That's All There Is

I'm dying. But so are you.

Déjà vu? It's not an original thought, but I admit I used the same words in Various Thoughts XIII on August 3^rd, 2017. Then it was theoretical and intellectual, but now it's for real. If it hasn't happened already. Consequently this will be my last post. If I have anything to say in the meantime I'll slip it in between essays already scheduled for publication.

First of all, I've been very lucky. (My wife, too. We've shared in our good fortune.) I have cancer. Death is inevitable and isn't worth wasting space on. But we've had (that's me and Phyllis) over fifty-seven years together, and they've been good years. We have three children, thirteen grandchildren, and two great grandchildren so far, and all have been good kids. No drugs or other of the evil signs of the times. All have remained faithful to their faith, and their propects look good. They love our people and they love Israel. I couldn't be more proud.

So what prompts this message? I've been losing weight despite attempts not to do so, and having some pains and discomforts I can't explain. Perhaps it's nothing but I doubt it. I'll report the findings to my doctor and get her take on the situation. And undergo the tests and whatever therapies she proposes.

In the interim, however, I've decided to record some thoughts I have. If you've been reading this blog, none of them will surprise you, but I wanted to jot them down anyway. They're about me rather than the disease and will explain a little more about who I am. As for my style in this essay, it's likely to be erratic. I'll record my ideas as I think of them, and that means they may not be in any logical sequence.

I live in a blue state but I'm purple – disappointed in the “new liberalism” (populism and antisemitism) of the left and attracted by some of the policy positions of the conservatives. I agree with concerns over the needy, in a religious and human way (and based on my upbringing in a liberal household), but I don't think protests and throwing money at them is the answer. On the other hand I support a more conservative view of our economy and national strength, but oppose our thumbing our nose at the rest of the world. I support Israel which has become the convenient target of antisemites and of the left in general – especially out of our country – even if I don't support all of Israel's policies. But I should add that I don't support all of our country's policies either and I consider myself a patriotic American.

Like most conservatives I'm old-fashioned. My clothing is stodgy and square. It's not unusual for me to be one of the few who wears a suit and tie to Shabbat and Yom Tov services. I relate better to the values and customs of my youth (including the music) than what is currently in style. I know the same can be said of every generation that preceded mine, and that this will always be the case, but I cannot help feeling that we're moving too fast – especially in our tendency to declare all dissidents to be right, and those who consider themselves oppressed to be declared protected minorities. I regret our inclination to protest whatever we don't like – and that's a very recent development – rather than to try to work with those we oppose. Ideology has taken precedence over common sense.

I'm Jewish, which you may have deduced from what I've written here, or learned from previous essays where it has been expressed unequivocally. I try to follow the precepts handed down to us by our sages. It's what I do, and I'll continue doing it as long as I can. I'm a creature of habit, and Judaism provides habits which resonate with me – habits I love. But I'm a little troubled that most, if not all, of the laws were written by humans. Even those attributed to G-d have been recorded – if not formulated – by humans. They may have been inspired, brilliant, and wise, but they were human and passed down to us, often with commentary, by people like us. No matter. What they say makes sense and seems fair. Admittedly we judge them using human not divine standards, but that's all we have. They tell us there is a G-d but it's not something we can confirm independently. It still doesn't matter. And, of course, I have no concept of death. The idea of an afterlife seems to have come about as a reaction to Christianity. That doesn't make it wrong but it's hard to ignore the fact that it wasn't mentioned in our early teachings.

I'd like to believe that there is such an afterlife and that it is a continuation of this one, similar to what is taught children. But I suspect that if there is such an existence it would totally unrelated to the one we are living now and we'll have no knowledge of this one or the people we knew. We have no knowledge of what happened before we were born and there is no reason to believe that we'll remember this life after it ends. But who knows. Human thought and logic don't apply. (FOR MY FAMILY: There's a lot more on my views of the subject on the Asus and on my flash drives. See Thoughts.doc. It's in “documents” on the open Office menu for drive C, and in “The Imperious Loudmouth” menus on the flash drives.)

I live (or lived, as the case may be) in Mount Vernon, New York, and in the same house for over forty-seven years (as of the time of this writing). I decided long ago that I'll never move because that would entail cleaning out the attic, and I'm not prepared to do so. It will be my children's problem and give them the chance to find all my old secrets, as well as some items that may have accumulated value over the years. It will also give them the opportunity to bump their heads. But they'll be careful. They were reared in this house and know their way around, so they know where to look and what to look for.

I have an agreement with Phyllis (full disclosure: it's not really an agreement but a demand I've made) that I'll die first. She keeps the books (she's far more organized that I) and I'd never be able to manage our affairs without her. I suspect it will be far easier to live without me than without her, although I know that a period of mourning will delay any immediate consideration of the issue.

Sadly, Phyllis is ill as well. Diagnosed much more recently than I, but ill nonetheless. Hence there will be a race. We both want it to be a marathon rather than a sprint, but that is out of our hands. To the loser belong the problems.

I probably should express some of my wishes for my family and for the world. None will be either original or unexpected, but all of them are deeply felt. For my beloved wife I wish happiness and a long life. I trust her therapy will be helpful in this regard and keep her symptoms and her disease from progressing. She's dedicated herself to working for the community and to the lives of others, and deserves the best for herself as well. I hope that she'll have the companionship that will make her happy. I know she has many friends through her Medicare counseling position and from members of the community. And, of course, the love and concern that she'll receive from our family.

As for that family, I wish unity. And mutual love and concern. I love them all. I hope they (and the rest of those who can do so for that matter) make an effort to care for the needy and afflicted wherever they may be. I mentioned earlier that they were all good and we were lucky. I pray that our luck will continue. Our grandchildren, at least some of them, are working out their plans for life and I wish them well. And all of my children and grandchildren have shown their attachment to the Jewish People and to the land of Israel. I couldn't be more pleased.

My wishes for the world are equally grandiose – though I am less sanguine about their accomplishment. I fear that my wish for world peace will never reach fruition. There are always power-seeking and self-absorbed people who will seek to enrich themselves at the expense of others. For them the power they feel while ruling a country and making it victorious over others will always exist, and it will prevent the compromises and accommodations necessary for us all to lay down our swords and join hands.

I am also concerned that prejudices will remain despite every effort to eliminate them. Antisemitism has been around for millennia and is achieving new strength as large nations and brainwashed people search for a convenient scapegoat to which they can point. Nations do it to distract their constituents from the real problems they face. Individuals pass their biases on to their children – biases they were taught by their parents and their leaders.

What I really want will take a miracle. It is that people learn to work together; that they learn to compromise for everyone's good; that they accept the idea that they cannot have everything they want but can contribute to the good of others. I believe in absolutes – at least some absolutes. I believe that in the DNA of all humans are instructions about how to live with our neighbors. After all, rules about human interactions are common to all of us. And they tend to be very similar. It's a human instinct. There are some outliers, with damaged DNA, who don't accept those absolutes, but most of us do. Perhaps evolution will ultimately rid humanity of its morally damaged. That is my hope and my wish.

My consolations are that I believe there is a G-d and that, from time to time, He authors miracles.


PS.  Irrespective of what I've said, check next week to see if there are more posts.

Enjoy!

August 7, 2017

Intent

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus

It's a phrase taken directly from the traditional Latin Mass but it's actually a direct translation of

קדוֹשׁ, קדוֹשׁ, קדוֹשׁ

which appears in the Jewish Bible. There are many other examples of similar appropriation of non-understood language from one tradition to another. It means “Holy, holy, holy,” but there are other examples of similar cultural appropriations, and this one was only chosen because of it's short length.

Does it matter if the supplicant doesn't understand what he is saying? I'm not a theologian and can only answer based on my own views, but I doubt it. (Vivaldi, who lost his ability to speak, expressed himself through his music.) If the supplicant's intent is proper, the language is irrelevant and, I believe, the act is judged on its own merits.

But the idea is not limited to religious thought. And the results it achieves are not immutable. People with honest and virtuous intents may disagree. Although there are some absolutes, their number is limited, and in most modern arguments both sides are right – at least in regard to some of the particulars. And if contemporaries disagree over “right” and “wrong” it is certain that past and future generations will question what we think, and how we decide and act.

If they can.

When tyrannical regimes in the Middle East destroy sites that others consider holy, we protest their action, even though its proponents believe that they are eliminating places of blasphemy, sacrilege, and immorality and they demolish whatever relics of it that they can find. Their intent is to improve rather than destroy. Yet we are outraged. When we are embarrassed or angered by an American past that includes slavery in our country, we destroy as many symbols of it as possible, including monuments and the names of those who supported or even tolerated it. Perhaps their intent was virtuous. Perhaps they were being honored for other acts, that is not relevant. We ignore their intent and their context and substitute our own. And, like tyrants elsewhere, we destroy our own history making it more difficult for future generations. We honor George Orwell's 1984 and Soviet historical revisionism.

Bad as such behavior may be when practiced by an individual, it is worse when it involves group action. If someone is convicted in the press of an alleged act, and others, with no knowledge of the act, wish to support the “victim,” their good intentions should be supported by a review of all sides of a story – not just the one reinforcers want you to hear. Yet that's what media groups, social and otherwise, prompt people to do – to convert uninformed good intent into mindless and forceful acts. Too often, for example, “good” people, with good intentions, demand freedom of speech, but are encouraged to protest when requested it is sought by others who disagree with their leaders. The “Right” of such a freedom devolves only on those with the “right” point of view.

Proper intent is necessary, but only if its inspired by information rather than incitement. Those who would use the good intents of others to add strength to evils which they wish to promote will be judged (according to your beliefs) by G-d or future generations.

Virtuous intent is to be praised. Well-considered virtuous intent based on your own beliefs and knowledge. (And those who would manipulate that virtuous intent are to be condemned.) The existence of virtuous intent is worthy of praise. The virtue of the act must be judged separately.

For example, in the summer of 1945, Harry Truman, having recently assumed the Presidency following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, authorized the atomic bombing of two cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because of which it is estimated that 130,000 died immediately (with many more subsequently). Development of the weapon had been initiated by his predecessor, but Truman authorized its use. It brought to an end a war that had caused the deaths of tens of millions already, and damage and destruction to numerous cities and historic sites.

Truman's intent, to end the war while preserving the lives of many future combatants and civilians was achieved. The intent was worthy and the result was cheered at the time. There have been many questions raised subsequently about whether a similar result could have been achieved otherwise, but that is not for me to judge.

However I continue to believe that if the supplicant's intent is proper, it is understood; and the act itself is judged with this in “mind.” We may not live in the time and context of the act, and the imposition of our time's political correctness, or any other criterion, isn't appropriate.

Mixed Grill XL

Groan. What more can I say?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Net neutrality – Basketball game far from both home towns

Honi soit qui mal y puns – Villainous dialog between wincing comedians

Some day I'm going to murder the bugler.

Some day you're going to find him dead.

And then I'll get that other pup, the guy who wakes the bugler up,

And spend the rest of my life on death row –

After which I'll have no trouble sleeping

This is the way we wash our money – Childhood patter of aspiring drug dealers

Guys And Dills – But they were having cheesecake, not pastrami sandwiches

Three and two – Basketball team

What ho. The grad – Time to buy another used car

The Federalist Papers – Many issues of the New-York Journal

Useful idiots – Carnival attraction

All Or Nothing – Nothing

The Great Books – Two sets of books should provide cover

Triumph of the Will – Good Hunting by Leni Riefenstahl. Premature gasconade

High occupancy vehicle – Stops at all pot holes

Tied to be fit – The kid wouldn't cooperate with the tailor

Better dead than red – Fashion statement

As American as apple pig – NYC sexist

Sesame mucho – Even though tortillas aren't bagels, it's worth a try

Massapequa Long Island – New pitching sensation from Japan

The last shall be first – If you don't come early you lose your chance for a seat in the back and you have to sit in the front

A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum – Almost everything is Loesser than Zero

A man walks into a bar – And he needs at least three for adequate reception

Black is the color of my true love – Stokely Carmichaels dictum

I only have i's for Mississippi – But I can mobilize more

I love ewe – Get thee in front of me Satan

Mary had a little lamb – Very little. She's a newly proclaimed vegetarian and didn't want anyone to see

Mind over martyr – Hypnotize a suicide bomber

Owed to a Grecian urn – Throw in a few drachmas to show your interest

Spot heron – One legged parking spot

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Groan. There. I said it again.

July 30, 2017

Antisemitism

Perhaps I'm being too parochial, but from what I've read it's hard not to conclude that Jews have long been the targets of anger and bias (and will continue to be so). In ancient times, when they were a nation among nations, and not viewed primarily from the perspective of religion, the Jews were simply another group that had to be defeated in the perennial wars between nations. Haman may have tried to eliminate them as a religious group, but it was primarily his obsession and not typical of the times. From the points of view of others, Jewish practices were of no particular note. There may have been an interest in their land, but not in their beliefs and not in their religion.

Christianity's separation, however, was certainly based on belief, and a difference in the conception of what constituted G-d. And what grew the split that occurred, and the reasons for it, was a belief by the new group that the Jews had “killed G-d” specifically that they had killed Jesus – the “son.” They hadn't, but over time the notion became so ingrained in Christians that it became “fact.” And they believed that they had superseded the Jews as Israel, G-d's chosen people. The Jews were agents of the devil, and they were bound to eliminate them.

Next rose Islam, based on Jewish and Christian teachings. When the Jews rejected the new religion they became its targets. According to the Hadith,

The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.

With the Christian and Islamic teachings – and more than half of the world's population is either Christian or Islamic – it was no longer a military battle but a moral one. It was not only acceptable to hate Jews, it was obligatory.

There were many examples of the hatred. They included the 1929 massacre in Hebron, the Holocaust, the current Middle East conflict with various parties vowing to eliminate Israel, and the background of antisemitism.

It's frightening. The Jewish population of the world is only 0.2% of all. It's likely that the vast majority of people will never meet a Jew. Yet, according to ADL statistics, 26% of the world's population [and virtually all of the United Nations – S. O.] has anti-semitic views. I suspect that the number is significantly higher when you add in the number who view themselves as “anti-Zionist” but don't consider themselves anti-semitic. What is the origin of their hatred?

There are many causes, but the predominant ones are church teachings and the teaching in Islam that all lands in which Muslims have been a predominant group, whenever that was, belongs to them, and the Jews – and especially Israel – threaten this hegemony. The fact that neither of these religions has been able to attract large numbers of Jews contributes to the hatred.

Another contributor is the United Nations. There are numerous Islamic nations with both political and economic power. And that's more important to the other nations than right and wrong. For most it's not a question of military supremacy – although for many it is – but religious hatred. And the media are quick to promote the bias, probably because of their own prejudices and for economic reasons. According to Lord Palmerston, nations don't have friends, only interests.

And, of course, there's word of mouth. People have heard negative things from their friends who heard them from others or social media or whatever. It's hard to ignore or dispel negative stereotypes when they're passed on to you by a friend.

How would such attitudes be changed? It would take the combined efforts of religious and secular leaders, of national and international officials and organizations, to begin to reorient those with negative views. It's not going to happen soon, if at all. Hatred is too deeply ingrained in too may people.

The only reasonable reaction by the Jews and Israel is one of defense, which will, itself, be viewed as a threat from an untrustworthy people. And that makes it, I suspect, an insoluble problem – a “catch-22” – and it would require billions of people to recognize that their views aren't rational. And until such a time the Jews and Israel will have to act like Boy Scouts. More than being ideal citizens of the world, they'll have to be prepared.

June 27, 2017

"I Feel Your Pain."

Do you? Do you really care?

Those were the words of President Clinton, who resided in luxury for which we paid. He lived, as do all our presidents now, in a residence cared for by numerous servants eager (and employed) to satisfy every whim.

According to The Hill, on President Obama's last Thanksgiving in the White House, the menu included, as the first course, "mini BLT's, chicken satay with pizza chili dip, mini crab cakes, pizza bites, fresh veggies and hummus and pigs in the blanket."

The second course featured "thyme-roasted turkey with garlic jus and cranberry-orange relish, a honey-baked ham with apricot-mustard glaze, prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade, and fried chicken wings." I won't bore you with side dishes and desserts, but they were equally excessive in number and decadent in content.

How does someone eating like that, a meal prepared by an Executive Chef with 25 assistants, relate to a single mother who has no food to make for her children?

There is a disconnect between our leaders and us. I may not be poor, however I cannot help but see it. No rhetoric can cover it up, because the difference in life style between "the leader of the free world" and those whom he claims to represent (as well as the needy around the world), is flaunted and reported. It can't be denied by flowery and disingenuous words. We should prevent our leaders from using them.

Better. A way should be found to make the words true.

That's not so easy. People rarely go into politics with the aim of living like their constituents – of feeling their pain. Politics is the path upward, not downward – to power, not impotence. They don't want to feel that pain, however much they maintain that they do. They yearn for prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade. They're not interested in starving. But they have to appear to relate to the suffering of the poor, so they issue pious declarations of their concern. People almost believe them. (President Truman said "Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.") And they obediently vote for them.

That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't ways to deal with the disparity. I suspect there are other ways, but I'd like to suggest one. It's not guaranteed to bridge the gap, but it would be a start.

It would be useful if, at regular intervals (when no visiting dignitaries are expected), the president, and, for that matter, other politicians with significant input into the lives of our people, were required to live in settings similar to those of our most deprived citizens – to see how the other "half" lives and actually feel their pain. Allowance would have to be made for their responsibilities and for their safety, but it might make them more sympathetic to the genuine needs of the poor.

Perhaps it would mean the construction of an unheated and run-down shack in the rose garden. Perhaps the meals during the period of residence (perhaps a week at a time) would be spare or absent, but it would give them a taste of the lives of the lowest level of society – not the highest.

I'm not advocating the embarrassment of government officials, only a means or educating them to the real needs of our people. Foreign policy, and a variety of national needs require their attention but, at the moment, our own needy are getting little more than words – and words don't fill stomachs. I suspect that most of our leaders have never endured the deprivations of which they speak so knowledgeably, and don't relate to them at all – unless they are trying to gather votes. This would help them understand a little better what is the lot of so many Americans. And moreso the fate of so many around the world.

Requiring the rich – and all presidents are rich, no matter how they may deny it – to live, every now and then, the life of the poor may make them better understand the lives of the people around them, even it does not make them more sympathetic to their needs. And if, for no other reason than to improve the conditions for their next "sentence" to the life of the poor, they may consider measures that would help the needy. Really feeling the pain may sensitize them to their constituents' needs, in addition to their own.

June 13, 2017

Justice Denied

Let's start with the disclaimer. I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's not that I'm talking through my hat, but I do admit to ignorance of all the facts. And that's fine with me. The system of American justice leaves a lot to be desired. And I assume the same is true elsewhere. Where shall I start?

I'll begin where my thinking about the issue as the subject for an essay began (though the American justice system has always troubled me). A friend of mine is in a correctional facility. He's a gentle and intelligent man, an effective educator, and a faithful member of the community. But he has purchased pornography (specifically involving children) and practiced voyeurism. He never touched a child improperly (as far as I know) but at least one of the involved children, now an adult, voiced dismay when he heard about the man's actions.

My friend is clearly troubled. I don't know the details of his previous interactions with the legal system – nor do I want to – but, according to what I learned at a hearing, he had been instructed by the courts on several occasions in the past to get adequate psychological help to deal with his problem and, apparently, he did not do so. The judge seemed to be fair and, after noting all the factors that seemed pertinent, including sentencing guidelines, imposed a relatively lenient term, considering those guidelines. Nonetheless he will be incarcerated for several years. I don't dispute the equity of the sentence itself, but it doesn't seem to fit in with what I read in the media about other criminals. Justice is supposed to be the same for everyone, but it isn't.

For example, it's not unusual for a politician to be censored for his “indiscretion” or crime, or to receive a relatively mild sentence (usually shorter than that of my friend) and then to write a book about the event and earn a lot of money. His attorneys argue that a short term, or no term at all, is justified because “his life has been ruined” by the publicity and the shame. (I should point out that those accused of other crimes have had their lives ruined by offender registries, employment, restrictions, rejection by friends, and the like. Both groups have brought the unpleasantness on themselves. Even those who are innocent will be stained by the accusations.) And the sentences of other “high profile” defendants are often short irrespective of the charges. Those who employ lobbyists may not be restrained by such considerations if the individual has useful connections. Expensive, and rhetorically polished lawyers can manipulate the severity of verdicts, especially when they portray their clients as the victims. Or they, and public opinion, can induce a “Not guilty” verdict. The O. J. Simpson verdict is one that many associate with this form of “justice.”

Less obvious to consumers of the media are cases in which a jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, but the bleary-eyed judge insists that they do so because of expense to the system and the time of those involved. Is justice served if a juror changes his mind simply so he can be released from service and return to his family?

But for less newsworthy criminals the sentences are often “mandatory” or may have provisions for minimum time, or perhaps there is no possibility of parole. Others, sometimes innocent, bargain away their freedom. A plea resulting in a short but predictable period of incarceration is far preferable, they decide, to the possibility of a far harsher punishment if he chose trial. Innocent people are sometimes convicted. It's not worth the risk.

A group of those for whom punishment is delayed are the ones sentenced to death. They may wait on “death row” for many years, through appeals and other legalities, and then, as has recently been the case in Arkansas, be rushed to execution before the expiration date on one the drugs to be used.

Those are the ones, however, who receive some form of justice. There has been a completion of the procedures against them. Statutes of limitations give some – the ones who evade indictment – the opportunity to avoid andy punishment. They're the people for whom vigilante “justice” is considered by some of the victims.

And there are far too many who languish in correctional facilities without ever having been tried. There may be a long wait before trial and they may be held without bail, or held because of a bail which they cannot afford. They may be awaiting some legal procedure which is delayed by an overcrowded judicial system, or by the manipulation of lawyers seeking either advantage for their clients or personal advantage (like a vacation). And for the most part, these individuals are, or will be, represented by overburdened public defenders who are unable to provide all the help their “customers” require.

The facilities in which those being held are stored are often worse than the ones to which some of them ultimately will be assigned. A glaring example is Rikers [sic – no apostrophe] Island in New York City. (It was supposedly named after Abraham Rycken, a Dutch landowner of the 17^th century.) Conditions there, including drugs, violence, and overcrowding, are so bad that there are discussions of eliminating it and replacing it with a group of facilities around the city. I suspect it will still be horrendous, but not quite as bad as what currently exist. It's a storage rather than a correctional facility.

But there is another problem. (Actually there are many other problems, but I'll only bring up one more.) If an individual is injured by a faulty product or procedure of a large organization, (s)he and the organization have decisions to make – assuming the individual chooses to take action. The company may maintain its innocence and use its swarm of mouthpieces to maintain that there was no fault, and it was the consumer's failing anyway. They'll risk a lawsuit if they think they can win (being right has nothing to do with it) even if involves numerous litigants.

If they don't think they'll win the same legal brigade will work out a settlement with the plaintiff (they'll pay him off) with the proviso that he keep quiet about what they paid, lest others be encouraged to sue. The payoff, of course, comes from stockholders rather than the guilty parties in management. Even if officials were aware of the problem and did nothing about it, officers of the company never seem to be indicted for their acts. They don't pay. Only investors do. There may be a need for a(n expensive, golden parachuted) change in leadership for public relations purposes, or even the sacrifice of a (low-level) scapegoat, but it rarely goes beyond that point. Equal justice isn't the American way.

Imagine what I'd say if I weren't ignorant.

June 6, 2017

Cutting Off My Nose

I'm getting acupuncture.  (I feel like a voodoo doll.)  I don't really believe in it but it was suggested to me by someone I respect, and I decided to give it a try. So far it hasn't done anything, and I don't really expect it to. I'm a skeptic. All that I read about it is that it has no scientific basis and positive results seem to be the result of the placebo effect.

My greatest fear is that it may work. Yes, I know I'll feel better, but I'll have to admit I was wrong, and that could be more troublesome than my symptoms.

I suspect it's a common feeling – I know it is for me – to want to be right, even if there is a cost. It's especially true when my outlook is pessimistic. I may, for example, want candidate A to win an election, but he's an underdog and I predict that candidate B will win. If candidate A wins I'll get the policies I want, but I'll be wrong. In my eyes and the eyes of others. Which is worse? Unfortunately being wrong is often worse than getting what I really want.

Another situation in which I'm ambivalent – one which has repercussions for others as well – is that in which I feel that I'm not properly appreciated by someone else; usually,though not always, someone important to me. And the thought that goes with that is “He'd (or she'd) really feel bad if something terrible were to happen to me. That'll serve him right.

I don't really want anything bad to happen, but I do want to punish someone else – to show him how empty his life would be without me. And how guilty he'd feel if he believed himself to be responsible somehow. Especially if he felt responsible for my absence or not being concerned for me when I was around.

The most common example of the phenomenon relates to insurance. We sink a lot of money into it, initially with the hope that it will serve as protection against a problem that might arise. Later, when everything has gone well, someone will begin resenting the cost of protection against problems that have never occurred. Some will look for ways to collect even if nothing goes wrong. Or he may look for what may be considered wrong so as to collect some of what he's already paid. Or even more. We don't want things to be wrong, but if we've paid for protection we want some return – even if it means that we suffer some harm.

In certain ways it's a competition. We “bet” against our own wishes and don't know whether we want to win or lose. We bet against our friends and family and sometimes consider losing face to be worse than experiencing a negative turn of fate. We look for ways to punish others, despite our knowledge that we're really punishing ourselves. But that's the way to win, and that's more important than anything else.

There's no doubt that insurance falls into this pattern. The insurance company has deep pockets and we don't. Our original intent was to protect ourselves, but it's not fair that because everything has gone well for us the insurance company is getting all our money. Ideally we can find a way to get our money back without suffering any harm in order to do so, but sometimes we think about other scenarios in which we my suffer harm but we recover what we've put in – or more.

The worst situation, however, is the one in which we feel that it's necessary to lose in order to win. We're usually looking for sympathy. And it's often from someone in particular. But in order to get sympathy, something has to be wrong. And it has to worse than whatever your “target” will describe. (He's competing too.) That's the down side. The sympathy, itself, is the up side. Is it worth it? That really depends on your competitive spirit and your endurance of whatever problem you have. Some glory in the sympathy but others would forgo the sympathy if they were problem-free.

And that's the way it is for all of these questions. Is the competition worth the discomfort? I guess that depends on you. As for me, sometimes yes and sometimes no.

June 5, 2017