Belief, the Choice

United States Tennis Center, N.Y.
September 6, 1993

(Mary) Carillo: Michael, Let’s get you first. Tremendous match! At 5-all in the fifth, it looked like you had this match, and the tournament wrapped up. What happened?

Chang: You know, Mary, I thought I had it…but well, I kind of collapsed. Actually, my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ, let me down.

Carillo (in unfamiliar territory, the muscles in her face form into a gaze of utter stupefaction): …a muffled “huh?”

Chang: Jesus is always there for me, Mar; he completely left me today.

Carillo: Mike, are you ok?

Chang: God’s a big tennis fan, you know?

Carillo: Well I am a Catholic ….

Chang: Aaw, you Catholics don’t KNOW God!.....Seven consecutive matches Agassi has whipped me!...and he’s a fucking Arab, not even a Christian! I’m through----

Carillo: dumbfounded-----


You may have missed this interview; actually, so did we. He lost the match; but the interview took another course. Chang, ever the gracious loser, was always on script after a victory: “First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ---without his help I could never have accomplished this.” You’ve heard many athletes credit victory to God, but never blame God for a loss. Do they actually believe this? Largely, Yes! How can that be?


In April we began a series on religion and God. The April article explored “Intelligent Design” (Creation Science) and what is the nature of man?

In July we explored God: what is the nature of God, and why do we believe in it? This month, as promised, we look at the individual. What is it in an individual that leads him to religion? Why do two people with similar backgrounds, similar education, similar intelligence and similar social status come to different conclusions on religion? Why would those same two people disagree on political perspective?

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching while standing on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary." St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. All else is ambiguous.

Given the simplicity of our religious tradition, how does the Republican Party, the party of guns, war, capital punishment and torture become the party of our good, God-fearing Christians?

This comes down to ambiguity. The religious mind does not deal in ambiguity. If it’s good, credit God; if it’s bad, God’s taken the day off. To deal with the ambiguity that God’s hand is at work in failure is a breach of faith. There’s no conscious evasion of reality here. Some people’s brains work this way.

Essentially, they see the world in black and white---good/evil, right/wrong. And it goes far beyond religion. The good Republican ascribes all good works in the public sphere to the Republican Party. Anything that goes wrong is the fault of Democrats. Somehow their man, be it Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Palin---even Nixon, is beyond scrutiny. And don’t bother discussing it! Most of those who couldn’t stand behind these men, in case you haven’t noticed, have left the party.

Researchers have shown that even in humdrum, nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently. Their brains work differently. Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. Read the linked article for specifics of the study.

Conservatives (generally “right-wingers”) crave solid answers, while the left-winger accepts uncertainty. Your Robbinsense editor, for example, relishes ambiguity, and frequently drives right-wingers up a wall with simple expressions of doubt. How often do you hear people ask, “Are you sure?” How, I beg you, can we be sure of anything, when we find countless examples of “certainty” collapsing into falsehood. But the right-winger readily jumps into commitment.

In the religious sphere, man’s craving for explanation leads to the acceptance of “spiritual” answers to the every-day mysteries of life…religion. Witness the paroxisms that the Episcopal Church is going through as it attempts to accommodate the diversity (and ambiguity) of modern society. The rigid, “Christian” wing of that church is threatening to branch off. Notice that “good, church-goers” tend to be conservatives---Republicans. The Republican Party caters to this mind-set by manipulating their base with social "wedge issues". They seem happily oblivious to the disconnect between their religious heritage and the political positions of the party.

The “right-wing brain” compartmentalizes issues, which yields simple solutions to difficult questions, such as creation. These people live in an “ideal” world that conforms to their perception. They welcome and cling to voices that re-enforce their beliefs; the shrill voice of a Rush Limbaugh is welcome, as he reflects the distress involved in challenging doctrine. Diversionary tactics, such as the use of euphemisms are effective tools for validation. If their man calls it “enhanced interrogation”, that's good enough. He's not a criminal, a recognized felon, practicing torture. End of discussion.

Beyond this, scientists have now shown that their brains are actually built differently.

“Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear,” said the study on Thursday in Current Biology. "We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala," the study said.

The study was based on 90 "healthy young adults" who reported their political views on a scale of one to five from very liberal to very conservative, then agreed to have their brains scanned. People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

This leads to a significant dichotomy in human nature: Some people, when they’re wrong about something, want to know it---really want to know it. They are willing to put their ego on the line and expose themselves as “wrong”. In order to take such a stance, one must first accept the notion that they may be incorrect. This is acceptance of ambiguity. Others (perhaps most) who do not entertain the notion that they may be incorrect (about anything), do not want to discover that they’re wrong. They certainly don’t want you to revealed it! A chink in the armor of their perception leads straight to identity crisis. One way or other, these people will excuse themselves from a conversation moving in that direction. Mingling of these two groups has the potential to produce sparks when the conversation strays from health, sports and the weather.

Those on the left, or even center, are mystified by the unconditional allegiance that their right-wing friends afford their “favorite sons”. The “left-wing brain”, which recognizes that beliefs are opinions, not fact, holds his favored politicos up to scrutiny, realizing that they may fall from grace. Witness Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the left lead their sessions with items of contention that they find with President Obama, while conservative media, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, never stray from support of Republicans---never express doubt or recognize hypocrisy. Their audience doesn’t tolerate it, because they have no desire to question their own logic, to examine their own beliefs. They live in an unambiguous world where their beliefs stand up to all scrutiny.

This produces the political divide that we currently face in this country, where the two sides are polarized. The base of “mindless Republicans”, is actually well-considered; it’s just that their minds are made up. To them, Democrats seem wishy-washy, un-focused, unpredictable and un-trustworthy.

Where do you fit? You probably have friends that you can place into both groups.

What Ails our Healthcare Industry?

Amid the current national discussion over health care and healthcare reform, Robbinsense will endeavor to unravel some of the actual issues in play.

The two primary issues at stake are 1) the health of our population, and 2) the cost of providing healthcare. The primary obstacle to real “health care” is a system conducted within the realm of “private enterprise”….that is, it’s driven by profit motive. There’s very little profit in health. Profit comes from illness. Hence, to maximize profit the system ultimately must be designed to promote illness. Unfortunately, our political system is perfectly aligned with that objective, as we will see.

Pundits and talking heads on the right tirelessly decry the “socialization of medicine” and use the catch-phrase: “Do you want a government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor?” to rally their passionate troops. Their unspoken answer is: “No, we want an insurance company bureaucrat to do this instead.” Let's take a look, and you decide which you would prefer:

Our healthcare system is a dance between the healthcare industry and the insurance industry. The HCI, which includes the pharmaceutical industry, is profit driven; it makes money off of illness, not wellness. The insurance industry maximizes profit by excluding ill people from its roles, regardless of whether they have been paying premiums. Only government stands between that industry and this objective. Hence, ultimately, we find the government bureaucrat---plus an attorney---standing between us and our doctor whenever the insurance bureaucrat is also there. If we want to cut bureaucracy, the logical figure to cut is the insurance guy. But try to tell that to a right-winger.

The greatest obstacle to real health care is our political system. Republicans are predictable as mosquitoes in the spring: they back industrial interests. They have masters’ degrees in smoke, lies and distortion, PhD’s in the use of fear and semantics---at convincing the middle class that they have their interests at heart. They use catch-terms (“socialization”---I don’t know why this is bad, but they make it sound bad) and compelling advertising: Harry and Louise.

Democrats, as usual, are confused and disorganized because they know they are “supposed to” represent our interests, but actually they are in the pockets of industry also. The healthcare industry, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry are all enormous contributors to our political system. These three industries want no change because they’re making huge profits. And they don’t care about our health.

Only two countries in the world allow “direct-to-consumer advertising” of pharmaceuticals. The drug companies claim high prices are necessary to fund research; yet, they spend twice as much on disgusting ads that foul our TV screens as they do on research. The “sick” part of it is that doctors are “on the take” in prescribing these drugs, while they know that the placebo effect has the best chance to cure their patient regardless of what they do. So while the drug companies bamboozle us with their ads, we request the advertised drugs, doctors comply with prescriptions, the patient is “cured” by placebo effect, and everybody’s happy. But this leads to skyrocketing healthcare costs, and it results in people taking more and more drugs, which ultimately makes them sicker, not well! This re-stokes the cycle.

So what about solutions? The first real answer is for doctors to stop prescribing pills and start making their customers responsible for their health. A typical, ill American is suffering from a bad life-style---poor diet and lack of exercise. If his doctor prescribes life-style alteration, the patient will go to another doctor. A typical doctor dealing with a middle-aged, over-weight, perhaps pre-diabetic patient with high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis will prescribe a drug regimen that is essentially a pharmaceutical cocktail. This targets the patient’s symptoms, but will not cure him. The drugs lead to lethargy, perhaps depression, muscle depletion, and a host of additional problems.

This, my friends, is where good government steps in. But our system is not only designed to keep us sick, it’s designed to make us sick. A typical middle-class or lower-class family consumes multiple meals per week at fast-food restaurants. Why? Because the kids want this food, and because it may be the only thing the parents can afford. The prices at these eateries are so low that people cannot prepare decent meals for their family at comparable cost. But the low check-out price conceals the actual cost. The food, as Morgan Spurlock showed us in his 2004 movie, Super Size Me, has little or no nutritional value. In fact, it makes people sick. The “social” cost of this diet is ill health. A staggering percentage of our population is overweight and headed toward diabetes, if not already there. The expense of that will continue to spiral upwards.

The low prices of the fast food industry are by government prerogative. Our government subsidizes beef; it subsidizes potatoes, and significantly, it subsidizes corn. Most of what we buy at a fast food restaurant comes from corn, including the beef, soda, even the packaging! Ranchers feed corn to their cattle because it makes the herd sick!! (This is sick!) Cattle are grass-feeders. They can’t digest corn, hence it makes them ill. Their body chemistry changes; they eat more, exercise less (if that’s possible), put on fat, increase weight. The farmer fattens up his herd; making the cow sick makes it worth more at market. He uses antibiotics to contain the illness, introducing these dangerous chemicals to the food-chain. Ultimately we consume the antibiotics by eating the meat, leading to more serious illness from drug-resistant bacteria. A single beef patty at McDonald’s will contain meat from a thousand animals! If any one of those cows has a serious pathogen, guess what! This is all carried out under government aegis. The government is getting paid off through contributions from the ranchers, farmers and fast food industry--- as well as the insurance, healthcare industry and drug manufacturers.

Again, the answer is not “less government”, but good government. First, government should stop subsidizing the cycle that has such profound ill-effects for our health and budget. Next it should reverse the process by taxing these products and subsidizing the foodstuffs that promote health. The cost of delivering quality food to our markets is somewhat fixed, while the cost of manufacturing junk, that’s “fun to eat”, is extremely small. Even with low prices, these manufacturers make huge profits. But these profits are essentially extracted from the public weal in the social cost of poor health. Considering this social cost, responsible government should do whatever it takes to make nutritional food less expensive than junk food, and that includes candy, chips, soda and Twinkies in the supermarket as well as fast food restaurants. That would promote better health and save billions. The drive to accomplish this in the face of huge political forces can only come from us, through pressure on our representatives and/or through direct pressure on market forces.

Today a “healthy”, 60 year-old “independent contractor” pays upward of $1000 per month for health insurance, with $1000 deductible. If he actually gets sick, the insurer will do all it can to deny coverage, frequently leading to the additional expense and stress of legal redress. If the person tries to “shop for coverage”, changing carriers will open the door to intense scrutiny of medical records to uncover “pre-existing conditions” that will further deny coverage. This system is obscene. We need to get the right wing to stand down, and stand up---for us!

The plans now being advanced take a piece-meal approach to solving our problems. The government is advocating a “modified” plan for health insurance, where it will offer insurance to compete with the private system already in place. This would be a system comparable to Medicare, but available to those not covered by that system. Presumably, the government plan will put downward pressure on insurance costs and people will be drawn to it.

As usual, this approach picks away at the symptoms without addressing the real problem. We need a single-payer system like in Britain or Japan, and to focus on the real healthcare problems that we’ve spoken about here. Healthcare should be a public utility instead of “for profit” enterprise. But even aside from the Republicans, enormous political forces are amassed to resist these changes, and at best we will move slowly with a piecemeal compromise. If the government plan is well-received, we may be able to move toward real reform.

Good luck. Try to get involved.