WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

I cannot remember when I was not for equal rights for women - even as a young man.

Recently was looking into the History of Women's Suffrage and of course the names of Anthony and Stanton were prominent, along with others. But these women both died in the early years of the 20th Century, years before the 19the Amendment which finally gave women the right to vote in any state of the nation.

Maybe I missed something that is prominent, but recently I watched a movie on a disc which depicted the lives of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, among others. These women, and others, staged a kind of civil disobedience before the White House (Wilson was President at the time, toward the end of WW I) protesting the lack of women's suffrage in the U.S.

They were never violent themselves apparently, but the movie graphically showed, among other things, their being jailed more than once, and later going on a hunger strike. They were physically brutalized, including being subjected to a crude kind of forced feeding. I couldn't believe it! The women "won" in the end, but this had to be Hollywood making it up, I thought.

Much to my surprise when I "googled" these names, I found that what the movie depicted actually happened! So far as I know -- which is little enough -- such never happened to Anthony or Stanton in the 19th Century. They were certainly flawed women in some ways perhaps, but they were very, very brave for decades, and their work was finally effective to be sure. Still, physical torture they did not have to endure!

So, I suppose people more knowledgeable than I about all of this know of Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, but I doubt that the so-called "man-in-the-street" knows -- especially these days. But he should!

Further, I doubt very much that the 19th Amendment would have come about when it did without the incredible courage of these two women!

How could intelligent and educated men, especially the leaders, be so dumb for so long?

Philosophy versus Philosophy

Have noticed that "philosophy" means different things to most people.

On the one hand, philosophy, as the word is used commonly, seems to mean "whatever one thinks about most anything: politics, how one should live one's life, etc.

On the other hand, "philosophy" is a college-level subject, and as "academics" would have it, serious and expressed thought has been given to it by various geniouses (Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, etc.) ever since Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, right down the present day. Every college worthy of the name has its philosopher(s) and they give lectures, write essays, write books, and in general argue (often quite vociferously, and sometimes arrogantly it seems to me) with their like-minded brethren about the minutiae of the genre. Some of it is quite "transparent" and intuitively understandable, but often it is obtuse, and hard to follow -- especially if one is not familiar with the jargon that goes with it.

Philosophy in the latter sense means, of course, "love of learning." However, in practice this covers a lot of ground, and can get -- for most of us "unwashed" -- quite opaque. The various theories of the apprehension of human knowlege can be quite "difficult." These guys love to call each other "great thinkers," even when they disagree. And, somehow (I am not really sure how) academic "philosophers" are supposed to eventually make a diffence in the "real world." Sometimes I think they just like to hear themselves talk, and write, especially when they have "tenure."

Anyway, most of this goes on over the head of the "man-in-the-street." Still, guys like Locke, Paine, and others, apparently did stimulate "Our Founders" to come up with -- among other things -- our "Declaration of Independence," and later on, in 1787, our Constitution of the U.S.

Problem is that, as one would expect, the Constitution was a compromise! You know, each black (regardless of gender) was 3/5ths of a "man," etc. And, even with the Bill of Rights (which, for just one example, Hamilton did not feel we needed), and subsequent "amendments," our government has gradually, and for the past 80 years or so not so gradually, become bigger and bigger until we have things we are calling "Tea Parties" that have erupted across the land. According to this common brand of "philosophy," we just can't afford the lengths to which our "entitlement society" has now gone. However, I suspect -- just suspect, I don't know for sure -- that most of these people involved in the "Tea Parties" would accept what DC is offering if we could afford it. I base this suspicion on the fact that, for just an example, Social Security is one of the most popular "products" of our government these days.

In any case, that's what I call trying to "treat the symptoms, not the disease."

Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.

NPR RADIO -- FREE!

Read recently in the Tampa Tribune the results of an interview with Vivian Schiller, President and CEO of NPR. One of her "answers" was simply not true.

Ms. Schiller stated, "...It is at the heart of our mission that we will make our content available to people for free." That is false.

NPR was started years ago by the U.S. Federal Government, and it still subsidizes NPR. Our Federal Government does not have any money that it did not secure from taxpayers, in one way or another. Federal Government subsidies come from money so obtained. I am a taxpayer.

I like PBS, especially the "classical music," and have it on (radio) most all day, every day. For many years I donated substantial amounts of money to PBS yearly, but for several years now I have not. I believe PBS content is sufficiently good -- as their proponents keep telling us -- that PBS could now stand on its own without goverment subsidy.

When PBS "cuts this cord to mother," I will again donate to the cause yearly, not before.

D.B. Tuthill, M.D.

KEEPING A JOB

I read in the Tampa Tribune recently a list of "do's" in order to keep a job these days. The article I read was from Joyce E. A. Russell in a "special" to the Washington Post.

Among the recommendations were: Ask you manager for his/her goals; Work hard; Be a good "citizen"; Be on time. There were a couple more, but let these suffice.

Dumbfounding to this reader were: 1. That such a "special" could be sold to any newspaper for money. And, probably explaining, is 2. Why would anyone need such/em> obvious advice to "keep a job." What, pray, would a job-acceptor do otherwise to "keep a job"?

D. B. Tuthill, M.D.

The rubric over this article was, "Take the initiative to stand out at work" I knew things had deteriorated, but are we that bad off already?

EXERCISE ROOM MISTAKES

I live in a deed-restricted retirement community in Florida; the average age here is about 72 years. Among the many facilities available for all members is a monitored, well-equipped exercise room.

I use this exercise room three times per week to work out for 50 to 60 minutes each time. While not a professional physical trainer, I am a retired physician (internist), who has taken training from professionals in the past, and has ‘worked out’ regularly for many years.

Following are listed some of the simple “mistakes” older persons, male and female, frequently make in their exercise routines. They all have free access to beginners’ group training from a professional trainer, but only a few take advantage of that opportunity (that is the first mistake!). I infrequently call any of these mistakes to anyone’s attention because I have no “official status” to do so. Perhaps some of them will read this blog.

1. Noise: Often exercisers make loud and unnecessary noise when using the many exercise machines, especially when initially adjusting them. This is especially true when using the “free weights;” one should make the effort to be as quiet as possible. No matter how carefully one utilizes free weights, including dumb bells, they tend to make more noise than do machines which are usually “dedicated” to one particular kind of exercise for legs, arms or a segment of the back. It is well to consider the adjustment of these various machines as an integral part of the exercise. Usually one should squat down to carefully make these adjustments (i.e., changes for the exercisers’ differing sizes), and squatting down repeatedly is in itself a good exercise! (Admittedly, especially some of the smaller ladies may have “strength problems” making some of these adjustments quietly.)
2. Too much weight: Even oldsters, especially males it seems, have “macho” problems, and some of them seem to think they must choose a relatively large amount of weight for each machine, apparently to prove that “they can still do it,” or in the mistaken belief that “heavy” weight is necessary for a good work out. (And, often they even leave the weight stems in place!) Seldom should it be oldsters’ intent to increase one’s strength in preference to simply working out all major muscle groups.
3. Too few repetitions (“reps”): Usually it is exactly backwards: too much weight, coupled with too few reps. Specially older people should use less weight plus many more reps! A reasonable number of reps might be as a minimum, say, 20 for the arms and 30 for the legs and back.
4. Too fast: Let it be well understood that one cannot be too slow in lifting a given amount of weight and letting that weight down, but is possible to be too fast either way! And, that is what one often sees. The rubric should be: DO NOT THROW THE WEIGHTS! Yanking a weight up and rapidly letting it down is not the proper way to do any of the exercises. It is a false understanding of an exercise to, in effect, use gravity to let a weight down! That’s what one does when one yanks a weight up and lets it down rapidly. That is not a proper work out method. One should raise a weight slowly and equally slowly let that weight down. Resisting the weight’s downward motion (gravity) is when one gets the most out of an exercise!
5. Forget balance! What is the most frequent cause of old people’s breaking bones? Sure – falling! Aside from trying to be careful about how an older person goes about his or her daily activities – which is very important – one should utilize every opportunity to “exercise” the semi-circular canals that are in both ears”! These are the organs that are primarily responsible for a body’s orientation in space. I do not often see that the “gurus” recommend doing the simple things that could help “save” one’s ability to balance properly. Don’t forget, vision has a large role to play here. If you need convincing on this, just try, for example, standing on one leg, with eyes open versus closed. You will note a big difference! What you want is to save or enhance the ability of the semicircular canals to do their thing, regardless of the influence of sight. This can be done in many simple ways, most of which one can – thinking about it – come up with oneself. For example, when one is walking, say outside on the sidewalk, take the opportunity to look about in all directions – up and down and sideways – while trying to walk in the usual straight line. If you can do this at all it is because of your semicircular canals! Do things that keep them working properly. So, what do I see in the exercise room? I see people working on the “balance bar” for example, but with their eyes open at all times. Try the same exercises with the eyes closed, as well!
6. Forget aerobic exercise! What is aerobic exercise? Well, one could spend a lot of time talking about aerobic exercise, but it comes down to keeping one’s pulse up toward the “maximum” (Anyone’s “maximum” depends a lot of one’s age. That’s why the American Heart Association has come up with charts that recommend “maximum” pulse rates for different ages. Consult same.) Practically speaking, if one does an exercise that drives the pulse rate up, keeping it up is served by going smoothly from one exercise to another without too much delay in between.
7. Using too few machines! What does that mean, “too few machines”? The “correct” number of machines can indeed vary, depending upon the goal(s) one sets for him/herself. Younger persons usually are out to increase strength, and that’s a legitimate goal, within limits. Such persons often work out different groups of muscles on different days – they do not try to do it all in one go. Older people, on the other hand,usually are not out to increase their strength so much as to just work out to enhance their longevity. This goal can be met by three or four workouts per week, but with a plan that involves all major muscle groups each time. (I recommend that we oldsters work out six days a week, perhaps three in the exercise room and three “at home.” Perhaps it is reasonable to take one day a week off, and why not Sundays?) A good workout that involves all major muscle groups takes from 50 to 60 minutes, or more (not less).
8. Working out to lose weight! Forget it. Most of us do not work out enough to use up many calories. A couple large slices of bread, or the equivalent, can in very short order equal what most of our workouts use up. And using, or, much more important, avoiding taking in calories, is indeed what is necessary to weight loss. Again, we are talking of “oldsters” here. Don’t forget, “fat and fit” is preferable to “fat and unfit”! Sure, lose some weight; just do not expect your typical workouts to accomplish this alone.

Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.

MOTHER'S DAY

Today’s newspapers are full of “mothers” wisdom. Reminds one of the “Christmas spirit.” Both last about a day! And, both have been “commercialized” out of recognition. And, if one says anything considered derogatory about either – Wow, duck!

Well, it just so happens that quite a few “mothers” were indeed wise about many things.

Just one of those things was about “smoking.” Quite a few mothers, including their athlete offspring, realized, even fifty, seventy-five years ago, that smoking was bad for your health. I remember, back in high school days, that even the basketball star son of an immigrant mother – and he definitely was not as smart as his mother!
– understood that smoking “cut his breath.” But did that deter him from smoking? or, from playing basketball? (That son died early of the ravages of diabetes.)

This example of “mother’s insight” could be multiplied many times. I certainly would not denigrate mothers in general; I had a “good” one, too. One supposes that some seeds of wisdom doled out in formative years did not always fall on bare ground. No, thank goodness, they took root and grew, later, into staunch supports during the inevitable trials of adult years.

Incidentally, just read an article reviewing the history of “Prohibition” in this country: its rise and fall within a couple of decades in the early 20th Century. Interesting, and, it seems, we should have learned from that history. But, if we did indeed learn anything, why haven't we applied that “wisdom” to the present even more ravaging drug scene? We haven’t so far.

Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.

POLITICAL PARADOXES

1. In the 1960’s most of the “Imperial Powers” (such as Britain, France, etc.) “liberated” their colonies in Africa (and elsewhere). Then what happened? In almost all instances in Africa tinhorn leaders took over (often changing hands through crude coups) and became absolute kings and other kinds of dictators, while often killing untold numbers of innocents in the process. Essentially in every case, these potentates have not only enjoyed their “power,” but also continuously sopped up for their personal use much of the riches of the newly founded countries. Usually they did this in the name of “reform” and “redistribution.” PARADOX: Over the succeeding years did these same “advanced” countries learn anything from these unintended consequences?

Not a thing, apparently! Leaders in Western Europe, for example, have proceeded to build their “welfare states” to ridiculous proportions while they, politically speaking, have gotten into bed with the dictators in Africa, and with deserved guilt feelings, and egged on by the UN and others, they have poured billions of dollars of routinely misused “foreign aid” into Africa, and especially into their former colonies. This has, largely, benefited the dictators, but not the “people” themselves. America has done the same thing with its “foreign aid.” Some of the main beneficiaries in America, it seems, have been certain Hollywood types!

2. In recent years a newly vigorous and rapidly growing China, with its “market economy” (once they got rid of Mao – and even before), has obviously recognized for China economic opportunities in Africa. In equivalent value, they have progressively built a yearly trade with Africa of over 100 billions of dollars. Probably, this will only become greater! According to an article in The Atlantic (May 2010 issue, “The Next Empire?”), the Chinese have done this by “investing” in Africa, and not by following the lead of western countries and their “foreign aid.” China has used their money and respective experts to promote and to help build Africa’s cities, their roads, railroads, ports, etc. (Earlier they concentrated on agriculture, but apparently have largely screwed that up. See the article.) Reportedly the Chinese do not openly condescend to the Africans as does much of the rest of the world, but seemingly treat them as mutually valuable business partners. More specifically, they do not try, as others in the West do, to “bribe” the Africans to change their forms of government using “foreign aid” dollars – or anything else. PARADOX: If the Chinese are indeed doing these things, they are revealing an understanding of international business and human nature that the West might well follow, part of it at least – and better be doing so fast! How frustrating is it to realize that some of this kind of behavior should be part of America’s beacon to the world – its liberty! Truly, freedom is not free. And that was understood by many during the last quarter of the 18th Century, but understood to a progressively lesser extent over the succeeding two hundred years! Instead, if anything, we are now competing (!) with Western Europe to see who can build the best “Welfare State.” All of that said, apparently the China of today – according to the article in The Atlantic – has also been self-serving, to the point that their imperiousness has alienated some of the educated and important Africans. In other words, neither the approach of the West nor that of China is what it should be. Above all, Africans need the restraints of real freedom to make and correct their own mistakes they do not need bribery and alms – the Africans know how to do these things already. China’s approach versus The West’s approach? Africa needs something in between!

3. In the first 162 years of our United States’ official existence, aside from our Revolutionary War, we have had three “larger” wars – the Civil War, WWI, WWII. Ostensibly, the Civil War was fought to “save the Union”; WWI to “save the world for democracy”; and WWII to defeat Hitler, Mussolini, and Togo. We have been so proud to be able to say the “we never lost a war” (until Vietnam!). Anyway, what was the terrible price of these particular wars? Sure, hundreds of thousands of lives, many egregious injuries and psychological losses. Sure, but what about the tremendous growth and stature of the central government during these wars? Oh that. That was just incidental, and even desirable! (Uh-huh!) PARADOX: For just one thing, during our Civil War we lost over 600,000 lives, and incurred huge numbers of significant injuries, etc. There are many things to be learned from that war, but today among the lesser-realized aspects, is the fact that slavery – in the 19th Century – disappeared from the rest of the “modern world” without civil war, therefore without the attendant great loss of life and limb! Brazil, for example, a country that imported more slaves (some 5 millions), and more than any other country including ours, eventually banished slavery without a civil war. That is worth thinking about. Furthermore, the dreaded “secession” was threatened by other states long before the southern states actually did it. As a matter of fact, our Constitution does not contain anything that says secession is illegal, despite Lincoln’s public claim that he could not accept the dissolution of the Union, even to outlaw slavery! (Of course, that does not make secession desirable either.) The huge devastation of both “world wars” (especially the second one for Americans, but worse for other countries on both sides in each of those wars) was indeed terrible! But many fewer people, excepting perhaps some economists and lawyers and a few others, realize how much these wars, and all other wars as well, have contributed to the growth of our central government, AND the citizens’ acceptance of that growth! This “perhaps” necessary growth of executive power (as well as the power of the other two branches of our central government,) during wars is never, but never, entirely reversed after the wars. Consider that, too. So, if one wonders how wars have contributed to the growth of our central government (and at least part of its ability to indulge in the kind of nonsense that we have experienced in Washington the past few years.), wonder no more.

4. Many citizens of the U.S., I think, believe that our “two-party system” is good for the country. PARADOX: Perhaps some aspects of the “two-party system” are indeed good for the country (forget about third and fourth parties – they have never yet really played much of a role in our country) – but it is well to consider how much the disciplined two-party system [there are all sorts of formal organizational parts] have contributed to a diminution of the so-called “vertical” part of the system of checks and balances in our “government.” That is, the “check” that the legislatures of our various states were originally supposed to have on the central government. That was a very important part of the “checks and balance” system that the framers of our government thought that they had put in place early on – not just the “horizontal” checks and balances of the central government itself (composed as it is of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches). Forget for the moment the “migration” of power from the legislature (house and senate) to both the executive and judicial branches (especially to the latter); even more important is the vertical check and balance between the States and the central government! By the way (“history”) there were in the “beginning” no real parties, even though there have been recorded many debates between the so-called Republican Party and the Federalist Party back in the late 18th Century and into the first years of the 19th century. These “parties” did not have formal structure. The formal Republican Party of today was not born until 1854! That was then the party to which Lincoln belonged, and from which he attained the White House. Out of the opposition hodgepodge developed the formal Democrat Party. And, the Democrat Party became, in the early decades of the 19th Century, much divided between the north and south by virtue of conflicting ideas concerning slavery. (Otherwise, Lincoln would not have become our President.) In any case, to understand how the parties have changed the “vertical limb” of our checks and balances system, citizens today need to recognize how large a role our two main parties do play now in each of our States, and how much more important they have become than the elected legislatures of the States. The “two-party system” is so pervasive, both in DC and throughout our country, that it has assumed a role never envisioned by our country’s framers! We even have “red” and “blue” states now. Madison, Jefferson, and even Hamilton would not recognize our present governmental situation. The framers did believe in necessary “flexibility” for our Constitution (largely through amendments) to go with the inevitable and expected evolution that society would take in the following centuries, but – let’s face it – the system the framers set up was not equal to that evolution!

5. Presently, in different locales in America, we have ongoing “battles” among Teachers’ Unions, School Boards and the rest of the citizens (who are mostly concerned about their children getting a good education!). For example, we have, finally, begun, here and there, to try “experiments” with merit pay for teachers (i.e., an individual teacher’s pay tied to better scholastic performance by -students). And sometimes this also includes parallel attempts to dispose of “tenure.” Many teachers enjoy tenure (which means effectively that they cannot be fired), while some parents maintain that tenure causes certain teachers to avoid doing their best at teaching. The Teachers’ Unions have opposed both merit pay and abolishing “tenure.” PARADOX: Even some teachers who might favor the concept of merit pay are still against actual attempts to introduce it! For example, I personally know two effective and experienced teachers who vehemently oppose merit pay because they are “sure” the wrong teachers would receive it. They state that they “know” local education politics would produce this unintended result! And no argument to the contrary is considered. These teachers are adamant in their position; they refuse even to discuss it. (They happen to be married to each other; one is a life-long Democrat and the other a life-long Republican.)

6. America’s immigration policy has a long, checkered history. While Americans universally accept the idea that immigration has in general been a boon to this country, there are instances of specific immigration policies – usually in retrospect – that are also universally condemned by Americans. More recently, many Americans have become exercised about immigrants from South America (usually through Mexico). In states that border on Mexico, and recently especially in Arizona, there has been a rising chorus of indignation at the inability of the “authorities” to halt the tide of “unregulated” immigrants through Mexico, and especially “illegal” or “undocumented” ones. Among other effects, this has led some American citizens to openly wear side arms, and loudly declare that they will take things into their own hands since “Washington” has obviously been impotent, despite much “Congressional discussion” of the matter. PARADOX: For much of the 19th Century and before, many Americans throughout the country, males especially, wore six-guns strapped to their waists. For the most part, they provided their own “justice,” especially, but not exclusively, in the West (meaning, west of the Mississippi)! There even was a largely unwritten code of honor that supposedly governed the use of such guns during that time. But especially in the 20th Century Americans pride themselves on the progressive outlawing of the open display of side arms. And some Americans have even tried to ban legal ownership of guns of any kind. In the last analysis, the 2d Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. has proved to be the most effective bar to outlawing gun ownership altogether. But the tide has shifted! Now one sees more and more instances of ordinary Americans, male and female, legally owning and carrying guns (not only in the west). And, as alluded to above, this has even begun to include many ordinary Americans obtaining permits to openly strap on hand guns! Déjà vu! (At least on TV, that is.) While I personally believe that old slogan, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Still, I would not want to return to the “old days” (not so long ago!) when everyone was largely held responsible for his/her own justice! “Justice” is, and should be, one of the very few responsibilities of “government,” central or local. “Government” will occasionally screw that up, too – especially these days. But otherwise, who can or could do it “half-way equitably”?
+++++++++++++++++++

What to do about all of these paradoxes, and others like them? What should be done? What could anybody do? A simile may help: It is taught in medical schools that it is usually much more desirable to know and thus to treat the underlying disease than to treat only its symptoms! Problem is, a physician doesn’t always know what is the disease, and when that is the case, he or she is required to ”treat the symptoms.”

While political problems are not medical problems the situation is nonetheless similar:

First off, the number of “symptoms” that might call attention to an underlying political problem is a number always less, much less, than the number of possible causes for that same political problem. Unfortunately, that situation thus allows politicians (as it does physicians in medicine (!) to “spin” their theories about the cause of a particular problem – political or medical. And, in the political, as in the medical arena, the “evidence” from all quarters, statistical as well as anecdotal, is brought to bear by the gurus and talking heads. Furthermore, regardless of the problem at hand, it is amazing how often is the very same “evidence” used by opposing sides (in both of these professions) to arrive at drastically different theoretical causes! However, be it a political disease or a medical disease there is really only one right answer: treat the disease and not just the symptoms!

To carry this simile further, one might contrast the very confusing (in earlier decades) history, causation and transmission of malaria with, say, the history, causation and transmission of slavery. And, even now with the cause of malaria and its transmission well known and accepted, the ramifications in America and around the world are still hotly debated. And, slavery in human affairs is also in many ways a largely a settled issue, but in America and around the world slavery is still hotly debated!

Where do these two examples, from widely different areas, intersect?

Right. Politics!

Recently, groups of U. S. citizens across our country, often calling themselves things like “Tea Party Patriots,” are up in arms about the huge spending policies of our present government. These are largely spontaneous and unconnected groups (comprised to varying extents of adherents of all political parties) call our government’s huge spending spree an unconscionable burden on future generations, and unsustainable. Of course, most of our “progressive” types, in and out of government, claim that these citizens are “uninformed,” and sometimes they even publicly call them “uneducated morons,” etc.

Of course, most of our politicians in “opposition,”(i.e., those out of political power right now) are trying to tap into this movement, and even “organize it” so as to change places with the political party that is presently in power. They, plus many “ordinary citizens” advocate a kind of “civil disobedience,” which would, in effect, roll back “excessive” government expenditures. These different kinds of “civil disobedience vary from unrealistic and sometimes violent “solutions” to simply “voting them out” (whatever that means to different people).
But almost all of these “solutions” try to treat the symptoms – not the disease! What is this “disease”?

THE LEGAL POWER TO COERCE!

Going to the taproot, it is any government’s “Power to Coerce”! That is the disease. What would differentiate, otherwise, “government” from any other human organization?

Is any other societal entity given this power to coerce? No. Legally speaking, only the various “governments” have this power – only the governments! (Otherwise, for example, why would “lobbying” be such an attractive and lucrative business?)
If this is the “disease,” what is the “treatment”? Well, it is certainly not trying to vote-in only those who would use such huge power responsibly. In the first place, those who put themselves up for election are, as a group, no smarter and no dumber and no more altruistic than those citizens, as a group, who do not put themselves up for election.

What is the proper treatment then?

In the first place, the citizens of any country should be very, very, careful about the kind of government to which they convey such power! In our country, for which many men and women risked their lives in 1776 and following years, the “framers” tried hard to put together a Constitution that would curb this power of coercion. Furthermore, they attempted to provide for flexibility, thus allowing for inevitable future change and evolution of its society. But they failed!

There has been change all right! For one thing, there has been growth; we are now some 300 millions of citizens. But the main change over some 230-plus years has been a seemingly inexorable growth of our central government and its arrogation of ever more power to coerce its citizens! And, paradoxically, much of this has happened in the name of new “rights” for its citizens! Concomitantly, there has been a progressive weakening of the power of our individual and collective States vis a vis the central government. That these things have happened demonstrates that our framers failed. They tried to set up the Constitution of our government so as to prevent exactly these things from happening – but they didn’t!
So, they failed. What should we citizens do now?

Well for one thing let us not try to treat only the “symptoms”! Let us try to treat the “disease.” This all did not happen over a short time, thus, unfortunately, we cannot realistically expect that we could reverse it all very rapidly either. But, central to any lasting attempt to reverse matters is to properly focus on what is the underlying cause: the “disease.” This is easier said than done! Why? Among other reasons, we citizens must be prepared to do this over several generations of citizens. That means we must educate our offspring to realize that there is “no free lunch,” that freedom is not free, that we do NOT have many natural “rights.” (We have the right to certain “inalienable rights,” and among them are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Certainly this does NOT include any right to a certain kind of “insurance,” etc.) These succeeding generations must realize that it is necessary to accept their own individual responsibility, and that they must not rely in any way on the government for this and related responsibilities.
How do we do this? That’s for each citizen to figure out for him or herself, but I believe that consistent support, in word (email, etc.) and deed (money), of those institutions that honestly pledge to reverse this trend is important. Following is a list of entities that I support and which actually try to do something to reverse the trend (there are many others as well):

1. Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)
2. CATO
3. George Mason University
4. Institute for Justice
5. Hillsdale College
6. REASON magazine (they also have a foundation)

To find more information concerning any of the organizations of this list, consult the Internet.

Sincerely,
Dallas B. Tuthill, M.D.

CATARACT SURGERY

Recently I bowed to the necessity of cataract surgery. I know “they” say that one is only as old as one thinks one is. But, I guess I was thinking I was older than I thought I was.

Anyway, I chose an ophthalmologic surgeon who had all the papers on the wall, but who in his last years ran a “factory.” That is, he confines his surgery to taking out cataracts. I wanted someone who had been there before.

He offered, as to all his patients, to put in artificial lenses in both eyes for distance vision, OR one for near and one for distance vision. I chose the latter possibility. I wanted to be able to read without glasses (aids which I had for years hated; and besides, a friend of mine opined that different lenses was an “awesome” choice). So much for the modern meaning of “awesome.”

No one, neither my surgeon nor my optometrist, had said that the “focal length” of my artificial lenses might change. Well, “they did”! After about a year I was wearing new glasses to give me “bilateral vision,” and not only for driving and longer term reading. I was so smart, as a former board-certified internal medicine physician, I did not count on artificial lenses changing focal length! But, “they did”! And, I did pay for glasses that would now “correct” for that change! How come?

As it turned out, the lenses, being artificial, did not change, but the “sac” in which they lay did! At least, that was the explanation that was given to me. Blah, blah, blah. Uh-huh. “Obviously” the sac had shifted somehow so that the lenses “appeared” to have a different focal length!

So, I put this in my blog to warn anyone -- who might read it -- about this possibility.

Hasten to write that I still like my choice of two lenses. I can still read without my glasses; I just have to hold the reading material a bit farther away! (What else is new?)

Dallas Tuthill, M.D.

MEDICAL MYTHS

Following is a short list of widely believed medical myths:

1. Drink eight (or more) glasses of water each day. If there are special medical needs for specific patients, physicians may recommend such, but as a general recommendation, I believe there is no good medical evidence for the need. The "normal" person can rely on one's thirst mechanism.

2. Shaving causes your hair to grow back faster, darker or thicker. Sometimes new hair appears darker.

3. Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight. There is no good medical evidence that would indicate that this is true. Dim light can cause "strain" and uncomfortable side effects, but it does not cause permanent damage.

As a board-certified internist with several decades of experience, I believe the listed recommendations are false, and lead many people do strange things, such as bring bottled water to concerts, plays and the like.

Prolonged physical exertion, and the more so when the ambient temperature is warm, can indeed cause a need for more water, and to drink extra water under such circumstances makes sense. And, it also makes sense for the "normal" person to pay attention to his or her thirst mechanism. One's experience of thirst may lag the immediate time of extra exertion, and usually does, but a normal thirst mechanism can and will in the long run protect one from even partial dehydration.

Dallas B. Tuthill M.D.

PS The above list of three medical myths was among a list of seven "medical myths" published in the THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, and republished in "FOR YOU" of the Tampa Tribune, March 14, 2009.
DBT

DISTANCE ESTIMATION

I have noticed that when one estimates distance over water one tends to underestimate, but when one estimates altitude (from the ground) one tends to overestimate. Does this apply to everyone?

Dallas Tuthill

BALLS AND OVARIES: SEX ADDICTION OR NATURAL INSTINCT?

Read an article that first appeared in THE ORLANDO SENTINEL (January 2010), “Is there such a thing as sex addiction?” written by Linda Shrieves. The come-on was Tiger Woods, including his photo, and the article appeared to report both sides of the this issue of diagnosis: Ms. Shrieves reports that Dr. Alan Grieco (psychologist) believes it to be “natural,” with different degrees of desire, while Patrick Carnes, therapist – whose staff is allegedly treating Woods – believes one can be afflicted by “sexual addiction,” a disease.

Quite obviously, however, the author, a woman, believes the latter, despite the notion that journalists report news items in an unbiased way: She writes without equivocation: “While some addicts are women, men are three times more likely to fall into that category.” In other words, the author “answers” the question posed, but the answer is her own opinion, which is not backed by anything else. Thus this opinion article belongs, if anywhere, on the “Op Ed” page.

My own intent with this blog is not to provide an exhaustive treatise on sexual desire. But I will note that “sexual desire”, without a doubt, is a true instinct that is still to be found in a human, any human. Humans do not have many true instincts, as do other animals. Other animals function almost entirely on instincts. Or, so we humans think, despite our tendency to anthropomorphize everything – even inanimate objects.

These days the number of “diseases” increases in a short time geometrically – especially “mental diseases.” Now we have added the disease of “Sexual Addiction.” I can just imagine what Dr. Szasz, a psychiatrist, must think about this “disease.” (If you are not familiar with Dr. Szasz, “google” him.)

There is no question that “sexual desire” varies among men, and in some it does appear especially marked. And, some women exhibit a phenomenon known for years as “nymphomania.” But are these really diseases?

It seems the “modern” way to find an excuse for most everything. Now if a man acts like a rabbit “jumping from hole to hole” it isn’t really his fault – it’s a disease! He can’t help it. So, is the young female teacher who seduces her 15 year-old student (reported more and more these days) a criminal? Or, does she just have a “disease” and can’t really help it?

Taking responsibility for one’s behavior is experienced less and less these days.

I hesitate, even as a physician, to intuit in writing what the average woman – before or after menopause – thinks about sexual desire, but I can, with comfort, say that men “think about sex” all of their lives, even when, for reasons of age or something else, cannot do anything about it – despite “Viagra,” “Cialis,” et cetera !

Dallas Tuthill, M.D.