
festival. The lively festival itself -
which elevates an earthy superstition about the weeks of winter weather that
remain based on whether or not the groundhog “sees his shadow” on the day in
question – is that typical county fair type of fun: simple, unassuming, and a bit of
tongue-in-cheek silliness. This is small
town America, and while plenty of fairly good-natured comedic jabs are placed
at its inhabitants’ expense, and there are certainly some stock comic
characters, by the end of the movie, we largely see Punxsutawney on a natural,
human scale, from its own point of view.
That is, in the end, the film manages to neither condescend nor
romanticize. The town’s characters, to the extent they are
developed, are taken in full. Overall,
they cease being an “other” to our urban visitors and are simply human beings
in their own setting, with all of their virtues, vices, dreams, and
disappointments. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
It is perhaps important to note a
quarter century later that this is small town America prior to the dramatic
increase in social pathology that we witness now - which is itself quite
another story. The film does not seem
otherwise remarkably dated, or at least to me does not seem as distant as say
1968 cinema (<i>Oliver!, The Lion in Winter,
The Odd Couple, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Funny </i>Girl) was to 1993. The most obvious difference to today is the
absence of the internet and the smartphone.
The mechanical/electrical clock radio was already a bit dated, but might
easily have been found in a bed and breakfast not updating its electronics
every few years. The other difference
worth pointing out is the relative cultural importance of local
weathermen. Nowadays, of course, one has
weather apps on phones, weather sites on the internet, etc. There was a time, however, when one relied on
newspapers for forecasts, and then radio and television. Cable outlets such as CNN, CNN’s Headline
News, and even The Weather Channel were around by ’93 but to see the local
forecast prior to the morning paper, the most reliable source was often the
local newscast, even if cable had chipped away at this monopoly somewhat by
then. Plainly stated, the average
citizen had a much greater likelihood of knowing who his local station TV
weathermen were then than now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
The central character of our story
is this particular Pittsburgh station weatherman, the miserable Phil Connors,
played by Murray. His character when we
are introduced to him is a cynical misanthrope, a self-centered snob possessing
an acidic wit, a snarky sense of humor.
The story of <i>Groundhog Day</i> is
the story of his transformation. A bit
like with Dickens’ Scrooge in <i>A Christmas
Carol,</i> this is a story of moral redemption.
It is his (not necessarily religious, but see below) Road to
Damascus. To stretch this last metaphor,
if the repeating day is him becoming blinded by the light, it is through Rita
that we see the scales fall from his eyes. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
The opening scene shows Connors in
studio giving his last weather report before heading out to Punxsutawney. The opening line: “Somebody asked me today,
‘Phil, if you could be anywhere in the world, where would you like to
be?’” (Remember this line, dear
readers). He goes on to name the locale
with the nation’s winter high temperature for the day. In addition to some other jokes, he here
predicts that the upcoming storm will likely bypass Pittsburgh. Once the camera cuts, he’s all elbows and
barbs with his fellow newsroom anchors and crew. Here we meet briefly Larry the cameraman
(Chris Elliott) and Phil’s new producer Rita (Andie MacDowell). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
The next scene shows the three in
the station’s van heading to location.
In these first two scenes we are introduced to Connors’ aforementioned misanthropy
in general and disdain for Punxsutawney and its festival specifically. Rita’s response: “I think it’s a nice story…people like
it.” Phil: “People like blood sausage too. People are morons.” On arrival at the hotel, Phil notes that he
cannot stay at the “fleabag” where he’s been miserable on prior trips to cover
the groundhog and she notes that she’s already arranged for him to stay at a
different location, a bed and breakfast. Phil, pleasantly surprised, replies: “I think this is one of the traits of a
really good producer. Keep the talent happy.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
The next morning is Groundhog
Day. A cock crows and the clock-radio
alarm in Phil’s room flips from 5:59 to 6:00.
Cue the Sonny & Cher song “I Got You Babe.” As Phil prepares for the day, we hear the
local radio DJ’s raucous banter, there is a brief scene of him interacting with
a fellow guest at the top of the stairwell, and with the Inn’s proprietress,
then he’s off to cover the groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil. (Surely the sharing of a name is not a
coincidence). On his route, he passes a
single elderly beggar and then runs into Ned Ryerson, the obnoxious insurance
salesman who recognizes him from high school.
After stepping in an icy pothole to escape Ned, he’s at Gobbler’s Knob,
the site of the festival. He does a
sarcastic minimum for the broadcast and then the three are back in the van
headed home to Pittsburgh. Except Phil’s
forecast was wrong, the blizzard hits.
The road is blocked off, and a frigid Phil in shirtsleeves exits the van
to confront the state trooper in disbelief of reality: “I make the weather,” he
bellows through chattering teeth. We see
him using a pay phone, speaking to the operator about the long distance lines
being down: “Don’t you have some kind of
a line that you keep open for emergencies, or for celebrities? I’m both.
I’m a celebrity in an emergency.”
Next we cut to the three back in Punxsutawney at a hotel bar. More snide Phil in general, including
responding to a gracious Rita, culminating in: “I think I’m going to go back to
my room, take a hot shower, and maybe read…some Hustler or something.” Naturally at the end of this miserable day
there is no hot water in the shower. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
It’s 6:00 a.m. again on the clock
radio alarm. The radio comes on – again
to “I Got You Babe,” and the DJ’s. Phil
assumes they are mistakenly playing yesterday’s tape. He looks out the window to see no fresh
snow. A series of these déjà vu moments
occur over two days as Groundhog Day continues to repeat itself. He insists Rita meet him at the diner. Explaining his situation, he demands she do
something about it. “What do you want me
to do,” she asks. Phil snarls “I don’t
know. You’re a producer. <i>Come up
with something</i>.” Rita responds “You
want my advice? I think you should get
your head examined if you want me to believe a stupid story like that,
Phil.” He goes to see a local neurologist
played by Ramis who suggests he see a psychiatrist, who in turn - overwhelmed -
suggests he come back “tomorrow.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
“The Ring of Gyges” is a mythical
ancient artifact best known from Plato’s <i>Republic</i>
where it serves a role as a thought experiment in a discussion about justice or
morality. The ring renders one
invisible. Would the owner of such a ring
really act justly if there were no possibility of being caught in
injustice? If there are no possible
consequences is there any reason not to cheat, steal, etc.? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
We next see Phil drinking late at
night with two locals at a bowling alley bar.
First, a glimpse into Phil’s lightly worn, thoroughly modern, default hedonism:
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
“I was in the Virgin Islands
once. I met a girl. We ate lobster; drank piña coladas. At sunset we made love like sea otters. <i>That</i>
was a pretty good day. Why couldn’t I
get that day, over and over, and over?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Next Phil and his drinking companions leave to drive
home. The other two are far too drunk to
stand, let alone drive, so Phil drives.
Here he realizes that with the repeating day there may be no
consequences for his actions - it’s his ring of Gyges, so to speak. Why follow all of life’s rules, anyway? He rams into a mailbox for no reason, leads
the pursuing police on a chase down railroad tracks, narrowly avoids a head on
collision with a train, and ultimately, after crashing into a giant cutout of
the groundhog, proceeds to place an order with the arresting officer for
cheeseburgers. He’s thrown in jail but
still wakes up at 6:00 a.m. to “I Got You Babe.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
At first, he is elated with what
he has just gotten away with. He is a free
man. There are no officers looking for
him. We proceed to see him punch Ned Ryerson in the nose, stuff himself with
food, smoke cigarettes, and learn to time the theft of a bag of cash from an armored
truck due to the inattention of the two dimwitted elderly drivers. Rita, at the disgust of seeing his gluttony
quotes lines from Walter Scott’s “The Lay of the Last Minstrel” about “the
wretch concentred all in self…”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Phil next proceeds to seduce local
women through trickery and deceit. He
asks the first of these women questions about herself and comes back the next
day to pretend to know her from high school.
His success with this line of conquest leads him ultimately to focus his
attentions on Rita, who has become, or perhaps always was, the true object of
his desire. He learns all about her, her
favorite drink, the toast she drinks to, her undergraduate major in 19<sup>th</sup>
century French poetry, her taste in food, her career aspirations, what she
thinks she’s looking for in a man,<sup>1</sup> her desire for a family. He slowly plans everything, day after
day. He memorizes some verse <i>en francais</i>. He comes close - but he fails. She ultimately sees through his ruse. Her rejection line “You love me? You don’t
even know me” echoes the Ray Charles song they had danced to earlier in the
gazebo as the snow fell (“You Don’t Know Me”).
Now each day of repeated attempts finds him failing earlier and earlier
in his attempt to seduce Rita. He,
indeed, fails completely.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Like an addict, Phil has hit rock
bottom. Despondent, he sits around
drinking, depressed, memorizing Jeopardy answers on the parlor’s
television. Ultimately, he attempts to
end the repeating day by ending his life, at first also along with the
groundhog’s. He steals a truck containing Phil the Groundhog and the two Phils - the two weather predictors - drive off a cliff while Rita, Larry,
Punxsutawney police officers, and town officials look on. He tries eventually every method of suicide
imaginable, but he keeps waking up at 6:00 am on Groundhog Day to “I Got You
Babe.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
In the pivotal scene, or really
three scenes, Phil is first in the diner again with Rita. Rita:
“I’m sorry, what was that again?”
Phil: “I am a god.” Rita:
“You’re god?” Phil: “I’m <i>a</i>
god, I’m not <i>the </i>God. I don’t think.” He explains that, no he just didn’t survive a
car wreck but a long list of every possible means of dying – and every morning he
wakes up alive and without injury. “I am
an immortal.” She asks “Why are you
telling me this?” He replies “Because I want you to believe in me.” She doesn’t, of course: “You’re not a
god. You can take my word for it. This is twelve years of Catholic school
talking.” “How do you know?” he
rejoins. He then proceeds to demonstrate
his omniscience. He walks throughout the
diner and introduces all of the employees and patrons to Rita, giving details
of their lives, childhoods, and aspirations.
They, of course, do not know him.
“Is this some kind of trick?” she asks.
Phil: “Well maybe the real God
uses tricks. You know, maybe he’s not
omnipotent he’s just been around so long he knows everything.” Phil then predicts the future – a waiter
dropping a tray of dishes. In hushed
tones she sits down and asks if he knows all about her. He does, of course. He knows her childhood, her cherished
memories, her dreams, her genuine goodness, and that when she stands in the
snow she “looks like an angel.” “How are
you doing this” she asks. He again tells
her about his repeating day. For a last demonstration, he writes down the
precise words that Larry will say when he enters the diner to get them back in
the van and on the road to beat the storm.
In contrast to his much earlier demand that she, as his producer, “<i>come up with something</i>,” he now is imploring
her: “Please believe me. You’ve got to believe me.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Next, they’re walking outside down
the sidewalk. Rita: “Maybe it really is happening. I mean, how else could you know so
much?” Phil replies “Well there is no
way, I’m not that smart.” Rita: “Maybe I should spend the rest of the day
with you. As an objective witness, just
to see what happens.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
In the last of these pivotal scenes
Phil and Rita are now sitting on top of his made bed flipping playing cards
into a top hat. “Be the hat” he
encourages her, in a reference to a well-known line from an earlier
Ramis-Murray comic hit. He has had hours
of practice with this trick, he explains.
He then tells Rita that the worst part is that “Tomorrow you will have
forgotten all about this and you’ll treat me like a jerk again.” “No!” she objects. Phil:
“That’s alright, I am a jerk.” Whether
simply to cheer him up - or not, she seems sincere - she tells him “Sometimes I
wish I had a thousand lifetimes. I don’t
know Phil, maybe it’s not a curse. It just
depends how you look at it.” Later, while trying to wait for the morning with
him, she struggles not to drift off to sleep and murmurs “what were you saying?” Phil, reading from an old poetry anthology,
says “I think the last thing you heard was ‘Only God Can Make a Tree’” (from a
poem about the superiority of nature to human art). Phil now gazing at the sleeping Rita:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: 5.25pt;">
“What I wanted
to say was I think you’re the kindest, sweetest, prettiest person I’ve ever met
in my life. I’ve never seen anyone
that’s nicer to people than you are. And
the first time I saw you something happened to me I never told you about. I knew that I wanted to hold you as hard as I
could. I don’t deserve someone like
you. But if I ever could, I swear that I
would love you for the rest of my life.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: 5.25pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
It’s 6:00 a.m. again on the clock
radio. “I Got You Babe” again. Henceforth, we witness the transformation of
Phil. First, he stops to give the
elderly panhandler a little cash. He
brings coffee and pastries to Rita and Larry for the Groundhog shoot – knowing
their orders, naturally. He helps Larry
with the equipment. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
He begins to appreciate art and
music. We see him sitting alone at the
diner’s lunch counter reading books as Mozart plays. He decides to take piano lessons, which recur
over the repeated days. He’s friendly to
the man in the Inn on the staircase who greets him each morning and quotes
poetry in his reply.<sup>2</sup> He learns to ice sculpt. He is no longer only spending his hours
getting good at flipping cards into a hat.
Whereas before he had memorized 19<sup>th</sup> century French poetry as
a means to an end – seducing Rita – he now is doing these things for their own
sake. We might say that we get a glimpse
here of not just the good but also of the beautiful, the noble. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Phil next attempts to save the
elderly beggar. He takes him to the
hospital where he dies. Phil, disturbed,
asks “what did he die of?” The nurse:
“sometimes people just die.” Phil: “<i>not</i>
today.” The next day he tries to nurse
the man to health himself by feeding him at the diner. Phil fails repeatedly, confirming in his
failure both the limits of life and that he is not, in fact, divine. The last time we see him with the man, Phil
calls him “Dad” and attempts CPR as the man lies lifeless in a dark alley. As the old man lies dead, and Phil ceases his
efforts, the scene ends as Phil fixes his gaze upwards on the dark night sky. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Phil Connors has become a kind and
good-hearted man, a man of integrity and character, a contemplative man, and a
man, as well, of some genuine talent.
His humor remains but it is now a good humor. This transformation culminates in one last
day which starts with his on-air speech at the festival, worth quoting in its
entirety: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
“When Chekhov saw the long winter,
he saw a winter bleak, and dark, and bereft of hope. Yet we know that winter is just another step
in the cycle of life. But standing here
among the people of Punxsutawney, and basking in the warmth of their hearths
and hearts, I couldn’t imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous
winter. From Punxsutawney, it’s Phil
Connors, so long.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Surprised, impressed, and intrigued by this Phil, Rita asks
if he’d like to get a cup of coffee. He
asks for a “raincheck” as he has errands he needs to run. “Errands, what errands?” asks a perplexed
Rita. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
After
leaving Gobbler’s Knob Phil runs to catch a boy falling from a tree. The boy runs off. “You little brat, you have never thanked me!”
he shouts (while remaining still an imperfect human being, we might note). No one sees him save the boy, and the boy indeed
does not thank him (recall the ring of Gyges, and consider its mirror image). Phil next appears with jack and tire to
change a flat tire for a carload of elderly women – instantly after the flat
occurs. In a restaurant he then performs
the Heimlich maneuver on a choking Buster, the emcee of the Groundhog Day
festivities. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That
night, at the Groundhog Day party at the hotel, Rita and Larry walk in to find
Phil featured on the piano with the jazz band on stage. Everyone there knows him and seems to love
him. As Rita dances with him briefly, he
is thanked by many of the locals for his various deeds. Then, in a scene of Girardian mimesis, there
is a “bachelor auction” for charity where several townswomen bid up Phil (who
doesn’t volunteer, but goes along with the fun). Rita, now attracted to this new Phil, empties
her wallet to win her prize. Outside, he
sculpts a bust of her in frozen snow.
She’s moved, flattered, and astonished by his skill. His reply:
“No matter what happens tomorrow or for the rest of my life I’m happy
now, because I love you.” Rita: “I think I’m happy too.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
She
wakes up next to him in his room, both of them clothed, and she notes that he
had fallen fast asleep the night before (i.e. without sex). The same song – “I Got You Babe” - comes on
the radio – but it’s actually a new day, the cycle is over. They go outside to see the fresh snow. Phil:
“It’s so beautiful. Let’s live here…
[pregnant pause]…we’ll rent to start.”
The film ends as they walk alone down the street while in the background
we hear the old standard “Almost Like Being in Love.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
* * *<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What to
make of this quirky and contemplative comedy that packs so much, so tightly,
into 101 minutes? As I state above, it
is principally the story of the moral redemption of Phil Connors. It is worth looking at this more closely and
beginning with the obvious features.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
In the beginning Phil was a
miserable “jerk” but not a sociopath.
Even when he begins to break society’s rules he is not really a violent
criminal. What he does to seduce the
women is clearly and unequivocally wrong, but not physically violent. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Unlike what has been the case for
many humans throughout history, in Punxsutawney 1993 it goes without saying
that Phil is in no physical danger. He’s
a free man who does not lack for a roof over his head and for whom his next
meal is not in doubt. These basic conditions
of safety and comfort are necessary, of course, but, as we are shown, not
sufficient for a good life. Phil has
some ambition – he doesn’t want to stay at the station in Pittsburgh forever,
for example – but what are his goals, his deepest dreams, and what informs
them? Does he know? Is it just the unreflective hedonism he pines
for in remembering his time in the Virgin Islands? We might conclude that his unhappiness and
shallowness are fully unmasked by the recurring day. When he abandons all restraint we realize
that he doesn’t gain any real freedom – he crashes into a mailbox, drives on
the railroad tracks, eats 10,000 calories per meal, etc. – he just loses
self-control. The brief thrill of unpunished
immoderate behavior cannot sustain him during the recurring day. It certainly cannot be the basis for true
happiness; rather, it serves to illustrate the difference between liberty and
license. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Unlike many films, action movies
for example, <i>Groundhog Day</i> is not a
story about physical or moral courage.
Phil is not saving the world from tyranny or putting himself in peril to
fight corruption, etc. The film <i>is</i> about what we might call regular,
day-to-day morality, about human character, goodness, kindness, self-control,
as well as about art, poetry and contemplating the human condition. Whether fully intentionally or not, <i>Groundhog Day</i> in its treatment of
morality and character presents what we might call a Classical view of human
nature, and of the relation between virtue and happiness. In the mouth of the Platonic Socrates, and
most fully articulated in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, we find the argument
that happiness (eudaimonia) comes from virtue (arete). Virtue here can also mean excellence, or
perhaps developed talent. There are many
virtues: justice, courage, wisdom, self-control, generosity, etc. Eudaimonia is also translated as flourishing
or well-being. Happiness, then - human
flourishing - comes from the virtues, which in turn are reflective of human
nature, including our nature as political animals (or social beings), while
allowing that circumstances change with place and time. One can clearly see such a view of human
virtue and happiness in the life of Phil before and after his transformation. The original Phil, the jerk, the man filled
with arrogant disdain for his fellow man, is forced to confront his own
character day after day and is deeply unhappy, to the point of utter
despair. Even when he attempts to
imitate the virtuous traits Rita tells him she is looking for in a man, he
fails. However, the Phil transformed
through his love for Rita, and through her example, begins to genuinely act
well, which is its own reward. He not
only treats others selflessly, with authentic kindness, empathy, and
generosity, he also is drawn to poetry and art for their own sake. By the end he has become truly happy - by
becoming virtuous. Here we should also
contrast the first and last lines of the film:
"Phil, If you could be anywhere in the world, where would you like
to be?...It's so beautiful. Let's live
here." Through his love for Rita,
and because of whom he has become through Rita, the place he most wants to be
is in fact where he is, wintry western Pennsylvania, the place where he least
wanted to be. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
By showing us this account of
virtue and happiness, <i>Groundhog Day</i>
makes a claim about the nature of Man.<sup>3</sup> While this film certainly presents an
American, egalitarian type of good man, the presentation of morality, of virtue
and happiness, seems broader – i.e. it seems natural and universal rather than
artificial or wholly contingent. We
might note also that Groundhog Day presents this view while avoiding “politics”
in the sense of the controversial and partisan.
While a claim about human nature, about morality and human happiness,
may imply something about politics, ultimately, any such implication is wisely
left out. There are no leaden speeches
about the issues of the day. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
If the central feature of <i>Groundhog Day</i> is the moral
transformation of Phil Connors, the driving force behind that transformation is
his love for Rita - <i>Eros,</i> in its general
and specific sense (if one will excuse again the Greek). I will admit that when I first saw this film
on its release in the theater I walked away thinking that it was trying to show
here something like Freud’s concept of sublimation, namely that Phil’s lust for
Rita becomes channeled into something higher – essentially the high reducible
to the low. Now, not only do I disagree
that that theory adequately describes the human phenomenon in question, I also
do not think this is what is happening in <i>Groundhog
Day.</i> Phil clearly falls in love with
the three dimensional Rita, the entire woman, body and soul. This replaces what might have been an initial
cruder attraction, but is not reducible to it.
We are presented with a full vision of romantic love, of <i>Eros,</i> as a longing, as a driving force,
but also as a beautiful and noble thing taken on its own. In addition, while <i>Groundhog Day’s</i> main theme may be Phil’s transformation revealing
to us human nature, virtue, and happiness, it is important to note that we
first see these things in Rita. Phil
sees in her an example of human virtue.
She becomes the object of his affection, his beloved, due to her
physical and moral loveliness. The
reverse occurs, as well, by the end of the film when his love for her is
reciprocated due to his being the man he has become. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Since Phil’s profound love for Rita
is the driving force of his transformation, the central event of the film, it
is important to contrast it to the common Romanticism - with a capital “R” -
that one finds in many 19<sup>th</sup> century novels, and some films old and
new, and which has its roots in Rousseau.
(Romanticism, of course, is broader in its meaning than just how it
treats romantic love; here, to stay on topic, I stick to that aspect). This Romanticism presents a view of romantic
love as an ennobling force with the potential to lift humans out of the
banality of bourgeois existence. Romantic
love is elevated above all else in the world including “conventions” like
marriage, which is why adultery is often the theme.<sup>4</sup> In real life, however, adultery, rather than
being ennobling, is typically just destructive, of not only marriage, but of
families. In <i>Groundhog Day,</i> Phil’s love for Rita is not set into a
sphere unconnected to the rest of his moral life, but rather into its proper
place. We see this primarily because we
see that the love is the source of him becoming a better person in a full and
broader sense. We also see a glimpse of
this contrast with Romanticism when he takes his raincheck to run his errands. Coffee with Rita, however deeply desired,
will have to be postponed briefly to save the falling boy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
It would be incomplete to discuss
morality and romantic love in <i>Groundhog
Day </i>without touching on its view of sexual morality. While it is not a prudish film, and is
contemporary (or at least sits halfway between 1968 and 2018) in its mores,
Phil’s views of sex do change from beginning to end. In the beginning, he is guilty of making some
lecherous comments towards Rita which would be considered workplace harassment
today, and, probably, then. By the end,
however, he would not make a joke about reading <i>Hustler</i>, or in fact read <i>Hustler</i>,
not because he has become a prude, but because a) he would not want to make
someone else uncomfortable by being offensively boorish, and b) because it
would be bad for his soul. And while
Phil and Rita do fall asleep together in the same bed the last night of the
recurring day, their love is not consummated.
One is left thinking that the overarching meaning of <i>Groundhog Day</i> implies something perhaps
closer to a traditional view of sexual morality, but if so, it is implicit, and
like with politics it is left for us to contemplate. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Since <i>Groundhog Day </i>is a story of moral redemption, it is only fitting to
ask also what it says about religion, about the divine. There are a few mentions and allusions, as I
note in the summary above. First, and
most explicitly, there is Phil’s claim to divinity, proven false by his failure
to save the old man. Second, it is
mentioned when Rita states that she has had twelve years of Catholic
school. Third, when Phil fails for the
last time in his attempt at CPR, he unmistakably looks to heaven, sadly, but
with understanding. Fourth, we hear the
name of God in the pivotal scene where Phil reads the line from the poem he has
just read: “Only God Can Make a
Tree.” I will also note that one does
sense that Phil’s character in the beginning is entirely secular. One is perhaps not surprised, given her
accent, to learn that Rita was at least raised as a churchgoer. So while there are only a few explicit
mentions of religion, it is also not precluded.
The film and its main theme operate largely in the realm of the human, of
society, of human nature and human character, rather than in the realm of the
metaphysical or theological. While doing
so it leaves open the question - the possibility that if nature is the standard,
the divine may be the ground of that nature, and hence of human morality. However, <i>Groundhog
Day</i> - perhaps wisely for us, in our times – does stick to this natural,
human scale, and avoids becoming an explicitly religious film. Like with partisan politics and sexual
morality, any implications are left unsaid.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
What of the most prominent feature
of <i>Groundhog Day</i>, the plot device
itself, the recurring day? This feature
fades a bit when we look at the story it presents of Phil’s
transformation. Yet at the conclusion,
it confronts us again, as indeed it must.
We are left wondering, is it just a fantastical poetic device for
showing us Phil’s transformation, like an extended version of Scrooges’
dreams? When trapped in it with his old
self, it becomes like an eternal punishment, a mythological curse – Sisyphus
and his stone, Prometheus, his liver, and the eagle. Through Rita and his transformation, Phil
escapes only when it becomes unnecessary for him to escape, when living with
himself ceases to be a punishment. If
not simply a poetic device, did it really happen? Is it a “natural” phenomenon - was it a
psychotic break, a dream, an epiphany? Or,
is it something beyond nature?<sup>5</sup> The realm of the moral inevitably
points beyond itself, nature to metaphysics and theology, being to the ground
of being. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
There is likely every possible
interpretation, religious & otherwise, already written about the meaning of
the repeating day - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, secular,
multiple universes, etc. The film,
however - and to make the point again - leaves this unsaid. In doing so, it leaves open this largest of
questions, and, by leaving it open, <i>Groundhog
Day </i>accomplishes two things. First,
it leaves the film accessible to all – it professes no specific creed. Second, in pointing to this, but leaving it
open to all, it also underscores the universality of the moral realm based on nature
– which is the movie’s theme, ultimately, even if it points beyond it.<sup>6</sup> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the
poem "Trees," from which Phil quotes the one line in the pivotal
scene, and which I reproduce below, human art is presented as hopelessly
inferior to nature. We might note that
this film attempts to reveal to us human nature through art. Perhaps the reference to this poem is an
acknowledgment of humility, an acknowledgment of the limited ability of human
art to give a fully adequate account of nature. Even if this is necessarily so, even if <i>Groundhog Day</i> is at best a humble
attempt - a mere sketch, as it were - we its recurring audience can rightly
conclude that Ramis and Murray do succeed - on a small scale, in small town America, the
type of place where adolescents full of wanderlust might complain that “nothing
much happens” – in presenting to us a broad view of human nature, of human
goodness, mercy, and love, of virtue and human excellence, of the meaning of
human happiness, and of the deepest longings of a man’s soul. What is all the more remarkable is that they
do so at a lively clip and with a light heart – they do so while laughing all
the way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
Trees<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I think that
I shall never see<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A poem
lovely as a tree,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A tree whose
hungry mouth is prest<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Against the
sweet earth’s flowing breast;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A tree that looks
at God all day, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And lifts
her leafy arms to pray;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A tree that
may in summer wear <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A nest of
robins in her hair;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Upon whose
bosom snow has lain;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Who
intimately lives with rain.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Poems are
made by fools like me, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But only God
can make a tree. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 1.25in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->-<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Joyce Kilmer<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Notes <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->1) Rita’s list of traits she is looking for in a
man: humble, intelligent, supportive,
funny, romantic, courageous, physically attractive without vanity, kind,
sensitive, gentle, unafraid to cry in front of her, likes animals and children
(and doesn’t mind changing “poopy” diapers), plays an instrument, and loves his
mother. It’s a long list. Of interest, Phil comes closer to what she
thinks she wants after his transformation than when he tries to be what she
wants in order to seduce her. In the
end, he’s still probably not the perfect image of a man she thought she desired;
he’s instead a virtuous version of Phil Connors. There is great variation in human nature,
after all, even if that variation has natural limits. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->2) “Winter slumbering in the open air, Wears on
his smiling face a dream of Spring!” A
nice sentiment delivered cheerfully, but worth noting that it is from the
melancholy Coleridge poem “Work without Hope.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->3) It would be interesting at greater length to
contrast that claim with that of other films from the same era. For example, and briefly, 1) <i>Joe vs. the Volcano</i> (civilization is unnatural
and puts Man in chains) 2<i>) Fight Club</i>
(nihilistic view of Man, which can be rescued through sublimation of pure
Romantic Love) 3) <i>The English Patient</i>
(typical Romantic 19th century novel type view that life can have an elevated
meaning though pursuit of pure passion and Romantic Love, silly conventions
like marriage and adultery be damned).</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->4) I am reminded here of a story Allan Bloom
tells about teaching a class with the Nobel Prize winning novelist Saul Bellow:
“Once in class I said, with a rhetorical flourish, that all nineteenth-century
novels were about adultery. A student objected that she knew some which were
not. My co-teacher, Saul Bellow, interjected, ‘Well, of course, you can have a
circus without elephants.’ And that’s about it.” (Allan Bloom, <i>Love and Friendship </i>p. 209).
I was also reminded of this story when the “Ringling Bros. and Barnum
& Bailey Circus” announced in 2015, under pressure and after lawsuits from
animal rights groups, that it would stop using elephants in its shows. The last elephants performed May 1,
2016. The circus folded and ceased
operations in May of 2017 after 146 years in business. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->5) Is it perhaps a stretch to note that the
closing song, “Almost Like Being In Love,” is originally sung by the character
Tommy in the musical <i>Brigadoon </i>after
he falls in love with Fiona who is from the magical town in Scotland he and his
friend have stumbled upon that only exists for one day each hundred years?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">
</span><!--[endif]-->6) Consider, from the standpoint of one revealed
religion, the natural justice written into men’s hearts, men for whom the
revelation is unavailable. Deuteronomy
4:6: “Keep therefore and do them; for
this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which
shall hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and
understanding people.’”<o:p></o:p></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-85610772457962592262015-10-17T12:23:00.001-07:002015-10-18T11:05:49.224-07:00Epstein on Natural Law, Ancient and Modern<div class="MsoNormal">
A few brief thoughts I may return to later, time and study
permitting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the many wonderful things about our modern life is
how quickly and easily accessible things are which would have been either
inaccessible or time-consuming to access just a few brief years ago. I recently stumbled upon a couple of Richard
Epstein talks recorded on youtube. They <i>virtually</i>
allow one to attend those talks from the past – from any time and place. How remarkable, if you pause for a moment to
not take the development for granted. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This one here, in particular, is well worth watching: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ge4tYI8Vk" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ge4tYI8Vk</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is entitled “Natural Law in Ancient and Modern Guise.” It is from 2010, and runs about one hour,
with extra time for questions/answers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Epstein, a prolific academic writer and thinker, speaks, as
always, in complete paragraphs, quickly and effortlessly. He clearly knows his topics backwards,
forwards, and sideways. Even if one is
inclined to disagree with him altogether, or in part, it is always most
challenging and rewarding to hear the opposite side of the argument cogently
argued.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For those inclined to agree, watch it twice. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or thrice. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I find that many who think well and deeply about political
theory and philosophy are relatively uninformed about, or ignore altogether,
economics and the revolution in economic life over the last quarter millennium. Economists, however, often have a naïve or
diminished view – or even an unmanly contempt for - the political and cultural
structure that necessarily provides the foundation for a free and peaceful
economic life. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Epstein falls into neither camp. He has a commanding grasp of both economic
theory and of political philosophy. He
comes at all this, somewhat uniquely, from the standpoint of the law, and as a
law professor. As a non-lawyer I find this
intriguing. When he talks about economics
and political theory, he typically thinks about not just the theory and broad “constitutional”
questions (meant here not to only refer to the US constitution) but also the very
specific legal issues that arise. His
description of Roman law and the pre-Thomistic “natural law” is fascinating. He ties this to Anglo-American law, written
and unwritten.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(There is also an insightful question and answer exchange
around the question of natural right and natural law. One is reminded that Leo Strauss pointed out
that the ancient philosophers contrasted “nature” and “law/custom[nomos].” Justinian Roman law, one assumes, could think
about laws which are natural [not customary] since the Empire had created a
universal political and legal system, a situation distinct from that of the
ancient city).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Epstein's strong preference is for the classical liberal position,
in politics, in law, and in economics.
He explains how these are intrinsically linked. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The concluding remark is this: “Essentially the lesson is, unless you can
master the ancient conceptions of natural law, you will never be able to do
modern public policy well.” How he gets
there is an hour well spent. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Epstein also has a “new” book out (2014) that is on my list
to read. “The Classical Liberal
Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government”<br />
<br />
Amazon link: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Classical-Liberal-Constitution-Government/dp/0674724895" target="_blank"> http://www.amazon.com/The-Classical-Liberal-Constitution-Government/dp/0674724895</a><o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
He gives another fine talk on that book and on Hayek here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhqXIc5CEpU" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhqXIc5CEpU</a></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-61220844740677631342015-07-03T12:41:00.000-07:002015-07-07T05:45:20.013-07:00The Best Defense is to Take Offense?<div class="MsoNormal">
This week Dr. Bob Wachter wrote a blog post that is the
first attempt I am aware of by a member of the ABIM leadership to defend the
organization against the now widespread allegations of egregious waste and derelict
stewardship. It can be read here: <a href="http://community.the-hospitalist.org/2015/06/29/the-abim-controversy-where-the-critics-are-right-where-theyre-wrong-and-why-i-feel-the-need-to-speak-out/" target="_blank">"<o:p></o:p><span style="background-color: white; color: #aaaaaa; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12.6000003814697px; line-height: 21px;">The ABIM Controversy: Where the Critics are Right, Where They’re Wrong, and Why I Feel the Need to Speak Out."</span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He starts his piece in a pique of moral indignation: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
With the help of social media and a
journalist who has turned this matter into a cause célèbre with an unfortunate
mixture of half-truths and innuendo, the critics have managed to control the
debate, and people who believe in the values of the Board have been cowed into
silence. It feels vaguely McCarthyish, and there comes a time when silence is
immoral. This feels like such a time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Joseph McCarthy was of course the U.S. Senator interrogating
possible communists. However, an
investigative reporter, an electrophysiologist blogger, et al. do not sit in
the seat of power. No, it is the ABIM
that holds great power over the lives and careers of 200,000 physicians in this
country. Indeed, if one must use a 20<sup>th</sup>
century Republican politician’s name as an adjective appropriately in this case
to describe a person who holds a position of great responsibility and power and
believes himself to be persecuted against all evidence, the correct word
is: <i>Nixonian,
</i>and it applies not to his detractors but to the good doctor himself<i>.</i> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, there are many aspects of this ABIM controversy. They include, but are not limited to 1) the
issue of certification, re-certification, MOC, etc. 2) the existence of, reason
for, politics of, and funding of the ABIM Foundation, and 3) the financial
details. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the interest of space and time, and since it is covered
so exhaustively elsewhere, I will leave aside #1 and #2 for now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Regarding number 3: After
reading Dr. Wachter’s post I have re-watched Dr. Cutler’s debate with Dr. Baron
from December of 2014 and re-read Dr. Westby Fisher’s posts and Kurt Eichenwald’s
Newsweek stories. What does Dr. Wachter have
to say about the allegations of egregious waste, lavish spending, exorbitant
salaries, and derelict stewardship of trust and resources? Does he dispute the facts? If not, does he offer an explanation that addresses the specifics?
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s looks at his piece.
Against the charge that “The Board is All About the Money” he
writes: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
As Board members, we constantly
struggled with balancing our fiduciary responsibility to the organization
(including to pay the salaries and the costs of doing the Board’s current work
and innovating) with the burden to the diplomates. ABIM’s MOC process currently
costs physicians about $200-$400 per year (the low end for the internal
medicine certificate only; the higher range is for those maintaining multiple
certificates, like IM/cardiology/interventional cardiology). These costs are
consistent with the fees of other ABMS boards. The argument that this
represents an impossible expense to the vast majority of practicing physicians
is hogwash.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s it. They “struggled,”
and the cost is not that much per person anyway, so “shut up” (leave aside for
the moment those that dispute the true cost). [Edit 7/7/15 I will add that it should go without saying that when the Board authorizes wasteful spending it does neither its fiduciary duty to the organization nor its duty to the Diplomates]<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
His section regarding salaries and the Condo is equally
pithy. He only addresses the CEO’s
salary, for example. Let’s ignore that
for now and assume the CEO deserves every penny. If I round up to one million
for his salary/benefits, we are still left with salaries/benefits for the ABIM
and its Foundation of $29,000,000/year!
This is to run what should essentially be a testing and record-keeping
company, if a large and sophisticated one at that. And again, this is not the budget, just the
payroll. What about the assistant to the
President who Dr. Cutler pointed out made $689,000 in 2011? Do we finally learn her job description or
why she was worth this from Dr. Wachter?
He was on the Board of Directors at the time and presumably voted on the budget. No, it’s not mentioned. How about the two researchers on the benefits
of MOC who made $450,000/year? Are the
salaries mentioned? Is the embarrassing conflict
of interest mentioned? No, nothing. Even the “Senior Vice President of
Communications” reportedly was compensated $293,000 in 2013. The point is it takes a lot of employees
earning large salaries to reach a sum of $29,000,000/year. I
should point out that these are not my facts.
I am simply repeating what I have seen and read reported. No one from the ABIM has substantively
disputed the numbers, nor defended them.
Despite the length of his post, Dr. Wachter also simply ignores them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Regarding the Condo he essentially admits that it looks bad,
but was really “designed to be revenue neutral” compared to hotel room costs
for consultants. This is thin gruel, if
not outright laughable. First, the only
reason to buy rather than rent is to save money, not break even; and if looking to
save money Dr. Cutler points out less expensive units practically across the
street. He relates having been told that
the Condo the ABIM did purchase was the most expensive real estate in
Philadelphia per square foot! One comes
to the inevitable conclusion that thrift was not exactly a concern at the ABIM
in those days. With the caveat that any
analysis of the finances of the condo vs. hotel rooms obviously leaves aside
the fact that the condo would not suffice if more than three rooms were needed
at a time, let’s take a quick look at the numbers. Traditionally, financial theory in retirement
has suggested that 4%/year may be spent from a well-invested nest egg without
affecting the long-term real principal.
Some argue that this is too high given today’s interest rates and equity
valuations. So, let’s be very
conservative and take 2.3 million invested in index funds and treasuries, and
spend 2.5%/year on hotel rooms. This
comes to $57,500/year. The condo’s
expenses (not taking into account depreciation) were roughly $42,000/year (per
Dr. Wes’ post). So we have at least $100,000/year
in hotel costs that the condo represents if “revenue neutral.” I will let this speak for itself. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we see, then, Dr. Wachter does not seriously address
any of the allegations of financial waste that have come to light in the last
seven to eight months. On salaries, Four
Seasons meetings, etc. he simply ignores most of the points made by Dr. Cutler
in December, let alone the mountain of additional information that has surfaced
since. In the end, one can only assume
that he neither disputes the facts of the allegations nor defends the ABIM’s
actions (assuming the facts correct) for a simple reason: There is no credible defense. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In his penultimate paragraph he states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
I further believe that this process
must be crafted by members of the profession itself – and if we abrogate that
responsibility, others will fill the void.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, to that a great chorus of readers cries out: “If the unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative,
monopolistic, and profligate ABIM is self-government, then give me George III.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He ends with a martial metaphor:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
“Throw the bums out!” can feel like
progress. But, as the Arab Spring protesters have learned, sometimes it’s
relatively easy to tear down institutions. Rebuilding them is much harder.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is hyperbole, or course, but I will indulge it. It is true that more often than not bloody
political revolutions and coups do not turn out well. There is a document, 239 years old tomorrow,
that addresses this fact:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed
to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce
them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw
off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Busy internists are not your typical torch and pitchfork
crowd. Prudence is their virtue. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do not know how this controversy will ultimately end,
but I do know that Dr. Wachter’s post is not an apology, not an adequate
defense, and not a way forward.<o:p></o:p></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-3333900947746577122015-04-29T10:45:00.000-07:002015-04-29T15:03:40.901-07:00Why the ACP needs to comment on the ABIM scandal <div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It has been now over four months since Dr. Wes Fisher’s post
on the ABIM luxury townhouse and since Dr. Charles Cutler’s debate with Richard
Baron: events which began the exposure of the details of the ABIM financial
scandal. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It has now been roughly two and six weeks respectively since
Kurt Eichenwald’s Newsweek articles on the ABIM and its financial scandal. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While they have commented on the maintenance of
certification process at the ABIM, the <st1:place><st1:placename>American</st1:placename>
<st1:placetype>College</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Physicians - which regards itself as <i>the</i> organization for internal medicine -
has yet to issue a statement regarding the ABIM financial scandal or its
details. On the ACP advocate blog
(authored by Bob Doherty, ACP’s head lobbyist) over this period of time,
one can read about not just the recent SGR saga, but also handguns, and on his
twitter feed he shared a story about the <st1:stockticker>POT</st1:stockticker>US
and the new Surgeon General addressing the “health effects of climate
change.” However, nowhere is there any
coverage of this huge story, a scandal that directly affects internists.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So: Handguns and
Global Warming from the ACP, but not a word on these very serious allegations
of fiscal impropriety at the certifying board. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How can this be? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some suggest that the ACP has a conflict of interest in that
they profit from test prep materials and courses. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some also suggest that there is a revolving door, of sorts,
between many of these organizations. A
case in point: the former longtime CEO
of ABIM, Christine Cassel, has listed on her bio at the National Quality Forum
that she is a Master of ACP and former President of ACP. So far as I know, no one at ACP has <i>publicly</i>
questioned her leadership while at the ABIM. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the moment, however, put aside these thoughts. Moral courage (to overstate the ethical requirements
in this case, certainly) is not doing the right thing when it easy and
profitable. Quite the contrary, courage
is doing what is right when it is difficult, or otherwise against one’s
personal interests. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The ACP should do what is right on behalf of its current and
potential members and publicly express concern about the allegations of
financial mismanagement at the ABIM. At some point, the failure to condemn is
to condone. That point, if not yet behind
us, will be past soon. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the end, can a voluntary organization afford <i>not </i>to speak on behalf of its
dues-paying members when the cause is right?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
References:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dr. Wes Blog: <a href="http://drwes.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://drwes.blogspot.com/</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Newsweek articles: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/ugly-civil-war-american-medicine-312662.html" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/2015/03/27/ugly-civil-war-american-medicine-312662.html</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/certified-medical-controversy-320495" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/certified-medical-controversy-320495</a></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-813731798684289402015-03-10T17:03:00.002-07:002015-03-10T18:46:50.389-07:00The Board of Directors at the ABIM: Will they defend their record? Or were they apathetic, incompetent, or deceived?For readers that would like more detail, I will refer to my prior post, as well as to Dr. Westby Fisher’s comprehensive coverage of the ABIM scandal, on his blog: <a href="http://drwes.blogspot.com/">http://drwes.blogspot.com/</a> <br />
<br />
Today, in Newsweek, Kurt Eichenwald wrote a piece, that updates this scandal on a mainstream media site. Link here: <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/ugly-civil-war-american-medicine-312662">http://www.newsweek.com/ugly-civil-war-american-medicine-312662</a> <br />
<br />
With gems such as: “…the ABIM went from being a genial organization…to something more akin to a protection racket.” And, best of all: “the ABIM Foundation that does…well, it’s not quite clear what it does. Its website read like a lot of mumbo-jumbo.” <br />
<br />
So, we have here a protection racket with its spin-off “mumbo-jumbo” cousin. For those counting, that’s mumbo-jumbo with a $30,000,000/year payroll (not total budget, just salaries and benefits between the two organizations! [source: tax records as documented by Charles Kroll]). <br />
<br />
All of this brings me to this point. Some like to imply that blame for this scandal should be placed mainly on the prior president/CEO (the beleaguered Christine Cassel, currently the head of the National Quality Forum, who was forced to resign last year from high-paying corporate boards due to serious conflicts of interest: <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/payments-to-ceo-raise-new-conflicts-at-top-health-quality-group">http://www.propublica.org/article/payments-to-ceo-raise-new-conflicts-at-top-health-quality-group</a>). <br />
<br />
However, sitting on the board of any organization is a serious endeavor that deserves to be treated as such. It is not only a CV-builder and not only a place to nurture relationships. Unless they can prove that they were actively deceived by Dr. Cassel, et al., the board members past and present are ultimately responsible for what the ABIM has become. The current names and bios of board members are readily available at the ABIM and ABIM foundation websites. <br />
<br />
These men and women who have served on the board of the ABIM over the last ten to fifteen years have only two possible primary responses to this scandal and their involvement with it: <br />
<br />
1) Defend the organization as currently constituted. <br />
<br />
No human institution is perfect, of course. An adequate defense, however, would recognize that while there will always be minor shortcomings a clear and convincing argument is necessary regarding both the charges of impropriety (luxury townhouse, etc.) and how it is that the ABIM needs a thirty million dollar payroll. It is not easy to imagine such an argument being a cogent one. <br />
<br />
2) Demonstrate that he or she actively voted against or otherwise fought against these developments. <br />
<br />
<br />
Other than 1 or 2, the only other possible explanations for the board members' work at ABIM are the ones I list in my title: apathy, incompetence, or having been deceived by the leadership. <br />
<br />
Which is it? W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-70831319574132191352015-02-09T04:29:00.001-08:002015-06-17T13:29:21.962-07:00Five Questions for Richard BaronFirst some background: <br />
<br />
There is controversy of late regarding the ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine) and its financial dealings. Allegations range from poor fiscal stewardship to worse. This includes the purchase (and now sale at a loss) of a 2+ million dollar condo in Philadelphia, etc. <br />
<br />
Dr. Westby Fisher’s blog has many of the details and links: <a href="http://drwes.blogspot.com/">http://drwes.blogspot.com</a><br />
<br />
Original piece on the condo: <a href="http://drwes.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-abim-foundation-choosing-wisely-and.html">http://drwes.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-abim-foundation-choosing-wisely-and.html</a> <br />
<br />
Description of a Philadelphia medicine town hall meeting regarding ABIM and MOC, but also the condo, salaries, poor stewardship of funds at the ABIM, etc. featuring a debate between Charles Cutler (former chair ACP board of regents) and Richard Baron (CEO of ABIM): <a href="http://jedismedicine.blogspot.com/2014/12/abim-has-lost-its-way.html">http://jedismedicine.blogspot.com/2014/12/abim-has-lost-its-way.html</a> <br />
<br />
Not to be missed is this excellent video of that debate: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pamedsoc.org/MainMenuCategories/Education/MOC/Video-MOC-Debate.html">http://www.pamedsoc.org/MainMenuCategories/Education/MOC/Video-MOC-Debate.html</a><br />
<br />
All of which leads to my five questions for Richard Baron, CEO of ABIM: <br />
<br />
1. Do you dispute Dr. Cutler’s facts from your recent debate with him in Philadelphia? <br />
<br />
2. Were you the Treasurer of the ABIM at the time of the condo purchase? <br />
<br />
3. What is the job description of the non-M.D. employee (assistant to the president) at ABIM who made $700,000 in one year? <br />
<br />
4. As a follow-up to #3, do you stand by your reply to Dr. Cutler that “salaries get set as salaries get set?” <br />
<br />
5. Depending on your replies to questions #1-4, how does ABIM have credibility when it comes to hectoring physicians on the cost-effective use of limited resources? W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-69017357493002027132014-11-29T12:18:00.002-08:002014-11-29T12:18:38.260-08:00Picking on Piketty<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Much has been written about the weighty bestseller: Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For brief, column-length responses that take the other side, consider, e.g. the great Richard Epstein:</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/06/the_piketty_fallacy_122547.html"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Piketty Fallacy </span></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.hoover.org/research/pikettys-rickety-economics" target="_blank">Piketty's Rickety Economics</a> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And now, a comprehensive and lengthy review, that, as expected, is an economic education - nay, an education - in itself. For those who are by nature sympathetic to Piketty’s assessment and conclusions, think more clearly about the revolutionary political and economic change in the world over the last two centuries. A better critique, after all, deserves a better initial understanding:</span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/docs/pdf/PikettyReviewEssay.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Measured, Unmeasured, Mismeasured, and Unjustified Pessimism: A Review Essay of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century Deirdre Nansen McCloskey </span></a>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-185740624111386062013-11-25T16:03:00.000-08:002015-09-20T05:53:21.766-07:00Is the Examined Life Worth Living?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
At Prof. Larry Arnhart’s blog (here:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/11/natural-right-and-natural-history.html"><span style="color: purple;">http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/11/natural-right-and-natural-history.html</span></a>) I pose a question in the comment section that is, perhaps, unfair in its length. Here I will attempt to answer my own question.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Like many questions, the answer implies questions: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this case two, namely the chief philosophic questions of 1) reason vs. revelation and 2) the philosophic life vs. the non-philosophic life (or the philosopher vs. “the gentleman,” or philosophy vs. “the city”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These two questions are related, in that the non-philosophic life is commonly, if not always, also religious.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Since reason (i.e. philosophy and science) can never disprove theology, and since theology and revelation do not explain through proof, there is an unresolvable mystery, conflict, or tension at some basic level between the two.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In Arnhart’s extended argument, a human desire for religion is natural, and human happiness comes from leading a good life, one that is overall in accordance with what is best for us by nature over the arc of one’s life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He lists twenty natural desires, of which one (number nineteen) is this desire for religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will add here, that I find the argument reasonable and empirically cogent. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
However, it is still uncertain how this works logically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can reason, science, show that human nature desires religious belief - while remaining agnostic itself by necessity - without discussing the truth of the religious belief, and hence without undermining religious belief?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or, put another way, who leads the fuller and hence happier life in this formulation, the religious believer, or the scientist/philosopher who makes the argument that, among other things, religious belief is one component of a happy life, while at the same time not believing (even if not denying belief)?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Even if we leave the question of reason vs. revelation aside and approach these natural desires (and true human happiness) from the standpoint of reason alone, we do not avoid paradox (I would suggest).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I claim in my original question, our natural sense of justice typically desires a support that is not fully supplied by reason alone (even if nihilism itself is avoided).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who then is happier, the just and moral non-philosophic man, or the “philosopher/scientist” who understands better the natural basis for morality (again, within this argument)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This too would seem to be unresolvable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly human reason cannot prove itself to be an inferior way of life, using its own tools, or that would simply be a peculiarly circular form of self-destruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But how exactly does one show that humans have a natural desire for justice - and then claim that true natural justice is more limited than our desire often demands – yet prove the superiority of living with this understanding (as compared to the simpler but seemingly more fulfilling sense of justice that is innate)?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This question about the superiority, or lack thereof, of the philosophic way of life, is not new, of course, but is coeval with the beginning of the philosophic way of life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arnhart has addressed it explicitly on his blog several places, such as here:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2011/07/strauss-on-supremacy-of-philosophic.html"><span style="color: purple;">http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2011/07/strauss-on-supremacy-of-philosophic.html</span></a>. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">and here:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2012/05/anastaplo-on-strauss-aquinas-and.html"><span style="color: purple;">http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2012/05/anastaplo-on-strauss-aquinas-and.html</span></a></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Update 9/2015<br />
<br />
Very tardy here, but I should update the above post to note that six months ago Prof Arnhart in responding to my second comment on this post: <a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2015/03/nietzschean-nihilism-natural-right-and.html">http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2015/03/nietzschean-nihilism-natural-right-and.html</a> addresses a version of my long question from 2013 that is the first link at the top of this post:<br />
<br />
WB: "Is it possible that - rather than being Nietzschean - Strauss was open to
something akin to your extended argument as being true, but still a "deadly
truth" at that? (Even, of course, if you reject this conclusion). <br /><br />You
have written that a virtue ethics based on our human nature is narrower than a
“cosmic” morality. However, one could argue that when we consider truly ghastly
and heinous crimes our natural moral sentiments seem to desire such a cosmic
morality, or at least something closer to it. If this is true, then it is our
evolved human nature itself that desires a morality grander in scale than can be
supplied by the natural right based on that human nature alone. <br /><br />Perhaps
Strauss could have accepted the broad bases of your argument (as he hints at
them in the introduction to NRH), but would have been skeptical of them as being
a sufficient ground for most "non-philosophers'" conception of justice? "<br />
<br />
LA: "That's a good suggestion. As you indicate, Strauss did say that the lack of
cosmic support for what we care about was "the most terrible truth," and a
Darwinian natural right would teach that terrible truth.<br /><br />Similarly, the
Nietzsche of "Human, All Too Human" thought that Darwinian science would not
satisfy those human beings who needed a metaphysical purposefulness for life." </div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-42423117067530030342013-11-23T13:51:00.000-08:002013-11-24T11:13:49.173-08:00Arnhart Reviews E.O. Wilson<a href="http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/11/natural-right-and-natural-history.html">http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2013/11/natural-right-and-natural-history.html</a><br />
<br />
Larry Arnhart reviewing E.O. Wilson in the Claremont Review of Books is a must-read, and does not disappoint. <br />
<br />
His blog is excellent, in general. His books, <em>Darwinian Natural Right,</em> and <em>Darwinian Conservatism</em>, should be required reading. His writing is clear and erudite and speaks for itself. "DC" is emphatically not "social darwinism." It could just as easily be called "How human nature and biology support classic liberalism."<br />
<br />
The subtitle to DNR, "The Biological Ethics of Human Nature" is instructive here. Another summary might be "how modern biology is compatible with an Aristotlean ethics." I cannot recommend it highly enough. <br />
<br />
<br />
Links to books:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Natural-Right-Biological-Philosophy/dp/0791436942/ref=la_B001K8DKAI_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385253757&sr=1-2">http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Natural-Right-Biological-Philosophy/dp/0791436942/ref=la_B001K8DKAI_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385253757&sr=1-2</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Conservatism-Disputed-Larry-Arnhart/dp/1845401565/ref=la_B001K8DKAI_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385253757&sr=1-3">http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Conservatism-Disputed-Larry-Arnhart/dp/1845401565/ref=la_B001K8DKAI_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385253757&sr=1-3</a>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-2445353624594275512013-11-23T13:04:00.000-08:002013-11-23T15:06:58.533-08:00In Praise of Hobbies<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It is only recently, in middle age, that I have developed any understanding for the ubiquitous blank on the personal information form:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“hobbies.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In my youth, I assumed a hobby – such an antiquated term - must be stamp-collecting, or flying radio controlled airplanes as part of a club, or some such endeavor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is more, and what is worse, it seemed like such a commitment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“These are my hobbies.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“I collect civil war books, and to the end of my days I will spend all my free time collecting, memorizing, and ruminating on only things pertaining to the civil war.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“I will join a club with like-minded members.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But a hobby – an avocational pursuit or interest - is in actual fact the non-committal pursuit <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">par excellence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Whether sport, recreation, simple pleasure, or intense intellectual interest, an avocational pursuit has the virtue that it can be pursued for its own sake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And like any whim, disregarded whenever time no longer permits, or when the fire of that passion abates; and, if desired, picked back up next month or next year.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The hobbyist need not make the fatal error of confusing vegetable gardening with agriculture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The landscape gardening enthusiast need never run a nursery nor supervise a crew planting petunias at a strip mall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
To try one’s hand at learning to cook well may be a simple joy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How wonderful to not need, in that case, to find employment as a chef!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
And in this modern world, one need not always look far to find information about one’s current whim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An obscure book is always one Amazon click away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And likely some discussion board exists that may point one to more questions, or occasionally a clear answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “long tail” (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail"><span style="color: purple;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_tail</span></a>) contains every niche interest and is available now to all at the speed of one’s broadband connection.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Vocationally speaking, we are all usually specialists, of one sort or another, in the end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ricardian comparative advantage demands it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And, as the recipients of the resulting productivity and economic growth, we are all much the better for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those of us who love our professions are doubly blessed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But in a hobby, one need not change careers nor manage disagreeable people nor make payroll - nor collect stamps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One is never too late to start.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can always delay, restart, or quit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the realm of the novice, the amateur, the polymath, the autodidact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I think I now, finally, understand that blank.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-8329891287706052772013-11-16T14:42:00.000-08:002013-11-23T15:07:51.871-08:00New vs. Old Keynesian Stimulus (Cochrane) <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">John Cochrane is a professor at the Univ. of Chicago in financial economics. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">His blog, </span><a href="http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman;">The Grumpy Economist</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, is quite good. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Friday’s post, </span><a href="http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2013/11/new-vs-old-keynesian-stimulus.html" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman;">New vs. Old Keynesian Stimulus</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, is simple, clear, and excellent. Before you talk about the truth of the models, the evidence or lack thereof, or argue about good and bad, better and worse, understand the assumptions. I’ll leave his post to speak for itself.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Also, if you have any interest in financial economics I’d highly recommending returning to the main section of his blog and reading the posts about his father-in-law (E. Fama)’s recent Nobel prize, shared with two others. While there read about the two others (Shiller and Hansen). </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">If you don’t mind a little math, and want to read a nice in-depth survey of asset-pricing research, you might also try Cochrane’s “Presidential Address: Discount Rates.<strong><span style="font-family: NewCenturySchlbk-Bold;">” </span></strong>It can be found here: <a href="http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/discount_rates_jf.pdf" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple;">http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/discount_rates_jf.pdf</span></a></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">For an excellent book length review of research on expected returns (with less math), <em>Expected </em>Returns By Antti Ilmanen (a Chicago PhD) is well-regarded, and worth reading twice. And what is more he’s a Finn – how often do you see that? </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Amazon link: </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Expected-Returns-Investors-Harvesting-Rewards/dp/1119990726" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman;">http://www.amazon.com/Expected-Returns-Investors-Harvesting-Rewards/dp/1119990726</span></a></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-47073470738121654692013-11-16T14:39:00.002-08:002023-09-17T15:16:14.331-07:00The Second Man Born, the First to Die <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Pastoral. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">a (1)</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of, relating to, or composed of shepherds or herdsmen </span><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">(2)</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> devoted to or based on livestock raising </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">b</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of or relating to the countryside </span><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> not urban </span><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">pastoral</span></em><span style="font-family: Arial;"> setting></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">c</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> portraying or expressive of the life of shepherds or country people especially in an idealized and conventionalized manner </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><</span><em><span style="font-family: Arial;">pastoral</span></em><span style="font-family: Arial;"> poetry></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">d</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> pleasingly peaceful and innocent </span><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idyllic" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: #0088cc;">idyllic</span></a> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">2</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">a</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of or relating to spiritual care or guidance especially of a congregation </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">b</span></em><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> of or relating to the <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pastor" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: #0088cc;">pastor</span></a> of a church </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">(Merriam-Webster). </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Pastoral. Idyllic. The Lord is my Shepherd. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It is not only the nineteenth century, response-to-the-enlightenment, Romantics who have romanticized pastoralism. Real pastoralism, however, developed in tandem with, or shortly after the pre-historical dawn of agriculture. Pastoralists may have been (and still are in some places) nomads, but they were not hunter-gatherers. Not that they never hunted, nor gathered, of course. Further, they were not peaceful, or at least not more so than people in general. And in many times and places, they were, indeed, fierce tribal warriors.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The historical, anthropologic, and archaeologic records have limits, naturally, but scholars have described in detail what is known about the complex interactions between sedentary farmers (who often had livestock, as well), and the pastoralists with their nomadic herds. There is a division, as well, between the pastoralism that existed before and after the development of horsemanship. There are also important geographic considerations. In open areas, pastoralists were especially successful. This is true of the Middle East, North Africa, and the great Eurasian steppe.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">One of the best books I have read in the last twenty years is <em>War in Human Civilization</em> by Azar Gat . It is a thoroughly engaging “big” history that looks at the history of humankind – through the lens of violent conflict - in three broad epochs: 1. Hunter/Gatherer 2. Agricultural/Pastoral 3. Modernity. It is scholarly and long (673 pages not including 100+ pages of endnotes) but remarkably accessible and clearly written. As such, while it contains more traditional military history, it is not limited to the “historical” era. In order to present the history of violent human interaction (the lines necessarily blur between homicide and “war” in this regard) it is necessary to sketch what is known of the history of humankind more generally, and this is accomplished splendidly. Due to these factors, I think the book would be of interest to those who would not normally be interested in military history specifically. Violence is, unfortunately, a part of human nature. The reading of this book pays great dividends in my opinion to those interested in understanding human nature. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It is my source for understanding, among other things, the rough outlines of what is known about the pastoralist peoples and their interactions with the agriculturalists. Often the pastoralists, particularly in more open areas, and particularly after the development of the horse (but not only after the advent of horsemanship) were the more successful aggressors against the agrarians:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">“…pastoral societies in general, for reasons we have already seen, tended to be more menacing to the farmers than the other way around. The evolution of horseback pastoralist and horseback fighting would vastly increase the pastoral threat. (p. 209)”</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In the Near East, examples are given regarding the various interactions, which ranged from outright conquest to theft and “protection-racket” type extortion and over-lordship, to more fluid cooperative and competitive relationships. The over-lordship of the pastoralists would often develop into a frank aristocratic relationship between the (former) pastoralist warriors and the subservient farmers. “These rulers, too, boasted that ‘their fathers had lived in tents. (p. 195).’” Some of this brief summary necessarily simplifies Mr. Gat’s much more thorough presentation, obviously. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">But with this in mind, it led me to an insight (unoriginal I am sure) regarding the Cain and Abel story – from which the title of the post derives. I will note that I mean this reading to be from the standpoint of scholarship more than that of the believer. However, I will note, that holy scripture demands to be read from the standpoint of belief; or put differently, to read scripture from outside of the position of at least potential belief, is to judge the claims before they are made. I will leave this difficulty aside, even as I acknowledge it. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">As we all know, the second creation story in the Bible begins in Eden when God creates Adam (“Man”) from the Adamah (fertile soil). “Eve,” created from one of Man’s ribs, has an etymology related to the word for “life.” So, while the story may not only be allegory, there are clearly archetypes in the original. Cain, the firstborn, is a farmer, we are told. “Cain,” evidently means either “created one,” and/or “smith.” Abel is a shepherd. “Abel” means “breath.”</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The story (KJV): </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: auto 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>.</span></div>
<div style="margin: auto 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> had respect unto Abel and to his offering:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">6 And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">9 And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">13 And Cain said unto the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, My punishment is greater than I can bear.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">15 And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">16 And Cain went out from the presence of the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Now, what is the meaning? In particular, why does God seemingly arbitrarily favor Abel’s offerings? Perhaps this is, among other things, an explanatory tale about the origins of both homicide (fratricide here) and war (here between archetypes of shepherds and farmers). </span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><em>In addition – and this was my insight from reading Gat’s book - perhaps it is an explanatory tale about why the shepherds seem to be favored in the world – that is, by God - over the farmers.</em> </span></strong><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Remember, as well, the nomadic pastoralist-warrior history of the Hebrews - God's chosen people - wandering in the desert before conquering the promised land. Remember, also that the holiest of holies resided in a tent before the building of the temple. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">2 Samuel 7:</span><br />
<div style="margin: auto 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> had given him rest round about from all his enemies;</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">2 That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> is with thee.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span> came unto Nathan, saying,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span>, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">6 Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Other similar textual questions to consider: Why is Cain, the farmer, the firstborn? What is the significance? Why is Cain the aggressor? Is it significant that the first man to die is a blameless pastoralist? Is it significant that the first man to die dies unnaturally?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman, times;">Now, the answers to such questions would be similar in nature to the insight I highlight above. And while that insight - i.e that pastoralists appear to be favored by God from the standpoint of the ancient Hebrews – perhaps adds some context that is not obvious to us, it clearly falls short of being a full analysis of the story. None of the above is a discussion of the central mystery of why God acts as He does, or why He favors what He favors, particularly from the standpoint of the believer. Nor, does it address the troubling question of evil in the world after the fall that is central to the story. It only serves as one more tool with which to better understand this story about the beginning of humanity, and the beginning of human evil. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman, times;">The problem of evil, of course, is a profound theologic question. The problem of evil, however, is not just a theologic one. It is not escaped by disbelief.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: times new roman, times;">Amazon link: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/War-Human-Civilization-Azar-Gat/dp/0199236631/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: #0088cc;">http://www.amazon.com/War-Human-Civilization-Azar-Gat/dp/0199236631/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t</span></a></span>W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-58272884964827315472013-11-16T14:37:00.000-08:002019-11-02T10:49:42.783-07:00Dining with General Patton<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Nearly twenty years ago, I heard a remarkable story told by a World War II veteran, who, as a young army surgeon visited his friend for one month at George Patton’s headquarters, somewhere in liberated France. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">His friend was Patton’s personal physician, and the veteran tells the story of how Patton and his closest entourage of aides and officers had encamped in a French chateau, using it as their temporary base of operations for what was to be the Third Army’s remarkably successful campaign. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">In this setting, in the midst of this, the world’s most monumental conflict, a formal dinner was served nightly. Patton, the visitor explained, traveled with his own private, full china, silver, and crystal service. The officers wore their dress uniforms; civilians, if present, black tie. And after dinner, the men retired to a large sitting room for brandy and cigars. Here Patton with great flourish would regale those assembled with stories and lessons from military history. Which stories, I didn’t get a chance to ask. With Patton, however, one imagines that they ranged from the Peloponnesian and Punic Wars, to Waterloo and Gettysburg; from Hannibal’s elephants to Pickett’s charge. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, perhaps equally remarkable, was that the veteran who told the story to me and a small group of medical students in 1996 was Michael Debakey, the pioneering cardiovascular surgeon. Dr. Debakey, himself a larger than life figure, would have been eighty-seven years old at the time when we met in his office (as he did monthly with the students on their surgery rotations). During the war, he explained, he had helped to coordinate the formation of what would later be known as the MASH units. However, his regard for that month, this memory of his time in the company of Patton, was clearly evident from the vigor with which he told the tale. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">But when Dr. Debakey’s telling of the war-time story ended– as sycophantic medical students are wont to do - my colleagues quickly changed the subject from Patton’s castle, to questions about the good doctor’s early aortic surgeries. My opportunity to ask more questions had passed, it seemed.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, the above re-telling is from memory. A cursory internet search reveals a few mentions of the story, but not in any greater depth. I wish I would have pushed to politely request a few more details, or offered to – reporter-like – record it for posterity. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">A lesson, perhaps, for the young listening to the old. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">7/5/17 Addendum: Now I find an unpublished interview (raw material that was meant for a biography which was never written) that I link to here: <a href="https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/fj/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101743405X312-doc" target="_blank"> Oral History Michael Debakey</a>. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the short interview. The Patton story starts on page six. Here you will find that a few of my remembered details are off (one week instead of one month, SW Germany [exact location forgotten] rather than France) - but the basic thrust of the story is accurate. In addition, you will get to read about how Dr. Debakey was threatened with a court martial by another general and how a paper he wrote with noted epidemiologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Wheeler_Beebe" target="_blank">Gilbert Beebe</a> put an end to that. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">11/2/19 Stale link to Debakey interview fixed, thanks to J. Eulert-Grehn on Twitter for pointing it out. </span></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-81555473405365874152013-11-16T14:35:00.000-08:002013-11-23T15:10:37.489-08:00Science and Statistics <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Here: </span><a href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman;">http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> is a link to a very well-done piece in a recent edition of the <em>Economist, </em>summarizing recent controversies in science, ranging from the well-publicized psychology “priming” literature debacle to the equally well-publicized biomedical/oncology bench research problems<em>.</em> </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">“Public-choice” theory in economics rigorously studies the incentives for people in government – not a new idea, admittedly, but one that was generally ignored by progressives who assumed experts could dispassionately administer a non-partisan, scientific, ever-expanding state, largely free from bias. Now, we are witnessing an increased realization that working scientists also respond to the very real incentives at play in the grant process – both directly financial and more generally in terms of career advancement. This is not a surprising finding, given human nature. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">That said, I want to emphasize and think through the math/theory behind one specific part of the article, namely that pertaining to “positive predictive value” of studies. For the math here, bear in mind that I am assuming bias-free, perfectly conducted research. The section I am referring to is that describing the Ioannadis paper and accompanying figure. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Normally what we think of as statistical significance is the “p” value less than .05, meaning that the odds of the “positive” results being due to chance are less than 5%. This is similar (but not exactly the same, evidently [see below at bottom]) to the false positive error rate. The false positive error rate (alpha, or type 1 error) is the exact analog of specificity for a test: false positives/(true negatives + false positives). Actually, of course the false positive rate is 1- specificity, specificity being true negatives/(true negatives + false positives). </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">“Power” is the analog of sensitivity: true positives/(true positives + false negative). Power, is a statement about the sample size needed to achieve a p value of less than .05 when measuring differences between two groups, for a given expected magnitude of difference. Much like a p value of less than .05 is considered standard, a value of .8 (or greater) is considered standard. We accept four times as many false negatives as false positives, goes the thinking. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">But much like with sensitivity and specificity in diagnostic testing, what we are often most interested in is neither the sensitivity nor the specificity but the positive and negative predictive values. These depend on both the sensitivity/specificity and the ever-important prevalence. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Take a diagnostic test that is both 90% sensitive and specific. If the prevalence of the disease in a population is only 10%, and all are tested, then the positive predictive value is only 50% (negative predictive value is 99%). The math here is easy. If there are 100 patients, 10 have disease and 90 are healthy. Of the ten, there are 9 positive tests and one false negative test (sensitivity of 90%). Of the ninety healthy, there are 81 negative tests and nine false positives (specificity of 90%). Of the 18 positive tests, half are false positives. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Now, if the prevalence is 50%, the positive and negative predictive values are 90%. Much better without changing either sensitivity nor specificity. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Now to the studies (and not just in medicine and biomedical research), as opposed to diagnostic tests. In the link above, the “prevalence” is 10%. That is, the assumption is that only about 10% of hypotheses studied are likely to be true. Scientists want to generate interesting, groundbreaking results, etc. is the argument here. In this case, with a p value of less than .05 and a power of .08, the positive predictive value of all “statistically significant” results is 64%. It gets worse if the power is lower, as may often be the case. This also is prior to considering the possibility of sloppy research, fraud, and all of the unconscious bias that may accompany the scientists’ work. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">So, clearly, in assessing the validity of results, we should be interested not only in p values, but in the “prevalence” or “pre-test” probability that results are likely to be true. This is, in the end, an unquantifiable number. And, since most “negative” studies are not published (unless they are interesting for being negative), this problem is compounded. Which means, of course, that the positive predictive value of any body of research taken in total is unknown! The fact that it may be more like 50-60% (or less) rather than 95% should be kept in mind, however. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">With inductive reasoning, there are varying degrees of certainty about what is knowledge. Engineering demands greater certainty than does paleontology. In my experience, engineers and physicists when outside of their area tend to look for a degree of certainty that is not possible. I don’t know any paleontologists, but I suspect, like economists and psychologists, they tend to draw firmer conclusions about what they know than the data justifies. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Which gives me the excuse to again post a favorite quote:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<em><strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia;">“for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits” </span></strong></em></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia;">Aristotle Nicomachean ethics, I.iii.1-4.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">P.S. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman;">http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> Original Ionnadis piece. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">One criticism is that he mis-identifies the false positive error rate (alpha) with the p-value. In practice, it seems, these are very similar values, however. Or so I say, as a non-statistician. </span></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-7635482636260954142013-11-16T14:20:00.002-08:002013-11-23T15:10:57.003-08:00The Pursuit Of Happiness <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">At the risk of over-simplifying, two of the great stumbling blocks in modern thought fall under the following categories:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">1)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Rousseau’s erroneous anthropology (as argued for in “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality”). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> Here he makes an explicit and self-conscious argument against the naturalist tradition. He argues directly against Aristotle’s biological understanding of man, in addition to the obvious argument against Locke’s Second Treatise view of man in the state of Nature. Rousseau’s “natural man” is a sort of solitary great ape, not a social creature at all. The transition to civil society reflects the uniquely malleable nature of humans, and stresses in turn the uniqueness of human cultural evolution, and history, compared to that of other species. Upon entering civil society, human kind is changed, fundamentally transformed, in this view. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> And as civil society continues to change, so does mankind – fundamentally and fully. Many of the left’s utopian assumptions about the lack of human nature, or about its infinite malleability over the intervening two centuries, rest implicitly on this argument, more or less. It is, however, an argument that – I write this without in any way denying the significance and power of human culture and history - suffers from that fact that it is simply biologically, anthropologically, and historically undeniably false. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">2)<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>The “positivist,” or scientific view, that radically separates “facts” from “values.” </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> This is the familiar brand of nihilism that no longer feels it possible to use human nature as a guide for judgments about better and worse. In addition to “Fact/Value” distinction, one sometimes here finds formulations such as “naturalist fallacy” or “is/ought” distinction. Time permitting, I will return to this at a later date. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> That said, there have been attempts to escape the nihilistic conclusion without taking the bull - head on - by the horns. One such attempt is the kind of radical utilitarianism associated with Bentham. In short, this takes simple cost/benefit analyses and extrapolates them to all human goods, including “the good” overall, and then sums the results across populations. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> Now, of course, one cannot just assume what is good for humans, without an analysis that uses some standard, or in its own language, without making a “value judgment.” So the attempt to sidestep the central problem fails from the beginning – before even getting started. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> This sort of error – one that stems from failing to tackle the issue head on – I have read referred to as “the Dizzy Dean effect.” (Dean, of course, was a standout baseball pitcher. He fractured his toe in the 1937 All Star game [“fractured, hell, the damn thing’s broken!” he is said to have replied]. Coming back too soon, he favored the foot in question, resulting in a long-standing injury to his pitching arm – due to the changed mechanics). A well-known example of the Dizzy Dean effect in constitutional law would be the <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> decision, where the justices feel compelled to cite psychology studies, etc., so that they can overturn <em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em> while still showing some respect for <em>stare decisis</em>. The better argument for the same, correct decision was Justice Harlan’s famous dissent in <em>Plessy</em>: “But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.” And, so, it should have been after the Civil War ammendments. Sometimes, you need to either stop pitching for awhile, or step on the damn toe. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> To return to the errors of an ungrounded utilitarianism, I finally get to the point of this rambling post: The economics/psycholology so-called “happiness” literature. You have no doubt seen these referecnes to countries graded not by GDP/capita, or economic freedom indices, etc. but by some “happiness” scale. Here is a link to a delightful article from 2012 by “Deirdre McCloskey” that pays back the time spent reading with a little wisdom: </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/103952/happyism-deirdre-mccloskey-economics-happiness" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple;">http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/103952/happyism-deirdre-mccloskey-economics-happiness</span></a></span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I will leave the article to speak for itself. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Suffice it to say, that it raises several questions, including: What is happiness? What is human nature? What is this Aristotlean concept of “eudaimonia.” Is an Aristotlean (teleologic) ethics consistent with modern science? </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">In addition, there is, as an aside, a jab placed squarely on the jaw of the “cult of statistical significance.” This points to broader epistemologic questions, and gives me a chance to post one of my favorite quotes:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia;">“Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premises of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; <strong><em>for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits;” </em></strong></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia;">Aristotle Nicomachean ethics, I.iii.1-4.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">(emphasis mine)</span><br />
<br />
Credit for "Dizzy Dean" effect: George Anastaplo's writings. I am not certain that he ever uses it specifically to refer to <em>Brown v. Board, </em>however.</div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-37131070827401829992013-11-16T14:18:00.001-08:002013-11-23T15:11:17.349-08:00The Monty Hall Problem <div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This is fun.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The “Monty Hall Problem” is a logical paradox. It fall into the category of “veridical paradoxes,” which evidently means one that seems patently false at first, but is demonstrably, and ultimately un-controversially true. As such, it is a paradox that reveals not the limits of human reason, but the patterns of human reason that are prone to error. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It is also a paradox, in that it became most famous through a 1990 Parade Magazine column by a woman known as Marilyn Vos Savant, who claims to hold the Guinness Record for having the world’s “highest IQ.” This is paradoxical on two counts: 1) Parade Magazine 2) According to Wikipedia this is her real name. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Here’s the problem for readers who have forgotten, or have never seen it:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">A game show host offers a guest a chance to win a prize (car). The prize is behind one of three doors. Behind the other two doors are booby prizes (goats). The guest chooses a door – say door 1. The host proceeds to open one of the other two doors (say door 2) to reveal a goat. The host then offers to let the guest switch his pick from door 1 to door 3. [Assume here that the host knows the correct door, and - to heighten the drama - will always open a goat-concealing door prior to allowing the switch].</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The question: should he switch?</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The answer: Yes! The player’s odds of owning a Buick will go from 1/3 to 2/3! </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I show the reason in the comment section below. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The Wikipedia entry is also quite good, for interested readers: </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem" rel="nofollow"><span style="color: purple; font-family: Times New Roman;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">. I will note, paradoxically, that this particular Wikipedia entry is significantly longer than the entry for “Zeno.” It is nearly as long as the entry for “Plato,” for that matter. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Plato may not be know for paradoxes, but is also fun, and is arguably more important than Monty Hall, Buicks, and Ms. Vos Savant. Perhaps this reveals not the limits of human reason, but the patterns that are prone to error. Now, back to watching videos of cats on the Internet. </span></div>
W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8313971739509868983.post-89156912783605134082013-11-16T13:57:00.000-08:002018-01-30T17:39:43.055-08:00On Tying and Cutting Knots The post below is a continuation of a comment made to a three year-old post, belonging to my good friend at the Lawodyssey blog. In any case, the best stories often start in the middle, I have read. <br />
<br />
In response to the thorny questions that arise during the gay marriage debates, a libertarian solution is sometimes put forward that marriage should be private, or left to society, and government should not license marriages. As Lawodyssey put it, this might be a way to cut this particular “Gordian Knot.” My question is if this is possible, even hypothetically, if not practically. And far from representing a neutral and classically liberal solution, is it in fact a normative stance in itself. The relationship of husband/wife has a rich and robust heritage in our legal system, and the common law antedates any of our positive law (I assume) in this regard. Would this all disappear, and how would cases by handled? All sorts of cases regarding property, taxes, inheritance, children, legal testimony, etc. would be affected. Take also a simple case of next-of-kin. Typically one’s spouse is, by default, one’s next of kin. Imagine the following example: A 45-year old married man with three minor children was himself an only child, and has parents who are deceased (relatively pre-maturely, but certainly not unimaginable). He is involved in some horrific motor vehicle accident, and the state trooper and hospital attempt to notify his next-of-kin. Under current law this is his wife. If the law does not recognize marriage in any sense, then this would be his closest living blood relative of adult age (aunt, uncle, cousin, etc.). This is clearly both normative (the state and law making a decision that his second degree relative is closer to him and more important than his wife) and nonsensical. The only legal solution would be to draft a medical power of attorney naming one’s spouse, or to invent a new legal definition for spouse, called something else. But we already have this name: husband/wife. We have an ancient word for the surviving spouse: widow/widower. We have no such word for the surviving brother/sister, let alone cousin, and for good reason. But to call a husband/wife something else would just be to take our current risible taste for calling secretaries “administrative assistants,” and waiters “servers,” to an Orwellian level. It seems, then, self-evident from the viewpoint of the traditional legal and commonsense understanding that marriage is the one relationship between non-relatives that supersedes all other relationships between relatives, i.e. to state the obvious: it is the conjugal union between “non-blood relatives” that creates “blood relatives”. Marriage is the origin of the family. <br />
<br />
If one concedes that there is difficulty divorcing marriage from the law, then one must actually pivot to think further about marriage, it seems to me. <br />
<br />
I realize that there has emerged a new, current consensus, more or less, on gay marriage, held by many educated and sophisticated people. The “strawman” simplistic version of this involves an argument that chalks up prior views on homosexuality (let alone the heretofore foreign notion of gay marriage) to simple unenlightened bigotry, along the lines of past views about religion or race. Careful reflection for more than half a minute, however, suggests that black: white or Jew: Protestant and homosexual: heterosexual are not even rough analogies, by any logical analysis. The stronger argument runs something like: Some small but significant % of the population is homosexual; it is a disposition that they share with other consenting adults (i.e. there is no force or fraud), and as such there need not be any shame in this, nor prosecution, nor persecution. Moreover, these are very often good, productive, caring people, who ought to be treated the same in all regards as their more numerous heterosexual brothers, sisters, and neighbors. One of the hallmarks of a legitimate liberal democracy is the protection of the rights of minorities, after all. And for homosexuals in long-term relationships that desire to be married under the law – with all that this entails - how can one rightfully and fairly deny this? How can one deny homosexual marriage without “denying” homosexuality itself? <br />
<br />
However, Lawodyssey also implied in his original post that marriage exists chronologically and ontologically prior to the state, prior to the law. How do we take something that exists by nature, then, and profoundly amend the traditional, or common-sense understanding of it without first presenting an argument about that traditional understanding, including how and why it is either a flawed or incomplete, based on our new knowledge? <br />
<br />
Like all of human nature, marriage exists in a variety of forms, but not infinite forms. There is cultural variation within those natural boundaries, and individual variation bounded generally by both the cultural norms, and by human nature. <br />
<br />
A cursory review of human history would suggest that certainly, for instance, marriage is not just a custom of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. A few observed patterns and examples that exist across time and place, that illustrate the nature of marriage, may be helpful: 1) Men are jealous 2) Women are selective. 3) Husband/Wife double as – become - Father/Mother. 4) Young, fertile women are coveted. In ancient times and foreign places men were sometimes killed so that women could be stolen as wives. While this was not the standard means of obtaining a wife, even in such times and places, in no time or place did women physically capture men to take as their husbands. 5) Monogamy is very common, and in certain places and times polygamy is found. This polygamy is, however, without exception one husband and multiple wives, never the other way around. 6) Never are incestuous marriages condoned. One could continue with more examples of what is known historically and anthropologically. <br />
<br />
Now the Aristotlean might also go so far as to say that the best form of marriage is that which is best by nature – i.e. most likely to create happiness and flourishing for husband, wfe, and children. Prudence, however, would show that this would vary also by culture – but not infinitely so. I will leave these thoughts aside, for the moment, about better and worse marriage. <br />
<br />
It quickly becomes clear, then, that any careful discussion about both the nature of marriage and about the traditional commonsense (and legal) understanding of marriage seems to not only include the love of the husband and wife, but also to point beyond the mere courtship and the erotic or romantic love to its natural end: the family – to biology, to flourishing, to procreation and the rearing of children (the “being of being” for a people, if one excuses the Greek). If this fuller understanding is indeed marriage, what then, exactly, is gay marriage? How do we think about it other than as some imprecise comparison – similar in some superficial regards, but fundamentally different in all others? Does it matter? In what way is the traditional view of the nature of marriage inadequate or incomplete by leaving out this new concept? How is our view of marriage improved by adding a version that includes gay marriage? Is this new concept true knowledge about reality? Can it be just without representing a better understanding? On what basis? <br />
<br />
I have done my best, to briefly make both cases. On which side does one place the burden for making the stronger argument? Is there a compromise?W. Bondhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11876061563314623223noreply@blogger.com0