The La La Land of Facebook

E-mail to a friend, posting here with a few edits and updates. The comparison of Facebook to the Matrix came up while we were texting. She hadn't heard of or seen the movie, so I followed up with this message:

What's the Matrix? Here's a short answer (from Wikipedia):

The Matrix is a 1999 American-Australian science fiction action film written and directed by The Wachowskis, starring Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving, and Joe Pantoliano. It depicts a dystopian future in which reality as perceived by most humans is actually a simulated reality called "the Matrix", created by sentient machines to subdue the human population, while their bodies' heat and electrical activity are used as an energy source. Computer programmer "Neo" learns this truth and is drawn into a rebellion against the machines, which involves other people who have been freed from the "dream world".

​Facebook strikes me as a pretty good analogy. I've given up trying to inject "reality" into my occasional posts. People just don't seem to want to hear bad news. So while World War III is taking place in the real world, the good people in Facebook Land talk about sunrises, baby goats, puppies and kittens, grandkids, anniversaries, restaurants, etc. All fine, all fun, but try to interject something having to do with the real world and you run the risk of being "blocked or unfriended. Who likes a spoilsport? 

A few exceptions. One person in my "friend" list (she's not even a friend, just someone I know from the Writers Guild) is a rabble-rouser, unabashedly, unrelentingly political, can't stand Obama and isn't afraid to let people know. She's actually funny, snarky and sarcastic, constantly posting articles, etc. that I find interesting and actually read. One of the few Facebook denizens not plugged into the Matrix.

Other exceptions: Democrats reviving old grievances (against George W. Bush, the Iraq war), environmentalists or animal rights activists. Conservatives like me tend to tiptoe into Facebook Land, "like" something they agree with and even occasionally join the conversation. But we seldom step into left-leaning discussions (why isn't there a dislike button?).  

My involvement on Facebook lately is mostly passive, with the occasional random posting (some arcane bit of information like Botox being botulinum toxin would probably make the cut) or birthday greeting even though I'm still old school and love actual notes and cards (hand-written preferably). 

Occasionally I feel the old stirring of wanting to just SCREAM at stupid people who don't seem to care about what's happening outside the Matrix...but I get over it pretty quickly. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it is what it is. 

Red Pill or Blue Pill?

Ezekiel Emmanuel doesn't want to live beyond the age of 75. That shouldn't really be anyone's concern besides his own, and, perhaps his immediate family's. 

Unfortunately, it is our concern, because Ezekiel Emmanuel isn't just some random guy, living in flyover country. He's Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health. He also heads the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. He's also one of the chief architects of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. 

So when Dr. Emmanuel says he doesn't want to live beyond the age of 75, after which he won't accept medical intervention for illness or use preventive health care screenings, and presents his reasoning in a lengthy article in The Atlantic called "Why I Hope to Die at 75," he's not just waxing poetic or nostalgic. He's shaping policy. He may claim otherwise ("I am not advocating 75 as the official statistic of a complete, good life in order to save resources, ration health care, or address public-policy issues arising from the increases in life expectancy"), but he's fooling nobody. 

On the heels of his piece in the Atlantic comes this article, "Panel Urges Overhauling Health Care at End of Life," in the New York Times reporting on the recommendations of (wait for it) The Committee on Approaching Death (I guess we need a committee for this). Their book, Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preference Near the End of Life, contains the panel's recommendations. 

OK, so people who work with the elderly (and I know a few) might regard the committee's suggestions with equanimity. What's wrong with reimbursing health care providers for "conversations with patients on advance care planning?

Yet, from where I sit, it's impossible, when juxtaposing the seemingly benign suggestions of The Committee with Dr. Emmanuel's sunny rejection of old age, not to see where this is headed. And yes, I'm talking about that slippery slope. Good call, Ms. Palin.


That's how it works, folks. It begins with a "suggestion," moves into a "conversation," veers into debate, creeps into policy, seeps into mores, metastasizes into worldview. Before long, the right thing to do is not only to nudge the aged to choose an early exit, but to deprive them of the choice to extend their lives altogether, at least from the standpoint of insurance benefits. 

So here we are, 2014, in Obama's America. It is, as promised, fundamentally transformed. Ezekiel Emmanuel may be cool with it, and Michelle Obama, positively giddy. But, of course, that's what it's like when you're plugged into the Matrix. Peace and joy and light and sunshine and flowers. 

 The red pill for me, if you please, Morpheus.