Oh, Shut Up

The home security company called at 6:24AM. My mother had pressed her medical alarm button. She was in trouble. She needed help immediately.

I pay $308 per year to that private company for 24/7 monitoring. In order to pay their bill, I must first earn $397.29. Here's the breakdown:

Gross salary: $ 387.29
Federal income tax withholding: -45.70
Social security: -21.56
Medicare: - 4.47
State income tax withholding: - 7.56
======
$ 308.00

After getting the phone call I ran next door to my mothers' house. She was having a stroke. Paramedics arrived ten minutes later. Four men. One only slightly smaller than a beer truck. The men lugged backpacks containing oxygen, a portable EKG, an automated blood pressure cuff, and more. They asked me about my mother's medical history. What medication is she taking? Has she been ill recently? Allergies? What is normal for her? Could she walk unaided? Her left side seems weak; is that recent? Lots of questions. Except one: the paramedics never asked about money. Didn't want to know if she had paid some special ambulance fee. Didn't even ask if she was up to date with her property taxes. They focused only on helping my mother.

The county employees put my mother into a county ambulance and drove her to the hospital on county, state, and federal roads. Most of her hospital care will be paid by Medicare, a federal program. Some expenses will be paid by supplemental health insurance that my mother buys.

Here is a tangible result. Cause and effect. We pay taxes; paramedics show up when we dial 911.
And, now I ask all the loud-mouthed, funny-hatted Tea Partiers about their endless anti-tax whining: What is your plan? Seriously. After you innumerate dolts do your masters' bidding, and shrink government to the point where you can drown it in a bathtub, what will be your plan for sweet old ladies who suffer strokes and need medical help quickly? Please tell me.

freedumb of the press

Had a weird experience with a reporter for a local paper. The set-up is too long to explain, but he ended up interviewing me about how science is funded in the US. I explained that the Department of Defense has, since World War II, supported much of the scientific research in the country including fundamental work performed at universities. My point had more to do with public indifference than questions of war-related vs. peaceful applications of the science. In other countries, government support of technology is often clear. For example, Airbus was created with support from the British, French and German government to challenge American domination of the aircraft industry. The intention was made obvious to everyone. In America, much of the commercial aviation industry has received government help through military contracting. The technology developed for defense applications gets transferred to the civilian side of the industry. We don't debate the suitability of the government support. Maybe it would sound too much like socialism. Similar government (often Department of Defense) support has helped American microelectronics and computer industries, etc.

My company, I told the reporter, manufactures test & measurement equipment, and does contract research including work performed for the US government. Some of that Federal contracting comes from DoD. Our work on lasers could, if successful, lead to better clocks for optical computers and medical diagnostics through analysis of trace chemicals in exhaled breath. Yes, the military would like optical computers and fast medical diagnostic methods, but so would many civilians.

I thought I was clear. Then, I received the following e-mail from the reporter:

I have one more question I didn't think to ask you when we were speaking: Despite that the state of research in the US dictates that scientific research is largely funded by defense agencies, and that you are seemingly forced to exercise this only option if you are to do any work yourself, do you still feel any sense of guilt that you're receiving defense money to research products that, even though they may not be directly used in acts of violence, are still ultimately used for purposes of war?

Sigh. I hate the oversimplifications -- that I am "forced to exercise this only option" -- and that products not "directly used in acts of violence" are tainted if used by the military. Here is what I wrote in reply:

Thanks for the follow-up question. First, the facetious answer: I'm Jewish and was raised to feel guilty about everything. Now, a serious reply that requires a long answer because morality is never as clear was one wishes.

I see a direct connection between the Federal taxes that I pay and war. I could withhold some portion of my income tax as a way of clearing my conscience. But, I pay my full share because tax evasion would lead to severe consequences for me and my family, with little chance of altering military action. Is that moral cowardice?

If I came up with a new technology for detecting chemical or biological warfare agents, I would definitely accept DoD money to develop that detection method. It could save peoples' lives. If, on the other hand, I thought up a new method for making chemical or biological warfare agents, I would never tell a soul. If I came up with a new way to detect nuclear proliferation, I would accept DoD money to develop that technology. Imagine what it would have meant to be able to refute Condoleeza Rice's "mushroom cloud" warning prior to the Iraq war. If I invented a fast portable method for analyzing head trauma, I would accept military money to develop the technology knowing that it would likely be used in warfare. It could save the lives of soldiers and civilians. If, in contrast, I invented a way of reading peoples' memories, I would shut down my work and move on to something else.

Modern life lived amidst modern technology creates many reasons to feel guilty:

• The first computer network -- the intranet -- was developed by the military, and the armed forces uses the internet now. Should I disconnect my computer from the web?
  
• One of the earliest successful commercial jet liners, the Boeing 707, was a civilian version of a jet developed for the air force for aerial refueling. In fact, much of the commercial aviation industry has benefited enormously from military R&D contracts. Should I fly when I travel?
  
• Technology used for telecommunications satellites and the rockets that launch them also have a military past. Should I disconnect my telephone?
• Laser rangefinders were developed for the military. Should I use one when playing golf?
  

You get paid by a newspaper that runs paid advertising for unproven (and, in some cases, disproved) therapies. Do you feel guilty accepting your paycheck?

I am thoughtful about the research contracts that I accept and the possible long-term consequences of the work. So, no, I do not feel guilty nor ashamed of my DoD-supported research. Filling up my car with gasoline is much more troubling.

I thought it a reasonable answer. A few days later the reporter called. He wanted me to again answer his "Do I feel guilty question," but to do it over the phone. I was perplexed because he did not refer to my e-mail. Yes, he verified, he had received the message, but he had been told to get me to also reply by phone. I repeated that I had answered his question by e-mail. He repeated that he had been told to have me answer over the phone. Too weird. My computer was in the lab taking data. I could not get access to my e-mail to re-read exactly what I had written. I again said that I had answered his question by e-mail. He hung up. Maybe I killed the story! That would be good.