Future Planning for Religion?

Bishop Robert Barron (Word on Fire) and William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith) discuss Evangelicalism

A video from Claremont McKenna College this January, I believe, which I retrieved from Facebook, features William Lane Craig and Robert Barron discussing Evangelism and Christianity. It is long, and I have tried to summarize it:

Actual video, if you wish
Robert Baron, the Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, and William Lane Craig met to discuss Christian Apologetics, and give there thoughts and advice for the future. What we learn from them can help atheists moving forward, but we need to be prepared.

Bishop Robert Barron

Overall the talk is interesting to understand better the characters of the two men. I was not familiar with Robert Barron, but he appeared quite open and honest about the issues that face his church (Roman Catholicism). William Lane Craig is a well known protestant, theological philosopher, who embraces thoughts from several denominations within protestant faith. He was more reserved about the concerns he clearly shared, a little less willing to admit to those failures within his own ministrations.

Evangelism:

They appeared to agree on some of the problems facing evangelical activities. ‘Scientism’, as they describe it, is the idea that science can be responsible for understanding and analysing all knowledge, and they imply there are sources of knowledge other than science. Barron abhors this reductionism, but the source of other knowledge, apart from logical analysis and thought, is left ethereal, mist like, and unstated. He decried the culture of self-invention, arguing that one does not have that option, almost certainly an homage to anti-trans considerations, perhaps even the pernicious religious freedom concept. To Barron, one of the major problems is the shrinking of the size of believers, now approaching European standards. He thinks about 10% are Roman Catholic and that this number is disheartening. There is a problem with the ‘nones’ which among young people has increased to 50%. For every one that joins the church, six leave.

William_Lane_Craig
William Lane Craig

Craig is more strategic in his responses, trying to cobble together plans to equip Christians with mechanisms to defend the faith. Perhaps it is my point of view that speaks to me here, but I got the impression this was disingenuous, that the truth of it all was not the issue, that the argument was unimportant as long as you win. As he said, laughing, sometimes you just have to list the arguments, you don’t even have to explain them. It reminded me of the foundations of moral evolution that Jonathan Haidt suggests, that the one Darwinian pressure in moral development is seeking ‘reputation’ rather than ‘truth’.

Craig advises to make sure you are a Christian (don’t deviate from the dogma, I suppose), memorize a gospel presentation and invite the non-believer to make a commitment, and memorize arguments for God’s existence. They both agreed, like players coming late to a game, that they needed arguments, that an appeal to the mind was very powerful, showing again that education and science, and maybe social media, is very important.

Both agreed that the culture is increasingly hostile to religion, and WLC suggested plans to pursue: universities to capture teachers, lawyers, and judges; the entertainment industry which holds such sway; and attempts to reform the judiciary, to bring legal decisions more in line with religious doctrine.

Science and Faith

They both agreed that scientism (a hostile word, invented by the religious to be derisive…we think they mean science…we certainly do) is winning. They are conceding to Darwin (at least WLC was), claiming that Genesis should not be taken literally anymore. WLC whined a bit about the trend that if things are not proven by science they are meaningless, although he claimed philosophers have debunked this modernistic thought (he didn’t say where or who, except Alvin Platinga), and claimed that the verification principle has been abandoned (though scientists appear not to understand that point). He liked to use the word ‘self-refuting’ which I have seen on his website, but does not explain (Emperor’s New Clothes type of word; if you don’t know what it means, you shouldn’t ask). They seem to understand that the ‘God of the Gaps’ is a problem because the ‘Gap’ is shrinking due to science, and with it the arguments in favor of religion. This is a curious issue that we accuse them for, and they accuse us for?

Barron argued that science comes from God, so when properly interpreted science  should not be a problem. Both tend to forget the dangers of not being some kind of religion until a few years ago, so that many scientists were ‘Christian on paper’, as such designation was hardly important to them. Barron argued that Faith is supra-rational, while science is just rational, so the religious use both. It really sounds as if they are conceding to science, and, in a sort of Hail-Marry (pun intended) simply do a long bomb pass by now claiming that science is due to God, so there cannot be a conflict.

Barron then said Christians need to hang on to the ‘soul’, feeling that this is their last stand. He claims that there is a longing for something, and secularism is not attending to the ‘hungry heart’ (He has a point. Even Humanists complain that they miss the one thing churches were good at, charity).

Craig summarized an approach to the future with ‘dare to live differently’ accepting the minority position, I suppose, and that Christians should be worried, that if they are comfortable, they are wrong. Then, invoking a spine-chilling manipulation, he basically advised parents to brainwash (my word, not his) their children (get them early), especially by the fathers! He repeated this bit about fathers, leaving a sense of ‘mothers should take a backseat.’

In an amusing moment they seemed to thank Christopher Hitchens for bringing these issues to the forefront of people’s minds. But, of course, Hitchens is dead, and thus an easy target to applaud!

One worrisome point: they both think the secular attack on religion will bring Catholics and Protestants together.

What Does This Suggest to Atheism

  1. We are winning, but don’t stop now…it might be just a pendulum. Education is clearly the key. We cannot let them claim science is theirs to control. Be aware of their tools.
  1. Look for compromise. We do not need to convince irrational people that God does not exist. Nobody can prove that anyway, we all know. What we need is a reduction in their malevolent dogma: discrimination against non-theists, LGBTQ community, same sex marriage and abortion (early and mid-term).
  1. We could even have ‘atheists for church,’ if they would stop imposing their religious beliefs in terms of policy and law, or politics. Could they ever loosen their restrictions to allow atheists in to enjoy music and architecture, maybe a little moral philosophy as long as it wasn’t bigotry? An interesting idea. Conquer from within. Expand their numbers and coffers, and conquer from within.

 

Advertisements

Reject Malevolent Dogma: Amaldogmatism

 

An example of a good idea!

 

Listening to Sam Harris again (I had focused on other stuff for a few years) I was struck again by his logical approach, his calm demeanour, in spite of his inflammatory statements. In his podcast of a discussion with Matt Dillahunty, and Richard Dawkins before an audience in British Columbia, he commented on the word ‘atheism’ briefly.

Sam, before, has famously said of ‘atheism’, “Why have a word for someone who doesn’t believe in something that doesn’t exist?” or something  to that effect. He seemed to dislike the word, as well, because of the implications of identity politics, and preferred the concept of opposing bad ideas instead of being the member of a group opposed to religion.

Sam has referred to Islam as the ‘motherload of bad ideas’, enumerating in one of his books (“End of Faith”??) over several pages the idea that non-believers should be killed. This ‘motherload’ phrase certainly captured the ire of Muslims, and many non-Muslim fair minded people who think this is bigotry instead of logic, even as Harris tried to reinforce that his objection was to the idea, not to the person.

Sam has had his own flirtation with misogyny  although I am not sure he fairly earned that accusation. Sometimes his coldly logical approach is disturbing to people who don’t hear him the way I do.

I see his point about identity politics and bad ideas. I don’t really care if people believe in God, or Thor, or Buddha. What is truly important are the consequences of that ideology. Relying upon those beliefs: to the exclusion of rational thought (pray for rain instead of digging irrigation ditches); to support prejudice and bigotry (homosexuality is bad) or; to fortify the divisiveness of identity groups (you cannot get into heaven except by belief in Jesus) are ‘bad ideas’. Bad, malevolent, unsupported ideas.

‘Atheist’, as a word, engenders an endless and pointless argument. Christian Apologists, such as William Lane Craig, William_Lane_Craigspend a lot of time deriding us atheists with the implication that we cannot have a basis for any morality we might espouse (often interpreted by his followers, unencumbered and uncorrected by Craig, as ‘atheists have no morals’), to the ‘fact’ that we cannot achieve heavenly eternal life and all its rewards, like Christians do, because we do not accept Jesus (here, of course, Craig and other Christians like him exclude well over half the world on a whim, not just atheists). They attempt to ‘prove’ the existence of god by debate, by words alone, gleefully exuberant about god popping in and out of existence with each debating point won or lost respectively.

To the cold, clinical scientist, the idea that the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, or the Moral Argument, can actually prove the existence of god, when god could easily prove his own existence in a heartbeat, is just so much fluff. What’s wrong with empirical evidence? Well, there isn’t any, that’s what’s wrong. That’s what you get when you go out seeking evidence for your conclusion, instead of doing it the other way around.

But the contortions the Christian Apologists go through in order to avoid the contradictions of morality, like the Divine Command Theory which argues that if God commands genocide, it cannot be all that bad, are such to make most heads shake. Go to their site, if you must, you will soon see the apologists three favorite tropes of argument (once they have exhausted their debate terminology, like ‘straw man fallacy’, modus tollens, ‘self-defeating’ and other techniques for a pretense of superiority): 1. ‘you are not smart enough’, 2. ‘you need to study more’, and 3. putting words in your mouth, like, ‘you’re saying Nazi’s were good!’ Note the puzzling order, as 1. usually comes before 2., although you would think 1. precludes the benefit of 2. All of this to discredit atheists. “You say there is no god. Prove it,” they demand.

We need a better word. We need a word that allows us to oppose ‘bad ideas’ instead of ‘misguided people’, especially when we cannot prove to our own satisfaction (let alone theirs) that their conclusion, the existence of god, is specious.

Bad ideas. Not just bad ideas, but unsupported bad ideas, unsupported bad ideas which brook no discussion or dissension. I guess that might be the worst of bad ideas, those that have no evidence, instead of just bad evidence. I have argued in the past that this is what Lewis Carrol (Charles Dodson) meant by the word ‘Jabberwocky‘, which, more specifically, I interpret as the ‘consequences of accepting unsupported assertions’ (shades of Hitch, here…”dismiss it without evidence”). (https://drbriandingle.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/vaccines-shoddy-research-and-jabberwocky/). So, Jabberwocky is close, but it is more like gossip than cherry-picked parts of a bad ideology.

Ideas, especially within a religion, that are accepted without evidence, are often referred to as dogma:

 

dogma

| ˈdɒɡmə |

noun

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true: the dogmas of faith | [mass noun] : the rejection of political dogma. (Apple Dictionary, 2017)

 

‘Incontrovertibly true’ pretty well captures the issue. Not open to discussion.

Given the possibility that not all dogma is necessarily wrong by definition, we need a little more. Evil dogma, rancorous dogma, malicious dogma…that’s getting close…malevolent dogma. There. Malevolent dogma. Contract to a portmanteau.

Maldogma. Leave the ‘e’ out, lest it be seen as ‘male’ dogma, however true that might be.

Maldogma. Bad or evil ideas, bad and/or evil ideas, usually part of a religion or religious dogma, which tend to be divisive and spiteful, and which impose a negative connotation on non-members of a group.

If we accept maldogma, we are maldogmatists. If we represent bad ideas as undeniable truth, we maldogmatize those ideas, and we are maldogmatic.

If we oppose maldogma, we become an anti-maldogmatist, or perhaps an amaldogmatist.

Amaldogmatist. There we go.

 

amaldogmatism

| ˈeɪməldɒɡmətɪz(ə)m |

noun [mass noun] 

the concept of opposing or rejecting the tendency to lay down evil or bad principles as undeniably true, to reject evil or bad ideas presented without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others: They live in a culture of amaldogmatism and logical morality.  DERIVATIVES amaldogmatist | ˈeɪməldɒɡmətɪst | noun ORIGIN early 17th century: via French from medieval and distorted Latin amaldogmatismus, from pig Latin amaldogma. (liberally coined and distorted from Apple Dictionary, 2017)

 

 

So, as an amaldogmatist, I oppose (because they are evil and/or unsupported by evidence) the vilification of homosexuality, the denigration of non-Christians, the unification of Church and State, or the creation of any theocracy, the condemnation of extra-marital sexual relationships and the belief in mystical or magical thinking, especially when applied as the brainwashing of children. As an amaldogmatist, I reject the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old (perhaps an over-reach…this isn’t really evil, it’s just silly), or that a woman does not have the right to control their own body. I leave it to the reader, as an exercise, to find other examples of maldogma.

Believe in god if you want; just don’t accept the maldogma. Who needs ‘atheist’ when you can be an ‘amaldogmatist’: someone who does not believe in or accept evil unsupported ideas!!!

The Christian Apologists will go nuts when they cannot fight over the existence of god. ‘Who cares if he exists; we just don’t like all the bad, evil ideas you attribute to him.’

Oh, and amaldogmatists love bacon!

The Art of the Deal

Religion Promotes Slavery.

 

One Nation

This book is reviewed elsewhere on this blogsite, by the author, and underscores the ‘marriage’ of Business and Religious Right Book Review

 

We have this argument on some sites of Face Book. Some theists insist that the Bible does not support slavery. Puzzling to those of us who actually read the thing from time to time.

 

Exodus 21: 7  “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shouldn’t be set free in the same way as male slaves are set free.”

Ephesians 6: 5 “As for slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling and with sincere devotion to Christ.”

“Leviticus 25:45 You can also buy them from the foreign guests who live with you and from their extended families that are with you, who were born in your land. These can belong to you as property. 46 You can pass them on to your children as inheritance that they can own as permanent property.”

 

Arguments that usually follow are that ‘it was the time’ or ‘scribes never had the power to rid the bronze age world of slaves and the best they could do was offer suggested regulations.’ It appears that one argument is good for one situation, the opposite for another. That’s what ends up making the Bible the inerrant word of God at the same time it is also a metaphor for life, or a description of the times.

 The truth is that the ‘marriage’ of religion and right-wing capitalism is self-serving. Without support for the poor in society beyond the hand-outs from the church, Business and Clerics can support the gap with their own brand of morality:

 1.     If you work hard, God will reward you. Poor? They didn’t work hard.

2.     Big government, big enough to support the poor, is not Republican, and is against the Ten Commandments which tells us not to steal from one to give to another. So Socialism is bad because it is against God’s will.

3.     The church is valuable because they take care of the poor, with soup kitchens, religious hospitals that can continue to promote the necessary ‘good news’ Gospel (brain-washing). Government assuming this role undermines religious efforts.

4.     Accumulation of wealth can thus remain in the small handful of elite, and the church, and if inheritance within families of the clergy takes too much away from the church, well, make them celibate.

5.     God provides the absolute morality, and there is no morality without God. Thus non-theists cannot tell you how to live, and the Ten Commandments promotes the gap: you cannot steal, or covet, the way you might if there were no morality…but at the same time, there is no solution for those who starve to death outside of help from the church and hand-outs from the elite. ‘Thou shalt share your wealth with those less fortunate,’ is not one of the Ten Commandments. It’s in the lesser teachings of the Bible, and is not a commandment, so not enforceable.

Let’s look at number five a bit. Non-theists argue that there is no absolute morality, that laws represent what we should do, and even more than that, our fairness and polite behaviour, not dictated by state determined laws, but inherent in us all, arises out of  historical teaching by parents and elders, out of innate tendencies developed through evolution such as grief and empathy. Only a small percentage of people are born without internal mechanisms of guilt, and are usually referred to as psychopaths, or sociopaths. Many of us suspect that this ‘guilt’ is inherited, that the trait has become prominent through teaching, literature, history and evolution (of memes and genes). Non-theists argue that our morality comes to us through logic and consensus. All of this development enhances communal living which carries a selection advantage in adaptation and evolution. 

But let’s go back to the original state. Humans, like animals, presumably had no qualms about stealing and raping to produce support their progeny. This was neither right nor wrong, before any form of morality ensued.

Need bread for your child? Steal it. Kill the owner if you have to, but life is paramount, and nothing says this behaviour is wrong. Need to procreate, to satisfy that intense instinct which promotes your DNA, select a mate: by seduction, by sharing, by protection, by force, whichever way works. Life is paramount.

As the theists keep telling us, with relative morality, there is nothing wrong with this. I agree…ten thousand or more years ago, when it really was ‘dog eat dog’.

But we gave up that behaviour on a deal. We developed a system where everybody would abide by the rules, and in return, everyone would survive.

‘Don’t go killing and raping, and everyone will live comfortably.’ This is the basis of codified moral development.

But the marriage of religious and the elite, of an example as in “One Nation Under God,” the economic gap which started in slavery and continues in ‘White Privilege,’ and class privilege, has diminished the second part of the deal with caveats, with contingencies and conditionals.

If you don’t get an education, stay poor. If you don’t work hard, stay homeless. If you don’t get born into the right family, stay out of the board rooms. If you don’t belong to the religion that supports laissez-faire capitalism, stay apolitical.

Maintain irrational religion to provide the opiate for the 99%, and maintain the gap to support the American Dream. The USA was not built on freedom, it was built on slavery: imported as thousands of Blacks from Africa, with lip service and temporary concessions to the millions of Black American slaves in 1865, and continued spread of enslavement to the non-elite, non-class, non-rich so that some lucky fellow born to the right family, with the right religion, and an inheritance load of money and class and privilege, can scrabble to the top of the dung heap because they ‘worked so hard.’ 

This is the true source of absolute morality: ‘If you won’t share your comfort, we will take it,’ is countered by, ‘That would be a sin.’ And so the second half of the great deal to promote communal living, that part where the less fortunate are afforded comfort because they promise not to rape and steal, is abrogated by the souls who have reached the peak and wish to stay there, by those who desperately do NOT want a level playing field to start with.

The elite: ‘There is a GOD, and there is an absolute morality, so you cannot save your lives by stealing and raping and killing.’

 The downtrodden: ‘But life is paramount,’ they cry.

The Elite: ‘Not yours.’

The downtrodden: ‘But we made deal.’

The Elite: ‘With God and absolute morality, who needs a deal.’

 

 

God’s Will

I recently posted this on a FaceBook page with a limited audience. The topic was God’s Will, and it reminded me of my task to publish Harold’s book, which is almost ready:

 

GODSWILL.jpeg

 

GOD’S WILL

This novel contains two novellas, the first about the Plague, other wise known as the Black Death; the second is a similar story about the beginnings of HIV/AIDS. These two novellas were written by the author in 1996

 

Copyright 2016 Orlando Harold Warwick

 

Coming soon!

 

 

 

Soon enough, I’ll get back to this, once I am sure Trump is not going to start a nuclear war.

But I did want to keep this comment I recently made elsewhere, about:

 

God’s Will

Just a comment about atrocities and God’s will. I worked in cancer treatment for 43 years, and I saw all manner of trauma and misery. I worked before the advent of oral meds for pain control, and even when those medications finally came, while they quell the suffering, they do not come close to ending the suffering. The people who expressed some interest in God’s interaction with this dreadful disease were church leaders, priest, chaplains, pastors, and religious evangelists, visitors to the patients who suffered. It was rarely the patient themselves.

Only twice do I remember an experience where a patient expressed trust in religion as a source of comfort. One was a Jehovah’s witness, over twenty years ago, who died refusing blood transfusions which could have saved him until the oral medications I put him on for chronic leukemia had a chance to take effect; he would have survived many years, but he died in hypotensive shock when his hemoglobin reached twenty percent of normal. He would be alive today. I tried everything, even that old story of the man on the roof during a flood who declines every attempt to save him by those around him, only to be told after his death, by God, “What do you want? I sent a truck, I sent a raft, I sent a boat, I even sent a helicopter.” Yes, I lied. I told him perhaps God had sent me. You have to work with what you have.

The second was a Carmelite nun who stopped me in the hall, in joyous rapture because her breast cancer had come back, and she would soon, “Be taken by God.”

While my heart goes out to these people in their personal hell, I remember reflecting on the fact that not one of them had any idea what their decisions to resist treatment were doing to their doctor. Now, my trauma was minuscule compared to theirs, even after 25,000+ patients in my career (the vast majority who suffered while taking the correct treatments). But apart from these rare ones whose deaths were contributed to by their beliefs, I took great solace, as did some of my patients, to understand that there was no god doing this to people. God did not hate them, because He did not exist.

Were God to exist, I would have to conclude that He hates me.

Evaluating Evidence: Oncologists Do It Best

NormalThere is one crucial area of thought, one discipline where the vast majority of people could really use some education, and they are not getting it. You can see it everywhere. Some of the world’s most prominent and respected people are just really bad at it, have never been taught how to do it, and for the most part, do not need it.

Or they don’t think they need it, but a lack of understanding in this crucial area is leading to all manner of problems.

Evaluating evidence.

It sounds easy enough. We do it every day. We take in data, and try to predict what is going to happen, we get it wrong and reassess, and then stumble along doing it all over again.

Gradually, some enterprising individuals learn to put some order into it, learning that cloudy days may require an umbrella, or a flirtatious look and smile may be the beginning of a beautiful relationship. We come by that sort of thing naturally, without thought, but the lack of thought is what gives us away.

There are days when the cloudy skies mean snow, and days when that ‘look’ was for the guy behind you.

Politicians and Intellectual Ability

Political animals usually are smarter than average. The defined mean of Intelligence Quotient is 100, and most people who get into high school (though not necessarily out) have at least this much. There is a broad distribution, estimated by the typical ‘Bell Curve’ or normal or Gaussian distribution depicted above. Such probability distributions describe the variations of intelligence (and many other randomly organized characteristics), although the skewing of the underlying shape can look quite different. Generally, there is a lot of the population around the mean (average), tapering out to much smaller numbers at either end.

People reading about this often become defensive, thinking somehow that they are responsible for whatever level of failure or success they have in this area. While I know the brain is like a muscle in many respects, the more you think the smarter you get, most people are completely innocent of their particular level of intelligence. Knowledge is another thing, but even with knowledge, the level of acquisition of knowledge is related in many ways to what you were born with, and there is not a lot you can do about what you were born with.

People with IQs of 80 or less should not feel guilty about their abilities, any more than short people should blame themselves for not being able to dunk a basketball. But since only ten to fifteen percent of individuals have IQs in this range, for most it is not really an excuse to misunderstand the evaluation of evidence if they work at it a bit.

Politicians have the ability to understand evidence, as does the vast majority of the population.

But it is what you do with what you’ve got that is important, not what you were born with.

Evaluating Evidence Can be Tricky

There are, of course, wide variations in success of evaluating evidence, which do trend toward a correlation with intelligence, but if you never focus on the issue, lots of times you don’t know what you don’t know. Necessity, though, is the mother of invention.

Years ago, physicians caring for people with malignancy had a hard time figuring out what therapies helped, and what didn’t. In some disciplines, success of treatment can be recognized by simple observation. Common practice demonstrated pretty quickly that immobilizing a fracture was at least helpful for the pain, and putting bones back into alignment, and then keeping them there, was key to a functional recovery.

Obvious. Double blind clinical trials were really not terribly necessary for such a gross end result. To some extent, this type of observational study is anecdotal, but since it happens many times the world over, and the anecdotes add up, the evidence starts to approach a quality that is reliable. There are fundamental mathematical explanations of this, but it is also intuitively obvious that larger numbers of observations almost always lead to greater confidence in the conclusion. Almost.

And that’s one place where is gets tricky. But I’ll come back to that.

The Trouble With Oncology

Cancer is one of that last areas of medicine to bow to therapeutics. There is always a level of ‘noise’ when examining the results of any observation. Things happen to people in many random, or seemingly random, ways. It is not really random, but because the causes of variation are so numerous, it sure appears random.

People with cancer have life spans which vary considerably, even amongst those with the same disease, even amongst those diseases with the same stage. I routinely cared for patients with stage IV lung cancer, and when asked for timelines (which patients often request) average survival without treatment was four months, and with treatment they might get out to eight or ten months (it is finally getter better than that, by the way). We could tell them that on average, 90% would die within the year, 65% if they took treatments of some kind.

Notice that in medicine, physicians, especially specialists who can focus in smaller areas of interest and concern, give such answers in terms of probabilities. It has to be given with care and sensitivity, but, in my opinion at least, it ALWAYS has to be accurate. It is a rule of mine. You want your patients to believe you far more than you want them to like you. Never lie to the patient. Express doubt, even ignorance, but never lie.

I have had some patients (not generally lung cancer) live for ten years with metastatic disease, and others live only a matter of days or weeks. If you plot these kinds of events, such as survival over time, within this wide scatter is a trend. The more events you have, the clearer is that trend. At five years, virtually all lung cancer patients with stage IV disease on presentation have passed away. But around that trending curve of deterioration over that five years is incredible variation.

So how do you know, when a patient lives for two years on a specific treatment, that the treatment had any effect? If you compare two patients, one with the treatment and one without, it could end up either way. The problem was, with some treatments, the variation was so large (the noise), that even a hundred patients, or a thousand patients, was not enough to separate random fluctuation from actual treatment effect.

And that is about the same time that very clever people started to use sophisticated mathematics, probability analysis, and experimental designs, to establish a difference we could rely upon. Treatments in cancer were so poor, we could not see the differences within the noise, without very detailed and complicated analysis. To this day, at the extreme of complexity, understanding the science behind all of this is out of reach for any but the few who study such techniques all their lives.

The wide variations and poor efficacy of cancer therapies meant that oncologists had to learn a lot of these sophisticated techniques, and from my experience over the last forty years, we did so before lots of other specialties, because we had to. Otherwise we could not see the improvement over the background noise. Establishing clear proof was also necessitated by the fact that oncology treatments were so toxic. The physician’s maxim, “Primum non nocere,” or “First, do no harm,” was pretty difficult to follow in oncology.

As good as physicians doing this type of research get, it’s not good enough. Every major study using statistical techniques in medicine has a statistician or two in the background working with the authors to plan the experiment and evaluate the data. I entered medicine after an undergraduate degree in mathematics, with a lot of statistics in my repertoire, but I would never dare publish an article without formal professional statistical analysis by a statistician.

Pitfalls of Experimental Design

There are lots of ways, we discovered, of messing up an experiment or an observation. Just understanding the definition of randomness was a start. I remember well sitting in a seminar at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, forty years ago, where members of the team treating cancer patients were agonizing over the fact that survival curves of treated and untreated patients eventually fell back together…no matter how dramatic the initial improvement…until one observer pointed out that everybody dies eventually, so all survival curves come together. The survival curves were getting out to the normal lifespan, and nobody noticed that the results were competing with human age limits.

Studies,over twenty yeas ago, at my current centre showed that patients who underwent chemotherapy after surgery for esophageal cancer lived longer than those who didn’t. One might think this means chemotherapy helps. It actually does, but this study failed to show that because the two groups were selected retrospectively (not randomly or prospectively with a plan), and the groups were not identical apart from the treatments received. They were different in age by an average of ten years, for one thing, and the group that started ten years older did not live as long, of course. Additionally, it was recognized that patients who failed to adequately recover from the surgery they went through did not then always receive chemotherapy (they were too sick), thus biasing the results towards chemotherapy (basically proving only that sick people don’t do as well as healthy ones).

This last point is subtle. It basically noted that patients who got chemotherapy did better, but also noted that patients who got chemotherapy started off better. Such problems in experimental design have lead to concepts demanding similar populations and analysis based on the original ‘intent to treat’ (patients who are planned to get a treatment get counted in the treatment group even if life’s problems prevent them from starting or completing it).

The analysis of this study was clearly flawed by the selection bias and the age difference…something that the vast majority of people might easily overlook, but that Medical Oncologists are geared to, and trained to, understand. It was also NOT a randomized prospective study, it was an observational study looking back at a bunch of patients. When you look closely at the data, it basically proved that patients who do well with a complex treatment tend to do well. Not really very helpful.

Most experimental designs of clinical trials demand that the two populations being compared are ‘identical’ in every aspect EXCEPT the treatment they receive. If the control group is ten years older than the experimental group (as occurred in that study of patients with esophageal cancer above) one could expect they would die ten years sooner, thus confounding the treatment effect. This is a clear example of bias that can creep in when you are not looking, and extremely intelligent people fall victim to this obscuring effect if they are not extremely vigilant. It becomes pretty clear that people who do not do this stuff all the time may fall prey to confounders and experimental bias. It is subtle. It is powerful.

After all, we are all human, and we really want to see good results.

Because lives depend on understanding this stuff, Medical Oncologists are constantly immersed in this type of evaluation of evidence. But you can understand that not everybody else is. Most treatment effects are less subtle, and most other professions and disciplines have far less profound effects when they make a mistake.

Second Nature

So it all becomes second nature to us, those who practice medical oncology. When someone argues that a comparison of two groups, or a correlation of two populations with subsequent events, suggests a cause and a direct resulting effect, we stand back and look for all the confounding biases. And to us, because we live with this stuff every day, its all pretty easy to see coming. Correlation does NOT equal causation.

A few weeks ago, during a debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz on health care funding, Senator Cruz argued that patients who obtained private health insurance lived longer than patients who relied on Medicaid. Bernie had no answer to this, it seemed, though in this context he may never have got a chance to respond, or he may have felt the explanation would be lost on the audience. To those of us who understand the relationship between health outcomes and socioeconomic status (physicians, nurses, social workers, health care administrators) the answer was pretty obvious, and not at all clearly related to the quality of insurance or the delivery of health care. People in higher socioeconomic class ALWAYS live longer: more money means better education and better health life style including food, drugs, alcohol and smoking issues. There is simply no need to introduce the insurance aspects to explain the difference, but that is exactly what the politicians did, because they don’t understand evaluation of evidence and experimental analysis.

If a physician, particularly a research physician, made this claim on this evidence, we might suspect fraud, so egregious is this mistake. We recognize he might be right in his conclusion, though totally wrong in how he got to it, and we might still call it fraud, or at the very least, lazy ignorance.

Trump Does Not Understand Evidence

One thing we teach our medical students is to protect their brains. If they read something somewhere, a year later they cannot possibly remember where that informational tidbit came from. So don’t read that stuff, we tell them. Sources of information vary hugely in their quality (so do sources of news).

We teach our students to evaluate everything carefully, but we understand that they must delegate this work to others from time to time. So it is that we teach them to rely only upon peer-reviewed journals of high impact and integrity. Journals in medical information gain a level of respect which allows us to accept their findings based on historical activity. Something published in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, is well known to be highly credible because editors scrutinize the studies, and peers review the results and report in letters, meetings and other journals. The Journal (NEJM) struggles to maintain that reputation, and if they ever fail, they are outed VERY quickly. In fact, reputable journals like NEJM and The Lancet usually out themselves. The Lancet retracted the Wakefield article connecting vaccines to autism when it realized the level of fraud involved in its production. It already knew the work was inaccurate, but it was the deception that prompted the first retraction for that journal in its history. [see Vaccines… this blog] Inaccurate reports are worthy of discussion. Fraudulent reports are worthy of ridicule (and discussion…this one, among some others, lead to major changes in rules governing authors’ activity in publishing medical journal articles, and medical journal editors in accepting them).

So the reputable journals try very hard not to fail. They do that by having extensive peer review by experts in the field, by having internal evaluations, and perhaps most importantly by inviting and receiving ‘letters to the editor’ arguing for or against certain studies. And they publish opinion articles by experts which lay out arguments for and against articles that appear in their (and other) journals.

There are, unfortunately, many journals where that degree of professional integrity is not maintained. There are some, in fact, that have an preconceived agenda, either because they are actually produced by a pharmaceutical industry, or have a major connection to an organization with a vested interest in an ‘end result’. Some, for example, want to promote religious belief, and the power of prayer, or the power of Christian values. We know that, we know which journals carry this type of bias, and we take that into consideration whenever we evaluate evidence, starting with avoiding those sources completely. And we teach our students not to read those journals.

Because a year later they cannot possibly remember where that informational tidbit came from.

Many people do NOT understand this structure of evidence evaluation. Those of us who deal in evidence every day know that we have to start with an evaluation of the source of evidence, then of the logic of the evidence, then of the design of the experiment or observation. One thing upon which we all agree is that wonderful statement by Christopher Hitchens: “Anything which may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.” Dismissed as proof anyway. But idle chat and random thoughts, as well as disciplined thoughts, can and do lead to hypotheses to be investigated and tested.

It is somewhat similar to the another principle, this time in physics: “If the event cannot be observed in any way, it does not exist.” Physicists argue that if you cannot observe something, it is sort of pointless to talk about it.

Trump does not understand evidence. He is not alone, although many people seem to come by some form of evidence evaluation naturally, without formal education.

The source of information is clearly extremely important. Certain news agencies do not cut it because they have a history of not cutting it. “Future behavior is best predicted by past behavior.” If one of my very intelligent friends who never says anything without good supporting evidence, actually says something, I am more inclined to believe them than I am someone who never gets it right.

So when Trump uses politically motivated sources of information, it is suspect. When he uses sources that often get it wrong, it is even more suspect. When he uses Fox News, when they offer no evidence, and restates a meme without other independent evidence, his argument can easily be dismissed. Because in that context, if it is true it is completely coincidental.

The problem is that Trump never cites any evidence. He does not have the evidence to cite. Indeed, it seems he does not care about it. The people he speaks to are not waiting for evidence, they are waiting for him to make the same claim three times, usually in rapid succession.

“Fake news. Phony. Fake.” This was his claim at the CPAC speech. No evidence, just the claim. But he never points to an example. Indeed, often it is in response to corrections the media has made of his comments, pointing out his fake news, such as the claim of a landslide victory, which his election result clearly was not.

“Believe me.” He says this repeatedly, as an alternative to evidence. “Believe me.” Why? Nobody ever answers ‘why’.

“That Which May Be Asserted Without Evidence May Be Dismissed Without Evidence.”

So when Trump states that Hillary Clinton lied, if he cannot provide evidence, that statement should be dismissed. When he says some terrorist action occurred in Sweden last week, and provides no evidence (outside of saying “Someone said it,” or “I heard it from some people,” both very common Trump supporting statements), the thought he expresses should be dismissed. The big problem is that Trump NEVER accurately identifies his evidence, and you really have to assume he has none, if none is supplied. I have listened to him assiduously, to my extreme detriment, for the last year, and could count on my fingers the number of times he refers to some article, never to a source which is as reliable as a scientific or medical journal.

Trump makes such blanket statements all the time. “I inherited a mess,” he has said. No evidence. If you dig, the evidence is actually contrary. Trump says something is a disaster (well, he actually says this about everything) but never gives any evidence. Consider unemployment. Trump says unemployment is a disaster, though all apparent evidence suggests unemployment is at one of its lowest rates.

There are times he gets more sophisticated about his dishonest comments. The rate of change in murders jumped in 2015, in part because the rate was so low in 2014 (probably a reporting and clerical error, but murder rates are based on a huge number of variables). He jumped on that point to promote his fear riddled approach to his underlying desire to promote authoritarian rule through police and military. He overlooked the reality that murder rates (not rate of change) are massively lower now than they were thirty to forty years ago. In addition, the background ‘noise’, as in any ongoing observation of large numbers, does not allow us to figure out if this rate change is anything other than random variation.

But ‘cherry picking’ (taking results which are favorable to your agenda) is really the same as lying, if you know you’re doing it, or simply lazy, if you don’t.

Lies

If I tell you two plus two equals five, and I do not understand addition, that is not a lie. It is a mistake.

If I say two plus two equals five, and I know it equals four, that is a lie.

If I say two plus two equals four, and I really think, because I am not too bright, that it equals five, that too is a lie, even though the statement is correct.

If I say two plus two is five, and I know it is four but I say it is hyperbole or humor when someone catches me on it (but I say nothing if no one objects), that is a lie.

That’s what Trump does when he says Obamacare is a disaster. Or when he says Mexicans are rapists. Or all the other countless exaggerations for which he is forgiven in the right wing media that supports him. “Oh, that’s just Trump,” they say, dismissing complaints of lying because getting truth from your president isn’t as important as promoting the right wing agenda.

We humans project. We actually try not to lie, for the most part. We tell ourselves we never lie, though we know we do a little bit (“No dear, that hat looks lovely”). And we treat other people as if the potential for lying, real lying, is very rare. We are always surprised when it happens. The blatant lie right to your face, the ‘gaslighting,’…we simply do not expect or anticipate that, and much of our communication is colored by what we expect.

Evidence suggests that I have a pretty stable, confident brain that takes time to carefully decide things. And yet, thirty years ago I observed an event which I could not believe was possible, which I could not emotionally deal with. I pushed it out of my mind. I denied it. No one else was really hurt by this decision of my subconscious brain, and I hope that had there been any detrimental effects on others that my facing this event could avoid, I would not have denied what I saw. About a year later when the consequences of that event doubled down with other similar events, I remembered it, but it was the clearest, most powerful example of cognitive dissonance that I have ever seen, and it was all mine. To this day I find it hard to believe my brain is capable of that kind of self deception. It makes me shiver to think about it. The lesson is that we can deny what we do not wish to believe.

As a medical friend of mine suggests, “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.”

Accepting that someone can lie at every opportunity is too threatening to our world view to accept.

Professional Lying

Lying in medicine occurs very rarely. Even when is does, it may not be in the awareness of the authors. Generally, medical authors believe what they are concluding, even if they fudge the data a bit to support what they believe to be true. But when it does happen, as it did years ago in a specific breast cancer treatment, or in the retracted article about vaccines and a relationship to autism, it takes everybody by surprise, and it takes a long time to sort out. We project our honesty on to the person telling us stuff, and we simply do not expect anyone to lie all the time.

Lying in politics is probably far more common than in medicine (I’m not really denigrating politicians here; in medicine your thoughts are carefully written down and analyzed. In politics they can be ‘off the cuff, in the moment’ and getting it all as right as I describe here can be close to impossible), but mostly it amounts to making claims without supporting evidence, or ignoring data that doesn’t agree with your preconceived conclusions. Lying to shore up your own reputation, to support your exaggerated opinion of your own value, lying to make the claim you are better than everybody, at everything, is actually very rare. “I understand better than the generals do,” or “I understand…better than anybody.” When he says that, what are you thinking?

We humans are not used to dealing with someone who lies all the time. Even as I say this about Trump, who I know by now lies almost every day, I find it difficult to accept, to believe. We hear people right now simply saying that ‘that is Trump’ and setting the dishonesty aside. Rick Santorum, last night after Trump’s first speech to Congress, when cont=fronted with some of these lies replied that is was pretty minor stuff for a president.

When Trump stated there were crowds lining up to hear him at the CPAC (a ticketed event with no line-ups), he didn’t care that he didn’t know that. When he said he had the highest electoral college result in history, and was confronted with the truth, his response was simply to say he had heard this somewhere, the implication being that this was sufficient justification for this lie. “Some people say,” and “many people think,” are phrases he has used, phrases which are the closest thing to evidence he appears to cite.

I remember wondering what Trump would do when people started to see the patterns, started to recognize that nothing he says is reliable. I remember how long it took me to unblock that terrible event I observed.

But I should have known. Trump told us what he would do. He would counter-punch.

And so now Trump is attacking the news sources that are finally calling him out on all his lies. They are ‘fake news’ and he has banned the most reliable ones from a recent media event.

“Fake news. Phony. Fake.” He says it three times, often punctuated by, “Believe me.”

And that’s all the evidence he gives.

In truth, I do not know if Trump can evaluate evidence. The example of murder rates says he cannot. But the constant lying says evidence is not important to him. Maybe he can understand evidence. “I have a very good brain.” “Only I can fix it.”

Even a Medical Oncologist can see the problem with evidence here.

It’s not just that Trump doesn’t understand evidence. He just doesn’t use it.

 

 

Karate and Health

Fighting Brian

The author, a socially inept introvert, is on the right foreground, is about to be gently kicked by his friend, Tom. Many other friends in the background will also kick him during the course of this class. Don’t worry. It doesn’t really hurt.

Introduction

I came across this essay in my files, cleaning house getting ready to move. Sadly, I was forced to retire from martial arts training and teaching a few years ago. I was 65 years old at my last black belt grading in East Lansing, Michigan, retiring shortly thereafter at the rank of Sandan in Shidokan Karate, with a previous rank of Yondan in Chito-ryu Karate.

One of the greatest highlights of my life has been helping to start Grand River Karate with Sensei Fortunato Restagno (and a host of so many others), and now my grand children are about to start this journey, too. Because of their youth, and the subsequent natural ‘worry’ of their parents, I have taken the opportunity to dust off this essay. I have not changed it since the day I submitted it, and was ultimately awarded my first degree black belt by Sensei Jake Klaus and visiting dignitary Sensei Cezar Borkowski. Thus it lacks a certain maturity, and the medical references are not ‘up-to-date’; in particular, the fitness craze is no longer novel.

But there is much truth in these thoughts, and I think much solace to be gained in parents worried about engendering violent behavior in their children, or injury to their loved ones. Karate is a beautiful sport, under appreciated in our society still. I have never been in a fight since I was fifteen, long before I entered a dojo, but I am convinced karate saved my life. You may wish to read to see if you can figure out how and why.

Karate and Health

Brian Dingle, BSc, MSc, MD, FRCPC

1985

Submitted as part of Shodan Requirements, KW Karate (Sensei Jake Klaus)

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well- being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”. This all-encompassing definition is included in the constitution of the World Health Organization (3), and provides a suitable standard against which the effects of any life-style may be evaluated. To establish the benefit of any life pattern to the health of an individual, be it the absence of smoking, the choice of diet, or the program of physical activity, one must look at the physical, mental and social implications of that pattern. On superficial examination, the study of a martial art would appear to benefit only the physical aspect of health; that the mental and social aspects of health are also developed is perhaps inherent in the meaning of the words Karate-do, for as the master, Gichin Funakoshi, writes
” True Karate-do is this: that in daily life one’s mind and body be trained and developed in the spirit of humility; and that in critical times one be utterly devoted to the cause of justice.” (5)
As a physician, I am dedicated to the “promotion of health” In the broadest sense of the phrase; to show the reader that the practice of Karate approaches this goal is the purpose of this essay.

Social Well-Being

“Karate-do begins and ends with courtesy. If superior to their teacher in skill, the disciples should never forget to respect their teachers.”

Zenryo Shi madukuro
1909-1969 (5)

As with any group endeavor, the practice of Karate requires talking and cooperating with other people. Being adept at these social skills is the essence of social well-being. Most adults and many teenagers have acquired these skills, though there is wide variation as to the degree. There is a moderately rigid social structure to Karate with both a hierarchy and a ritual, as in any religion or society. The structure provides comfort for those less socially secure, for the choice of behaviour in any social interaction is removed: the individual knows the ritual and so knows what is expected of him. He bows to Shomen (the front of the dojo) on entry and exit to show respect for the masters and the art; he bows to his partner or opponent before and after any practice session; and he bows to the instructor at the beginning and end of the class. He refers to his instructor with a special term of respect, ‘sensei’, and he soon views other higher belts (quickly identifiable by the colour) with a similar but “pro-rated” respect regardless of their age or social background outside the dojo. Importantly, he expects and receives similar treatment. There are no lingering doubts to this social interaction, and the individual can relax within this structure; even though he meets and talks to new people, even though he is called upon to touch or even “attack ” other individuals, the anxiety is limited because the structure of his behaviour is already set down. Even the most shy of us can do it, and its repetition buiIds confidence that inevitably extends to life outside the dojo.

The rituals of Karate at first may seem silly to the observer, but they have become second nature to those of us within the sport. Few of us think of these rituals but all of us practice them when we enter the dojo. The repetition and practice of the social rituals within Karate are of benefit to all: the child or the adult, the recluse or the socially adept. They are carried out even in the most adverse situations, as when experiencing exhaustion or defeat, or when facing someone (even someone unknown) who has just inflicted pain. Under such adversity, to smile, bow, and quietly walk away is a significant measure of social maturity.

Both the discipline of the class and the respectful behaviour displayed provide a useful model for children. Additionally, in contrast to North American “macho ” virtues popularized by television violence, the “no first strike” philosophy of Karate is emphasized; the training forms or kata always begin with a block of an imaginary attack. Participants are taught to run rather than to fight, to avoid confrontation in the first place for “…to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill.”(5) The self-confidence gained by the knowledge and practice of a martial art helps prevent playground fighting. It is the ego of the child in all of us that pushes us to submit to the urge of violence, and it is far easier to resist this urge when we know in our hearts that we could win.

Thus, in a general sense, the karate-ka practices the skills of social well-being with both friend and foe. More specifically, the camaraderie in the dojo may lead to lasting friendships, perhaps one of the most important aspects of social well-being.

Mental Well-being

“The ultimate aim of Karate lies not in victory nor defeat, but in the perfection of the character of its participants.”

Gichin Funikoshi
1869-1957 (1)

Mental well-being is, of course, closely allied to social well-being, but deals more with how the individual perceives himself. Mental health refers to “the ability to maintain an even temper, an alert intelligence, a socially considerate behaviour, and a happy disposition.”(8) There is little doubt that exercise in general can improve mental well-being, and exercise programs are prescribed by physicians to help patients both physically and emotionally.” (10) Paradoxically, chronic fatigue, often a sign of depression, responds well to an exercise program, in spite of the fact that most patients worry the added exertion will only wear them out further.

Most of us have experienced depression or stress at some time in our lives, and are well aware that hard physical exercise helps to suppress or even eradicate these feelings. While the mechanism of this improvement is still unknown, alterations in certain hormone levels and increased blood flow to the brain during peak physical activity probably play a large part.

While valuable for mental well-being, as is any exercise, Karate is not simply a form of physical exertion. “Traditional Karate training has always been concerned with deeper issues pertaining to self-discipline, self-awareness, control, mind body harmony, mental strength and relaxation, and personal development.” (8) The concentration required in a normal class drives other issues from conscious thought, providing a form of mental relief from the day’s stresses.

Drs. Konzak and Boudreau have attempted to measure the development of mental skills and personality changes in eighty-four Karate-ka (Karate participants) at two schools in Toronto. Their findings implied an improvement in a large number of personality factors including intelligence, self-sufficiency and tender-mindedness.(8) They conclude that studying Karate “…can enable (an) individual to experience a sense of personal physical and mental competence that is consistent with…mind/ body harmony and well-being.”

Karate has been of particular help to me in the management of stress. Caring for the terminally ill can be an emotionally draining experience, and forgetting this work at home can be difficult. I had tried other sports, but all left me thinking of my patients even as I participated. Karate was different. The effort in concentrating, the exhaustion, even the ritual meditation at the beginning of class made me forget the problems of my work. Soon this became a conditioned response, so that now I find my mind emptying even as I enter the dojo for a class. Colleagues and friends have asked how I can find the time for such a sport, but I have no doubt that Karate has helped increase my “productivity” above the time spent at it.

Physical Well-being

“It is my aim and ultimate goal to assist in the mental, physical, and spiritual development of our youth so that in the future they can better contribute to the demands of our society…”

Dr. Tsuyoshi Chitose
1898-1984 (5)

Few would deny that exercise is beneficial for physical well-being. Indeed, as the fitness craze takes North America by storm, doubters are considered heretics; all forms of miracles are attributed to running, squash, dancercise and some of them are even true.
In a very general sense, repetitive exercise allows an individual to complete the same amount of work more efficiently. Strength is increased, and the ability to transfer oxygen to the body’s tissues is enhanced. The same degree of work gradually requires less effort, and can be sustained for longer periods of time.

The amount of exercise necessary to improve fitness is substantial, generally estimated to be thirty minutes of moderately intense activity at least three times a week. The intensity of the exercise must be such that the body is achieving seventy per cent of its maximal oxygen consumption. As maximal oxygen consumption increases with improved fitness, the exertion required to continue progression also increases, so that all will eventually reach a plateau.

Signs of achieving seventy per cent oxygen consumption are mild to moderate perspiration, (warm, not the cold drenching sweat of illness or extreme exertion), mild breathlessness (still capable of speech and upright posture) and a pulse between 1 40 and 160 (for those aged 20, seven beats less per decade thereafter). As this degree of exertion must be maintained for thirty minutes, we’re not dealing with a walk in the country or a game of golf. A Karate class usually covers this requirement, with room to spare.

As an individual becomes more fit, the heart expands slightly, increasing the amount of blood pumped out each beat. The tissues extract a greater amount of oxygen, and consequently the resting heart rate drops. Blood pressure drops, the level of cholesterol available to harden arteries decreases, and the heart and lungs acquire greater reserves for times of illness or trauma. As muscles supporting the various joints and spine strengthen, common rheumatologic conditions such as chronic backache, fibrositis, and unstable joints improve.

The question is not so much whether exercise can produce these benefits, but rather which exercise can do so safely. Those watching an advanced Karate class might well be concerned over both the intensity of the exercise and the possibility of trauma.
Recent publicity of deaths of marathon runners, particularly the death of the fitness author James Fixx, gives cause for concern over vigorous physical exercise. However, medical researchers and epidemiologists have shown that although the risk of sudden death is greater during hard physical exercise, the overall decrease in risk at times other than exercise more than offsets this small hazard (9). Thus for the average healthy person, one need not be worried about participating in vigorous exercise; one rather should be worried about abstaining.

Trauma is a problem with any sport, each sport seeming to have its own peculiar “brand” of common injury: knee and shoulder injuries in hockey, football, and basketball; eye injuries in squash; head injuries in boxing; shin splints in running. Disregarding the pulled muscles, stiffness and minor scrapes that occur in all sports, the incidence of injury in Karate seems to contradict the apparent “violence.” In one large study it was found that serious injuries occur only rarely(1) and then mostly during sparring in competition. This is largely because of the control that is emphasized in all styles of the martial art. Certainly Karate compares favourably to football and hockey where deaths and paralysis are known to occur.

The usual injuries in Karate are pulled or torn muscles (generally the hamstrings in the thigh), digital injuries (toes and fingers), and hyperextension injuries of the elbows and knees. All are due to faulty practice or technique, and tend to decrease as the participant becomes more experienced. Proper warm-up and stretching routines are strongly emphasized (much more than in any organized sport or physical education class I’ve observed). The injuries I have seen in class or as the attending physician at competitions have always been minor, rarely resulting in time off from training. 

Conclusion

Karate is an individual sport which can be practiced as a group, or a group sport which can be practiced individually. Each participant progresses according to his own effort, age, and body type, and room for improvement is always present regardless of an individual’s proficiency. Special equipment is generally not required, and any medium sized room or lawn is sufficient space. Thus the sport can be continued throughout an entire lifetime, barring serious illness. The practice of Karate advances social,
mental and physical well-being.

In every sense of the phrase, Karate promotes health.

Bibliography

  1. Birrer, Richard B., and Birrer, Christina D.: Martial Arts Injuries. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 101(6): 103-108, June 1982
  2. Borkowski, Cezar: Modern Shodokan Karate; Masters Publications, Japanese Karate Academy Ltd., Hamilton, Canada, 1983
  3. Clark, Duncan W. and MacHon, Brian: Preventive Medicine J&E Churchill Ltd., London, 1967
  4. Feld, Michael S., McNair, Ronald E., and Wilk, Stephen R.The Physics of Karate.Scientific American 240: 150-158, April 79
  5. Funakoshi, Gichin: Karate-Do Kyohan; Kondasha International Ltd., Tokyo, New York and San Francisco, 1980
  6. Funakoshi * Gichin: Karate-Do, My way of Life; Kondasha International Ltd., Tokyo, New York and San Francisco, 1982
  7. Higashi, Shane Y.: Chito Ryu Karate; Chito Kai, Toronto,
  8. Konzak, Burt and Boudreau, Francoise: Martial Arts Training and Mental Health: An Exercise in Self-Help. Canada’ s Mental Health 32(4: 2-8, Dec 1984
  9. Siscovick, David S. et al: The Incidence of Primary Cardiac Arrest during Vigorous Exercise. The New England Journal of Medicine Oct 4, 1984
  10. Walker, Herbert E.: Occupational Therapy and Other Therapeutic Activities, Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry/ IV, Vol 2, Fourth Edition, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1985

Fast forward, December 20th, 2016: For those parents reading who are in London, Ontario, or Guelph Ontario, two other excellent affiliated dojos are London Shidokan Karate, Sensei Larry Bowlby, and ShidoKan Canada, Sensei Roy Paul. In Kitchener-Waterloo, of  course, is Grand River KarateThese are great schools with kind, welcoming instructors, and are part of the same much larger international organization Beikoku ShidoKan, lead by Sensei Seikichi Iha, Hanshi from Michigan, USA, which also includes Grand River Karate. Sensei Iha, in particular, sets the tone of these dojos emphasizing friendship as the most important value.

“You’re Grounded for Doing a Trumpy”

Donald_Trump_August_19,_2015_(cropped)

“Keep your head down, keep on working, and always keep the police on your side.”

It’s the only way to get through this. Learn from it, deal with it.

The day after someone like Trump wins the election, all the pundits in the world can examine the data, but those of us who are clever and are survivors will think of what to do.

What to do.

They are rioting in the streets today.

Usually such degree of unpopularity in a president is only achieved at the end of their terms, not at minus seventy-two days!

A Pettiness I Must Expiate

I do not like that the American people have elected such a man. I do not like his surrogates on CNN, who bristle with largely ignorant hubris to my eye, and for them to end up winning, and gloating, is very hard to bear. I am offended and insulted, and aggravated by their assumption of correctness that I cannot dent. It is a pettiness of mine.

The only way to bear it is to recognize that the majority of Trump’s supporters do not approve of his arrogance, his dishonesty, his misogyny and his braggadocio.

But What About the Children

I watched Van Jones, tearfully, asking, “How do I explain this to my children. I have friends who ask if they should leave the country…this was a whitelash!”

What to do. Van Jones will come to the answer, but I know what to do. And he will too.

“Keep your head down, keep on working, and always keep the police on your side.”

This has been my mantra for years, though I change it subtlely when I work in a hospital, as I normally do: “Keep your head down, keep on working, and always keep the nurses on your side.”

In politics, obviously, you have to take the good with the bad. You never get everything you want in a single candidate. That is the essence of democracy. You only get one president, and whoever they are, they cannot be all things to all people.

 What Were They Thinking?

The realization that came to me this morning, after many tears in the middle of the night, was that our friends to the south were not embracing the hubris in their president. Nor were they embracing the misogyny. They don’t really want their president to be a failure as a business-man, who declared bankruptcy four to six times to milk the system. Nor do they want their president to stiff his creditors, or cheat the tax man, or to brag so egregiously. They don’t want their president to rape women, or even to grope them, which is essentially the same thing. They don’t really want him to be a liar, or a cheat, or an ignoramus. In fact, they probably want him to be a hero, but nobody can be a hero in this day and age.

But you have to take the bad with the good. They wanted a change…a change from the politicians who they think are fixated on self-interest, and continued unrelenting control. They wanted a change from the stagnant economic doldrums, even though no leader can deliver them from those doldrums. They wanted someone to re-establish American hegemony, when such power has quite naturally passed them by. They wanted someone to make them lovable again, when years of self-centered American dirty trick foreign policy which created the hatred they feel so keenly in the backs of their necks, make them anything but lovable.

They wanted a miracle and they thought change in any form would give it to them. Or at least give that miracle a chance.

It was an unholy alliance of the con and those who wished to be conned.

 The American Dream

Americans want the American Dream again, but it is a mirage. They want to know that if they work hard, they too have the chance to become a Trump, or a Buffett, or a Gates, or another billionaire, when in fact, such occurrence is based often more on good luck than good management.

The American Dream has always been built on slavery. Of some kind, anyway. Four hundred years of slavery, which in latter years has been transformed into the more subtle ‘gap.’ Instead of ‘work for nothing,’ it is ‘work for pittance,’ when the 1% control the wealth of the 99%. And rich white old males reap the American Dream while asking others why they cannot succeed, others who can only pine for the excesses enjoyed by the few. But that distant allure only encourages them all to persist with a system that seems to make such dreams possible.

The Donald epitomizes the American Dream: inheriting wealth which self-perpetuates no matter how incompetent the beneficiary happens to be. Maybe they inherited money, or fame, or status, or class, or education, but whatever it was, that quality put that individual a step above others, and that advantage is what every American Dreamer pines for.

To get ahead.

Like the two hunters, one putting his shoes on while the other urges him to run, the first explaining that he doesn’t need to out run the bear that is coming, he just needs to outrun his friend who is urging him on.

In the end, as superficial as it was, old white males, and a whole bunch of their followers, decided to ignore Trump’s obvious faults, Trumpies, if you will, and instead decided to follow him over the cliff if only to get some kind of change.

Maybe that desire for change is healthy, after all. It’s what Bernie offered too, but in the end, the system decided Trump might succeed where Bernie would not. Or perhaps one part of the system knew that Bernie would succeed, and so he needed to be suppressed.

Basically, the American people decided that Trump’s obvious faults, the Trumpies, were ones they could live with and ignore, as long as he also provided the change they saw in his empty promises.

And it all makes a bizarre kind of sense. Americans, for the most part, do not need a role model to demonstrate how to behave. They know already that they should not be liars, or sexual predators, or braggarts, or cheaters, or conspiracy theorists. So they don’t really have to worry too much if their president is one of those, or even all of those. What they want is someone who will deliver them from the doldrums, who will return them to the prosperity they enjoyed in the past, even if all reality informs them they can never enjoy it again in the future.

So they voted for someone with empty promises balanced against faults they need no instruction to avoid.

“Grab their pussy if you must. We know that’s wrong, and we won’t do that. But while you are at it, could you show us how to make American great again without all the cheap labor from slavery? Could you show us how to do that? If you do, feel free to grope women, because we think it is probably worth it to old white male dominance, to know how to make America great.”

So, What to Do?

Americans, for the most part, do not need a role model to demonstrate how to behave. Not when they have something almost as good: a role model to demonstrate how NOT to behave.

Maybe the president should not primarily be a good positive role model. Maybe that’s too much trouble, and generally unachievable except rarely, as in Carter or Obama.

After all, there are excellent negative role models out there that even an outsider like me  can see: Nixon, JFK, Clinton (Bill, of course).

But What About the Children

What to do for our children?

This is an ideal win-win opportunity. Trump, as an example, can teach our children two major lessons.

The first, of course, is that the political democratic process can, and does, put despicable people into positions of power. Not everybody who becomes a major leader is worthy of respect. We all know that. Now we can point to a prominent example that can explain the issue to our children.

The second is to point to the individual obnoxious characteristics:

“Grab them by the pussy.” No son. Don’t do that. It is illegal and you could end up in jail for ten years. It is an assault and is disrespectful of women. Women are people (since 1920 anyway…). Yes, you can tell your children about the historical white male dominance that persists in many subtle and not so subtle ways. You can point out how a disparity in physical strength does not justify it’s use, any more than disparity in financial or political power, or even intellectual power, can justify any related abuse.

“I know more than the generals do.” Ideal examples for the six and seven year olds (Donald’s arrested development?). When they challenge their adult overseers that they know how to dodge traffic on a busy highway, you can call it a Trumpy. “He doesn’t know more than the generals do, and he doesn’t know how to dodge traffic. And neither do you.”

“Many people say…” Here we can teach the children the difference between logical fact based argument and sleazy innuendo weasel words. “Notice how the president uses language which cannot be disputed but is totally specious. Never say ‘Many people say…’. That’s a cop out. It’s a weasel argument; it’s a lie. It’s a Trumpy.”

It is an opportunity to show children how questioning the birthplace of someone clearly born in the United States is a not so subtle bigotry that is certainly designed to discriminate against their race. “You have no right to question something like that without at least a hint of evidence that raises the concern, and having a middle name that is from another religion is simply not enough. And it’s a silly antiquated law anyway, designed for a different time.”

“They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists and SOME I ASSUME ARE GOOD PEOPLE.” No, daughter dear, such smear statements of fear have no place in the polite conversation. Such generalizations are inaccurate and unfair, and dishonest in terms of numbers and predominance. And ethnic discrimination like this is never an acceptable method of argument.

“God has chosen President Trump.” No son. God did not choose president Trump. Why would he? If there were an omnipotent, omniscient, all powerful deity, would he pick a dishonest, adulterous, uncivil, ill-mannered man who brags about groping women, hell, who brags about everything? Of course not. No. If there were a god of the bible, he would not choose a Trump. He probably would not even choose a Clinton. If there were a god, and the deity made a choice, they would not even be as fallible as an Obama. No son, there is no evidence of a god. We have to make it on our own and make better choices next time.

World Leaders are Not Infallible

There is a tremendous lesson in finding such fault with a world leader. We hold these people in too great esteem. To be able to point at the president and explain the fault to a child is a powerful message. And with this man, there are so many opportunities, so many Trumpies.

If we accept that the election of a man like Donald Trump is not a celebration of his obnoxious characteristics, but instead a frustrated call for some kind of change, if we accept that the American people have decided that their president need not be a saint…if we accept that the vote was, rather, a repudiation of the status quo, then we have a wonderful opportunity to advance the education of appropriate civil behaviour for our children (while also feeling a little better about the American people themselves).

We can achieve this so easily now by pointing a finger at the new president and saying, “Don’t do that. For god’s sake, don’t do that. If you do, you’re grounded for doing a Trumpy.”