The True Story of Deamonte Driver

     The story of Deamonte Driver has been brought to my attention by a commenter here.  It is a sad story.  No, it is a horrible story.  Unfortunately, the true story is not what my reader and worthy detractor has indicated. 

     It is not a story of how people die because of government-funded healthcare.  Deamonte and his family qualified for government-funded healthcare, including free dentistry.

     The story of Deamonte Driver is the story of a mother who neglected her children’s needs until one of them died.  She apparently did not do anything at home to prevent tooth decay.  She did not get them the free dental check-ups that they were entitled to.  She let her Medicaid lapse when she moved and did not make sure that it got reinstated.  She claimed that she had trouble finding a dentist who accepted Medicaid.

     It is a story about the horrors of poverty, but far from showing that government can dispel those horrors, it shows the inability of government programs to do so.  When a mother refuses to avail herself of the free, life-saving services she is qalified for, what is the government supposed to do next?  Should a healthcare “system” actually go pick up the kids every six months for their routine dental appointments?  Shouldn’t the mother do something herself to provide for her kids?

     Don’t get me wrong.  It is absolutely horrific that Deamonte died, especially in what had to be a horribly painful way.  If I had my way, he and his brother would have been rescued from their neglectful mother long before it got that bad.  My detractors, who exploit his death to push their political agenda do everyone a disservice.  They dishonor his memory, they excuse neglectful parenting, and they imply that the rest of us are cruel and heartless.

     I am neither cruel nor heartless.  My children have gotten dental care, even when it was hard for us to pay for it.  My wife or I would work two jobs if we had to, or beg from our friends or relatives to make sure that our kids were not suffering from rotten teeth.  That’s because we care.  In addition, as much as we are able we give money to those in need.  We believe that no child should die from a bad tooth, and if anyone we know is in need of money to get a cavity filled or to have a tooth extracted, we will be glad to help as much as we can.

The Best Health Care System

     If you were going to have heart surgery, where would you go?  One of Canada’s provincial premiers has gone to the United States.  Hmm. . .

     I have heard over and over again that the United States should adopt the same type of health insurance and health care system that Canada has.  If we did, then where would people go for delicate heart operations?

     Somebody will mention that poor people in America cannot get such an operation.  Maybe not, although I know a man who had heart surgery who is just about as poor as a person can be–living in a mobile home, selling vegetables on the side of the highway to supplement his disability payments.  His surgery was done at a fine training hospital and was paid partly by government assistance and partly by the hospital’s writing off the rest.

     Even if it were true that poor people in America could not get a needed heart operation, apparently rich people in Canada cannot get it there.  So the theory is that if not everybody can get something, then nobody should. 

     I suppose if some people are not able to afford a swimming pool, everybody should be prohibited from owning one.  If some people cannot afford to go to a private university, then all private universities should be shut down.

     I prefer to live in a country where people are free to make as much money as they are able to, and then can spend their money on the best products and services that they can afford.

     Otherwise people might have to travel to Singapore for heart surgery.  I’m sure that poor people will be able to do that!

We Can Still Vote

     From the reaction of certain people, from President Obama on down, you would think that we had lost the right to vote.  Here is what the Supreme Court did not say:   they did not say that corporations, unions, and other organizations are allowed to tie people up, drag them to the polls, and force them to vote a certain way.  I’m pretty sure that when you go to the ballot box, your vote is still entirely up to you and is still kept secret.

     The idea that because corporations, unions, and other groups can now spend money in support of political candidates.  Here are some things to think about:

   The most fundamental issue of all is that if a person or a group has money, then they have the right to spend it as they choose, as long as they do not violate somebody else’s rights in the process.  If the stockholders of a corporation or the members of a union want to support John Doe for Congress, why shouldn’t they?

     A less fundamental issue, but an important one, is that if an entity is taxed, then that entity should be allowed to participate in the political process.  “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” said the American Patriots in the 18th Century.  I think some liberals worry that corporations will support candidates who will favor lowering corporate taxes, as well as reducing regulations.  Why shouldn’t they?

     A third issue here is that we the people are supposed to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.  If they are unduly influenced by campaign supporters, it is up to us to say NO the next time we get to vote.  It is up to us to demand that corrupt officials pay for their misdeeds.  If a private business, or a union or a speical interest group tries to influence them, it is only natural.  It is expected.  If they give in, it is unethical and shameful.

     I would be interested in reading any arguments to the contrary, but so far the arguments I have read boil down to we don’t want them to.  Liberals do not want corporations to spend their own money as they see fit, because they believe it would give an advantage to conservatives.  They do not want corporations to be a part of the political process, because they dislike business. 

     But just saying I don’t want it is not a sufficient argument.  So far nobody has persuaded me that the Supreme Court’s ruling was anything but a proper application of the First Amendment and a victory for freedom, equality, human rights, and justice.

     The closest that anyone has come is Scott Erb’s and others’ asserting that corporations should never have been declared legal persons.  Perhaps that’s true.  However, if it is, then they should never have been taxed.  A government only has the right to tax its citizens, its people, which in America essentially means that we agree to tax ourselves.  (One could argue that if corporations receive benefits from the state, then the state has the power to tax them.  I would say that you are back to considering corporations as persons, and I would also say that no corporation should ever receive any benefit from the government except for the freedom to exist and to operate within reasonable bounds.)

     I do not care which candidate spends the most money, or runs the slickest ads, or runs the most ads.  I will vote for the one that I think best.  To believe that just because a candidate spends more money, more people will vote for him and her, is to have a very low opinion indeed of the American public.  I prefer to believe that people will vote wisely and sincerely, regardless of how much money anyone spends.

The Suffering of One Person Matters

     I have thought a lot recently about a strange concept that I have often encountered in books and discussions with people.  Some people seem to think that human suffering is worse when it occurs to many people than it is when it occurs to one person.

     Sometimes I hear it expressed in general.  People talk about the “sum of human suffering” or the “agregate of human misery,” especially when they are trying to defeat a belief in a benevolent God.  You know the drill–If God really is good, then why do so many people suffer?

     Sometimes I hear it expressed more specifically.  We should not be so upset about terrorist attacks, since more people die in other ways than in terrorist attacks.  I think it is vile to hold such an attitude.  Nobody should die–not one single person–either by terrorist attacks or in random shootings or from anthrax packages or from child abuse or from anything else.  Each and every person’s life matters.  A person’s life does not increase in value when that person is counted as a member of a huge group.

     Imagine: this bully isn’t so bad, because he only beat up five people.  More people than that were injured in skiing accidents last winter.

     The horror of the holocaust was not that millions of people died in concentration camps.  It would have been equally horrible if only one person were starved to death or shot in the back or gassed or worked to death.  That person’s suffering, and that person’s death would have mattered, and every single person killed by the Nazis mattered just as much as every other one.

     I think that the whole concept is bogus.  There is no such thing as an agregate of human misery.  There is only the misery that each individual person suffers.  I do not feel the pain of all the other migraine sufferers in the world; neither do they feel my pain.  There is no entity existing anywhere called “The Total Pain of All the Migraines Ever Experienced.”  I feel my pain, and it is sufficiently painful, I can tell you.  If I were going to doubt God, then the painful experiences in my own, singular life would be enough to make me doubt.  I don’t need mass murders, continental famines, giant tsunamis, or death by drunk driving accidents to convince me that something is wrong with the world.

     When my sister was dying of cancer I often thought this should not be happening to her.  I did not think that it would just fine if it happened only to her and not to others.  I did not think that if only a few thousand people died from cancer each year, it would not be all that bad, since there are billions of people in the world.  No, it is horrible and profoundly sad each time any person dies of cancer or MS or AIDS or malaria or of any other disease.  Each death is more than enough loss.  Each moment of pain is more than enough suffering to matter.

     I would imagine that nobody in Haiti is thinking that the loss of one of their loved ones is so much worse because thousands of people died.  The loss of a single loved one is as bad as it gets for any of us.

More on Corporations

     I am posting some responses to omments on the preceding post (the one below). I had too many thoughts to just write comments.

     Scott Erb wrote that corporations are immensely powerful and hard to regulate. The first problem with that assertion is that the immense power that corporations have in America today is because of government intervention.  There is no reason to believe that corporations that existed in a free market, where they would have to work hard to outdo many competitors, would be so powerful–or even so big.  The second problem is that Scott doesn’t seem to mind that government is immensely powerful–only that private corporations are.  I would much rather have powerful private corporations and weak government, thank you very much.  The third problem is that he assumes that corporations should be regulated.  Maybe the fact that it is difficult to regulate corporations should lead us to the conclusion that they are best left free to fight it out amongst each other–in the market.  They should fight for customers and clients and fight against the competitors who are trying to offer a better product at a lower price.

     He also wrote, “If a corporation acts irresponsibly, often individuals can avoid punishment, and no one is truly held responsible.”  Again, that is not the way that it should be.  If we had just laws, it would not be.  Every corporation would be responsible for its actions, and every individual involved would be responsible for his or her actions.  It is our corrupt government and its unjust laws that protect the corporations and the individuals in them.  We should hold our lawmakers accountable for this problem. 

     We should also free up the market, so that corporations could be punished by a loss of business.  The recent bank bailouts are exactly the opposite of what Scott apparently wants.  The banks failed by irresponsible practices; therefore, they should suffer, even close in some cases.  The individuals who violated the trust of clients should also suffer as individuals.

     Scott talks about “corporate socialism,” which is an oxymoron if I ever read one.  The problem that Scott refers to is actually the entanglement of the government with corporate business.  It is the corruption of our lawmakers who write unjust laws that favor some businesses, harm others, and generally stifle the economy.  If the Congress were to free the market, this “corporate socialism” would disappear in short order.

     He wrote about the way that big corporations influence the political process.  They couldn’t do it, if the politicians didn’t let them.  Every bit of corruption associated with financing of campaigns is the responsibility of the politicians who take the money and then let it influence their vote.  I think we should hold the right people accountable for the problem.

     Quin mentioned that he likes capitalism only as an alternative to any other system.  I agree.  I do not favor it because it is perfect, I favor it because it includes freedom.

     He says that corporations and union should stay out of politics.  He also says that weath should have no place in the political system.  While I find his opinions valid and even admirable, there is a difference between what people might wish were true, and what should be mandated by law.  One thing about it is that money and power will always have a place in politics.  If you try outlawing it, people will still insert money and power into the process illegally.  Therefore, it is best to deregulate it, and let competition do its magic.  As I wrote, if I am mad that a certain corporation supports a Democrat, I can stop giving any financial support to that corporation, and I can persuade some other corporation to back my favorite candidate.

     He went on to say that democracy should mean that each person should have an equal say–should have equal power.  Ideally, I agree.  To a large extent it is that way.  No matter how much money people spend on campaigns, it still comes down to the vote.  No matter how many persuasive advertisements a person might watch or hear, he can cast his vote anyway he wants on election day.

     Obviously it cuts certain people out of holding office.  There has hardly ever been a truly poor person in the Congress or in the White House.  Frankly, we probably wouldn’t really want it that way.  We want our leaders to be people who have had some success in life in order to persuade us that they can actually handle the responsiblities of governing.

     Spherical Time confused me with his questions about why corporations should have more rights and fewer restrictions than individuals.  I really do not understand what he is referring to.

A Corporation is People

     I have never seen a corporation that is owned or run by extraterrestrial beings or by chimpanzees or by inanimate robots.  Corporations are owned and operated by people.  I am a part owner in some coporations myself, because I own stock in some companies through my retirement plan.

          In some ways, the corporation itself is like a person.  Corporations can own property.  Corporations can be taxed.  They can be sued.  They can buy and sell things.  They can fund charities.  The Supreme Court ruled long ago that corporations are legal persons.

     If I do not like something that a corporation is doing, then I can sell my stock in it,boycott it, and urge others to do the same.  If I like something that it is doing, then I can patronize it and urge others to do likewise.

      All of these things I have written are bound up in the concept of freedom.  I like freedom.  It’s a good thing.  That is why I am happy that the Supreme Court struck down the unconstitutional restriction on speech for corporations.  For years, conservatives have been saying that the restriction on corporate spending on campaigns violated the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has agreed.

     I have read all kinds of nonsense concerning the ruling.  One thing that people are saying is that the Supreme Court favored businesses over unions, as if unions are prohibited from spending money on campaigns.  They can and they do.  Not only that, they often pressure their members to vote a certain way or to publicly endorse a certain candidate.  Another thing that people are saying is that the ruling favors Republicans over Democrats.  Hasn’t anyone ever heard of George Soros?  If Democrats want more corporate money, then they should either attract it, or they should form corporations, make a lot of money, and support the candidates that they like.

     That is why some people do not like freedom.  Freedom takes away their power to control outcomes.  If Democrats are afraid of losing elections, they work to restrict certain activities in order to gain an advantage.  It would be like a losing basketball team insisting that the other team put only three players on the court or that the goals of the other team gain only one point instead of two.

     I am against all limitations on campaigning.  People, including people who own businesses, should be allowed to fund any campaign as much as they want.  It’s only fair, because if a person or entity can be taxed, then they have the right to fully participate in the political process.

     Some people would say that it’s not fair, because it means that rich people will sway elections.  Has anybody heard of George Soros or Oprah Winfrey or Barbra Streisand or the many other rich people on the left who have influenced elections?  The solution is not to stop rich people from supporting candidates.  The solution is to persuade more rich people to support your candidate, or to become rich yourself and suppor the candidate of your choice.

     One of my friends calls herself a moderate, which means that she is a liberal who is afraid to call herself a liberal.  She is politically correct and green.  The trouble is that she inherited stock in a major oil company and a major bank.  I am amused at her watching the stock prices of those companies, and in the bailout that her bank was a part of.  It goes against every other plank of her political platform to want those companies to make a profit, and yet she desperately hopes that they do.  She is part of those corporations.  Those corporations are people.

Oops!

     Do you remember reading that a huge and important glacier in the Himalayas was receding at such a rapid rate that it was doomed to disappear within 30 years from now?  Well, the UN now says that it was a mistake.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the glacier is not melting that fast.  They still stand by the claim that climate change is occurring as a result of human activity, but they acknowledge that the much-needed glacier is not in as much danger as previously reported.

     How many of these slip-up’s need to occur before the whole house of cards comes crashing down?  It reminds me of a character on Saturday Night Live named Emily Litella, played by Gilda Radner.  After being caught in an incredible error, she would quip, “Never mind!”

A Rare Day

     One of my earliest memories involves a little red wagon hitched to a little red tricycle.  My brother and I took turns riding the tricycle, pulling my sister behind us in the wagon.  I think that this particular day is so firm in my memory because it was a very happy day, one of the few happy days I experienced as a child.

     My father was there, which means that it must have been a Saturday.  My father often played with us, as he did on this happy day.  He pushed the tricycle and simply cheered us on.  It’s a great feeling to have your father cheering you on.  It makes you believe that you can do anything, and that there is nothing at all to worry about.  My father has many faults, but he was always very attentive.  He often played tag with us in the back yard or took us to the playground at the beach and pushed us on the swings or helped us climb the monkey bars.

     My mother was there, too, on that happy day.  She took pictures, and those pictures remain today in her photo albums.  They were black-and-white photos, but my memory still retains the colors, especially of the red tricycle and the red wagon.  She also brought us Koolaid to drink.  I think it was cherry flavored, although I prefered orange.  My mother did not spend much time outdoors, but she was as attentive as my father.  She read to us daily, and I can still recite some of the poems that she read to us, and can still retell many of the stories, too.  She also played board games and card games with us.  It was my mother who taught me to play chess and also poker.  I never had a single doubt that she loved me and her other children, although we had many reasons to find fault with her for other things.

     Every child should have happy days.  It tears my heart out to realize that some children in the world have few of them, if any.  Although I have every right to complain about my childhood, I thank God that it was not as bad as it could have been.  There were some happy hours, and even some happy days.  That’s more than some children can say.

     That day was one of them, and what made it happy was that we were all together, involved in a fun activity as a family.  Many of my other days involved yelling and screaming and throwing things, and even hitting.  Crying, too.  Lots of crying.  My parents were abusive toward each other, and eventually they divorced.  When I think of all those miserable days, I try always to remind myself of the happy ones.  I cling to them, and I smile. 

     Because I had so many sad days, I work to give my children happy ones.  I believe that I have succeeded.  I believe that they will say, when they are fully grown, that the sad days were the rare ones.  I hope that they will do the same for their children.

     What was your childhood like?  Did the happy days outnumber the sad ones?  If you are a parent, are you working to provide happy days, or at least to provide the opportunity for happiness for your children?  I hope that you are making sure that the happy days are plentiful and the sad ones are rare.

Gone Fishing, Sort Of

     I did not really go fishing, but I have seen some dead fish washed ashore.  I also ate some fish at a restaurant. 

     I have been on vacation for a week.  I will try to write something new in the next day or two.

How to Count

     Did we just start a new decade? That is the question on my mind.

     I think everyone knows that there was not a year A. D. 0. Therefore, the First Century was from year 1 to year 100. The Second Century was from 101 to 200. This explains why the number of the Century is usually one digit higher than the number of the year. (As in, the 1900’s were the 20th Cenutry.)

     I remember the hype on December 31, 1999.  Many people believed that we were about to start a new millennium.  However, the current millennium actually started on January 1, 2001, as did the new century.

     When you look at decades, however, a strange thing happens.  It is pretty much universal to think of decades as starting with a number that ends with 0.  For example, the 1960’s is generally thought to include the years 1960 through 1969.

     But a strange thing happens in that case.  The last decade of the the previous century was from 1990 to 1999, and the first decade of this century was from 2000-2009.  In that case one year of the decade was in the last century, and the other nine years were in a new century.  That’s pretty twisted.

     Life and language are not always consistent.  Neither are they always logical.  Oh, well.