A Letter from Phil.

It's been more than a decade since my old buddy, Phil, was expelled from one of the Ivies, sad to say, for "mooning" the chaplain's wife. After 'the incident' and a failed attempt at therapy, Phil drifted west where he attended law school and discovered that he could support himself nicely promoting "of course, it's legal" investment schemes. Occasionally, we correspond — which fact I mention by way of introducing the following account, recently received, of a town hall meeting in southern Arizona.

Before proceeding, a little more about Phil to give context to his remarks:

• Phil's favorite word is "excess;" his preferred expression for evidencing enthusiasm, "Whoa, excess!" sometimes reduced to "Whoa!" delivered in a cadenced baritone and a Nashville accent.


• He is deeply attached to crudities, which affection remains pretty much what it was in college.


• He hates universities, generally, their speech codes, in particular, the latter because they limit 'freedom of expression', which is how he views 'the incident'.


• He also hates 'controlling people': professors, therapists of all sorts and especially psychiatrists, the latter, because, in the course of the counseling noted above, he 'was shot down in flames' by a 'bodaceous lady shrink'.


• Ever partial to gluttony, Phil has recently slimmed down to a svelte 290 pounds — 'all muscle.'


• Despite a respectable income, he doesn't pay much in the way of taxes.


• His disdain for pyramid schemes (see below) is, shall we say, selective.


• Phil rarely walks, preferring instead his souped-up 1951 Imperial — 'built like a tank' — that guzzles 2-3 gallons per mile in traffic, but 'makes up for it on the road'. Also, 'the fillies love it'.


• Phil now counts himself a member of the TEA party movement; will it survive the encounter?

And now, to Phil's recent epistle. As always, edits (most for the sake of decorum), clarifications, etc., in square brackets.

"Hey T. A. -

We were pretty rude last night. Excess! Giffords, [Representative, D. Az.], Carmona [former Surgeon General] and two pro-Obama Care plants — a Ph.D and a shrink — took some major [unprintable]. [Unprintable]s deserved it; crooks; liars. 'Fire 'em all!' I said; audience loved it. Too bad I can't go into politics. [Unprintable] [unprintable]s 'd start digging around! [Good thing; Phil would go straight to the top.] Anyway, I had fun. [Phil always has fun.] Finally got [illegible] back for my tax dollars [see above]. Of course, they could have given us eggs and tomatoes; raised some major dinero, chipped away at those unfunded liabilities. Whoa! Rotten tomatoes priced by size; better, by target: 5 bucks for Likins [former President of the state university], $10 for Carmona; $25, for Giffords. Me, I'd pay $100 for Carmona. Condescending S.O.B. [the original was more colorful], says we need a "health maintenance system" with folks like him tell [sic] us what to eat, when to drive, what to say. [Unprintable] thought police! 'Course universities do that already; [unprintable]. Likins rates a hundred bucks too. [Phil, being Phil, would, of course, arrange for the unfortunate gentleman to pay him for the privilege of being pelted.] Anyway, it won't save jack; just give the [unprintable]s more [unprintable] control, more [unprintable] power. Line their pockets too. [Unprintable]! Rationing my [unprintable] you know what! And they're gonna make it worse — [unprintable] green facists! Cap 'n trade my [unprintable]-[unprintable] [unprintable]! We need nuclear! Jane Fonda — [unprintable] [unprintable]! Old [folks] don't know [what's in their own interest]!

"Whoa! We could raise money for the TEA Party! — put on a "Take Back America Faire." Get some volunteers; give them masks; put 'em in the stocks or over a dunk tank. OK, maybe not volunteers, someone could get hurt. How about dummies? Oops, that gets us back to politicians; (Get it? politicians, dummies!) should of said mannequins. (Ha! Ha!) What do you think? If you go in with me, we could split things down the middle [Translation: I could foot the expenses; Phil would handle the profits.]

"Hope you've worked off some of that jelly roll, not sitting around like you used to. [He should talk!] Anyone reading that blog of yours yet? Bet no one's seen it [Sigh!]. Still think you should call it 'T & A'; come up better in Google that way. Skip the 'Speaker' part — sounds like you're peddling woofers and tweeters.

"Phil"

Good old Phil. He gets to the point, albeit in a "Philish" sort of way. As always, I took the bait and did some digging. Here is a more conventional statement of his argument:

1. The looming crisis in health care is driven by demographics. An aging population, consequential to the post-war baby boom and the subsequent decline in the birth rate to less than pre-war levels, necessitates a greater per capita burden on those who work, even if the goal is only to maintain services at their current levels. Carmona, Emanuel, et al. want to compensate by curbing expenditures — by forcing people to live healthier lives, in which regard I share Phil's skepticism, and by government-enforced rationing. Likins, if one judges by his other enthusiasms, doubtless agrees.
   


2. The inevitable result is Sarah Palin's "death panels," from which we can only be saved by increasing per capita productivity.
   


3. Giffords supports cap and trade, for which she recently voted, and opposes domestic drilling, nuclear power, etc. She voted against H.R. 6566 back in 2008. This is a surefire strategy for reducing per capita productivity, which means more rationing, more death panels, etc. So, when Giffords says that she wants to improve the nation's health care — well, that's not quite accurate. Some, will see an improvement, or, at least, be able to stop using the ER in lieu of a PCP. But for the majority, those already insured, the result will be diminished, probably greatly diminished, services. As for the near-elderly, their future is bleak. Review boards will substitute hospice care, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not, for treatment. A single payer system — inevitable if there's a public option — will prevent people from "wasting" their savings on expensive procedures, and a jacked up (Sheesh! I'm starting to sound like Phil) inheritance tax will guarantee that the money saved is used for the greater good, i.e., that it goes to the government.
   


4. Whatever comes of this, one can be sure that the likes of Carmona and Giffords will never themselves face the prospect of health care truncated by communitarian concerns.

Phil's right. They're liars for sure; hypocrites, too.
Read more ...

Trigonometry.

“The study of angles and of the angular relationships of planar and three-dimensional figures ... .” Mathworld.

“ … sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig — I know he needs me, but I need him even more ... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.” Sarah Palin. 3 July, 2009 [Emphasis added].

So there’s trigonometry and trig functions (above, left), and then there’s Trig, the little boy with Down’s Syndrome. Ubiquitous math phobia notwithstanding, most would agree that the first two are useful. What about 21^st chromosome trisomics? At least among their mothers, the majority view is thumbs down; most are aborted. That’s what makes Palin’s observation so remarkable and, to this author, himself the parent of a special needs child, so very genuine. Her critics, most of them not having had the experience, can hardly be expected to appreciate the plusses. What they do understand, albeit in many cases but vaguely, is that caring for a “special needs” child is difficult, time consuming and expensive.

It's also parenting for life. In the usual sense, most of these children do not grow up; conventionally, they do not fledge. Their bodies mature, of course – often abnormally and typically with a raft of attendant medical issues, the treatment of which is complicated by the underlying disorder. But intellectually, emotionally and behaviorally, they remain forever young. What waits after Mom and Dad is not the independence of adulthood, with its sundry trials and triumphs, but an existence at best sheltered, more often, neglectful, at worst, abusive. Indeed, when I first saw Sarah, having just delivered the best speech of the political season and holding her son, I could only wonder if she had any real idea as to what she was in for.

That uncertainty was set to rest by the remark quoted above. Like other parents who put their developmentally disabled child first and let the rest sort itself out, Sarah Palin understands that children like Trig bring purpose to life in ways that are both unique and uniquely fulfilling. Like Sarah, my son needs me, even as I need him. But unlike Sarah, no “rendezvous with destiny” looms in my future. You think the Palinophobes [emphasis on the second syllable] don’t sense that such an encounter awaits in hers? Of course, they do. It is the taproot of their rage; the prospect that appalls. Sarah will fight and triumph, God willing, for her son, and, in that victory, secure the future for us all.

Some say that the time evolution of complex systems is marked by unexpected twists and turns; others that the Lord works in ways mysterious. Take your pick. Trig is Sarah’s bow of burning gold; her arrows and her spear; her chariot of fire. With apologies to the spirit of Wm. Blake for changes (square brackets) to the original:

"[She] will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall [her] Sword sleep in [her] hand:

Till we have built Jerusalem,

In [this, our great] & pleasant Land."

Surprisingly, there’s a path that leads from trig, the branch of mathematics, to Trig, the child. Along the way, there are stops at demography, mathematical optimization and medical ethics. Having followed it, we may better understand the tumult of August, 2009. [To be continued].

Read more ...