Unwanted children

Posted by on

Posted by rhanrott on 10 January 2018,

The following is an email sent me years ago from Australia when this blog was first launched. It is very touching:

From. joan.garvan@anu.edu.au

I am writing today because I was an unwanted child. I am now 55 years old and my mum just passed away a week or so ago. Because my mum became pregnant with me in the 1950s she was shamed into marrying my dad and from there had a further 5 births (with two prior births to a first husband after the 2 world war ss well), and one abortion paid for by the doctor. Until my mum’s death she was haunted by the fact that she was shamed into marrying my dad. He is a loving man and was very good to mum in later life, but for many years (while the couple had children) my dad was both a drinker and a gambler. Until my mums death she was never able to overcome the grief and hurt of those early years (she called the 1950s and the 1960s and possibly much of the 1970s the black years).

I say, thank heavens, women can access abortion, so that they are not forced into having unwanted children. Even though our family managed to overcome much of the hurt and trauma that accompanies these events, my mum was never able to fully forgive my dad (who she blamed) and to an extent me. I believe I have resolved many of the issues but am still carrying scars that I hope will heal in time. It is still not possible for many women (from that generation) to leave their husbands for emotional, financial and health reasons. I think mum believed that in time the scars would heal for her and that she would learn to love my dad but this just didn’t happen and as she grew older she resented him more. Only in the last week or so before she died did the couple share sweet words and exchange their love. I think my dad may have felt so guilty – we human are so complicated.
thanking you and best,

Joannie

I find it morally repugnant to bring into this world children who are unwanted and unloved. If the principal objectives of Epicureanism are happiness and contentment, then it follows that children should be conceived, born and reared in warmth, love and friendship. Force majeure employed by religious groups claiming to know the mind of God, seek to force women to forego family planning and bear children, often conceived in violence or indifference. This is wicked and inhuman and is the cause of lifelong misery and unhappiness for many millions and untold social problems, mostly among the poor and socially deprived.

Filed under Religion, The way we live now | 0 Comments

Ominous noises. Brexit again.

Posted by on

“Just left Frankfurt. Great meetings, great weather, really enjoyed it. Good, because I’ll be spending a lot more time there. #Brexit.” Thus tweeted Lloyd Blankfein, Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs, on 19th October. It was the first time a major American financial services firm had signalled a shift of its European operations away from London in this way: not as a decision conditional on future developments, but as an established fact of business life. It was the first, but presumably not the last.

It is too late to hope that the City of London, by many measures the world’s leading financial centre and an economic engine for both the UK and Europe, could emerge unscathed from Brexit. The City, which generates tens of billions of pounds each year in tax revenues, will suffer relative both to its competitors and to how it would have performed without Brexit and probably in absolute terms as well. Harm is now unavoidable. The UK is suffering from heightened risk and the vagaries of its politics since the Brexit vote, including the unexpected outcome of this year’s election, have reinforced that perception. There is no status quo scenario: even if the UK was somehow to remain in the European Union after all, that would be disruptive too. (Prospect Magazine, November 2017).

I suppose one way of looking at it is that the British financial sector has grown just too important to the economy and to government revenue,  sucking up bright young people, making London outrageously expensive to live in, and periodically causing economic meltdowns.  Problem is, what bright, new, modern industry can possibly  take the place of the City?   Can’t think of one?  Nor can I.

Medicare

Posted by on

The top 1% of Medicare patients account for 20% of the total cost of Medicare. The top 5% account for 50% . This is the greatest threat to the US government finances, scarcely discussed, after the profligate funding of futile foreign wars. And now the huge Baby Boomer population is starting to have a threatening effect on the cost of Medicare, potentially blowing the budget, just as Republicans are planning to reduce taxes! Words fail me.

The high costs, to be fair, are caused by a moving population of people with serious conditions, who cost a lot for a few months,  then revert to “normal”, that is, if they don’t die in hospital. But there are some patients with chronic conditions of multiple co-occurring conditions who are treated for months. The doctors dare not end the treatment for fear of legal challenges, and relatives won’t let the sick person go. The taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

It will come as no surprise to learn that the very people who advocate spending less on the poor through Medicaid, are the biggest consumers of publically funded Medicare, ready to call a lawyer at a moment’s notice, and eager to fund research into ever longer lives for themselves – as long as they don’t have to pay for it out of their own pockets.

Surprisingly, under Republican rule, seniors will have to pay a larger share in 2018 for Medicare the richer they are (as defined by their 2016 Federal tax returns). Higher premiums will be paid for both Medicare Part B and Part D for individuals with modified adjusted gross income which exceeds $85,000.00, and married couples with joint incomes above $170,000.00. (I have tried to understand the Medicare website setting out the new arrangements, but it is written by an illiterate and, to me, it is incomprehensible. I will not try to list the new rules because you won’t probably understand them either).

The point is that there is a segment of the (well-off) population for whom no amount of public money is enough to keep them alive. Rationing is anathema for them, but reducing even basic healtthcare for the poor is apparently fine by them. It is one thing to help someone recover from acute injury, but long-term cognitive impairment should be a matter for intelligent discussion between doctors and family – keeping alheimers patients alive at all costs is cruel to everyone ( I have personal experience). End-of-life is end- of-life. If relatives want to extend it, they should make a major contribution towards the cost, not expect the taxpayer to pay out with no end in sight.

And yet…and yet…. Americans are under the illusion that American medical care is the best in the world, even though US life expectancy is lower than most other OECD countries.

The dangers of joining a political party

Posted by on

Here on the Epicurus Blog, we deviate from Epicurean orthodoxy insofar as we see an interest in politics as not necessarily inadvisable. Provided you don’t become consumed by politics, to the detriment of your social life and cultured activities, politics can be an innocent interest- a bit like physics. Epicurus saw politics as a source of grief and despair, which is true. But it can also be a lot of fun, in moderation, of course.

However, new research from Queen Mary, University of London, shows that the Epicurean aversion to political participation may have more merit than we’ve previously assumed. The report is a polls of members of Britain’s major political parties. (You can read it here http://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/qmul/media/publications/Grassroots,-Britain’s-Party-Members.pdf.) The results show that the party members are totally unrepresentative of the wider public. They are older, whiter, more middle or upper class, and more male. They are far more likely to have degrees. More importantly, they identify themselves are being more ideologically extreme than both the party leadership and the general public. In terms of policies, party members overwhelmingly take one position on almost every issue, so there isn’t much room for dissent if you take a minority view.

All of this matters because the demographics and politics of British political party members are totally un-Epicurean. The Garden was meant to host people from all different backgrounds. It was a place of mild discussion, where people could disagree amicably, unlike political parties where diverging views (particularly on Brexit) are seen as treacherous and intolerable. Epicureans like diversity, or at least the liberal values that make it possible. Britain’s political parties couldn’t be a greater contrast to this ideal.

The other noteworthy finding of party members is how different Conservative members are to everyone else. Conservatives overwhelmingly support leaving the Single Market and Customs Union (so no hope of a future pro-EU Conservative leader), cutting government spending, and a much tougher stance on law and order. By slimmer margins they support the death penalty and are sceptical of the cultural benefits of immigration. The other parties are all very consistently and overwhelmingly left wing- even the Liberal Democrats, who often misleadingly describe themselves as ‘centrist.’

Overall, if you hold very consistently left wing or right wing views, and are willing to lead a less happy life for the sake of promoting your views, then join a political party. But for those of us who hold far more ambiguous, and at times inconsistent views, we’re far better off keeping a good distance from anything resembling party membership. Life is too short and precious to waste it campaigning with totally like-minded and out of touch people.

Why Liberal Zionism is now an oxymoron: Confessions of a former Liberal Zionist

Posted by on

I used to consider myself a staunch Zionist. I thought the creation of Israel was a necessary good. Necessary, because the Holocaust demonstrated that anti-Semitism was entrenched part of the world, even in an advanced industrialised country with a strong liberal tradition like Germany. And good, because Israel has become an immensely successful country, with a flourishing economy, strong tech sector, religious tolerance, liberal democracy, and even great food. Against the odds, Israel has overcome overwhelming opposition to its existence from throughout the region. It has won almost every war it has fought. Now, it is more secure than ever. Netanyahu says Israel is here to stay. And no one doubts him.

In recent years, Israeli politics has taken a rightward turn, and understandably so. Peace talks have stalled, with most Israelis blaming a hopelessly corrupt and intransigent Palestinian leadership. Hamas is the undisputed leadership in the Gaza strip, and will remain so for the foreseeable future despite the ruinous effects of Israel and Egypt’s blockade. Hezbollah remains a permanent feature of the Lebanese political and military landscape. Despite Rouhani’s attempts at rapprochement, Iran is as belligerent as ever; Khamenei and the Guardian Council remain utterly hostile to Israel, and will increase in wealth and influence due to the West’s lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of assets. Geopolitically, the only good news is the demise of ISIS. This has benefited the centre-right Likud, as well as smaller rightwing parties; the religious ones have also benefited from the relative increase in the ultra-Orthodox population.

So I accept why Israelis feel the way they do. While I’ve long been critical of aspects of Israeli policy, I thought Israel had the moral high ground due to the wider security situation in the Middle East. But now, I don’t think it’s possible to say either side has the moral high ground, assuming morality can be a consideration in complex geopolitical conflicts (a discussion for another time). The Israeli government no longer shows any signs of a commitment to a two state solution. Lately, it has not declared where it wants the borders to be. West Bank settlements continue to expand, to change the ‘facts on the ground.’ While there occasionally are instances of Palestinian terrorism, and more frequently, violent unrest, that doesn’t justify the bizarre and cruel policy of house demolition, nor the lack of serious commitment to improving the West Bank’s infrastructure and economy. Rather than deliver the urgent reforms needed, the Israeli government’s strategy is to manage the status quo as successfully as possible, knowing the international community will grow weary of pushing for change. This has been immensely effective. Israel has better relations with the Arab world than ever. The economy is growing fast, even if there remain problems with an undereducated ultra-Orthodox population. Even many Palestinians are applying for Israeli citizenship, knowing that Palestinian statehood is unlikely to materialise.

But while Netanyahu may be incredibly successful, partly because of an inept and divided opposition, that doesn’t make him right. He is fundamentally a very authoritarian character, relentlessly funding Israel’s domination over what should be future Palestinian territory. He has cracked down on refugees from East Africa, refusing to acknowledge that they come from regions torn apart by war, famine and drought. For political gain, he has fostered an ethnic, exclusionary conception of Jewish nationhood, alienating non-Jewish Israelis. He is also in coalition government with far-right parties that explicitly oppose Palestinian statehood and advocate annexation of West Bank Area C.

Now none of this excuses the Palestinians’ faults. The Palestinian leadership routinely endorses violence and indoctrinates children to believe vitriolic anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic propaganda. Like the Israeli government, they have refused to define precisely the territory they want for a Palestinian state. And their proposals for East Jerusalem are unrealistic. Because it contains some of the holiest sides in Judaism, it will have to be internationally administered territory, not the exclusive preserve of Palestine. My overall point is that given Israel’s military, economic and geopolitical success, the Palestinians’ faults no longer excuses Israel’s.

Who have the moral high ground doesn’t determine likely future outcomes. In the future, the Israeli polity will be ever more conservative, caused by the occasional outburst of Palestinian terror and the failures of the peace process. Gaza will remain desperately poor as long as Hamas remain in charge. And no agreement will be made on the West Bank; the settlements’ rapid growth and surprisingly low Palestinian birth rate will continue to complicate matters. A usual Epicurean call for moderation is my conclusion, though it seems utterly futile in regards to this issue.