A Conspiracy Theory Writ Large.

One can appreciate conspiracy theorists and their often as not off-the-wall ideas without being oneself a conspiracy theorist. Belief in off-the-wall ideas seems to represent either the product of a great deal of time and focused effort on the part of a maverick personality, or the final proof of extreme gullibility on the part of a simple mind. In neither case is a theory certain to be incorrect solely for its tainted authorship. Nor are theories proposed by conventional scientific or professional persons of unimpeachable character and reference certain to be correct. Theories require proof. The famous final theorem of Pierre de Fermat went without proof until twenty years ago and serves as an exception to this rule. So, what would be the biggest conspiracy theories of all time, the seven wonders of the world of conspiracy theory? I propose that the number one such wacko theory is that our current president of the United States of America is not a citizen of the USA. (And, as though the proposed could be made any worse, the au courant theory adds that, even though he is a lawyer who was either a professor of constitutional law at a prominent law school or was one who taught classes in constitutional law at that law school, our president ran for the highest office in the land knowing full well that he was not eligible for the office he sought.)

To the end of establishing proof of the number one conspiracy theory of modern times--that our incumbent president of the United States of America is not eligible for the office--comes now Philip J. Berg, Esquire, presenting the following:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states in particular part, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Furthermore, all Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Independence. "The general doctrine of our Constitution is that the executive power of the nation is vested in the President subject only to the exceptions and qualifications, which are expressed in the instrument."

7 Works of Alexander Hamilton, J. C. Hamilton ed. (New York: 1851), 76, 80-81 (emphasis in original), U.S. Constitution, Article II (Hamilton and Madison.)
Z:\FO RM S\Obama Complainl.doc.

Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is he must be a "natural born" citizen. {Italics are mine, Nec Pluribus Unum.}Unfortunately, Obama is not a "natural born" citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama's mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a minor and in the custody of his mother. Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen (18) years to regain his United States Citizenship status.
The Democratic National Committee is for Plaintiff and "We the People" who believe in the Democratic Vision. The Democratic National Party is supposed to represent the Democratic Americans in seeking honest leadership, Open Government, Real Security, Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity, Educational Excellence, a Healthcare System that works for Everyone and Retirement Security. The Democratic Party is supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing personal liberties for all. Of which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision and who is qualified and eligible to run for Office of the President under the qualifications of the United States Constitution.
The actions of Obama, a U.S. Senator, in running for President of the United States, knowing he is not eligible, have been taken entirely without authorization under the United States Constitution, completely ignoring the qualification and procedures created by the United States Constitution he is purporting to enforce.

I checked on Lawyer Berg and found people in Philadelphia who say he is not a nut case.

There are three people in Kenya who say the President was born in Kenya and that they witnessed that birth. No one says he witnessed Obama's birth in Hawaii even though there are several hospitals in Hawaii saying he was born in their facility. This surely sounds irregular. More than one birth certificate should mandate an investigation when the one on the certificates is the leader of the free world and the most powerful man on earth. Who were the delivering doctors and nurses in assistance for the delivery? Has anyone bothered to check this out? It should not be prohibitively difficult to find out what air connections Stanley Dunham used to fly from Hawaii to Kenya and back. If she had been refused boarding because her pregnancy was too advanced, someone had to have witnessed that and the argument that surely ensued. It is not inconceivable that a witness is still alive today, one who remembers Obama's mother having been refused a flight to Hawaii and her having been left in Kenya to deliver the baby there--it is the sort of human drama that tends to create a durable memory. Particularly long lived in those who refused the mother-to-be.

No doubt an African delivery would have been assisted by a doctor or nurse, as I doubt she was living at the time in a mud hut in the bush. It would likely have occurred in a clinic or hospital. But irrespective of which was the setting there must have been witnesses. And there are the three already on record as to the truth of this having happened in Kenya and not in Hawaii. There is little doubt that Stanley Dunham would have returned to Hawaii as soon after having delivered her baby as she was physically able to travel. In fact, she would most likely have used the same ticket that she attempted to use, in the line of reasoning of the conspiracy theory, before delivery when she was refused boarding for the imminence of her baby's birth. In this way she would have returned to the USA within a week of the live birth of her baby boy at which point she would have then registered the live birth as having occurred--her choice: honest, in Kenya or dishonest, in the USA. Apparently she registered the birth as having occurred in the USA. (She was a second or third wife of the muslim Obama and was probably not received by the extended family in Kenya with open arms. And it must have been about that time that she decided to leave her husband--we do not know if that had been a duly consecrated marriage--and return to the USA for at least a while.) And all of this suggests to me that the off-the-wall theory or claim might have enough merit to check it out.

The case gets worse yet when one looks at the young Obama and his early life with his Indonesian step father who was also a Muslim and who apparently saw to the proper Muslim identification and education of his adopted son. This situation also disqualifies Obama from the presidency for the fact that mother and son would have shared Indonesian citizenship in those years.

Obama could have opted for US citizenship anytime between the Indonesian years and his eighteenth birthday, at least as some would interpret this situation. But clearly he did not. In fact he first received a US passport when he was elected to office in Illinois. But he travelled to Pakistan and neighboring countries long before that, apparently on an Indonesian passport.

There are some other irregularities such as how much of his mother's life was spent in US territories before a certain age and, again, the answer comes up short for Obama's US citizenship.

None of this should be believable given the scrutiny of candidates for even lowly elected office in our country. Certainly, any candidate for elected office whose party affiliation is Republican would have had all of this sort of irregularity very carefully investigated. But even a Democrat running for office ought to have at least a cursory back round check by the parties and the press. Yet do you believe that candidate Obama was suitably scrutinized by a functioning fourth estate? You tell me if you think the New York Times, NBC, ABC, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, and their ilk vetted this candidate during the months leading up to the federal election. I have heard nothing of this controversy of our president's citizenship even on Fox News. Are Hannity, O'Reilly, and Beck afraid of something? Hard to imagine those three being afraid to check out a presidential candidate, much less one who has succeeded to the office. Or is this such a crack-pot theory that it deserves complete silence on the part of all orthodox news outlets? I wish someone would report on this Conspiracy Writ Large as I think it is number one in the list of the top ten conspiracy theories of modern time.

How to envision the universe.

We use the term come to grips with . . . And we speak of grasping a concept. If you will accept the thesis that we are the direct descendants of a hominid that mastered upright, two footed gait, and that acquired as a consequence of that the ability to use its fore legs as arms and its fore feet as hands, you might go one step further and consider that much of our brain's special abilities relate to and are likely derived from those mechanical advantages. Even mental capabilities such as abstract thinking might rest upon a neurobiological foundation laid down in the past by our ancient, savannah dwelling forebears who literally and figuratively saw their hand in front of their face.

It is said that we see only what we know. But sometimes we know only what we see--at least in the case of modeling abstract concepts. So what would be a simple model for a simple abstract like a² + b² = c²? Well, there must be close to a hundred ways to prove the Pythagorean theorem. But a simple model would utilize little square tiles, all the same size arranged in three groups to form a small, a larger, and a largest square with values 3x3=9, 4x4=16, and 5x5=25, respectively. Of course, the square of the hypotenuse of the triangle formed when the three squares are laid with tip ends touching is here 25 and is equal to the sum of the two other sides of the triangle squared. One can mentally envision the nine little squares inside the one smallest square; sixteen little sqares inside the larger square and twenty-five little squares inside the largest square. But it is graphic when done as a model of little tiles so arranged. Squared is literally squared in the model. These tiles can be set up on a table top so as to help children grasp this with their hands as well as with their minds.

Let us move from two dimensions to three while still keeping the same model and concept: Pierre de Fermat's last theorem. This is a theorem that went without a proof for centuries. It was first proposed by de Fermat in the form of a note scribbled in one margin of his copy of an ancient Greek text, Diophantus's Arithmetica. The note read in the original Latin: Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadrato-quadratum in duos quadrato-quadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet.(Nagell 1951, p. 252). In English: It is impossible for a cube to be the sum of two cubes, a fourth power to be the sum of two fourth powers, or in general for any number that is a power greater than the second to be the sum of two like powers. De Fermat added that he had discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition but that the margin of the page was too narrow to contain his proof. Let us envision a model for the simplest situation of this abstraction: an + bn = cn where n=3. One must see the model in three dimensions.

Envision a small, a medium, and a large cube arranged so as to make a sculpture in three dimensions. The small cube is axaxa where a=3. It is composed of twenty-seven smaller cubes as 3x3x3. The medium cube is bxbxb where b=4. It is composed of sixty-four smaller cubes as 4x4x4. And the largest cube is cxcxc where c=5. It is made up of one hundred and twenty-five smaller cubes. All the small cubes are the same size. Now attach the cubes so that their corners touch and form within a right triangle with sides three, four, and five units for the small, medium, and large cubes, respectively. This is a model for de Fermat's final theorem in its simplest form. One can see that for n=3 the x cube and the y cube do not equal the z cube in volume.

Going beyond three dimensions with the model just described requires mathematical notation and that does not lend itself to the process of envisioning. No doubt the reason for this is the inescapable fact that our species was born into three visual and palpable dimensions as were each of us as individuals and as were all of the forms of our ancestor species. We all evolved sensing but three dimensions. At least this is true of those that swam, flew, or at a minimum jumped. (If there was a flatworm in the family tree, it might have "known" but two dimensions.)

No doubt there exist more dimensions in our universe than the three we know as height, width, and depth. But light up your Cohiba in the tightly enclosed space and look for some part of that space not containing dense cigar smoke. Unless you have added a lot of Laphroaig to the mix you will not find dimensions beyond height, width, and depth. Even though our brains function better than those of our hairy, hunched back, gracile forebears on the savannah we see with our eyes and grasp with our hands but three dimensions. Perhaps fortunate for us that our mental grasp exceeds our physical grasp, at least as long as we refrain from blowing ourselves up or poisoning ourselves and our planet beyond our or its recuperative powers. But how to model in three dimensions our universe which is immense, almost infinite, really; incredibly old, and very dynamic? We know it is expanding. It is composed of energy and matter and the two are interconvertible, although not subject to destruction. We know that the laws of physics and the four forces are presumably the same throughout the entirety of the universe. We learned recently that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that much of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy. We know a lot about the ultrastructure of matter, too. But what would serve us as a model of this universe of ours? Something simple enough to be easily grasped even by children?

I propose the kettle of water on the hot plate model. It helps to have good lighting for this. Set the kettle on the burner and turn on the heat. Watch closely as the first tiny bubbles form as if from nothing on the bottom of the kettle. Then the tiny bubbles let go of the bottom and begin their ascent to the top of the water. Note that the bubbles enlarge and shift their shape as they traverse the distance from the bottom to the top of the water layer. This is the model of our universe.

First observation: there is not just one bubble at a time. Likely lesson is that our universe is not universal. Probably we are one of a whole collection of such bodies but, like the bubbles that do not touch one another in their transit of the water layer, we know of no other universe. Still, the model suggests others coexist with us.

Second observation: the destiny of the universe we call home is to disappear into the void that surrounds all that is. No oscillating universe, no death in fire or ice. Just disappear into the void.

Third observation: one bubble knows only its own existence from its origin on the heated surface of the bottom of the kettle to its extinction at the surface of the water layer. And one universe knows only of its existence from its big bang origin to its eventual extinction. Even the planned array of gravity wave detectors will not disclose the existence of other universes beyond ours.

Fourth observation: energy is needed to power the model of the universe and energy is likely needed to power the universe of universes one of which we call our own.

Fifth observation: at first glance we have a couple of loose ends: matter/energy that cannot be destroyed but a whole universe of that very stuff disappearing into the void at the end of its run. Ditto for all the other sister universes. And a whole lot of energy powering up the kettle on the other end of the system.

Sixth observation: the loose ends can be connected, at least a concept of that can be grasped. Even with our feeble, three dimension accustomed minds.

Envision for the fun of it one more scene: dark clouds of a thunderstorm, a bolt of lightning striking a lone tree on the savannah, a dozen hairy, hunched, and upright forms watching awestruck as one of their number reaches into the burning pyre to extract a flaming branch. If our bold forebear could grasp (manually and mentally) the concept of fire, we can create a model so as to envision our universe.

Bane of the Land

Bane of the Land is the English translation of the name of my grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's mother's family which is Landschaden. So my grandfather, John J. Harter, his grandfather, François-Joseph Mattias "Frank" Harter, his grandfather, Philippe de Harter, his grandfather, Jean de Harter, his mother. She was the tail end of the family, the male line of which went extinct when Friedrich III Landschad von Steinach died in 1653. The family von Landschaden had heroes and villains as any family has. But the scale of the heroism and villainy was orders of magnitude greater than any others in my family tree. The behavior belongs in the truth is stranger than fiction category.

The names Conrad and Bligger recur in the annals of this family. Both are present early on but then Conrad ceases to be a choice while Bligger continues to be popular. No doubt this is because one of the most notorious men in the family and the reason for the appellation "Landschaden" was a very early Conrad. This man was the original robber knight. From his castle high above the Neckar river he would descend upon unsuspecting barges carrying persons and merchandise to Heidelberg 20 kilometer away. At one point the Emperor put Conrad under imperial ban and required him to go on Crusade for his crimes.

This was the First Christian Crusade. In many ways this was the only successful crusade. Certainly it is the one most detested by historians who detest Christianity in general and European Christianity in particular. It was the one that captured the city of Jerusalem. Lots of books have been written about this crusade which was called by the pope of Rome to reclaim holy sites from the muslims and which was heralded by the tragedy of Pierre L'Hermitte's crusade of peasants. This crusade was a crash of cymbals that marked a clash of civilizations. And after centuries of quiescence that clash of civilizations is active in our day. In a way we are in a Tenth Christian Crusade at present. Same two civilizations clashing now as a millenium ago. "He who fails to learn history is condemned to repeat it."

But back to the Conrad who garnered the distinction of being Bane of the Land and was forced to pack it in with the crusading army. Well, this was fighting the same determined enemy our soldiers face in Afganistan but without any of the logistical support, communications, and high tech weaponry of today. Just surviving long enough to reach the gates of the Holy City was a feat. Conrad fought in the climactic battle outside those gates. And he turned the tide of battle when he decapitated the leader of the Saracen forces. His heroism proved a match for his villainy. There is a church in Steinach am Neckar where the Landschaden are buried. An impressive tomb effigy mounted in a wall of that church shows Conrad in his armor, his strong and loyal wife at his side, and that Saracen's head dangling from his right hand. Local hero and former local villain, Landschaden goes from Bane of the Land to Hero of the First Crusade. So the family was redeemed, kept the name, and built another castle high above the Neckar.

These Rhenish robber knights ended up solid citizens of the realm. Some were poets and the most famous of them was Bligger von Steinach. "Hier hat die mär ein ende" is the penultimate line of his greatest work. And what work was that, you ask. Years ago one would need a good education or a learned friend. Today Google will get you the work. But you will still need resources to verify the author. Some of the Landschaden were lawyers--just like families today. These later lawyer Landschadens were reich chancellors and developers. Then came Freidrich III Landschad von Steinach and the end of the (male) line, 1653.

Upon Freidrich III Landschad von Steinach's death the wappen (coat of arms) went to his business partner, von Bohn. Upon von Bohn's death the wappen went to my grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather, Jean de Harter. He served in the Parlement de Paris and was later secretary to the War Minister Louvois and his master of the German Language. For these services well performed he received the fief de Landschaden from Louis XIV of France. The fief included properties formerly in the ancient imperial fief von Landschaden. The de Harters added de Landschaden to their surname and took the ancient wappen for their blazon, so Harter de Landschaden.

Just prior to the French Revolution the cadette branch of the family Harter de Landschaden changed their name to Hardter de Hartenstein, sold most of the properties including those of the fief de Landschaden, and moved to Switzerland. At this point the branch ainée of the family acquired the wappen and name and chose to stay in France. But after surviving the revolution, the many epic battles of Napoléon premier's Grande Armée, and the struggles inherent in running a small business my great great grandfather chose to sell out, change his name from François-Joseph Mattias de Harter to Frank Harter and catch the 1828 boat to New York City.

I wonder at times whether the branch that moved to Switzerland might have made the better move. Until recently I would have thought USA. But as I look around me and see our Constitution targeted for modernization, affirmative action based on skin pigment, Veterans' benefits means tested (so that after my five years of active duty service I am asked not just for my annual income but also for my net worth--things that were not discussed when I volunteered for the US Navy), Medicare benefits in the process of major downgrading, Social Security not worth applying for (I've been waiting for benefits to begin at age 70 so as to maximize that one but now think I'm waiting for Godot), wise Latinas who judge better than Old White Men, attorney generals who prosecute CIA agents for interrogating terrorists, billions of US dollars going to help Brazil drill offshore (some of the money to help George Soros, too) while permission to drill off our shores is denied, class warfare with special targeting of some Americans for much higher taxes and fewer deductions. But that is not the worst of it. No, the worst of it is that the USA is preparing to tax the net worth of citizens. Don't be shocked by that. If you own a home, you already pay an annual tax on that home and that home is a part of your net worth. Just add federal taxes on the whole of your net worth. This is the primary reason for the government's crusade to end offshore accounts, banking secrecy laws, and other ways citizens hide assets from their governments. As for the reason to tax net worth, well, there is just no other way to level our society's wealth--something at the heart of the Obama's Change for America. Not a level playing field but a level of affluence. The massive spending programs will mandate this step and give cover to the biggest social change in the nation's history. Is there room on Mount Rushmore for one more head? A modern Bane of the Land without the redeeming heroism of the original.

Chou en Lai's answer to the question "was the French Revolution as success?" was supposedly "too early to tell." In the same way, the answer to the question "which side won the cold war, Communism or Free Enterprise?" might be "too early to tell, but starting to lean toward the former."

Crisis, what crisis?

Before one can do something for a living he or she must typically have an aptitude for it, an interest in it, and a period of training under supervision. Upon completion of that training there is examination and finally certification. Variable amounts of cleverness, intelligence, focus, endurance, and passion are requisites to arrive at that point in one's career. There will have been payment of some sort--cash as well as the labor of the entered apprentice or student/intern/resident. No difference really between plumbing and medicine, at least as regards the generalities of preparing for a lifetime of laboring in the craft.

The body of knowledge is undoubtedly larger for the doctor than for the tradesman and so the flux of knowledge, or knowledge throughput in the course of the study years, is greater for the student doctor. For that reason the student of medicine must be a quick study. Even when all the years of study have been successfully completed the newly minted doctor knows but a small fraction of what is needed to be good at medicine. I do not know if this is as true of tradesmen but I would think so. (The late, great Trade Unionist George Meaney said that anyone who did not respect a plumber had probably never paid a plumber's bill. Such presence is acquired after years in the craft.) But the explosion of knowledge in medicine is orders of magnitude larger than that which is continually bombarding those in other professions or crafts.

Besides knowledge there are technique and style to be mastered, and wisdom to be acquired. If the doctor is going to practice medicine, this is termed clinical wisdom. Judgement is another quality of importance. It is partly learned and partly intrinsic. Nobility of character, kindness, maturity, generosity, a sense of purpose, even a sense of humor all round out the ideal doctor. Cultural sensitivity is ever more relevant in our American society. This goes beyond competency in the English language and is more true in some specialties than others. (Compare the relative importance of the doctor's mother culture in the case of a child psychiatrist versus that of a pathologist.) Honesty should be a virtue held in high esteem by those in all crafts and professions. Hopefully the doctor did not get into medical school by cheating. That would not augur well for an honest and decent life in the profession.

Persons who have had experience with a good doctor likely have experienced poor ones, too. Medical regulatory agencies manage to exclude doctors who are egregiously incompetent practitioners. But they do not distinguish between the good doctor and the poor doctor. As long as the doctor meets minimal standards of care, is current in continuing medical education, has passed all appropriate examinations, and has a degree in medicine from any medical school in the USA that is approved or from any medical school outside the USA (and the regulatory agencies of the states do not hold these schools to any proper standards for political reasons) he or she is allowed to practice medicine in the state. Each state is different and may or may not reciprocate with other states. Since licensure certifies basic competency as measured by written and oral examination but Medicine is both an art and a science the testing ends up as a measure mostly of skills and ability in science. Patients, though, sense the doctor's art more than his or her science. In this way success in the practice of medicine demands accomplishment in both the art and the science of medicine--at least success in the free enterprise sort of health care we have in our country today.

Socialized medical systems as found in some European countries and the government run systems that we have here in our country (Veterans Hospitals and Clinics, Bureau of Indian Affairs Clinics, Military Hospitals, Bureau of Prisons, and so forth) assign doctors to patients with little or no choice on anyone's part. Although this is no reason to expect fewer good doctors and more poor ones, it does seem to be the experience of many patients that the experience was different in the government run medical clinics and hospitals. And it was not on account of the hospitals' facilities, equipment, or staff. Patients rate the doctor-patient relationship different and not as satisfactory in the federal medical programs. Hearsay, not scientific polling, but worth doing some further investigation of a scientific nature. A lot is at stake here.

At a minimum the President's talk of crisis and doomsday predictions by experts of all sorts are surely discouraging the best and brightest of America's students from pursuing a career in medicine. The arduous training, the expense of protracted years of study, the stress on the individual and his or her family, the many factors predicting for success or failure all militate against selecting Medicine. The President's diagnosis of terminal illness in our American health care system and the politicians' dithering will also discourage any and all doctors presently on the job. This will leave us with a discouraged senior corps and a barely able junior corps of doctors when we need everyone in peak form. Many, many advances are coming down the research pipeline. More and better life for our citizens is what is at stake. These advances have been decades in development. And most of them will require a high level of technical knowledge and skill on the part of the doctor and the doctor's team. (Take the example of robotic prostate surgery or intensity modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer cure. Both require a higher not a lower level of physician ability.)

There is no crisis in health care. That much is obvious. There are parties on all sides eager to carve up the pie of health care reimbursement. And there is a lot to be gained by the Social Democrats should all health care in this country be government run. The voting preference of government workers is strongly Democrat so moving one sixth of the work force of the country into the federal sphere should guarantee Democratic domination of the legislature, executive branch, and eventually the judiciary from the highest offices down. This appears to be the rationale behind the push to federalize the health care system. It certainly is not a mission on behalf of politicians to alleviate suffering or improve efficiency or cut costs. The federal government epitomizes frustration, inefficiency, and waste. But an election map painted in democrat blue coast to coast could be the goal. Color this crisis blue.

DNA and genealogy

Genealogy is said to be an old lady's avocation. Granted, not every old lady fancies it but these days every family has some member working on the family's origins. And that someone is often as not an old lady.

In centuries past transatlantic and transpacific voyage was time consuming and expensive. In addition there was often a good reason the immigrant left the ancestral village and journeyed to America. The founding generation and generations of Americans up to the early 20C often sacrificed their relations with families and nation states in Europe and Asia. Black slaves were entirely dislocated from their lands of origin. So piecing together the transatlantic story generations later is frequently not possible using traditional genealogical tools. This is changing as a new tool becomes available.

Note that this matter of distant origins searching applies more to persons whose families arrived prior to WWI than to new arrivals. Since today's world affords almost universal availability of telephones, timely and dependable surface mail, near instantaneous electronic mail, digital photography, and relatively inexpensive, safe, and rapid transatlantic and transpacific travel new immigrants do not suffer the paradigm of familial and cultural dislocation and divorce to the same degree as immigrants of prior centuries. Today's immigrant arrives in America with intact family ties that are relatively easy to maintain. He or she is always cognizant of the ancestral origins, and is in possession of the mother culture. I think genealogy will be less important to future generations of our new immigrants. But our culture is changing and a Confucian sort of respect for ancestors and their stories might be on the increase. If nothing else it seems to help young people to know that older family members faced trials that they now face. Makes for good story telling, too.

It is probably fair to add that this nation was more of a mixing bowl in the past, and that it will be less so in the present and the future. Even the color of the mixture in the bowl is changing as a nation that was ninety per cent European in origin from its founding up to 1960 is now seventy per cent so and is expected to drop to less than half so by mid 21C. (Open and poorly enforced immigration policy, low white birth rate, widely available fertility control including abortion, and declining influence of authoritarian institutions opposed to these forces will see the face of America change a great deal in the first half of this century.) Since, except for the maximally dislocated Native American peoples, we are all the children of immigrants there is probably no cause for alarm. America possesses a wonderful constitution, a culture of decency and accomplishment, good governmental systems, honest civil servants and judiciary, effective educational practices and institutions, hard working labor and management, good health care practitioners and institutions, and the best Congress and Executive branch that money can buy.

Back to the DNA genealogy thought: things have changed for the better when it comes to those little old ladies searching out the family origins, whether these Americans trace their origins to immigrants who left Europe, Asia, or Africa as free persons, indentured servants, or slaves. New advances in the science of DNA analysis will go where no one has gone before. There is a family record encoded in each of our cells that will read like paper trail genealogy when accessed by current and future technology. Whereas paper trail genealogy provides three, four, maybe five generations of ancestors our own DNA tells us the timeline and routes of migration of our own (straight) paternal and maternal lines all the way back to Africa. Future refinements in the methodology might even help fill in the pedigree chart between the straight paternal and the straight maternal lines.

For now DNA analysis in genealogy aims more at affirming or refuting blood relationships near and distant, as well as pinpointing the ancestral land and the route taken by our paternal and maternal line ancestors out of Mother Africa to Europe or Asia or not out of Mother Africa to Europe or Asia but rather direct to USA. The analysis looks at mutations in sections of the Y chromosome, which is in the nucleus of the cell, and studies the little circle of DNA in the mitochondria, which are in the cytoplasm. These go back to the sperm and the egg and just as you would imagine tell a story of the father and the mother of the person tested, as well as the story of the father's father and the mother's mother and so forth and so on back tens of thousands of years. One can see a map of places through which the paternal line or maternal line traveled to get to hometown, USA. The analysis uses technical manipulations and jargon but should be reasonably understandable for most people willing to work at it. Easier to understand than the inner workings of a kitchen faucet and never need to fix it.

Commercially available DNA analysis of the male line (Y chromosome typing done on male supplied specimens) and of the female line (mitochondrial DNA typing done on either male or female supplied specimens) will tell the family's distant origins. Thus one might find that a family that traces to an 18C immigrant in Virginia or Pennsylvania thought to have come from German states actually has a paternal line that originated (in Europe, that is) in what is now the United Kingdom. A half million kits for this kind of analysis have been sold and the total number of persons in the data base is increasing at twenty per cent per year. Since most people supply their own earliest known origin and since there is a system of anonymous presentation of data and since there is also the acquisition of European samples, the matching process is becoming more refined and more likely valid. This is probably more suitable for passionate amateur genealogists, especially ones facing a gap in the paper trail or an otherwise insurmountable obstacle.

The cost of DNA analysis is equivalent to the cost of a fine meal for two. No one ever said information was cheap. Accessing the information encoded in one's own DNA would seem to be something that should cost more than the price of a good meal. Check out Family Tree DNA by Dr. Bennett Greenspan. I highly recommend his organization.

.

The role of the talking head.

My spouse and I spent a week end in Rome two months ago. Long story why and not relevant, either. We saw amazing things, things that until that week end had not come through to us despite a lifetime of studying, television specials, and movies about Rome. Our week end was literally and figuratively an eye opener.

Take the half dozen Talking Heads of Rome. These antedate Beck and Hannity of Fox cable channel by five hundred years but have functioned for all that time in much the same way as the Fox talking heads today. This phenomenon began with a cobbler named Pasquino who was not a man to hold his tongue even though his era did not encourage free speech. A sorely stressed marble statue of Menelaus shielding the dead body of Patroclus (refer to Homer's Iliad for details) that used to serve as a stepping stone in the medieval sewer/street was set upright outside the cobbler's shop in 1501. (It is still there as are so many other things from ages past in the Eternal City. Rome is big but seems to have enough stuff for a hundred big cities.) The city's citizens beginning with Pasquino and continuing to our day write satirical comments on the times, particularly political comments, and stick them up onto the marble wreck. In this way the statues or heads talk. The satire is witty and well presented, making you think that the wonderful language skills of Rome's classical period continue to be practiced today. I will give one example. My examples are always long.

In the center of the piazza della Minerva there is the famous Egyptian obelisk atop Gian Lorenzo Bernini's elephant. (A Bernini design but Ercole Ferrata was the sculptor.) A brass plaque is fixed to the front of the church in the square (Santa Maria sopra Minerva) to monument the high water mark from a flood of the fiumi Tevere, or Tiber river. Our guide pointed this out and I asked him to stand by the plaque which he did. Then I asked him to point his finger at the line so I could take a picture. It seemed like a natural thing to do. The guide said most tourists ask him to do the same.

Later, while discussing the Talking Heads of Rome, he gave as an example of a posting a famous cartoon that featured a scandal ridden Italian politician named Fiumi. In the same way as the guide pointed to the high water mark of the fiumi or river, the cartoon showed a man pointing to the pubis of a naked woman. The caption read "Fiumi got up to here." Our guide assured us the people reading this knew to which woman the cartoonist was referring. And no, it was not Mrs. Fiumi.

The medium of the web log seems to serve as an adjunct to the Talking Heads--of Rome, of Fox cable networks, or of other similar outlets. And it seems to me that some of the wit and skill of the Romans--ancient, medieval, or contemporary--would be a comfort to us all in these eventful times. The strident, clumsy, ugly, and mean spirited editorial comments of Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich do not uplift or inspire Americans to greatness. Nor do these bitter commentaries promote civility, harmony, or understanding. We need information, true enough. But "Fiumi got to here" can be told in more agreeable ways than those used by Dowd and Rich. I hope we Americans evolve less toward them and more toward Pasquino et al.

Single Payer System Best.

There is an old medical joke about a man with a very bad leg. The leg first became cold then blue and finally black. The man's doctor tells him that it must be amputated. He protests that then he will have only one leg. His doctor responds that it would be better to have one leg and live than two and die.

So the man agrees to let the doctor remove his leg. After the procedure the man awakens in Recovery and sees his doctor at the bedside. "You don't look very happy" the man says. "What is the matter?"

The doctor says that he has good news and bad news. "Give me the bad news" says the man. "Well, we mistakenly removed the wrong leg" says the doctor. "Oh, no--now I am a legless man!" cries the man. "No, that's where the good news comes in" says his doctor. "We think we can work with the bad leg."

This is a bit like our current Health Care Debate inasmuch as the people responding to polls now say that they are on balance happy with their health plans. Nobody likes his/her insurance company. Not if there has been any dealing with the company. But, when compared with the government behemoth coming our way people decide they might prefer the devil they know. And so they'll "work with the bad leg."

In terms of the ideal organization of America's Health Care Industry one would enroll everyone who is elderly in Medicare and all others in Medicaid. The structures are in place and time tested. Give care to all persons in the country who need it--foreign or domestic, legal or illegal, citizen or not. Up the co-pay and tighten the list of approved diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and allowed drugs. Have a provision for people to purchase additional insurance as they wish.

Now how to keep the system efficient? Have insurers bid on contracts to manage the plans by state or region. Do away with Veterans' plans, House/Senate/Executive plans, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Railroad workers, and other plans. And the government should own up to the fact that these obligations were incurred but not funded.

The Big Government Ponzi scheme for Social Security and Health Care for Seniors and Veterans and others never banked the money that we put into it. The Best Government that Money Can Buy just dipped in and spent it for other projects. This is bait and switch AND Ponzi. We should hear an apology from the man who goes around the world apologizing to all others for USA crimes and lies.

I want to hear an apology for what he and those before him did with our money. Next year I will have paid into Social Security for fifty years. And not a dime was ever put away for my retirement. I will be means tested out of Veterans' Care, taxed out of Social Security, and rationed out of Medicare. Whatever it was that King George III did to our founder generation to provoke so much anger must pale in comparison with what our present Leaders are doing to this present generation of Americans. Can this be set right?

Palliative versus curative care.

This is an important distinction: palliative versus curative cancer care. There is no simplistic definition for palliative as it is understood in cancer management. But it is at a minimum, treatment (medical or surgical) that aims to keep a disease process and its symptoms and signs from getting worse. So, stabilizing an enlarging pulmonary mass that is encroaching on major airways and producing post obstructive pneumonia would be a proper goal of palliative cancer care in the setting of a patient with a primary lung cancer whose spread of the cancer is limited to the thorax. It would take two to three monthly cycles of combination chemotherapy and a course of radiation therapy to accomplish the goal.

What would this accomplish? The patient would feel better because the pneumonia would resolve. He or she would not feel worse for the fact that the cancer grew to obstruct major airways and caused loss of major portions of otherwise functional lung tissue. There would be side effects from the chemotherapy, some of them ameliorated by other drugs; and there would be side effects from the radiation therapy. There would be the stress of coming and going to clinics. And there would be the expenses of treatment and transportation. And all of this would be set against a backdrop of knowing that the problem(s) have no permanent solution--so a gnawing sense of futility balanced against a hopefulness engendered by the "therapeutic milieu."

Would there be improvement in the difficult to define but easy to feel "quality of life?" Definitely yes--otherwise there would have been no reason to do the intervention.

Would there be improvement in the easy to define "length of life?" No. By definition incurable diseases have no cure and palliative care that is given in the setting of incurable (here malignant) disease does not prolong life. Note that there are exceptions to every rule and errors inherent in any staging procedure so an occasional patient is cured by palliative care. But this is never promised and almost never mentioned. If the patient is still with us five years later and their cancer appears to be gone, the patient is said to have experienced an outlier good response. If the patient is Roman Catholic and if the family prayed a novena or two, and if they have a favorite person on the short list for canonization, a miracle is declared--by all but the attending oncologists who do not believe in such things even though they witness outlier good outcomes from time to time.

The punch line: this kind of medical care has almost no support in Evidence Based Medicine. Not because it is not worth putting to the test--it definitely is for both humanitarian and economic reasons. But because it is nearly impossible to structure meaningful studies of the efficacy of these treatments for the fact that they impact quality of life not quantity of life and quality is entirely subjective.(If you consider human life sacred. If not, it is easy enough to make value judgements on the quality of the lives of others, but these judgements are what got the Nazis in trouble after they lost WWII.) And it is hard enough to structure prospective randomized clinical trials of curative interventions that have the power to discriminate between better and worse treatments when the clinical setting is objective and measures a single outcome: length of life. Obamacare is going to lean heavily on Evidence Based Medicine and so will certainly not allow paying for the kind of palliative care of cancer that is now in place in our country.

A million plus newly diagnosed cases of serious cancer are made each year in our country. Hundreds of thousands of these citizens will find at some time in the two or three years following their diagnosis that their cancer was not cured. And they will end up in need or want of palliative care. Obamacare for this will equal the red or the blue pill (or a federal admonition to be gracious enough to save the country the expense of any treatment and sign up for Hospice whose worthy philosophy is that when one has exhausted all effective interventions he or she should be ready to die with dignity and in as much comfort as the narcotics will afford.) Put a substantial death tax in place again and the federal purse will gain in another way. Do not forget the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Veteran' Benefits, and other expenses not paid any longer. Oh, I forgot that palliative care as currently given for these problems does not prolong life. It just adds to or protects one's quality of life. Then again, very hard if not impossible to prove that contention within the conventions of Evidence Based Medicine. So there should be no problem eliminating these expenses. On to the next problem/expense . . .

The value of a human life.

Our current American health care debate started out as an uncharacteristically top down mandate. The Chicago Group in the White House declared the need for urgent and radical reorganization of the medical industry in this country. Their take on this matter: a full blown crisis requires that America be admitted through the ER to the Intensive Care Unit and that immediate, life saving measures be instituted.
Probably planned well in advance, these decisions were made in the smoke-free halls of power by people who have waited their opportunity. And the electoral mandate for change NOS, not otherwise specified, has given them the biggest opportunity of their lifetimes. But what is this all about, really?

Well, for one thing, this is hyperbolic speech more than a health care crisis. If the problem with the system is that there are people in America without health insurance then let us add that not having health insurance does not equate not receiving medical attention. Anyone in crisis can present to any ER in this country--citizen or not, legally resident or not, old or young, and so forth and so on. The nurses and doctors in that ER cannot discriminate against anyone coming through the door, either. Black, white, or anything in between; with or without AIDS, insurance, mental disease, other disease, and irrespective of the person's "worth to society" the patient will receive care. And, bet on it, the care will be the same whether the patient pays or not. Lawyers make a good living showing that such was not the case and something bad happened as a result. So do not believe for a minute that large segments of the populace do not receive medical care. But maybe the crisis is not about the uninsured in America. Maybe it is about cost of care.

The costs of caring for three hundred million citizens are immense. Nuns used to administer hospitals and orderlies worked for Charles Dickens wages. Needles were sterilized and used again and again until they were too dull to penetrate skin. Doctors did their work with their hands and stethoscopes were major tools in diagnosis. Not so today. Pathologists and radiologists have splendid equipment and probe everything from the molecules in the specimen to the organs in the patient. People used to have exploratory surgery to establish what was causing their weight loss and abdominal pain. A patient would be opened and closed and told it was cancer of the pancreas with hepatic metastasis. Three months later the family would hold a funeral. Pancreatic cancer is seldom cured even today but it is never diagnosed by exploratory laparotomy these days. Extensive surgery against the backdrop of extensive cancer just speeds the patient on his or her way. Today things are handled differently and the introduction of more knowledge, better technology, more effective interventions, and a more open and honest society (that supports more than shuns the patient with AIDS, cancer, stroke . . .) has made the lot of the seriously ill patient better than ever before. All this comes at a cost. And the consumer has a choice of accepting or rejecting medical care.

Is the bottom line here the high cost of medical care or the high cost of illness? "It cost him his life." Disease was diagnosed late or incorrectly and "it cost him his life." Litigators would establish a value for the lost life and juries would deliberate as to the cost. And it would be high. I leave it to William James and Ludwig Wittgenstein to help out with what it is that we are paying all the money for. But this is philosophy not medicine. And philosophers eschew crises.

Let us discuss how America should improve what she already has. Let us hear a clear statement from the White House as to what the crisis is. Then let us hear from the special interest groups who are pushing the agenda. Americans will make a good decision if it is bottom up. Not so if it is top down.